[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISRUPTER SERIES: SELF-DRIVING CARS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-174
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-110 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi KATHY CASTOR, Florida
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETE OLSON, Texas PETER WELCH, Vermont
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PAUL TONKO, New York
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILLY LONG, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Massachusetts
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky Massachusetts
PETE OLSON, Texas TONY CARDENAS, California
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PETER WELCH, Vermont
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 14
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 85
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 86
Witnesses
Mark Rosekind, Ph.D., Administrator, U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers.................................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Kirk Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation.... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Laura MacCleery, Vice President of Consumer Policy and
Mobilization, Consumer Reports................................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association...................................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association. 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Answers to submitted questions...............................
Submitted material
Statement of Property Casualty Insurers Association of America,
submitted by Mr. Burgess....................................... 88
Statement of Global Automakers, submitted by Mr. Burgess......... 93
Statement of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets,
submitted by Mr. Burgess....................................... 98
DISRUPTER SERIES: SELF-DRIVING CARS
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2122 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn,
Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Schakowsky,
Kennedy, Cardenas, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Elena Brennan, Staff Assistant; Karen
Christian, General Counsel; James Decker, Policy Coordinator,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Blair Ellis, Digital
Coordinator/Press Secretary; Melissa Froelich, Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Giulia Giannangeli,
Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; A.T.
Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dan Schneider, Press
Secretary; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel,
Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jeff Carroll, Minority
Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior
Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Caroline
Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Matt Schumacher, Minority
Press Assistant; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
Communications, Outreach and Member Services.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. The subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing,
and Trade will now come to order. The chair recognizes himself
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning all, and welcome to today's Disrupter Series
hearing on self-driving cars, a groundbreaking technological
development that has the potential to completely transform and
redefine the vehicle and transportation system that we know and
understand today.
Because this may be the last time that we have the
privilege of having Dr. Rosekind before our subcommittee, let
me first thank him for his service. He has always cooperated
with this committee and we have continued to improve the
agency, the recall process and, although it has been a big
task, I believe improve safety. Thank you, Dr. Rosekind, for
your service.
Self-driving cars promise to be the most significant
automobile-related safety development in our lifetimes. This
hearing will kick off what I expected to be a major focus of
this subcommittee really for years to come and the reason is
simple. Last year, automobile-related fatalities were around
35,000 and rose for the first time in nearly a decade. My home
State of Texas was about ten percent of that: 3,516. The vast
majority of those fatalities are still related to human
behavior. Already, we have heard that fatalities are up again
for the first half of this year. Truly self-driving cars are
not about to be deployed in any great numbers anytime soon but
the sooner we can safely get them to market, the sooner we can
start saving lives. I, for one, am not among those who are
worried that the adoption of this new technology will outpace
safety. It will not be broadly adopted before it is ready. Our
job is to be really smart and identify a path forward where the
government can provide a cop on the beat for the industry and
respond quickly where safety incidents arise. But we cannot let
the government paralyze the very innovation that promises to
make us safer.
I think National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
recent guidance is well-meaning. We obviously worry greatly
about its implementation. Waiting for the government to approve
technology is never a good formula. That said, we must remain
vigilant in areas like cybersecurity where industry must be
held accountable if they are not taking reasonable measures.
In addition to safety, self-driving cars promise a
reduction in fuel emissions and energy consumption as a result
of improved mobility and more efficient traffic flows. Self-
driving vehicles may also allow for more efficient land use
instead of wasting resources on parking in city lots. We can
also expect to see an increase in transport and mobility
opportunities such as ride-hailing and rise-sharing services;
opportunities for labor cost savings; improved transportation
access for disabled, elderly, and underserved populations; and
other enhancements that improve the societal and economic
welfare of communities across the country. This is what makes
the development and deployment of autonomous cars so exciting:
their impact will be virtually limitless.
As Dean Kamen reminded all of us at our last Disrupter
Series hearing, we cannot afford to let the perfect be the
enemy of the good. That means allowing innovators to innovate,
allow them to develop the technology and give them the
flexibility to test its potential. Preemptive action on the
part of regulators before gaining a full understanding or
appreciation of self-driving cars may lead to unintended
consequences that limit the capabilities of this emerging
technology and its promised life-saving, economic, and societal
benefits.
I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to inform
us about this technology and I look forward to a thoughtful and
engaging discussion.
[The opening statement by Mr. Burgess follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess
Good morning and welcome to today's Disrupter Series
hearing on self-driving cars--a groundbreaking technological
development that has the potential to completely transform and
redefine the vehicle and transportation system we know and
understand today.
Because this may be the last time we have Dr. Rosekind
before us, let me first thank him for his service. He has
always cooperated with this Committee as we have worked to
improve the agency, the recall process, and improve safety.
Thank you.
Self-driving cars promise to be the most significant
automobile related safety development in our lifetime. This
hearing will kick off what I expect to be a major focus of this
subcommittee in the years to come. The reason for that is
simple. Last year, automobile related fatalities were around
35,000 and rose for the first time in nearly a decade. In my
home state of Texas, the number was 3,516. The vast majority of
those fatalities are still related to human behavior. Already,
we have heard that fatalities are up again in the first half of
this year.
Truly self-driving cars are not about to be deployed in any
great numbers anytime soon. But the sooner we can safely get
them to market--the sooner we start saving lives. I, for one,
am not among those who are worried that adoption of this new
technology will outpace safety. It will not be broadly adopted
before its ready. So our job is to be really smart and identify
a path forward where government can police industry and respond
quickly where safety incidents arise. But we cannot let
government paralyze the very innovation that promises to make
us safer.
I think NHTSA's recent guidance is well meaning. But I do
worry greatly about its implementation. Waiting for the
government to approve technology is never a good formula. That
said we must remain vigilant in areas, like cybersecurity,
where industry must be held accountable if they are not taking
reasonable measures.
In addition to safety, self-driving cars promise a
reduction in fuel emissions and energy consumption as a result
of improved mobility and more efficient traffic flows. Self-
driving vehicles may also allow for more efficient land use
instead of wasting resources parking in city lots. We can also
expect to see an increase in transport and mobility
opportunities such as ride-hailing and ride-sharing services;
opportunities for labor cost savings; improved transportation
access for disabled, elderly, and underserved populations; and
many other enhancements that improve the societal and economic
welfare of communities across the country. This is what makes
the development and deployment of autonomous cars so exciting:
their impact will be virtually limitless.
As Dean Kamen reminded all of us at our last Disrupter
Series hearing: we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. That means allowing innovators to develop the technology
and giving them the flexibility to test its potential.
Preemptive action on the part of regulators, before gaining a
full understanding or appreciation of self-driving cars, may
lead to unintended consequences that limit the capabilities of
this emerging technology and its promised life-saving,
economic, and societal benefits. I thank the witnesses for
taking the time to inform us about this technology and I look
forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion.
Mr. Burgess. Let me yield back my time and recognize the
vice chairwoman of the full committee for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Rosekind,
I want to say thank you to you. I join the chairman in thanking
you for your service and for taking the time to be here.
The issue that we are looking at today and as a part of our
Disrupter Series is something that is really important to my
constituents in Tennessee because you have the General Motors
Spring Hill Plant that is in my district. They are doing much
of the green tech innovation. You also have the Nissan North
America that is located in my district and then on the
outskirts of our district, we have the Toyota Bodine Engine
plant.
Now, as I talked to the innovators and the engineers that
are working on these next generation concepts, they repeatedly
remind me that automobiles are now driving computers and that
we need to recognize that and be mindful of it.
And as we look at the Internet of things, of course it is
well-placed but as we view this, we also view the necessity for
safety and the technology that will make cars safer or help to
make them safer will bring forward some of the driverless
components, have those interface with the marketplace. Those
are issues that are going to be important to us. Reducing
fatalities on the road is something that we are very interested
in. And when you hear that the self-driving or driverless-
directed components can reduce, has the potential to reduce
fatalities by 90 percent, that is something, as a mother and a
grandmother, that really interests me because we all want to
have those opportunities to make vehicles safer.
So, I think you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
going ahead and moving forward with this hearing and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. Does anyone
else on the Republican side seek time for an opening statement?
Seeing none, we are going to depart from regular order. Dr.
Rosekind, just I will ask you to go ahead with your opening
statement. I will not interrupt you when members of the
Democratic side arrive. They will then be recognized for
opening statements but my intention is to allow you to deliver
your entire remarks before we do that.
We do want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's hearing will consist of two panels. Each panel of
witnesses will have an opportunity to give an opening
statement, followed by a round of questions by members. Once we
conclude with questions of the first panel, we will take a
brief recess to set up for the second panel.
Our first panel for today's hearing is Dr. Mark Rosekind,
the Administrator at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. We appreciate you being here today. We will
begin the panel with Dr. Rosekind and you are now recognized
for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK ROSEKIND, PH.D., ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Rosekind. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
members of the committee, thank you for holding this meeting
and for inviting me to testify.
At NHTSA, our mission is to save lives on America's
roadways, and for 50 years we have carried out that mission by
writing and enforcing regulations to make vehicles safer,
fighting against drunk driving, building a national consensus
about seatbelt use, and so many other efforts that have saved
hundreds of thousands of Americans on our roadways but we have
far more work to do and that work can be measured by some very
alarming numbers.
In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. And at
NHTSA we know that that is not just a number. Those are mothers
and fathers, brothers and sisters, coworkers, friends,
colleagues. And the problem is getting worse. Last month, we
announced that roadway fatalities in the first half of this
year are up over ten percent.
And it is against this backdrop that the Department of
Transportation, under the leadership of Secretary Anthony Foxx,
has been working so hard on our efforts to accelerate the safe
deployment of automated vehicle technologies. Because while
automated vehicles carry enormous potential to transform
mobility and reshape our transportation system, it is their
awesome potential to revolutionize roadway safety that has us
to motivated.
And there is one more number that helps explain why. That
number is 94. That is the percentage of crashes that can be
tied back to a human choice or error. That is a choice to speed
or drive drunk, to send a text message from behind the wheel,
or misjudge the stopping distance. That 94 percent represents
the untold potential of automated vehicle safety technologies.
We envision a future where advanced technologies not only help
reduce crashes but a world with fully self-driving cars that
hold the potential to eliminate traffic fatalities altogether.
The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, which the Department
issued on September 20th, is the world's first comprehensive
government action to guide the safe and efficient development
and deployment of these technologies.
And the policy covers four areas: One, vehicle performance
guidance for automakers, tech companies, researchers and other
developers, testers, and deployers of automated vehicle
technologies; two, a model state policy to build a consistent
national framework for the testing and operation of automated
vehicles; three, an exploration of the use of our current
regulatory tools that can be used to advance these
technologies; and four, a discussion of possible new tools that
the Federal government may need to promote the safe deployment
of advanced technologies as the industry continues to develop.
I would like to share just a few thoughts about our
approach. For 50 years, our traditional approach has largely
been reactive. NHTSA prescribed safety standards and then
responds to problems as they arise.
A traditional method of regulating these new technologies
would be to engage solely in the rulemaking process, writing
new regulations that prescribe specific standards, and
typically, take years to take effect. Our view is that that
approach would be slow. It would stymie innovation and it would
stall the introduction of these new safety technologies.
Our policy takes a different path built on proactive safety
which will better serve both safety and innovation. This policy
allows us to work with automakers and developers on the front
end to ensure there are sound approaches to safety throughout
the entire development process.
This is a new approach and it is going to take some
adjustment for everyone involved but we are confident that it
will help us to accomplish two specific goals: first, to make
sure that new technologies are deployed safely; and second, to
make sure we don't get in the way of innovation. Our approach
is not prescriptive. It does not tell developers how they must
provide safety but, instead, builds a transparent and proactive
approach to ensure that they are properly addressing the
critical safety areas.
But that future is not without threats. As President Obama
wrote when announcing the policy, ``the quickest way to slam
the brakes on innovation is for the public to lose confidence
in the safety of new technologies. Both government and industry
have a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.''
It is our view the best way we can build that public
confidence is by working together, showing the public that the
government is on the side of innovation and that the industry
is on the side of safety.
I will submit the balance of my statement for the record
and I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Rosekind follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. Now, as I
previously outlined, we will go back to member opening
statements and Ms. Schakowsky is recognized for 5 minutes for
an opening statement, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
apologize for being late this morning and I thank you for
accommodating that and I look forward to the questions that we
can ask of our witness.
I first want to take a moment to recognize a great loss in
the auto safety community. On Thursday, Clarence Ditlow of the
Center for Auto Safety passed away after a battle with cancer.
For 40 years, Clarence led the Center for Auto Safety, where he
was a tireless advocate for stronger and stronger auto safety
standards. He fought for Lemon Laws to ease return of defective
vehicles in all 50 states. And if you have ever had a recall on
your vehicle, there is a decent chance Clarence was somehow
involved in pushing the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and automakers to take action. He provided
tremendous insight to lawmakers over the years, including, as a
witness before this very subcommittee.
Clarence continued fighting for consumers until his final
days. As recently as September, he was working with my office
on reducing the number of used cars sold with open recalls. He
even weighed in on today's topic. In August, he wrote an op-ed
on the importance of strong safety standards for self-driving
cars. Clarence has an outstanding legacy but I know he saw much
work still to be done. I can think of no better a tribute than
to continue his fight to improve auto safety and I hope we can
do so on this subcommittee.
Protecting consumers must be the key focus as we consider
today's topic, self-driving cars. A car without a human driver
could be an exciting development or a frightening proposition.
Which one it is depends on whether we take the correct approach
to the development of this technology.
One of the key arguments in favor of self-driving cars is
safety. According to NHTSA, 94 percent of car crashes are
caused, in part, by driver error. Automation does have the
potential to help, ensuring that autonomous vehicles improve
safety requires thorough testing and oversight. We must
evaluate not only how the vehicles' features work but also the
effect of those features on human behavior.
I appreciate NHTSA's efforts to be proactive in its
approach to autonomous vehicles and I look forward to learning
more about how its policy framework will work in practice.
As we think about the long-term potential of safe-driving
cars, we also need to consider the intermediate challenge. We
are not going to shift to 100 percent self-driving vehicles
overnight. Even if this technology is adopted relatively
quickly, we will see a transition period where traditional
semi-autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles share the road.
All those vehicles and their passengers must be able to safely
interact. We should also recognize the impact the self-driving
cars have on those who drive for a living, taxi drivers,
chauffeurs, delivery men and truck persons, and truckers.
Automakers are still working through safety issues with
autonomous vehicles. For example, two self-driving Teslas
crashed this year. Cybersecurity is another critical area for
autonomous vehicles to be successful. Hacking a self-driving
car could put lives in danger. Developers must take the utmost
precautions to prevent the cars' systems from being compromised
and providing failsafe mechanisms of security measures are ever
ineffective.
Accidents involving self-driving vehicles raise new
questions. How safe must self-driving cars be before we are
comfortable having them on the road? When something goes wrong,
when is it the fault of the manufacturer and when is it the
fault of the user? NHTSA is adapting its traditional approach
to auto safety as it considers the design, use, and safety
features of self-driving vehicles. I welcome this initiative
but I want to ensure that safety remains paramount.
I also want to hear a firm industry commitment to safety
and cybersecurity. As I said, innovation in self-driving cars
has tremendous potential. If done right, this technology could
save lives, increase energy efficiency, and provide convenience
for consumers. We must make sure that the right policies are in
place to achieve the maximum benefit from this technology. And
again, I appreciate your indulgence and I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks
the gentlelady.
Is Mr. Kennedy likely to be coming back or can we proceed
with questions? Very well.
And Dr. Rosekind, we thank you for your testimony. We will
move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I am
going to begin the questioning by yielding to Leonard Lance
from New Jersey for his questions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
you, Dr. Rosekind. I thank you and the other distinguished
members of our panels who are appearing before us today on this
important topic. And certainly, I thank you for your
distinguished public service, Dr. Rosekind.
Automobile accidents accounted for over 35,000 fatalities
in 2015, as you have indicated; 562 of those souls lost were
from the State of New Jersey. By removing driver error, which
accounts for the vast majority of these deaths, autonomous
vehicles have the potential to be the single greatest
achievement in auto safety in our lifetime, savings tens of
thousands of lives each year.
As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this topic and
over the automotive industry, it is our job to make sure that
innovation is allowed to occur and is not hindered by
burdensome and unnecessary regulation while, of course,
ensuring consumer safety which is paramount.
Dr. Rosekind, the guidance states that it is not intended
for states to codify as legal requirements for the development,
design, manufacture, testing, and operation of automated
vehicles. That is on page 11 of the guidance. Do you think that
states should be codifying the guidance as some have signaled
they intend to do?
Mr. Rosekind. As you have already cited the specific quote,
and that was intentional to put in there, was for states not to
codify. What you have highlighted was everyone wants to see a
consistent national framework. Nobody wants a patchwork. And so
what is critical right now is to really distinguish the Federal
role and the state role and making sure for the moment that
people are focused on the safest possible deployment within
those Federal and state rules.
Mr. Lance. What would happen, in your professional
judgment, if one state were to deem a self-driving automobile
to be safe for testing and deployment but another state chooses
to go in the completely opposite direction? It seems to me that
would be quite a challenge but having served in a state
legislature, having been the minority leader in our state
senate in Trenton, I am aware that there are state
responsibilities as well. And how should we go through this
challenging situation to make sure that safety is paramount and
innovation occurs to make sure that deaths can be fewer than is
now the case?
Mr. Rosekind. So, that highlights the patchwork concern,
which is all of us drive across this great country without
worrying about what driver's license you have from your state
or that the car is even legal in that state. Just think if an
autonomous self-driving car stopped at every state line because
it wasn't allowed there, or that every manufacturer or
developer had to have 50 different approaches to dealing with,
so again, that is why everybody wants to avoid that patchwork.
Right now, I think the clarity of what the federal role is
and the state role is the way to go. We have seen California
wait for this policy to come out, make adjustments to try and
be in line. We did the policy in collaboration with the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, all 50
DMVs and we will continue to work with the states. But you have
brought up an ongoing vulnerability here, as we move forward.
Mr. Lance. Are there certain states that are more likely
than others to advance state initiatives, perhaps California,
perhaps other states as well? And should we be discussing this
with various state capitals or should our congressional
delegations be discussing this with various state capitals?
Mr. Rosekind. We hope everyone is going to be discussing
this. One of the things that you are highlighting is that there
are some states that are really on the leading edge of this,
California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, District of
Columbia actually has some work as well. And so there are a lot
of ongoing discussions that are happening now.
I think the intent is for people to make sure they
understand the policies and guidance in this area. And one of
the things for all the states to understand, we try to make
explicit, is states actually don't have to do anything in this
area. There is no action needed for testing of deployment at
this stage. If you are interested, as a state, then this policy
outlines the Federal and state roles.
Mr. Lance. Dr. Rosekind, you mentioned Michigan, Florida,
and Pennsylvania. I have nothing bad to say about any of those
three states this week, Dr. Rosekind.
The Federal Automated Vehicle Policy mentions the
possibility of convening a commission to study liability
insurance issues. Do you have a view on that?
Mr. Rosekind. I think that is a great example of in the
Secretary's letter in the beginning he really highlights there
are a lot of unknowns that have to become known. So that is a
specific example of how do we handle liability. If we don't
come out with the answer, we suggest a commission that would
deal with that for the states to understand the best way
forward.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosekind, and my time
has expired.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Dr. Rosekind, I first wanted to thank you
for your service as Administrator of NHTSA. I appreciate being
able to work with you. I don't know but this may be your last
time testifying before this committee as part of the
Administration and I just want to thank you very much for the
work that you have done and for consumers and working with this
subcommittee.
So, I have two questions. I am going to ask them together
and then leave the time to you.
While the expected benefits of automated vehicles have been
widely discussed, so, too, have their technological
shortcomings, reports indicated that potholes, construction,
pedestrians, pavement covered in rain or snow may still flummox
the vehicle's operating system. So, the first question was can
you describe what some of the real world testing is finding?
What are the problems and do they tell you and the industry
about when fully autonomous vehicles will be ready to safely
carry passengers without human intervention? That is the first
question.
And the second one, recent controversies surrounding
General Motors, Volkswagen, Takata air bags, and others show
that the automotive industry doesn't have always a great track
record with the consumer trust in recent years.
So, if the industry says trust us with autonomous vehicles,
why should consumers take them at their word and what
assurance, then, can the industry give consumers and give the
regulators that their vehicles will be safe to operate?
Mr. Rosekind. So, to your first question, I would say prior
to January that was the number one issue that everyone raised.
When will they be here? And what was interesting is in January
we were pointing out at both DOT and NHTSA that frankly, these
technologies are already on the road. We already have adaptive
cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot
monitoring, Lane Assist, all these things are already on the
road. So, one of the challenges we have had is actually helping
people to learn about the different levels of automation. And
just to be very, very sort of strict about it, the highest
levels of self-driving vehicles is where the passenger, driver,
individual in the vehicle, perhaps no individual at all, has no
responsibility for monitoring the vehicle or the environment.
Those are the highest levels, basically, of a truly self-
driving vehicle.
So, to your question, I am not sure anybody knows quite yet
how far off we are. In fact, I would say in the last 6 months,
we are starting to see people actually acknowledging how hard
this problem is to get to a full self-driving car.
On the other hand, we also have level 3 which is where the
operator still has to be engaged, both in monitoring the
vehicle and the environment. And there may be situations where
that operator, that driver, would have to actually have the
vehicle hand off to the operator in some situations that you
were just mentioning, weather conditions, infrastructure that
wasn't known, et cetera, the driver has to still be vigilant in
monitoring what is going on. People question whether that is
even possible with this new technology.
So, what you have just highlighted is when nobody knows.
And the questions remain, do we still need that driver engaged?
Can we go to full self-driving? Those questions remain open.
And I would just say that the Department has really left
open the answer to that by letting the data tell us whether or
not level 3 is possible, full self-driving level 5, how those
will go forward. The data will tell us where we are.
So, I think everything you just highlighted is exactly the
very challenging sort of thread the needle issues we have.
Ms. Schakowsky. So, we may have implementation of different
levels, though, in a different timetable.
Mr. Rosekind. Correct. And that is why I say your issue
about transition, so I would love to point out that if there
were a perfect fully self-driving car available tomorrow, right
now, the average age of vehicles is 11 and a half years, it
would take 20 to 30 years for the whole fleet to take over if
we had full self-driving.
So, to your point, for the next 20 or 30 years at least, we
will likely have a mixed fleet of different levels of
automation and different people actually out there driving.
And I think that is also extremely well placed, which is a
lot of folks have talked about the big era of recalls that just
happened. That is not good. We have tried to move to a
proactive safety approach. I would highlight that NHTSA has not
given up and will continue to pursue all of our rulemaking and
enforcement authorities. Anybody who has watched us over the
last few years knows we will use whatever we need to to help
keep people safe on our roadways.
But one of the things I think we can highlight is a year
ago in January the Secretary announced a proactive safety
agreement with 18 global automakers. That wasn't just words. In
fact, we have already seen best practices come from the
industry, basically on cybersecurity. We saw 20 of them come
together and basically make a commitment to get automatic
emergency braking on the road standard in all of their vehicles
by 2022, beating regulation by probably 3 to 4 years. And we
just recently had a Volvo truck recall that hit 100 percent
completion rate for 16,000 vehicles, which is sort of
groundbreaking with the speed that was done. That was part of
that agreement, 100 percent completion rate. It is only the
beginning but it is not just talk. We are seeing very concrete
actions.
But to your point, we have to watch to make sure that they
actually meet what the requirements are.
So, I will just close. There is a 15-point safety
assessment that people have to provide for us. There is a lot
of discussion is it required or not. If you want everyone to
trust what you are working on as a manufacturer, technology
developer, we think you would want the most transparent,
thorough public notice of what you are doing to address safety
up front.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The
gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for your questions, please.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Dr.
Rosekind for being here today. We appreciate it a lot.
I understand the importance of self-driving cars, as we
look for ways to dramatically improve traffic safety. In
Kentucky, alone, we have had 761 fatalities last year. So, I
know we need to better understand this issue.
But I had a chance to meet with the MTC truck driver
training school in Elizabethtown. And of course, they are
closely following the development of this new technology. And
they brought this point up to me and I had never thought of it
or considered it but I understand that there are homeland
security issues, which have been raised in commercial
transportation sector and it is this 15-point list on safety
expectations for autonomous vehicles includes a point on
digital security to prevent hacking into vehicle systems. I
never would have thought of that until they brought that up.
And has NHTSA considered the broader homeland security
issues surrounding digital security of autonomous vehicles?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes, that issue has actually come up. We had
two public meetings in our open docket for months while we were
creating the policy and those issues were brought up already.
So, frankly, not only are we looking at them but Homeland
Security has already been informed because they have a lot of
the issues and questions.
Mr. Guthrie. That was my next question. Are you all
coordinating with each other on this?
Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. We have already had meetings.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. Well, on a related note in your
testimony, you mentioned that the guidance was developed in
close coordination with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, individual states, and other
stakeholders. Who were those other stakeholders mentioned in
your testimony?
Mr. Rosekind. We have a long list. I am happy to send,
there was a public docket.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, probably easier to just submit it.
Mr. Rosekind. Yes. Yes, we will submit that to you.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, good, if you don't mind doing that.
Mr. Rosekind. Sure.
Mr. Guthrie. How do you expect entities to certify
compliance with each of the 15 areas or certify that they are
at least addressed, each of the 15 areas? How are you going to
ensure?
Mr. Rosekind. Yes and thank you because you just raised a
really critical issue. We identified 15 safety areas that they
have to address. That is what is included in the letter. But it
is very important to realize we don't tell people how to get
there. You have to address this but there is no judgment about
compliance or not because we don't set a prescription there.
And so our evaluation is whether they have addressed it or not,
not whether there is a bar that they have passed.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, good. And what kinds of information do you
expect to collect on each of the 15 areas? I guess my
understanding from the letter is it is only expected to be two
pages long. So, I think you might have answered that question.
What do you expect them to do versus what you are asking them
to do?
Mr. Rosekind. That is actually a good question. We haven't
addressed that yet. I will just say that we just last week had
another public meeting and one of them was specifically on the
letter. Right now what we are telling people is not a page
limit but this is literally a C-suite. If a CEO had to get
briefed on these 15, what information would you provide that
individual so they could sign off on it?
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Mr. Rosekind. So, there has got to be enough to make a
decision. If we need more information, we will ask for it.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, good. And does NHTSA plan to make the
safety assessment letters public and do you expect the safety
assessment to include confidential business information that
would need to be redacted?
Mr. Rosekind. So, we absolutely do hope to have
transparency, so it would be public. And NHTSA, for a long
time, has great experience in protecting confidential business
information. That is not the intent of that letter. It really
is to focus on safety and letting manufacturers, developers, et
cetera, let the public and us know how they are addressing it.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you and I appreciate your thorough
answers and in the submission of the other stakeholders was
something we would request. You have answered my questions and
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cardenas, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman for
having this hearing. It couldn't be soon enough because this is
moving very, very fast and hopefully we will have tremendous
success not only to the manufacturers but to the consumers and
everybody in-between.
Dr. Rosekind, my first question has to do with the timing.
There is so much out there. Some people are saying we are going
to see these cars on the road soon in limited or mass
production, et cetera. What does soon mean from what your
vantage point is? Are we looking at 2017, 2018, 2025? And if
so, what is the likelihood of us seeing mass utilization on our
public roads?
Mr. Rosekind. We are already seeing certain safety
technologies on the roads today. So, adaptive cruise control,
automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, these
technologies are already available. And so when people say when
will we see them, they are already here. When we look at fully
self-driving, those are years off. And in fact I was just
commenting I think just in the last 6 months or so, we are
hearing from a lot of folks that they are understanding how
hard a problem this problem really is. So, as much as people
are giving us target dates, we will have to wait and see those
coming.
The final thing I would just say is what you are also
highlighting is there will probably be several decades where we
will have a mixed fleet of different levels of automation and
people still with their hands on the wheels that all of us will
be in for at least again potentially 20 plus years.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, this is a very individual matter for
those who would ever think of driving a fully automated
vehicle. My father 40 years later used to tease my mom how the
first time he drove up in a little Model T in the 1940s, she
wouldn't get in the car. This contraption; I am not going to
sit in it. However, we are talking about today's contraptions.
Sorry for the rudimentary description but it is my
understanding that because of the interest in ensuring that
components of autonomous vehicles are safe from cyber
intrusion, some have expressed concern about retrofitting
existing vehicles with the technology that would help prevent
that. Does aftermarket autonomous technology present
cybersecurity risks?
Mr. Rosekind. Actually, all the vehicles create
cybersecurity vulnerability. So, on our list of 15 safety
issues, cybersecurity is one of them and, basically, the same
concerns as you apply to new would have to be to any kind of
retrofit as well.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Now, when it comes to the fully
autonomous vehicles because I think that is the Holy Grail of
what the industry is looking at and what I think quite a few
people on this plant would love to see that happen for a lot of
good reasons, but what concerns me is when people try to rush
things through and push an organization like yours to just get
it done, it is unfortunate, because there is no shortage of
people on any given day that would go ahead and jump off of a
mountain with a little tiny parachute and think that is the
most awesome thing in the world. However, if that parachute
doesn't come out, one person gets hurt and they are in control
of themselves, if they have the freedom to do so and they did
so.
But the issue that we are talking about here today, if
somebody actually does something that they find is not risk-
taking at all, we are talking about the public roads. We are
talking about if something goes wrong it is not just the person
who made the decision to be in that vehicle. It is other
individuals out there and that is the demand and the
responsibility of your department that I respect so much.
So, with that having been said, how do you feel about the
resources that you have and the ability for you to keep up with
this tremendous demand that the world is saying hurry up, we
need to see this happen. And with all due respect, being
Americans, we always like to be the first.
Mr. Rosekind. Let me actually slightly expand that, which
is when we did the press conference to issue the policy, the
Secretary's last question is, does DOT and NHTSA have the
expertise and resources to get this done? And I love this
Secretary's answer because basically we are the ones who
created it. We have the expertise but you are bringing up a
really, really critical element. And that is, with the
explosion of innovation that we all want to see to help with
safety, the agency absolutely will need to build on that
expertise and expand the resources to make sure we can really
timely meet the needs that are going to be out there to get
safety.
There are some things we have suggested that I think have
just totally surprised people about our commitment to get
interpretations out in 60 days, exemptions in 6 months. You
need resources to pull that off. Even the letters we are saying
4 months, that is up to 4 months. If we want those evaluations
done, we are going to need to make sure that the expertise we
have grows and we have enough resources to meet the demand
quickly but safely.
Mr. Cardenas. Because lives are on the line, right?
Unfortunately, ultimately, that is what it is and we are not
just talking about the person that chooses to be in such a
vehicle. We are talking about people around them that gosh, I
don't know what the statistic is but I would imagine the
average person passes up hundreds, if not thousands of people
on any journey to and from work on either side of them.
So, thank you for doing the job that you have. Hopefully,
we will see Congress, who has the power of the purse, continue
to give you the resources you need to keep up. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana,
Mrs. Brooks, 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As Congressman Lance just talked about New Jersey last
year, there were 821 driving fatalities in Indiana alone, which
was a 10 percent increase from the previous year. But they,
obviously, we talk about these big numbers but one particularly
that happened in my district, Susan Jordan, who is the
principal of Amy Beverland Elementary School served in
Lawrence, Indiana, was killed tragically by a school bus that
rolled in front of her, as she pushed children out of the way.
And so for many families who have lost loved ones, I would say
the auto industry and ensuring that cars, and buses, and other
vehicles are as safe as possible, we need to not stand in the
way of this innovation, whether it is pedestrian detection,
lane warnings, pre-collision assist that can eliminate the
human error that could save lives like Principal Jordan's.
I want to ask a question, though, with respect to NHTSA's
Federal Automated Vehicle Policy where you are requesting large
amounts of data from the auto industry on the operation and the
execution of the highly autonomous vehicle technologies that
includes a lot of potentially sensitive information about
businesses and consumers. But on the other hand, we recognize,
and you have just talked about it in response to Congressman
Guthrie's question, multiple attacks from whether it is foreign
or domestic bad actors attempting to get that data.
Without going into great detail, what kind of protections
does NHTSA plan to have to ensure that this sensitive
information isn't getting into bad actors' hands?
Mr. Rosekind. First, thank you for telling Principal
Jordan's story. We talk about these big numbers but everyone is
a person and a face. So, thank you for doing that.
Mrs. Brooks. You are welcome.
Mr. Rosekind. It just is so critical.
And you are bringing up a really interesting piece, which
is, as we talked about earlier, our intent is to get literally
a CEO summary of what information goes into the safety
assessment and then the developer, automaker, et cetera, they
keep all that other data. So, it is only if there is
information that we ask for that they are going to have to give
us more. And the other part is we only need to see confidential
business information that helps to make their point. Everything
else, they get to keep. And for decades, we have been
protecting that.
So, we are looking at the safety information. We just had a
meeting on the letter to try and decide how to get information
and you can keep all that confidential business information
away and redacted as needed, we have been doing that forever.
We will continue to do that here.
Mrs. Brooks. So, you are indicating that NHTSA is not going
to be keeping the sensitive competitive information between the
different automakers.
Mr. Rosekind. We are not actually interested in that. We
just want to know here is 15 areas. Tell us how you have
actually addressed it. Part of the way that we are actually
supporting innovation is I hope everyone in the room would come
up with a different way of handling each of those safety areas.
And then we will let the data tell us which ones are actually
going to be the best for the future.
Mrs. Brooks. And with respect to the auto industry's
information showing an analysis center, what role are they
playing or should they play in addressing the cybersecurity
issues?
Mr. Rosekind. Critical. I mean basically with a lot of
urging from NHTSA and a lot of work on the industry's part,
they have come up with this cybersecurity mechanism to really
help deal with the vulnerability. They will be a core part of
protecting these vehicles in the future.
Mrs. Brooks. It is my understanding that the safety
assessment letter is requiring, when any significant update to
a vehicle is made, that NHTSA requires the manufacturer to
submit the safety assessment letter. Can you please explain
what is meant by a significant update and the impact such a
process will have on testing that the developer of the
autonomous vehicle is forced to submit a new letter and if it
is every 4 months on any changes made during testing? Can you
talk more about what the meaning of significant changes means?
Mr. Rosekind. This is why our interactions have been so
critical because, basically, if you have a vehicle that has
only been driving on the highway and now it is going to go in a
city, that is significant. If you have a vehicle that yesterday
hit a pothole and now hit has been programmed to miss the
potholes, we don't need to know about that.
And when you submit your letter if of the 15 there are only
2 that have been affected, you only need to send us those two
areas.
Mrs. Brooks. So, are you leaving it up to the manufacturers
to determine the definition of significant or are there a
number of examples that they are being provided to help them
determine what is significant and what is not significant?
Mr. Rosekind. So we will be creating a template for the
letter, so people have a sense of what we are looking for.
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Rosekind. We will be having guidance on where to fit
their level of technology and automation for them. We will have
examples of what is significant for people as guides.
Mrs. Brooks. And what happens if a manufacturer doesn't
submit the safety assessment letter? Are there ramifications?
Mr. Rosekind. That is probably one of our biggest fears,
frankly, which is that this is an opportunity for folks in this
area, in a proactive way, at the front end to show us what you
are doing about safety. We would hope, whether it was required
or not, it doesn't really matter, you want to show the public
and NHTSA what you are doing to address safety in these
vehicles. That is an opportunity. We hope everybody is going to
take it and be enthusiastic about it.
Mrs. Brooks. But right now, NHTSA doesn't have the
authority, is that right, if a manufacturer chose not to submit
a letter? Is that authority you would like to have?
Mr. Rosekind. So, it is not required at this point. It is a
policy. But to your point, one of the areas that we have
actually identified as potential future regulations would be to
require the letter, which is a great example of require the
letter but stay nimble and flexible to what the categories are
that are covered. In the future, there may only be ten areas
that are needed. In the future, there could be 20.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 5 minutes
for questions, please.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, good to see
you again. Thank you for the work you are doing here.
I want to kind of follow-up a little bit on what my
colleague from Indiana was questioning about. I think clarity
is, obviously, very important and we don't want to be over
burdensome on new technology. We don't want to stifle the
entrepreneur that is going to be out there that is going to be
making the investment because this is investment. It is an
investment in an unknown area knowing where the regulators are
going to fall into.
But I think we all are looking for just an idea of where
the floor is. So, if they are going to be investing, they can
be investing in the right direction. And so I would like you to
speak a little bit on that. Where do you feel like the floor is
going to be so we can move forward with this technology? I will
be honest with you, I am not a big fan of it. I like driving. I
mean my wife drives an SUV that has got the adaptive cruise. I
can't stand it. Every time I get close to a line, it vibrates
on my back side because of the seat and it just scares the
living daylights out of me but I get it. My wife loves it.
And so I see the need for it for those that like the idea.
So, as the technology moves forward, if you could give us some
direction on where you are moving so we can work with you on
it.
Mr. Rosekind. I want to hit that point, though, I think
which is----
Mr. Mullin. The vibrating part?
Mr. Rosekind. The fact that we are not going to take the
steering wheel out of some people's hands.
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Rosekind. I am from California. It is just the top is
down and you are on Highway 1 with the Pacific Ocean on the
side. It is like people are going to want to do that for a
long, long time. And for all of our belief in the opportunity
to save lives, this is the idea. We are going to have a mixed
fleet for a long time. People who want to have their hands on
the wheel, it is just going to be there for a long time.
So, to your point, though, about what kind of guidance you
get, the way the policy is set up is to identify specific areas
within safety that have to be addressed without prescribing
how. It is basically DOT and NHTSA's way to support innovation.
So, we would love to see as many different approaches to how to
deal with that safety as possible. Show us what data you have.
If you think about the future path, at some point, there
will probably be best practices accepted by the industry. Those
will be the ones that have data that have demonstrated this is
the way to go. If there is future regulation, that should come
from the best practices.
Mr. Mullin. Some of the manufacturers that I have heard
from, though, they are fearful of sharing the technology. This
is a race to the finish line. The only problem is, we don't
know where the finish line is.
Mr. Rosekind. And that is a great point, which is people
have talked. We have suggested there about data sharing, for
example. And people are very concerned because data means
money. Our issue is all about the safety. So, just think about
sharing that data so that one crash would be able to educate an
entire fleet to improve everything literally overnight. That
would be great.
We are interested in the safety, not the solution that
people use that could be proprietary. That is for them to keep
confidential.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman. The chair would remind the subcommittee that the
chair allowed members to go first. So, I am going to ask my
questions now at the end.
And Dr. Rosekind, again, it has been a privilege to come to
the subcommittee. Every time you are here, you and I talk
briefly about the safercar.gov Web site so that people can
check for recalls on their vehicles. And I just think it is
extremely important, as we are coming into the Thanksgiving
driving season. You ought to do it. You ought to do it for your
spouse's car. You ought to do it for your kids' cars. You ought
to just be sure. As we have learned over the last year and a
half or 2 years, the recalls can change and what was not under
recall a few months ago could be under recall today. So, I do
encourage people to take advantage of the fact that you will
make that information available to them. And although it is not
part of our hearing today, I wonder if you could give us just a
brief update of where we are with the Takata air bag situation
and what you see as some of the next steps.
Mr. Rosekind. And I just have to say every time I have
appeared before you, you make sure safercar.gov gets into the
record, that there is a point on making sure people are
thinking about this. And from an agency whose mission is all
focused on lifesaving, we always appreciate that so much.
For Takata, we are at about 29 million vehicles, about 46
million inflators. Maybe 20 percent have been repaired at this
point. We are imminent for basically a new coordinated remedy
that will have sort of the years of when supplies and fixes
need to come. So, that will be out literally within weeks we
hope of what sort of the next phase will be.
I will say, tragically, 9 of the 11 lives that have been
lost had to do with alpha inflators, ones that were actually
from 2001-2003 recalled 2008-2011. About 300,000 of those still
exist out there. They have a 50 percent of rupturing in a
crash. We are really working with Honda and Acura, in
particular, to try and get those off the road.
Mr. Burgess. So that you are----
Mr. Rosekind. The 2001 to 2003 vehicles, and these were
actually recalled in 2008-2011. So what happened was, because
of the most recent activity going on, testing that was never
done back then was recently done and that is how we discovered
these alpha inflators have a 50 percent chance of rupturing.
The Secretary came out and basically said don't drive it
unless you are going to a dealer to get it fixed. And so we are
working with Honda to basically figure out every possible thing
that could be done to find those people. Nine out of the eleven
lives lost were those alpha inflators.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I am encouraged that you say that the
solution or a solution is now within reach and I am grateful
for that.
Let me just ask you, and several people have asked you
about the letters, the safety assessment letter on self-driving
vehicles. And I appreciate why that information is necessary
and, unlike you, I think more data is good. At the same time,
from the manufacturers' perspective, I can see that perhaps
there might be some liability concerns about putting too much
information out there. And then, of course, the tendency is to
hold back because you don't want to incur that liability. Have
you worked through that issue at all?
Mr. Rosekind. We are working through it. And what we are
doing, literally just last week, we had a meeting specifically,
a public meeting with an open docket for people to tell us how
they think that letter should be structured and what content
there should be. We will create a template so people have a
guide. And we are trying to be explicit that it is not the
confidential business information that we are after. It is tell
us how you have addressed these particular safety issues.
And the agency has been dealing with confidential business
information for decades. And so we already have experience
working with the manufacturers to know how to protect them. So,
we do need to work that out but we are pretty confident that is
an area, knowing it is an issue, we can figure it out.
Mr. Burgess. One of the things I really dislike about
driving is to have to get a vehicle inspection every year but I
do it because it is the law in Texas. You are talking about
systems that are going into cars that likely are going to
require some maintenance, some calibration, some checking from
time to time. Do you see this as being included as part of a
standard vehicle safety inspection?
Mr. Rosekind. That is a great question. And part of that is
because one of the clear things out of Takata was time, that
those inflators basically had a service life. And so that
question is now being asked of the future. These sensors,
radars, cameras, LIDARs, et cetera, clearly have a service
life. How they will be maintained is an open question that
needs to be addressed in this coming period.
Mr. Burgess. Every time I back out of my driveway and the
little backup camera comes on and I, of course, think of Ms.
Schakowsky because she is associated with that. But I have also
learned, since having one of those backup cameras on my car,
that every now and then I have got to get out and squeegee the
little sensor or the little lens because it can get so occluded
that I couldn't see anything. If the neighbors' cat was walking
back there, it would be lights out.
So, I understand that there is a modicum of maintenance
that the operator must provide. The vehicle can't do everything
for you all the time.
Again, it has been a pleasure to have you in the
subcommittee. Oh, I beg your pardon. Mr. Kinzinger has showed
up. So, let me yield 5 minutes to Mr. Kinzinger for questions.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just when you
thought you were going to go home.
Thank you for holding the hearing today on autonomous
vehicles. Next week is Thanksgiving or it is coming soon, I
guess. Yes, next week. And as a country, we will put millions
of miles on our vehicles. It reminds us that we need to do
better as a nation to drive safer and reduce vehicle
fatalities. As so many of our colleagues have pointed out,
vehicle accidents are claiming too many lives and, as of late,
that rate is growing in the wrong direction.
In Illinois, 998 lives were lost last year in vehicle
accidents. Tragically, it is an increase of eight percent from
the year before.
Like many in this room, I see great promise in how
connected vehicles, assisted driving technology, and autonomous
vehicle technology can play in reducing the number of vehicle
deaths. I applaud NHTSA for laying out a framework that will
allow automakers, software developers, and other stakeholders
to blaze a path forward in transforming vehicles and making the
roads in the future safer. I hope today's hearing is a starting
point for our committee, as we consider the wide-ranging policy
issues that autonomous vehicle technology touches.
But Dr. Rosekind, again, thank you for your service. Thank
you for everything you have been doing. I would like to ask you
about the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy released in
September, as a few people have mentioned.
It mentions the possibility of convening the Commission to
study liability and insurance issues and it also clearly states
that insurance and liability apportionment are state
responsibilities, as they are now and makes no argument for
that change.
What role do you see auto insurance playing in the future?
Mr. Rosekind. That is to be determined. Great piece to
bring out, which is there are a lot of unknowns here that need
to become known. That was an example of since we don't know
that but we know the question, let's have the states get their
group together to figure out how this is going to go for the
future. Big questions there.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And the AV guidance does a really good
job defining the roles of the federal regulators in the states.
NHTSA is responsible for overseeing the design and performance
of motor vehicles, while states regulate things like driver
licensing, insurance liability, et cetera. The goal is for
manufacturers to be able to sell, obviously, across all 50
states. In fact, guidance says that states should not codify
them.
But would you agree that if a state were to require
compliance with the guidance before an AV could be sold in the
state, that would be the same thing as codifying the guidance
and why or why not?
Mr. Rosekind. So, the good news now is everybody is very
interested in seeing a unified, consistent framework. And so to
your question, what we are already seeing states basically
challenge with is what language they use to describe exactly
what you are talking about. So, if somebody says certify the
letters there, they are worried there is a whole other
evaluation going on when in fact the state may just say make
sure we get a copy of the letter. But those were exactly the
things we have to make sure there is consistency for everyone
so that patchwork doesn't get created.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And are you all monitoring what
legislative proposals are coming out from the state, since the
agency issued its guidance? And is NHTSA continuing to work
with states on regulatory policy addressing self-driving
vehicles?
Mr. Rosekind. We are not only monitoring but we actually
made an effort before the policy was released to put in a chart
with all of that but it is moving too fast. So, we are going to
continue monitoring.
And we have just had two meetings, one about the policy,
one about the template letter, and the third one is going to be
with the states to talk about the state policies and other
actions they might take. We are hoping that will come up this
month or right after the new year.
Mr. Kinzinger. Great. And the policy asks automakers and
other entities to voluntarily submit a letter referred to as a
safety assessment letter that outlines how the entity has
addressed 15 areas prior to the testing and deployment of
autonomous vehicles. Can you explain what NHTSA will be doing
with the safety assessment after it is received?
Mr. Rosekind. So, that letter is intended to basically have
whoever the manufacturer, developer, tech company, et cetera,
communicate to NHTSA and the public how they have addressed
those 15 safety areas. And we are trying to make it very clear
we are not passing judgment. We are just ensuring that they
have addressed all of those different areas. We are going to
have a template for what that letter should look like. We are
going to have a template for what our response could look like.
And frankly, right now, the first response you might get would
just be thank you or it could be send us more information about
X.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. So, you kind of have a plan in place to
determine if it is adequate or whatever. And then as or will
NHTSA hire subject matter experts like software engineers to
analyze and understand software updates submitted for review?
Mr. Rosekind. So, when Secretary Foxx answered the last
question when this policy was issued, that question was so does
NHTSA have the right expertise. He pointed out that it was
NHTSA that created this policy.
We have got the expertise. We will be looking to expand
that and resources because if this area grows the way we think
it could, there are going to need to be more people with that
expertise into the future.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Well, I just want to say again, thank
you and thanks for answering my questions quickly and
efficiently.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for their testimony.
I understand that NHTSA is thinking about future
regulations requiring manufacturers to submit a safety
assessment letter. Do you think that the safety assessment
letter, if required, would preempt state laws and regulations
regarding design and performance of autonomous vehicles?
Mr. Rosekind. It is really two different elements we are
getting to there. One is the 15-item safety assessment is
basically to let NHTSA and the public know that these 15 areas
of safety have been addressed. It is, as a policy, not
required. And what we have identified, if there were
regulation, there might be a requirement to submit that letter
but we would keep it nimble and flexible. That 15 could become
12 or 20, based on future innovations, basically.
And really at this point, part of what we tried to do with
the states to avoid the patchwork was clarify here is what the
federal agencies will take care of; here is what the states
should take care of. We have those vehicle standards to take
care of. They should be handled by this letter.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. In your view, would inconsistent
state laws and regulations, I know you addressed this somewhat.
Would inconsistent state laws and regulations related to the
design and performance of autonomous vehicles hinder innovation
in this lifesaving technology? How do we ensure that state laws
and regulations on self-driving cars are uniform and
consistent? And is there a role for Congress to play?
Mr. Rosekind. So, you have just identified, and it has been
raised previously, that is a vulnerability that remains. If
there is a patchwork, that could really hinder not just
innovation but the opportunity to save these lives. And so
right now, the policy outlined some very specific ways for
states, if they choose to get involved, here are some errors
they could start with. This is an area I think we all have to
stay tuned as meetings and discussions go on to see whether or
not everyone is going to actually deliver on that unified
consistent framework.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Next question. With regards to
the safety assessment letter, does NHTSA anticipate suppliers
would have to apply for exemptions to test vehicles with level
two to five systems or would be the safety assessment letter be
limited to manufacturers?
Mr. Rosekind. If you look, the policy actually is really
explicit. Anybody who is in this arena should be submitting a
letter, potential, so that is manufacturers, suppliers, tech
companies, et cetera. One of the questions we have been
getting, though, is if you have a collaboration, say between
the manufacturer, a ride-sharing, and a technology company, who
submits the letter. And that is something where we will work
with them to basically decide whether we get one letter or at
least one integrated one that has all three of those
represented.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Have you worked with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration in the development of these
guidelines and have you been working with the trucking industry
in developing self-driving policies?
Mr. Rosekind. So we were, as part of the Department of
Transportation, we are in touch with all of the department, but
in particular the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
about this as well.
We had two public meetings and an open docket. So, I can
tell you the trucking industry, we had a least dozen
interactions with them. And in fact, to the public docket,
their trade association submitted comments. So, there has been
a lot of interaction with them already and there will continue
to be.
Mr. Kinzinger. Very good. Thank you. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
There being no other members wishing to ask questions, I do
want to thank our witness for being here today. This will
conclude our first panel. Again, Dr. Rosekind, thank you for
your service. We will take a brief, two-minute recess to set up
for the second panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burgess. Welcome back. Thank you all for your patience
and I thank our panel for taking the time to be here today. We
will move into the second panel for today's hearing. We will
follow the same format as the first panel. Each witness has 5
minutes for an opening statement, followed by questions from
members.
For our second panel, we have the following witnesses: Mr.
Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO for the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers; Mr. Kirk Steudle, Director at Michigan
Department of Transportation; Ms. Laura MacCleery, Vice
President of Consumer Policy and Mobilization at Consumer
Reports; Ms. Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President at the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association; and Mr. Gary Shapiro,
President and CEO at the Consumer Technology Association.
We do appreciate you all being here today. Mr. Bainwol, why
don't we begin with you? You are recognized for 5 minutes for
an opening statement, please.
STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; KIRK STEUDLE, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LAURA MACCLEERY, VICE PRESIDENT
OF CONSUMER POLICY AND MOBILIZATION, CONSUMER REPORTS; ANN
WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; AND GARY SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL
Mr. Bainwol. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, thanks for having
me back to testify today on behalf of 12 iconic automakers, who
are engaged in a massive exercise in self-disruption.
I spent 8 years in the music industry as a digitization of
the music wrecked business model and devastated property
rights. There was little that industry could do. Autos are in a
very different spot, we are manufacturers and technology
companies and mobility providers and we are innovating rapidly.
Three converging trends are driving dynamic change. The
first trend is the rapid emergence of crash avoidance
technologies that will culminate in self-driving cars.
The second trend is the evolution of ride and car-sharing
starting with Uber, Lyft, Car2Go, and others, but swiftly
moving to a wide range of other models. Sharing will reduce
ownership rates to some degree but also shorten fleet age.
And the third trend is the gradual evolution in power
trains toward electrification that, in the present low gas cost
context, is being driven more by policy mandates than by
consumer demand.
Combined, these trends are changing mobility profoundly and
as mobility changes, the overriding goal of my members share is
to ensure that consumers are able to afford these vehicles that
offer a higher efficiency and enhanced safety features. The
faster we can safely and affordably move to the future, the
better.
While the introduction of self-driving cars is just around
the corner, the transition of full autonomy will take two
generations. Moody's predicts these cars will not be a majority
of the fleet until 2045 or ubiquitous until 2055.
But the important fact is that benefits already are
materializing. First, safety: 99 percent of road fatalities are
the result of behavioral issues, environmental circumstances,
and infrastructure limitations, rather than car defects.
Technology addresses many of these challenges by helping to
avoid crashes altogether. Elon Musk says that moving too slowly
will kill people. I might say it less provocatively and Tesla
is not a member but he has a point. We need to lean forward.
Second, technology can reduce carbon and strengthen the
environment both by mitigating congestion and by facilitating
more efficient use of the automobile.
Third, technology can enhance access for the young, the
old, the disabled, and the economically disadvantaged.
Fourth, individuals and businesses will benefit from time
savings and meaningful productivity gains, helping society and
the economy.
Fifth, the combination of lower per mile cost and higher
cost utilization rates resulting from ride-sharing has the
potential to reshape mass transit. For all of these reasons,
most stakeholders believe accelerated deployment is highly
desirable subject to ensuring a material net safety gain. But
we also know that the traditional regulatory mechanisms can't
handle the space of innovation.
Administrator Rosekind and Secretary Foxx put their fingers
on this problem and deserve considerable credit for seeking a
new approach, facilitating the proper mix of oversight and
regulatory flexibility. It is not an easy puzzle and we
understand that committee members will have different visions
about what it means to be nimble and flexible while also
offering predictability and stable roles.
We are carefully examining NHTSA's guidance and will
formally respond a week from today at the deadline. That
response will be shared with that committee. And we fully
expect the Trump administration to put a stamp on this policy.
Congress ought to as well.
The feds have traditionally regulated the car, the states,
the driver. With autonomy, the car is the driver and that, in
essence, creates static between the Federal and state
obligations.
Perhaps the key objective behind NHTSA's recommendation was
to provide federal leadership to avoid a patchwork of state
rules. Yet, the early evidence is it still might be necessary
to further strengthen the federal leadership. Some even have
suggested that a state-level time out might be warranted.
A second key objective was to reduce federal regulatory
rigidity and ambiguity. Some of the rigidity has been addressed
with commitments to timely respond to requests for
interpretations and exemptions but too much ambiguity remains.
Policy often seems simple but when it gets to execution and
compliance, that simplicity morphs into numbing complexity and
complexity equals delay, higher costs and delayed social
benefits.
Finally, another key objective was to provide mechanisms to
better share data and learning to class both OEMs and tech
providers. It is a prudent goal. We are not certain, however,
that all contemplated obligations are feasible and productive.
Summing up, we appreciate this committee's initiative to
help accelerate the smart introduction of these lifesaving
carbon-reducing, economy-enhancing technologies. This is
guidance, voluntary for now at the federal level and mandatory,
effectively at the state level triggers this conversation. We
welcome it because the stakes are high and the opportunity is
enormous. Government must pave the way for technology
deployment and must not, despite good intent, become an
obstacle to realize in the brighter future of mobility.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. Mr. Steudle is
recognized for 5 minutes, please, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF KIRK STEUDLE
Mr. Steudle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is an opportunity to sit in front of you. I
appreciate that opportunity to talk about something that is
truly revolutionary in the transportation industry, that is,
connected and autonomous and automated vehicles.
At the Michigan Department of Transportation, safety is
paramount. It defines everything the department does, from road
and bridge design, to managing worksites, to overseeing the
work of contractors. Some 35,000 people have died on America's
roads, as many of you have noted. In Michigan, that number was
963 last year. Today, it is 921. That is highest in the last
couple of years. That is the equivalent of 350 airline crashes
with 100 passengers. Imagine what the outcry would be if that
was happening.
As has been said, 90 percent of the traffic deaths could be
reduced with this technology and I think for that alone is the
reason we should be pursuing this at a very advanced pace.
The exponential advent of technology shows no sign of
slowing down. The technology both enables and demands
multitasking. Despite the ever-evolving laws and prolific
safety messages, distracted driving continues to cause more
crashes and more injuries and deaths as a result of those
crashes. Automakers have made tremendous strides in building
safer vehicles, seatbelts, air bags, antilock brakes, lane
control systems, adaptive cruise control, advanced braking
systems, and the like.
But even while the technology and research continues to
save lives, the discovery of new distractions offset the gain.
Today, more than 68 percent of U.S. adults have a smart phone.
That is up from 35 percent just 5 years ago and the use of
electronic devices is just one of the categories in a growing
list of driver distractions.
But I am not here to preach about driving distractions. If
we refuse to accept the increasing number of our friends and
loved ones that needlessly die in automobile accidents, we need
to look for a solution and the solution is automated vehicles,
a vehicle that removes the driver and the driver error.
While safety is the overriding imperative, there are other
vital benefits to automated or driverless cars. Chief among
them are the extension of the freedom that comes with personal
mobility and personal mobility in our golden years. If any of
you have had the misopportune or the unfortunate opportunity of
being in a position to take the keys away from your parent or
an elderly resident, you know how painful that can be. My state
has one of the oldest populations in the country. According to
the 2010 census, 14 percent of the residents were over the age
of 65. Driverless cars offer us the opportunity to grant all
this precious autonomy to our full range of residents, not just
those between the ages of 16 and 80 or 85 or 90.
They also have the ability to fundamentally change the way
that people and goods move. Ride sharing is already having an
impact on urban life, as more people choose that option,
freeing up their time and their disposable income. This
presents many questions about the future land use, parking,
consumption of fossil fuels, the evolution of public transit
and many others.
I should emphasize some key things going on back in the
state of Michigan. With overwhelming bipartisan support, the
legislature last week adopted and sent to Governor Snyder a
package of bills that will keep Michigan at the forefront of
these developments. Chiefly, the bills do these things: they
allow for complete autonomous operations on any road at any
time, without a special license; they allow for truck
platooning; they allow for on-demand automated networks, which
are driverless Ubers, driverless Lyfts; and it creates a
council on future mobility made up of industry participants
from a broad range.
As for NHTSA, I think the agency has done a good job of
identifying and distinguishing between the state and the
Federal regulatory roles related to automated vehicles. States
would regulate the driver or the operator. Those regulators
currently vary by state, much like graduated drivers' licenses
and the effects of penalties for impaired drivers. The Federal
government has a long history of vehicle regulations for the
OEMs, the original equipment manufacturers, and that should
continue. But Michigan strongly disagrees with the proposed
third-party certification process that would create a middle
man, which would slow progress and the adoption of lifesaving
innovations. It also would introduce a third party into the
liability equations.
This technology is best tested and validated by those that
have developed it and understand the technology. They should be
responsible for what they include in the vehicles and not get
rid of that responsibility by hiding behind a third-party
tester.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
topic. I applaud you for taking up this and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steudle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. Ms. MacCleery,
you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement,
please.
STATEMENT OF LAURA MACCLEERY
Ms. MacCleery. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Burgess,
Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Laura MacCleery and I work for Consumer Reports,
an independent nonprofit that works side-by-side with consumers
to create a fairer, safer, and healthier world.
I want to start by thanking Ranking Member Schakowsky in
honoring the late Clarence Ditlow. As both a former board
member of Consumer Reports and leader of the Center for Auto
Safety, my friend and colleague, Clarence, made immeasurable
contributions to vehicle safety and was responsible for
countless lifesaving recalls. His dogged persistence was
legendary. His accomplishments spanned decades.
At Consumer Reports, we consider it a privilege to carry
forward his and our shared dedication to safer cars.
As we have heard, traffic deaths on U.S. roads are
increasing, reversing a long-standing decline. We urgently must
find ways to both prevent and reduce traffic deaths and
injuries. It is critical to note at the outset that
improvements to crashworthiness that would allow people to
better survive crashes remain far from exhausted. For example,
although the Research Safety Vehicle designed by NHTSA in the
last 1970s was crash-safe at 50 miles per hour, today the
minimum safety standard for frontal impact is only 30 miles per
hour with 35 miles per hour testing in the new car assessment
program. This occupant protection standard is one of several
NHTSA performance standards that are badly out of date and
should be upgraded.
If we know anything, it is that technology is imperfect.
Making vehicles safer when they do crash should go hand-in-hand
with making them smarter.
We certainly recognize the potential for crash avoidance
technologies to also reduce traffic deaths. Consumer Reports
Auto Testing Team has driven thousands of miles in cars that
can steer within a lane and adjust speed automatically using
increasingly prevalent technologies like automatic emergency
braking and lane-keeping assist. We also have seen that these
technologies are not perfect and vary in quality among
manufacturers and that some raise novel risks. What we hear
again and again in this context about safety gains is we are
saying clearly that the safety benefit of fully self-driving
vehicles are simply, at this point, not known.
There are real limits to current technologies. There is a
handoff problem in communications with consumers and letting
them know when they need to take over vehicle functioning.
There is issues with user interface and with software updates
that may or may not be clear to consumers who are using their
vehicles. And there are profound and fully knotty ethical
implications of algorithms.
A reality check is provided by our testing, which shows
performance issues with current technologies in sunny, rainy,
snowy, or icy conditions. That is a lot of weather to challenge
these systems.
As this suggests, there is much work that needs to be done
before cars drive themselves. Automated driving technologies
cannot and should not be oversold, particularly when consumers
still must be prepared to take over the controls. Failing to
appropriately communicate the limits or design systems with
appropriate checks on foreseeable use and misuse of systems can
give consumers a false sense of security and even cost lives.
As more vehicles with automated driving technologies hit the
market, we will carefully evaluate them and report to consumers
on their safety. For its part, NHTSA should ensure that
companies put consumers first by collecting and publishing data
and what has collected sufficient evidence by setting robust
safety standards.
The agency has indicated the Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy guidance is an initial regulatory framework. It covers a
wide range of subjects but we think it is light on specific
choices that companies should make to assure safety. We urge
lawmakers to take three key steps. First, to recognize that
NHTSA remains chronically under-resourced. To improve and
ensure consumer trust in automated vehicles, the agency must
receive its requested funding so it can independently and
thoroughly assess the safety of these systems.
Members should also recognize a few fundamental steps
needed to assure effective oversight of automated driving. Here
are three: We call on companies first to give their safety data
to NHTSA and the public. Dr. Rosekind indicated that the data
would show what is best. That makes sense but right now, the
safety benefits of autonomous driving are speculative and based
on data held entirely by the companies. Regulators and
consumers both deserve to know the basis the companies use to
determine that an automated technology is safe, particularly if
they are making claims that this technology performs more
safely than human drivers.
Second, NHTSA's enforcement capability should be
strengthened. NHTSA has the authority to deem automated system
risks to be safety-related defects but its practical ability to
get unsafe cars off the road quickly has long been limited and
is challenged in a world of instant software updates. Congress
should give the agency imminent hazard authority so that it can
take immediate action.
Third, NHTSA and other relevant agencies must take a hard
look at the risks of a lack of cybersecurity in vehicles. The
recent Dyn attack raises the question of what must be done to
safeguard consumers and this issue can't wait.
NHTSA has repeatedly requested imminent hazard authority, I
will note, and it is part of Ranking Member Schakowsky's
Vehicle Safety Improvement Act, which we support.
In conclusion, automated innovation is essential. It has
included features with major benefits to consumer safety, such
as automatic emergency braking. But our ambitions in this area
must be balanced with accountability and a full view of how
humans interact with this technology. Building public trust is
critical. Public data, vigorous agency oversight, and attention
to a total-vehicle and consumer-first approach will be needed
to ensure that safety keeps pace with technological change.
[The prepared statement of Ms. MacCleery follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. Ms. Wilson,
you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON
Ms. Wilson. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
members of the subcommittee, my name is Ann Wilson and I serve
as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association or MEMA.
Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on
automated vehicles and NHTSA's Automated Vehicle Policy.
MEMA is the leading international trade association of the
fast-changing mobility industry. By directly employing more
than 800,000 Americans and generating a total employment impact
of 4.2 million jobs, MEMA member companies are the largest
employer of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
MEMA applauds NHTSA for developing the Federal Automated
Vehicle Policy. Given the rapidly evolving advances in vehicle
technologies, we believe this policy, as opposed to
regulations, that clarifies a national framework with a clear
role for the states sets pathways for all stakeholders to
navigate the complexities of automated vehicle technologies.
We are currently working with our members to provide NHTSA
with specific comments by November 22nd and we will provide
those comments to the subcommittee.
We are also committed to a continuous dialogue with NHTSA
on the AV policy. However, we urge NHTSA to clarify the policy
in the near-term with the input received from the public
listening sessions and the written comments.
Today, I wanted to lay out a few challenges and
opportunities MEMA has already identified. First, MEMA would
strongly urge the agency to treat test vehicles covered by the
AV policy separately from production vehicles. Typically, these
vehicles are company-owned and operated only by trained
employees and are not intended for production and sale to the
general public. For instance, it is not clear in the policy
whether NHTSA intends component manufacturers or other entities
should apply for exemptions for test vehicles in order to test
and evaluate Level 2 through 5 systems on public roads.
With the rapid evolution of these technologies, time is
critical. The process outlined in the AV policy for test
vehicles, including the exemption process, would delay
innovation.
We also have some serious concerns about the protection of
manufacturers' intellectual property rights during the testing
phase.
We are also seeking an additional clarification with
respect to test vehicles. Under Section 24404 of the recently
enacted FAST Act, OEMs can test and operate vehicles that do
not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provided they
are not offered for sale. But this provision does not include
component manufacturers and we would urge the committee to
clarify this provision at the first opportunity.
Second, in 2015, MEMA and the Boston Consulting Group
released a report examining the safety benefits of Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems or ADAS technologies. The study found
that these technologies can provide immediate safety benefits
and formed a pathway, as you have heard, to a partially and
fully automated vehicle fleet that could virtually eliminate
traffic fatalities. But it is important to note that some of
these ADAS technologies constitute the SAE Level 2 automated
systems. These include technologies, as you have heard today,
like AEB, adaptive cruise control, and others. Technology is
currently available on a wide range of vehicles. MEMA urges
NHTSA to further delineate the impact that the AV Policy has on
Level 2 technologies.
Third, as previously recognized, NHTSA's AV Policy also
applies to all vehicles. While much of the testimony you have
heard today is directed towards the automotive industry, many
of the opportunities and challenges apply to both passenger and
commercial vehicles. The commercial vehicle component supplier
members of MEMA are particularly concerned about the IP
protection as safety systems and other new technologies are key
differentiators for trucking fleets. There are many other
parties in the commercial market who must be engaged in the
development and implementation of AV Policy for all the
challenges and benefits to be fully explored. We encourage
NHTSA to continue interacting with those parties and we would
encourage this committee to work with them, too.
Fourth, original equipment component suppliers do not
always have complete visibility into the full scope of issues
to properly assess performance. Once a component or a system
has been integrated into a protection vehicle, it is important
that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of NHTSA's
expectations of the roles and responsibilities, particularly
for OEMs and component manufacturers. These distinctions should
be clarified and articulated in the context of the policy.
And finally, MEMA encourages NHTSA to take the lead with
their global counterparts to cooperate in developing an AV
policy beyond the U.S. for the benefit of the global community.
The earlier we get ahead of opportunities to align, the better
it will be for all stakeholders, government, industry, and the
driving public.
In conclusion, the members of MEMA are committed to vehicle
safety and are at the forefront of developing additional
lifesaving technologies.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
Mr. Shapiro, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF GARY SHAPIRO
Mr. Shapiro. I am Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the
Consumer Technology Association. I just want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of
the subcommittee as well for inviting me to testify on this
important issue.
I also want to thank you for hosting these Disrupter
Series. This is really important. You have brought attention to
new technologies like 3D printing and drones, which are
fundamentally changing the world. Actually, at CTA we created a
Disruptive Innovation Council last year and it supports those
companies that are developing technologies and services that
are disrupting traditional business models, actually creating
new markets, and, frankly, delighting consumers. So, this is a
good thing. That is what this country was based on is positive
disruption.
And that is what we are talking about here. We actually
represent over 2,200 American consumer technology companies. We
own and produce the CES. It is the world's largest business,
coolest, funnest event. You are all invited to attend. If you
come to Las Vegas next January you will see literally 3,900
companies, including 300 of them that are focused on connected
vehicles, driverless cars. Most of the major auto companies are
there as well. And you will see the future right there in one
place.
We also, as an association, represent much of the vehicle
technology ecosystem. Our member companies are fundamentally
revolutionizing the transportation network and are well on
their way to making self-driving vehicles a reality.
This comes about because the internet, wireless, and
sensing technology are poised to revolutionize the auto sector,
as they have other industry sectors. While these changes
disrupt all business models, they lead to economic growth, a
better standard of living, improved health and safety, and new
opportunities to expand entrepreneurship, provide American
leadership and solve real-world major problems.
You have heard over and over today about self-driving cars
that will save over 30,000 lives a year and prevent hundreds of
thousands of injuries. They will also free up our time, enhance
the travel business so more Americans will use cars to travel
further and see America and actually change our view of cars so
they will be a service, rather than a product.
So, I think what we should do is set a goal of cutting
American road fatalities by a certain date and challenge
interested groups to gather and forge a path forward to solve
the many legal, legislative and standardization uncertainties
to achieve that outcome.
One question that has already come up today and people are
asking is whether this technology must be perfect before it
deployed. Perfection may be an unreachable goal but any
significant improvement over the status quo of 35,000 annual
deaths should be welcome. In fact, though, as you have hard,
driver assist technology is already saving lives, avoiding
accidents, and paving the way for driverless innovations. We
welcome and need technologies that help drowsy or inattentive
drivers stay focused or provide specific responses, such as
automatic braking and lane drift avoidance, all of which are
available in newer models today.
Further, the aftermarket industry does provide a valuable
service in allowing consumers to add lifesaving technology to
vehicles they already own and that is important because if we
wait for the whole fleet to turn over, we are waiting 20 or 30
years to save those thousands of lives of each year.
Our research we have done with consumers confirms there is
strong interest in the early stages of self-driving technology.
We did a recent study with 2,000 consumers and three in four
are excited about the benefits of self-driving cars. More than
60 percent are interested in replacing the car or truck they
own with a completely self-driving vehicle.
Of course, you have heard, transportation is a national
system. We need uniformity to ensure a national single market,
promote safety, and provide consistency.
CTA was encouraged by NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy and its recognition of the need for self-driving
vehicles. More, NHTSA recognized the importance of flexibility
for the industry to continue to innovate with appropriate
supervision at the state and Federal level. We appreciate the
leadership, however, we do have several concerns with the
policy, which we will be filing formal comments on.
While DOT is a primary regulator for self-driving vehicles,
other agencies also have a role. Representatives from the NTIA,
the FCC, FDC, DoD, and others have asked how they can provide
input for their needs, contribute their expertise on spectrum,
interoperability, cybersecurity, and privacy, and simply stay
informed.
And I applaud the DOT for taking a leadership role and
seeking broad input but consensus, national consensus on self-
driving vehicles is so important that we need all the believers
and the stakeholders together working towards a national goal
of saving lives and resolving impediments to get there. This
action requires government facilitation and leadership at the
very top. We did this, and I was personally involved with our
shift to high-definition television, and also did it as we
created commercial rules for the internet. The U.S. led the
world in both those endeavors because we had industry together,
all the interested parties working with government. The result
for both has been huge boots in U.S. leadership in content
creation and commercial internet ventures.
Self-driving vehicles would be our gift to future
generations. They will result in fewer deaths and injuries, a
cleaner environment, more freedom and greater mobility. If
industry and government work together on a shared national
goal, we can remove every impediment and stop the carnage on
American roads.
[The statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentleman. And I thank
all of our witnesses for their testimony today.
We will move into the question portion of the hearing and I
actually would like to go to the gentleman from Kentucky first
for his questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
yielding.
First, Mr. Bainwol, how soon can we expect self-driving
cars on the road and what are the main obstacles facing the
automakers to get self-driving cars on the road faster?
Mr. Bainwol. So, that is the big question. I have hear Dr.
Rosekind respond and he ducked it pretty well and I will try
not to.
So, most of our members have talked about self-driving cars
being on the road in the 2020, 2021 time frame but that is not
going to be anytime anyplace. That is going to be either
geofenced or a certain set of conditions.
So, it is around the corner. But as I indicated in my
prepared testimony, the deployment is going to take two
generations. Moody's says 2055 before it is ubiquitous, 2045,
30 years from now, before it is the majority of the fleet. And
the fleet mix issue is absolutely huge.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
And Ms. Wilson, what is the difference between the driver
assisted systems and active safety features that we are seeing
on the market today in self-driving cars? And how are those
systems preparing consumers for the future of fully automated
cars?
Ms. Wilson. So, the driver assisted systems that you see
right now can take over a function. For instance, AEB will take
over a function but doesn't take over control of the vehicle.
So, as you look what the SAE and what is set as the stages of
automation, this is, I won't way the first stage, but it is the
first stages of automation.
And I think what you are seeing when they discuss this both
at NHTSA and SAE is they know that this is going to be a
gradual piece. I mean as Gary was mentioning, Mr. Shapiro was
mentioning about the aftermarket, the aftermarket can provide
valuable warning devices to a consumer. So, if you have a car
that is a little older, it can warn you, maybe not take over
control of the vehicle, but warn you of a safety hazards and
things like that.
So, again, those levels of automation are very important
and we will see this gradually increase over years.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. I was just visiting my daughter in
Chicago and I have a little older car. And I had to, which we
don't do in Kentucky too often, parallel park. And you are not
in practice and then I was with a friend of mine who has a
substantially nicer, more expensive car than I have that
actually could guide him right in, parallel park. It got him
right in. So, it was interesting.
Ms. Wilson. We have some members who would love to show you
that technology.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, I learned that I need it because we
don't do that. I don't do that actually hardly ever back home.
So, Mr. Shapiro, what kind of disruption do you think self-
driving cars will have on jobs? I know that you have talked
about it is going to increase economic opportunity but just
anytime there is, I guess you could say the tractor cost jobs.
That is what the Grapes of Wrath is really about. But it also
created productivity but it did displace people.
So, how should we be preparing for that disruption?
Mr. Shapiro. It is a great question. I think it will have
an equivalent of what the car did to those who rode horses,
basically. It will be big because you are not only talking
about professional drivers, you are talking about also
collision repair people, aftermarket parts people, collision
repair shops, the insurance industry will dramatically be
affected. But what consumers will get in return, obviously, is
lower insurance prices and they will have fewer fatalities. The
hospital rooms, there will be less people in emergency rooms.
It will affect emergency room doctors. And it will be very
disruptive. There is no question about that. And that is a very
critical issue and I think we have to start talking about it.
So, what happens in any segment of society? What happened
to telephone operators? What happened to travel agents? What
happened to all these things as we go to new jobs? And that is
what this election may have been about. And I think we have an
obligation, those in business and those in government to figure
it out. And part of figuring it out is what are the jobs for
the next century.
Now, we advocate, look, already today there is about 60,000
or 70,000 truck driver jobs that are open. They are not even
being filled. So, we need truck drivers but that will shift
over time. We have an aging population. We need people to take
care of them. We don't have enough people.
We need programmers. We need STEM graduates. We need people
that have technical skills. We need in this country to get
people to get community college training and raise that so that
not everyone has to go to a college.
I could spend a lot of time talking about the future of
jobs and we will be talking about it next year in 2017 at CTA
because it is important and I think we have to focus on it as a
country and as a society.
Mr. Guthrie. My family is in the automotive supply
business. So, we deal with some of the companies that are
trying to develop the technology. And I didn't have a chance to
go to the demonstration earlier but they say, the engineers are
talking about the biggest problem is that if everybody follows
the rules, this works but if you get into those situations
where it is traffic and you have got to like force yourself
into, merge. Like you know you waive to somebody and they back
up and they let you in, he said those are the things that they
haven't--it really is driver using like the way--you know how
we all do that. Yes, can you come on in. And they said that is
where they are really struggling to try to figure out how to
get around those kind of situations.
Mr. Shapiro. That is an addressable situation, increasingly
addressable, especially with aftermarket products. It is a
matter of what algorithms you create and how your car responds
to other people who may not be following the rules. It is a
solvable problem but it takes everyone getting together to talk
about how to solve it.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for your questions, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. MacCleery, I was interested in your testimony. You said
that in the late '70s crash safety was considered at 50 miles
an hour and today the minimum safety standard for frontal
impact you said is 30 miles an hour with a 35 mile an hour test
for new car assessment program. How did that happen and why?
Ms. MacCleery. Yes, there was a challenge made to the
engineering community by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration under President Carter. And he went out and he
said basically let the engineers solve this problem. So, they
designed the research safety vehicle and it had a number of
really interesting innovations, including a kind of plastic
styrofoam that was inside the vehicle's structure so that it
would be very crash absorbing and it made the vehicle crash
safe at 50 miles an hour.
And really, that is a high water mark that has not----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, how did it get reduced? Why would it
get reduced as the standard?
Ms. MacCleery. Well, it wasn't the standard. It was a test
vehicle----
Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
Ms. MacCleery [continuing]. A prototype----
Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
Ms. MacCleery [continuing]. That demonstrated what would be
possible from a vehicle design and engineering perspective.
Ms. Schakowsky. And did that ever get implemented in the
actual manufacturing?
Ms. MacCleery. No.
Ms. Schakowsky. No. Oh, OK.
Ms. MacCleery. The vehicles were mostly destroyed under the
Reagan administration. There were two that were recently
discovered and were brought to NHTSA for study.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask this, then. Does a 30 or 35 mile
an hour standard make sense today that that is what we test
for? Should we be looking at something more significant?
Ms. MacCleery. Yes, there are a lot of complexities to
raising occupant safety standards, including dealing with
smaller statured individuals and how aggressive air bags would
be. So, you have to factor in the whole vehicle approach. But
if you can build the crash worthiness into the vehicle
structure, the way that air bags do, it helps all occupants.
And that is what the design of the research safety vehicle
demonstrated was possible.
Ms. Schakowsky. Now, clearly, we are talking about these
new technologies and the cars driving themselves but you also
mentioned that consumers would be far more likely to entrust
their lives to crash safe vehicles and these improvements
should be viewed as a necessary corollary to automated crash
avoidance systems. Are we doing enough in that regard or has
our focus shifted to the automobiles themselves being able to
take care of it? Should we be continuing to emphasize and are
we doing that enough, the crash safety methods?
Ms. MacCleery. I don't think we are. NHTSA has a number of
standards that are badly out of date and have not come pace
with where vehicles are performing today. And we should be
upgrading the safety standards. As we have heard, a mixed fleet
is what we are going to be dealing with for the foreseeable
future.
Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
Ms. MacCleery. And so, saving lives in the interim is
really a priority.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. You know, Mr. Shapiro, you were talking
about the Consumer Electronics Show that you have every year.
And I am just wondering. There is both the convergence of
driver reliance on semi-autonomous features but also the
increased use of smart phones, and apps, and infotainment
options in cars. And I am just wondering if there is some
conflict here for distraction of drivers. At the same time, we
are talking about more autonomy for the cars themselves, we are
also providing more distractions, especially in this transition
period.
Is there a conflict there? And how do we resolve that?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, we resolve anything like that by getting
to self-driving cars with more and more features towards self-
drive as soon as possible because they do save lives.
I don't think you are going to be able to change the fact
that--why did we go up from 30,000 to 35,000 deaths last year?
And we keep asking ourselves. Well, cheap gas, more miles
clearly added but there are others. There are more distractions
and it is not only using devices. It is that there is people
drinking coffee. And people are tired. They fall asleep a lot.
They drink a lot.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, but they always did that.
Mr. Shapiro. But they are still doing it and I think we are
all more tired now for some reason.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, well.
Mr. Shapiro. But the point is that it is going up. It is a
bad trend. And the way to get out of it is, obviously, to do
public education through strong laws on distracted driving but
we have got to get to driverless cars and active collision
avoidance and even, obviously, past collision.
And we are getting there quickly. I already had an
experience with an active collision avoidance where I was
stopped hitting the car in front of me because the car took
over. I think it is great. I think every American should have
that and we should have it as soon as possible and we should
also try to get it through the aftermarket. We can't wait 30
years. That is about a million lives we will lose.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK, I am just wondering, if I could, Mr.
Chairman, ask Ms. MacCleery to comment on that.
Ms. MacCleery. Well, we see an enormous variance among the
effectiveness and consumer-facing features of various current
performance technology. Some of them don't work under certain
weather conditions. Others of them may not be to the consumer's
liking in terms of how they are doing alerts.
For example, in the Lane Assist technologies, we have done
testing where you are trying to swerve to avoid a bicyclist or
a pedestrian and the vehicle tries to correct that by pulling
the steering wheel back out of your hand and keeping with the
lane. That could, actually, cause a collision and it is
unnerving from a driver's perspective to be steering into the
object that you are trying to avoid.
And so these technologies are in development. And some are
better than others. They are not uniform. And that is why we
think having the data sharing piece is so important because
once the public and regulators can get access to the data about
which systems work better than others, then you can see how to
set the direction for the future of these technologies and
which ones are really proving beneficial.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
If I could just ask Mr. Shapiro while all these
technologies are developing, I hope you will develop one for
hot cars notification of people who may leave a child in the
back seat. We have all these bells and whistles now in our
cars. Children die because they are left in those cars.
Mr. Shapiro. There is something and I will follow-up with
you and tell you what it is.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Shapiro. And I might add to that example, I keep
thinking of the fact that every one of us in this room has
probably seen somebody and we have swerved away into a lane we
didn't even know someone was there. And the technology that we
are going to will avoid that risk we are taking, all of us are
taking in one on.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thanks all of you.
Mr. Burgess. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5
minutes for questions, please.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel
for being here.
Ms. MacCleery, I couldn't agree more that it does unnerve
you a little bit when you are switching lanes, when you are in
traffic and you have got to get over and you have to steer into
it, which is why I absolutely cannot stand it on my wife's
vehicle. But I get the need, too. Look, it is about safety, to
Mister--is it Shapiro? I am so sorry. I get the safety part of
it but I am from a very rural part of the country. In fact,
just to get to my house, you have got to go four miles down a
country road and that is off of a two-lane road that is the
nearest four-lane highway is I don't know. It is a long way
away. And we pull a lot of trailers. There are trailers behind
a truck. If you are with me on a weekend, I have probably got a
trailer behind me.
How does this technology affect that? There are so many
variances that go into place. I heard you talking about truck
drivers. The way the trailer is handled behind a vehicle, the
weight, it would depend on how they are loaded. It would depend
on the bumper pull of if it has got a gooseneck on it. It would
depend on if you are running cattle or if it is an RV. I mean
it all changes and it all changes to feel the vehicle.
How does an automated vehicle correct that and change that,
not to mention you are going down dirt roads and country roads?
Mr. Shapiro. Those are great points and those are the kinds
of things which will be plugged into equations so the car will
know what it is pulling. It will know its weights. It will know
the reaction. It will know what kind of road it is on. It will
know if you have been drinking or not, too, which is the point.
Mr. Mullin. Drinking what?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, the important part is that we have so
many accidents today and so many people, there is drunk driving
this obviously will have a big impact on and there is disabled
Americans and older Americans that are waiting for this to
happen.
Mr. Mullin. No, I agree. Look, in my district, 12 percent
of my population is over 70. To go get groceries, it is
typically a 30-minute drive because it is 15 there and 15 back.
That is on average. That is in my district, average.
Mr. Shapiro. Well, we can also talk about drones to get
some service to those people as well.
Mr. Mullin. They would be shot down if they flew around our
place.
Mr. Shapiro. I am not winning with you, am I?
Mr. Mullin. No.
Mr. Shapiro. But the bottom line is is we will resolve
these problems. And the way to resolve the problems is to
identify them and discuss them and come to a consensus.
And what we have now with computer technology and machine
learning technology, it will learn as it goes along. There will
be deep learning of the situation but it won't be perfect but
it will be great.
Mr. Mullin. But the more of it comes--and I get that. I am
not against technology. Look, our company, we are always
investing in technology. It is great. It is wonderful but it
can become a distraction. You can't depend on a computer to
understand when a horse falls in your trailer. You can't. You
can't feel that. You are talking about the safety of the
animal, at that point. And if you are not paying attention to
it, it goes away.
And I understand technology but I am not so sure that it is
going to be a fix-all. In major metropolitan areas, OK, I get
that. But if you put a mandate out there on it, you are going
to take away the freedoms. You are going to take away the
ability for the driver. You are going to take away the feel of
the vehicle.
My kids, my oldest one is 12 years old and we are literally
already teaching him how to drive on a farm because in
Oklahoma, at 14 you can get your driver's license to drive on a
farm. And you are going to be driving a trailer. You have got
to feel that. You have got to know what it feels like. And you
can't, you are not going to get that through vehicles. I am
going to have a hard time believing that a machine is going to
be safer than me when I have got everything paying attention to
it.
Granted if I am drinking, which I don't, but I am just
saying I get that. I understand that. But I am not so sure this
is going to be perfect and I don't want to rush and put it out
there. I think there is going to be areas to where it would be
great.
Mr. Shapiro. Well, you did use the word mandate and that is
not a word I have used. I would imagine in a many of the
vehicle manufacturers, especially those aimed at the rural area
would have a switch that would allow you to turn it on and turn
it off, or give you a warning if you are about to hit a tree,
and maybe only take over if you are hitting a tree or a deer,
or something like that.
Mr. Mullin. That is what a brush guard is all about because
those things jump in front of you.
Mr. Shapiro. We are evolving on this. Pardon me?
Mr. Mullin. I can't predict when a deer jumps in front me.
That is what a big brush guard is for. You just hit them and go
one, I guess. I don't know.
Mr. Shapiro. Well, maybe the car can. Maybe the car can.
And that is the advantage of this.
So, I think we have to let it play out but set the goals.
And the goals are reducing human injury and death, the 94
percent of car accidents that are caused by human error.
Mr. Mullin. No, I get that. Look, I have got five kids
coming up, too. I mean my oldest one, like I said, is 12 and I
know how bad of a driver I was when I was 16. And we can all
say that.
And so I want to be as safe as possible. I don't want
anybody to lose their child. I don't want anybody to have to go
through that but I want to make sure we are cautious moving
forward.
So, thank you to the panel for being here. I appreciate
you.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
The chair would observe that we have been joined by the
Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, and I will
be happy to go to him next to him for questions, 5 minutes,
please.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Both the tech industry and the automotive industry have
been working towards fully automated vehicles for years now but
many consumers remain unaware of the technology and its
potential to decrease fatalities, improve mobility for seniors
and the disabled, and improve daily life for Americans.
So, I wanted to ask Ms. MacCleery, there has been a lot of
attention paid in Congress and in the media on autonomous cars.
We have heard claims that these cars will be available for
purchase soon but we have also heard that fully autonomous cars
are decades away. What is the realistic time line for adoption
and is this something consumers should be paying attention to
now or is this decades away?
Ms. MacCleery. So, we think that it is not probably decades
away but it is really an unknown in terms of the exact time
line when these vehicles could come on the road. And what we
are most concerned about is that vehicles currently touted as
self-driving are actually not there yet. And so that that is
misleading to consumers who actually need to be able, and
poised, and paying attention to take over the wheel at a
moment's notice. We know that human beings have a hard time
coming in and out of paying attention to situations. And so we
think that that kind of overselling of the technology
represents a particular hazard.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks.
It is my understanding that because of the interest in
ensuring that components of autonomous vehicles are safe from
cyber intrusion, some have expressed concern about retrofitting
exiting vehicles with the technology.
So, let me ask you, does aftermarket autonomous technology
present cybersecurity risks and are there unique safety risks
associated with aftermarket autonomous technology?
And I guess I will ask the third question. Is there a path
forward for aftermarket autonomous technology or will consumers
eventually be required to purchase a new vehicle to get the
benefits?
I will throw those all out. You can answer them together.
Ms. MacCleery. On the cybersecurity question, I think we
are very concerned. What we saw with the distributed denial of
service attack just a few weeks ago was that there are lots of
back doors and lots of products. And obviously, the prospect of
having some sort of coordinated attack that would take over the
wheel from American drivers is very concerning.
We have a guidance that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration just issued. We think that is a good first step
but it really needs to be pushed forward quite aggressively so
that we all have a better view of what are the vulnerabilities
and how to fix them, both with current vehicles and the current
technologies that are already on the road, as well as future
and anticipated technologies in vehicles.
In terms of aftermarket solutions, I think some of the same
security concerns would apply. And so you would want them to be
compliant with whatever that new standard on cybersecurity is
that gets established.
As to your third question, in terms of the future of
autonomous vehicles and aftermarket solutions, we haven't
really comprehensively evaluated these technologies at Consumer
Reports. It is something that we are looking at. And so we
really don't have a view yet, driver reviews based on evidence
in the testing and we would need to conduct comprehensive
testing of some of the aftermarket opportunities.
Mr. Pallone. I had a third question but did you want to say
something quickly?
Mr. Shapiro. Yes, Administrator Rosekind testified on that
very point and he said that the same risks you have with cars
you would have with aftermarket as well. There is no additional
risk that he is aware of.
But I would say that even if there is an additional risk, I
think you have to weigh that against the lives that will be
saved. So, if we wait an additional 15 years so that the entire
fleet turns over, as opposed to starting putting the products
in in the next few years, then we have lost 15 years' worth of
lives at the rate of up to 30,000 a year.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks. Oh, I am sorry.
Ms. Wilson. I was just wondering if I could. I represent
component manufacturers, including aftermarket manufacturers.
Our members are working very closely with the vehicle
manufacturers right now on what is called a secure vehicle
interface to try to look at things like this to see how we can
provide this and provide the cybersecurity. We are hoping that
an industry standard can be reached.
And an SAE Committee has just recently been started and
they are going to start to meet in December. So, we are very
hopeful. There are a lot of challenges I think as the whole
panel has indicated but the industry is really trying to work
on this and get our arms around it.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks. Let me get in a third
question here.
Semi-autonomous vehicles, which utilize technology such as
automatic lane-keeping, speed adjustment, and automatic
parallel parking are already making their way to market. So the
question, again, to Ms. MacCleery, there is likely to be a lag
time between semi-autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous
vehicles hitting the market, in addition to traditional driver-
operated vehicles remaining on the road for some time. We can
expect that, at some point, fully autonomous, semi-autonomous,
and driver-operated cars will all be on public roads at the
same time. So, can they exist safely on the road together and
why?
Ms. MacCleery. I think that is the heart of the question.
We do have issues with social signaling, the kind of thing that
was discussed a few minutes ago, with regard to drivers
indicating to one another when they are going to enter a new
lane and that sort of thing and there is real questions about
whether fully autonomous vehicles can actually participate in
that kind of social exchange on the roads and what happens to
the technology if it can't read those signals.
You know there is also issues with a mixed fleet of the
unpredictable and of variances in the technology in terms of
how well the various safety performance technologies do for
consumers and how much safety benefit they provide.
We are, obviously, very keen to see innovations that
enhance safety. We have been huge fans of some of those
technologies, including advanced emergency braking and have
tested a variety of those systems and think that they do
provide a real safety benefit, alongside other systems, like
electronic stability control that have already been made part
of regulations.
So, we are eager for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to do sufficient data collection. They can
actually compare the benefits of these systems and look at them
together.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you all. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burgess. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks
the gentleman.
I do want to point out to the gentleman from New Jersey
that I did not take my time for questions and allowed the
members of the subcommittee to go first. So, now I am consuming
5 minutes. I didn't want you to think that I was giving myself
an additional time.
But I do want to thank all of you. This has been a
fascinating discussion. Now, tomorrow, we are going to have
another joint subcommittee hearing with the telecom
subcommittee on this very issue of the denial of service
attacks, not so much as affect the automotive industry but it
does raise a rather odd specter for being a cyber carjacking
and someone actually being able to take over your vehicle. I
don't know if you could actually access the Bitcoins from the
dashboard or not but it is an interesting problem that when you
think about it for the future and the ability to have security
of the cybersecurity necessary in these vehicles is going to be
critical.
And I assume right down the line that you all are focused
on that with both your manufacturing, aftermarket, and the
consumer electronics. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Bainwol. Absolutely. As we have talked about before in
the subcommittee, the manufacturers have established an ISAC
that is up and running. We have issued best practices. And both
the establishment of the ISAC and the best practices have been
well-recognized by NHTSA as very positive steps forward.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Steudle.
Mr. Steudle. Yes, actually with the State of Michigan we
have opened up a cybersecurity range and we are working with
the University of Michigan on that exact topic.
Ms. MacCleery. We are very concerned about this. We have
been looking at the issues in terms of the vulnerabilities.
There was a well-known July 2015 hack of a Jeep, and Tesla and
Mitsubishi vehicles have also recently been hacked. There was a
news reporter who also allowed his vehicle to be hacked and
lost control. And we are incredibly concerned that any vehicle
connected to the internet is potentially vulnerable and that
this is a sort of a late-arriving issue in terms of vehicle
design that needs to be addressed forthwith.
Ms. Wilson. So, our Tier 1 original equipment suppliers,
many of them are in the Auto ISAC with their vehicle
manufacturer customers. And in addition, on the commercial
space, we are working with NHTSA right now and the team on the
Auto ISAC to come up with a commercial vehicle model, something
similar like that.
And then, again, as we talked about before with the
aftermarket, the aftermarket is trying to work on some industry
solutions for some of these concerns. So, yes, sir, we are very
involved in this.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. Mr. Shapiro?
Mr. Shapiro. In addition to the Auto ISAC effort and what
NHTSA has done with best practices, we look at this more
holistically as part of the internet of things because that is
what this really is. And we have an effort ongoing internet of
things to focus on and online self-assessment tools so that
companies could figure out if they are using best practices and
doing things correctly.
Mr. Burgess. Very good. And Mr. Shapiro, you referenced and
Ms. Schakowsky had a question about addressing a child left in
a hot car. And it does seem that automobiles are getting so
darn smart that they ought to be able to tell if there is a
life form contained within and if the internal temperature is
incompatible with that life form continuing and somehow let
someone know--I live in a part of the country where it does
extremely warm in the summertime and then these types of
accidents, unfortunately, they are prominent when they do occur
because it is a very prominent tragedy and if there is a way to
prevent that, I would just add those children who are lost in a
hot car or even a pet who is lost in a hot car as to those
lives that could be saved that you alluded to at the beginning
of your discussion.
I was talking to Dr. Rosekind before he left and I remember
when my children became of driving age. That was a long time
ago, but like any cheap dad, I was thinking well, we will get
them a whatever kind of heap I can go find in the aftermarket
or the used car market. And I think it was another physician
who pointed out to me that you know the kids just starting to
drive is the one who needs to the antilock brakes. You have got
them on your Thunderbird but you don't really need it because
you are not going to be in the same situation.
So, it is a paradigm shift for parents to think in terms of
putting that lane departure warning or automatic braking,
putting their first car that their child drives ought to have
the protection of those things, in my opinion. And my thinking
has shifted on that over the years. But those are the lives
that I think could be saved.
We had a tragic accident back in my hometown. Two mothers
and two daughters were in opposite cars or cars driving in
opposite directions and there was a distracted driving
situation, it was assumed, but all four died. And this is in a
town that already has a prohibition on texting while driving.
So, the law is already there. We are looking now, the city
is looking at is there some way we can beef up the law. Is
there some way that enforcement can be increased? But it is a
terrible, terrible problem and I like the idea of technology
being able to prevent some of those accidents. So, I am very
much in favor of what you are discussing.
In your written testimony, you do have the paragraph of
most concern is a proposal to grant NHTSA preapproval authority
for new vehicles. That concerned me also when I read that, that
it would be a major increase in authority for NHTSA by allowing
NHTSA to approve every new model in every model year before it
comes to market. That was a pretty startling statement that you
made there but I assume that is a concern that you have from
the consumer electronics area.
Mr. Shapiro. Yes. So first of all, I do want to respond to
the other things you said as well.
The tragedy of the kid or the pet in the car, we should be
able to solve that. I mean it is a tragedy and it is not like
driving which sometimes things are unavoidable. We should be
able to use technology to avoid that today. I know I have heard
something about this in terms of technology that someone has
proposed. I just don't know how mature or realistic it is but I
will provide that to the committee.
In terms of the distracted driving, what more you could do,
I was just driving in Canada recently and there were signs
everywhere and it made me really think about it. I think there
are some things other countries are doing we should be looking
at as well.
But ultimately, we have to get driverless cars and
collision avoidance quickly. And your point about kids being
the first is a great one, something I had not considered until
you said it but you are absolutely right. I guess we have to
convince parents they have to give their kids new cars. That is
an official policy.
Mr. Burgess. I am sure the Automotive Alliance will.
Mr. Bainwol. We like that idea.
Mr. Burgess. And then did you have a comment about the
preapproval?
Mr. Shapiro. Oh, yes, I am sorry. That was really your
final question.
Yes, so NHTSA has done, their attitude, their work, their
everything has been fantastic. They have the right attitude of
pro-innovation, pro everything. However, there is a tradeoff
between established car companies and companies that want to
enter the marketplace. And the car companies also, they like to
change things. They like to change it up. Everyone likes to
have something new. We are innovators. We like to progress. And
if you have to have everything preapproved, which NHTSA was
suggesting, that would really slow things down, especially in
the footnote that referred to the airplane model, which takes
several years for approvals. And that was pretty terrifying for
those of us with this rapid turnaround, rapid changes in
technology. And you don't want to deny consumers new benefits.
So, I don't think it is what NHTSA wants to do. I think
they have done a fantastic thing it is just we want some areas
clarified because of the ramifications and the barriers to
entry, the barriers to innovation and new models.
Mr. Burgess. I do want to mention that Tesla, BMW, and Audi
had vehicles available for subcommittee members to look at this
morning out on the street. Time constraints wouldn't permit me
to look at all of them but I was struck in one of the cars. I
won't mention the name but the size of the screen in the middle
of the console was bigger than my television at home. And we
are talking about distracted driving. That car has to drive
itself because you are going to be watching whatever video is
going, the GPS, and everything else. Really it was a startling
technological development but I am sure it can be overwhelming
for people who get behind the wheel, particularly a youngster
who is not used to driving.
So, anyway, do you have a follow-up question, Mr. Ranking
Member?
Well, thank you to our second panel. Seeing that there are
no further members wishing to ask questions of this panel, I
would thank all our witnesses for being here today.
Before we conclude, I would like to include the following
documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent:
a letter from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of
America, a letter from the Global Automakers.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Burgess. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record. I ask the witnesses to submit their response within
10 days upon receipt of those questions.
And we have one more letter from OTA to submit for by
unanimous consent. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Burgess. We will insert it both today and tomorrow. How
is that?
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you
all.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today our Disrupter Series continues as we examine self-
driving cars. Keeping Americans safe on the road has been a top
priority for the committee. Being from the auto state, I know
just how dedicated the auto industry and Michigan's premier
research institutions are to developing a roadway system that
is accident and defect free.
This work is critical--especially when considering that
traffic fatalities are on the rise for the first time in more
than a decade. In Michigan, there were nearly 1,000 fatalities
last year alone. And I am told that, nationwide, the fatality
numbers are up again in the first half of this year.
Today's hearing on self-driving cars gives us an
opportunity to examine how the innovation in Michigan and
across the country can literally save lives.
The question is: how do we get there? How do we make sure
that the software, maps, and sensors powering driverless cars
are adequately researched and tested to guarantee that they're
ready for deployment and safe for American drivers? How do we
ensure that policymakers, at both the state and federal level,
are prepared for and understand the capabilities of vehicle
automation technologies? The most important thing is to make
sure that government, at any level, doesn't hinder the
development of this potentially game changing technology.
NHTSA's recently-released policy guidance was a
constructive first step in starting this conversation but also
gives way to new questions. Back home in Michigan, an effort
has already begun to address these issues. Michigan's proposed
American Center for Mobility at Willow Run has the opportunity
to offer policymakers and auto manufacturers across the nation,
and around the world, a one-stop-shop for testing and
certification for connected and automated vehicle technologies.
Using over 330 acres of land, this proposed test facility
accommodates a number of roadway and driving conditions that
will be critical for development and deployment of autonomous
car technology. With close proximity to Michigan's vehicle-to-
infrastructure corridor, University of Michigan's Mcity testing
facility, and home to many of our nation's automakers, this
represents a prime location for folks to test advanced
automotive technologies and prepare for the future of vehicle
transportation.
As I have often said before: auto safety is a matter of
life and death. Because of this technology's life-saving
potential, we cannot let the government get this wrong.
I look forward to a valuable discussion on the positive and
transformative impact that self-driving cars could have on the
safety of the driving public.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you, Chairman Burgess.
It's easy to understand why self-driving cars have
captivated the public, the media, and, of course, Congress.
With 94 percent of car crashes being caused by drunk or
distracted driving or other human errors, the future of fully
automated driving is bursting with possibilities.
Experts have said that if human error is out of the
picture, collision rates will fall significantly from the more
than 38,000 Americans killed in car crashes last year.
Self-driving cars have the potential to improve lives as
well as save them. Autonomous vehicles could give seniors and
people with disabilities independence and mobility, and remove
barriers to employment and social interaction. They also could
possibly reduce traffic in our cities and revolutionize public
transportation.
Autonomous vehicles have great potential, but they must be
deployed responsibly.
Robust cybersecurity is essential. As with all new
technologies, we must demand ``security by design,'' where
security is not an afterthought but is built into the product
from day one. As we saw just a few weeks ago, attacks on our
digital infrastructure are not hypothetical. And I look forward
to the hearing tomorrow when we review those attacks in this
Committee. But unlike that attack and some other cyber
breaches, attacks on computer-driven and connected cars are a
threat to human life.
We also need to see ``privacy by design,'' with consumer
privacy baked in from the start. Autonomous vehicles function
by collecting and processing vast amounts of information from
their surroundings. For example, most collect vehicle location
data and many operate using cameras and sensors that can
``see'' inside and outside the vehicle. Such data should be
property protected and only used for operation of the vehicle
and not shared.
Finally, safety must be the highest priority as autonomous
vehicles have already begun to share our streets. The American
public must know that these cars are safe before they are
widely deployed on public streets. The companies manufacturing
these vehicles cannot just say ``trust us.''
The challenge is twofold. First, we must ensure safety
during the decades of transition time when autonomous cars
share the road with human drivers. The interaction between
humans and computerized vehicles present unique challenges.
Second, the autonomous vehicles must be ready to deal with all
foreseen and unforeseen scenarios before they are permitted to
operate without a human driver in the driver's seat. These
scenarios include being prepared for wet, snow-covered pavement
to confronting a policeman who is using hand signals to
redirect traffic. Today's hearing will focus on fully
autonomous cars, but I will note that exciting semi-autonomous
technologies are already in the marketplace, such as automatic
braking, which I am optimistic will become standard on all
makes and models sooner than is currently promised.
I am hopeful that during today's hearing we will explore
the great potential of fully autonomous vehicles but also
appreciate that their benefits could be decades away from being
realized. Whatever the timeline, I am confident that America's
greatest minds will be able to meet the technological
challenges ahead while prioritizing safety, privacy, and
security. But together we also must address the challenge of
any job losses that result from automation, including that of
autonomous cars and trucks.
I would like to end by paying tribute to Clarence Ditlow,
Executive Director of the Center for Auto Safety, who passed
away late last week. Clarence was a tireless vehicle safety
advocate who was known not just for holding auto manufacturers
accountable, but also holding NHTSA and Congress accountable.
He testified numerous times before Congress, and throughout his
decades of auto safety advocacy, he worked on everything from
the Pinto explosions and Firestone tires to most recently
ignition switches and defective airbags. Cars, SUVs, and trucks
are safer today because of Clarence, and he will be missed by
the entire driving community.
I yield back.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]