    [Senate Hearing 114-659]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:20 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan Collins, (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Collins, Cassidy, Daines, Reed, and
    Murphy.

              The Automated and Self-Driving Vehicle Revolution:
                        What is the Role of Government?

                 opening statement of senator susan m. collins

        Senator Collins. This hearing will come to order.
        Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be joined today by our
    ranking member, Senator Jack Reed, and by Senator Cassidy and
    others who will be joining us, as we hold this hearing to
    examine the role of government in enhancing roadway safety
    through the careful deployment of automated and self-driving
    vehicles, which could revolutionize our transportation system.
        I also welcome our panel of witnesses. We are joined today
    by Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration; Deborah Hersman, the President
    and CEO of the National Safety Council; Paul Brubaker, the
    President and CEO of the Alliance for Transportation
    Innovation; and Dr. Nidhi Kalra, the Senior Information
    Scientist at the RAND Corporation. I look forward to hearing
    from each of you.
        The potential of the new technology that we're examining
    today is exciting, cars that drive themselves and avoid
    accidents, seniors and disabled individuals able to retain or
    gain their ability to get around town. At first, it sounds like
    science fiction or an advance far, far off into the future. But
    this technology is being tested and perfected right now, and it
    could save thousands of lives.
        According to the most recent statistics from the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 35,000 lives
    were lost in crashes on U.S. roadways in the year 2015.
    Preliminary estimates indicate a 10 percent increase in the
    first half of 2016. It is important to highlight that 94
    percent of these crashes are the result of human factors or,
    simply put, driver error such as distracted driving--sometimes
    caused by hands-free technology--impaired driving, and
    speeding. These crashes are preventable, and we should be doing
    everything we can to eliminate them.
        The testing and safe deployment of automated vehicle
    technologies has the potential to reduce substantially the
    number of driver-related crashes and fatalities. Let me
    emphasize that point: if this technology were to be perfected,
    automated vehicles could eliminate many of the crashes on our
    Nation's roadways and save thousands of lives each year.
        While fully self-driving autonomous vehicles are still
    years away from being available to the general public, many new
    vehicles already have driver-assisted features such as
    automatic emergency breaking, rearview cameras, my personal
    favorite, and lane-keep assist systems. These technologies are
    already making a difference, saving lives and reducing
    injuries.
        In addition to improving safety, self-driving vehicles can
    provide mobility options to our seniors and disabled people,
    particularly those living in rural communities like my State of
    Maine, where many of our older drivers currently do not have an
    easy way to get to the doctor or to the grocery store. Public
    transportation is nonexistent in much of Maine, and taxi
    service is very limited in rural areas. Seniors who can no
    longer drive often have very few options.
        A self-driving car, or even one with limited automated
    features, could help seniors feel more secure driving at night
    and could help those who currently must rely on others to get
    around, to maintain their independence. A recent survey of
    drivers over the age of 50 showed that almost 80 percent of
    those who plan to buy a car within the next 2 years will be
    seeking automated features such as blind spot warning, crash
    mitigation, and lane departure warning systems. Yet many
    consumers remain wary of purchasing a fully autonomous vehicle
    anytime soon. I know that the RAND Corporation has done a lot
    of work in the area of the potential benefits of automated
    technologies for our seniors.
        To help accelerate the safe testing and development of
    autonomous vehicles, the Department of Transportation released
    its ``Federal Automated Vehicles Policy'' on September 20th,
    which includes vehicle performance guidance, model state
    policy, an assessment of current regulatory tools, and a
    discussion of future regulatory tools that Congress may want to
    consider.
        While this was an important first step, it is clear that
    the DOT's guidance document needs further refinement to help
    ensure that automakers are able to bring the safety and
    mobility benefits of autonomous vehicles into the marketplace
    without unnecessary government regulations. I am particularly
    interested in hearing from our witnesses today on what
    improvements can be made to these guidelines.
        Automobile manufacturers face a number of roadblocks
    integrating autonomous vehicles onto our Nation's highways.
    Some have called on the Administration to put the brakes on
    autonomous vehicle deployment by imposing onerous requirements
    through a rulemaking process which could take several years to
    finalize, and my fear is that that would stifle innovation in
    the meantime.
        We must recognize that automated vehicle technology is
    advancing faster than government agencies can act, and in this
    instance impeding the advancement of technology may prevent us
    from saving lives. On the other hand, we also know that there
    have been some problems with the automated technology that has
    increased the incidence of distracted driving and perhaps led
    to additional accidents. The Department's guidance provides a
    more effective voluntary 15-point safety assessment that
    incentivizes automakers to certify that they have addressed all
    relevant issues ranging from cybersecurity to human-machine
    interface to ethical considerations.
        Another challenge facing autonomous vehicles is the vast
    number of State and local governments that are seeking to
    regulate this technology. Unlike vehicle safety, which is
    governed by Federal law, the safety and licensing of drivers
    are under the jurisdiction of State governments. While the
    Department's guidance deters States from interfering with
    Federal vehicle safety standards, one topic we will explore is
    whether or not DOT's approach also has the effect of
    encouraging State governments to set prohibitive requirements
    related to testing, licensing, and registration for automated
    vehicle testing.
        Given the public's keen interest in self-driving and
    automated vehicles, it is important for State governments to
    take a balanced approach in allowing the research, development,
    safe testing, and deployment of such vehicles. However, I would
    note that one serious accident, such as occurred in Florida,
    can cause great mistrust of this new technology, and that could
    lead to greater State restrictions on testing and deployment.
    It is particularly important that DOT work with automotive
    manufacturers, suppliers, and technology companies, as well as
    with the commercial end users of automated vehicles, to ensure
    that they are operating with an abundance of caution to avoid
    excessive government intervention that could interfere with the
    timely development of technologies that truly could save
    thousands of lives.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Susan M. Collins
        I am pleased to be joined today by our Ranking Member, Senator Jack
    Reed, as we hold this hearing to examine the role of government in
    enhancing roadway safety through the careful deployment of automated
    and self-driving vehicles, which could revolutionize our transportation
    system.
        I also welcome our panel of witnesses. We are joined today by Mark
    Rosekind, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration; Deborah Hersman, President and C.E.O. of the National
    Safety Council; Paul Brubaker, President and C.E.O. of the Alliance for
    Transportation Innovation; and Dr. Nidhi Kalra, Senior Information
    Scientist at the RAND Corporation. I look forward to hearing from each
    of you.
        The potential of this new technology is exciting. Cars that drive
    themselves and avoid accidents. Seniors and disabled individuals able
    to retain or gain their ability to get around town. At first, it sounds
    like science fiction or an advance far off in the future. But this
    technology is being tested and perfected right now, and it could save
    thousands of lives.
        According to the most recent statistics from the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration, more than 35,000 lives were lost in
    crashes on U.S. roadways in 2015, and preliminary estimates indicate a
    10 percent increase in the first half of 2016. It is important to
    highlight that 94 percent of roadway crashes are the result of human
    factors, or simply put, driver error, such as distracted driving--
    sometimes caused by hands-free technology, impaired driving, and
    speeding. These crashes are preventable, and we should do everything we
    can to eliminate them.
        The testing and safe deployment of automated vehicle technologies
    have the potential to reduce substantially the number of driver-related
    crashes and fatalities. Let me emphasize that point: if the technology
    were perfected, automated vehicles could eliminate many of the crashes
    on our Nation's roadways and save thousands of lives every year.
        While fully self-driving autonomous vehicles are still years away
    from being available to the general public, many new vehicles already
    have driver-assist features such as automatic emergency breaking,
    rearview cameras, and lane-keep assist systems. These technologies are
    already saving lives and reducing injuries on our roadways.
        In addition to improving safety, self-driving vehicles can provide
    mobility options to our seniors and disabled populations, particularly
    those living in rural communities like my State of Maine, where many of
    our older drivers currently do not have an easy way to get to the
    doctor or to the grocery store. Public transportation is nonexistent in
    much of Maine, and taxi service is very limited in rural areas. Seniors
    who can no longer drive often have very few options.
        A self-driving car, or even one with limited automated features,
    could help seniors feel more comfortable driving at night and could
    help those who currently must rely on others to get around to maintain
    their independence. A recent survey of drivers over the age of 50
    showed that almost 80 percent of those who plan to buy a car within the
    next 2 years will be seeking automated features such as blind spot
    warning, crash mitigation, and lane departure warning systems. Yet many
    consumers remain wary of purchasing a fully autonomous vehicle anytime
    soon. I know Dr. Kalra will provide us with more insight on the
    potential benefits of automated technologies for our seniors.
        To help accelerate the safe testing and deployment of autonomous
    vehicles, the Department of Transportation released its ``Federal
    Automated Vehicles Policy'' on September 20th, which includes vehicle
    performance guidance, model State policy, an assessment of current
    regulatory tools, and a discussion of future regulatory tools for
    Congressional consideration.
        While this was an important first step, it is clear that D.O.T.'s
    guidance document needs further refinement to help ensure that
    automakers are able to bring the safety and mobility benefits of
    autonomous vehicles into the marketplace without unnecessary government
    regulations. I am particularly interested in hearing from all of our
    witnesses today on what improvements can be made to these guidelines.
        Automobile manufacturers face a number of roadblocks integrating
    autonomous vehicles onto our Nation's roadways. Some have called on the
    Administration to put the brakes on autonomous vehicle deployment by
    imposing onerous requirements through a rulemaking process, which could
    take several years to finalize, stifling innovation in the meantime.
        We must recognize that automated vehicle technology is advancing
    faster than government agencies can act, and in this instance, impeding
    the advancement of technology may prevent us from saving lives. The
    Department's guidance provides a more effective voluntary 15-point
    ``safety assessment'' that incentivizes automakers to certify they have
    addressed all relevant issues ranging from cybersecurity, to human-
    machine interface, to ethical considerations.
        Another challenge facing autonomous vehicles is the vast number of
    State and local governments that are seeking to regulate this
    technology. Unlike vehicle safety, which is governed by Federal law,
    the safety and licensing of drivers are under the jurisdiction of State
    governments. While the Department's guidance deters States from
    interfering with Federal vehicle safety standards, one topic we will
    explore is whether or not D.O.T.'s approach also has the effect of
    encouraging State and local governments to set prohibitive requirements
    related to testing, licensing, and registration for automated vehicle
    testing.
        Given the public's keen interest in automated and self-driving
    vehicles, it is important for State and local governments to take a
    balanced approach in allowing the research, development, safe testing,
    and deployment of automated vehicles. However, one serious accident,
    such as occurred in Florida, can cause mistrust of this new technology,
    and that could lead to greater local restrictions on testing and
    deployment. It is particularly important that D.O.T. work with
    automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and technology companies, as well
    as the commercial end users of automated vehicles, to ensure they are
    operating with an abundance of caution to avoid excessive government
    intervention.
        With that, let me call upon my colleague and friend Senator Reed,
    the ranking member, for his opening statement.
        Senator Collins. With that, let me call upon my colleague
    and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, the ranking member,
    for his opening statement.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chairman Collins, for
    your leadership on so many issues, but particularly for holding
    this very important hearing on the future of self-driving
    vehicles. Let me join you in welcoming our witnesses. Thank you
    for your service and your expertise.
        Automated and self-driving vehicles are not yet common on
    our roads, but autonomous driving and safety features such as
    automatic emergency brakes and parking assist have been
    introduced gradually over the last several years. Manufacturers
    and innovators are now poised to take transformative leaps in
    the development, integration, and adoption of these
    technologies, and what was once novel is at the brink of
    becoming commonplace.
        As with any change, it brings opportunity as well as risk
    and anxiety. Particularly for the millions of Americans who
    earn a living as American commercial drivers, that is a
    significant issue that we should address. What remains
    unanswered is how this transportation revolution will evolve
    and what steps regulators and industry should take to foster
    and harness the positive aspects of this new technology.
        Today auto manufacturers, ride sharing companies, and other
    investors are funding research and development on driverless
    vehicles. They are also launching pilot programs to gather data
    and introduce consumers to different forms of the technology.
    Uber is allowing customers in Pittsburgh to share rides in
    self-driving cars. Otto, which is a self-driving bus and truck
    company owned by Uber, autonomously delivered commercial goods
    just last month. Tesla is collecting millions of miles of data
    from its semi-autonomous vehicles and announced that it will
    potentially make a full autonomous vehicle starting next year.
    Google has been designing and testing cars with no human driver
    for several years in California. And GM and Lyft have partnered
    to build an autonomous fleet that will be available for ride
    sharing.
        These companies are all using different strategies to
    achieve seemingly different goals. Some seek to provide
    efficient, accessible, and cost-effective transportation
    similar to Transit. Others want to improve freight
    transportation through fleets of autonomous trucks that can
    save gas and operator on the clock. What is clear is that
    technology is fundamentally changing vehicles as we know them.
        This innovation has the potential to dramatically improve
    highway safety, as well as expand mobility access for thousands
    of people, as the Chairman spoke about, seniors particularly.
    And it also has safety features which, as the Chairman
    commented on, are significant. In 2015, more than 35,000 people
    died in crashes on the Nation's highways. The number represents
    an 8 percent increase from the previous year and marked the
    deadliest year on record since 2008. These vehicles might help
    immensely in that regard. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration) found that 94 percent of those deaths
    were the result of human error, so autonomous vehicles could be
    a real game changer in this regard.
        We have a responsibility to fulfill this technology's
    promise and foster American innovation. But we also must be
    cognizant of the consequences of these technologies for the
    shifts in the American economy and effects on the American
    worker. Self-driving cars and trucks will certainly demand new
    kinds of jobs and skills, but these jobs may be in different
    sectors of the economy. For millions of Americans, particularly
    those without a college degree or advanced training, driving a
    bus, a cab, or a truck can provide a decent income. In fact,
    for many, it is the ticket to the middle class.
        In the latest year of data available from the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics, there are more than 4 million workers in the
    United States employed as drivers of trucks, taxis, chauffeurs
    or delivery vehicles. All of these are potentially in a space
    where they could be replaced by an autonomous vehicle. So we
    have to make sure that this technology not only enables better
    productivity but that it doesn't disqualify millions,
    literally, of Americans from good, solid jobs.
        We need to think through this policy very thoughtfully.
    This is a broader conversation not involving just the
    technologies but the Department of Labor, policymakers from a
    huge swath of the government, so that we get it right, and we
    get it right for the American workers as well as for the
    technology interest.
        Our regulatory agencies--and the Chairman has made the
    point that it's not just Federal but its State and local--have
    to be harmonized. We have to do this thoughtfully, and that is
    why, again, I commend the Chairman for calling this hearing
    today.
        NHTSA--thank you--recently released a guidance document for
    comment with the intent of promoting technological advancement
    and preventing a patchwork of State regulations. So thank you,
    Administrator Rosekind, for that work.
        There are many questions. When will NHTSA initiate a formal
    rulemaking on self-driving vehicles? When and how will the
    Federal motor vehicle safety standards be updated? How much
    data does NHTSA want to collect from industry and consumers,
    and how will it protect that data from cyber threats?
        We know industry will continue to innovate, deploy, and
    develop these technologies at a faster pace than government can
    respond, and this will present a challenge. We have to
    recognize this up front.
        But again, let me thank you, all of our witnesses for
    participating in our hearing today. I apologize for my Rhode
    Island accent. Other than that, I look forward to the
    testimony. Thank you.
        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
        I am going to put all of the witnesses' impressive bios
    into the record so that we can proceed with the testimony since
    I mentioned all of you in my opening statement.
        We will start with the Administrator of the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration, known as NHTSA, the
    Honorable Mark Rosekind.
    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK ROSEKIND, ADMINISTRATOR,
                NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
                ADMINISTRATION
        Mr. Rosekind. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
    Reed, other members of the committee. I really appreciate you
    holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify.
        At NHTSA, our mission is to save lives on America's
    roadways. For 50 years, we have carried out that mission by
    writing and enforcing strong 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 lives on America's roads.
        But we have far more work to do, and that work can be
    measured by some alarming numbers that all of you cited
    already. In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. At
    NHTSA, we know those are not just numbers. Those are mothers
    and fathers, brothers and sisters, colleagues, co-workers,
    friends. And the problem is that it's all getting worse.
        Last month we announced that roadway fatalities in the
    first half of this year are up over 10 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 truly
    their awesome potential to revolutionize roadway safety that
    has all of us so motivated.
        And there is one more number that helps us explain why, and
    that number is 94. That's the percentage of crashes that can be
    tied back to human choice or error. That's a choice to speed or
    drive drunk, send a text message from behind the wheel, or
    misjudge the stopping distance. That 94 percent represents the
    untold potential of automated vehicle 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.
        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'd like to share just for a few moments a little bit about
    our approach.
        For 50 years, our traditional approach at NHTSA has largely
    been reactive. NHTSA prescribes 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 approach would be slow, it would stymie innovation
    and would stall the introduction of these technologies.
        Our policy takes a very 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's going to take some adjustment for everyone
    involved.
        But we are confident that it will help us accomplish two
    goals: first, to make sure that new technologies are deployed
    safely; and second, to make sure that we don't get in the way
    of innovation. Our approach is non-prescriptive. It does not
    tell developers how they must provide safety but instead it
    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, quote, ``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 that the best way that 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 submit the balance of my statement for the record, and I
    look forward to taking your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Rosekind
        Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the
    Committee: Thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to
    testify. My name is Mark Rosekind, and I am the Administrator of the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA.
        At NHTSA, our mission is to save lives on America's roadways. For
    50 years, we have carried out that mission by writing and enforcing
    strong 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.
        But we have far more work to do. And that work can be measured by
    some alarming numbers.
        In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. At NHTSA, we
    know that is not just a number. Every one of those is a mother or
    father, a son or daughter, a coworker, a friend. In the United States,
    we lose the equivalent of a fully-loaded 747 on our roadways every
    single week.
        And the problem is getting worse. Last month we announced that
    roadway fatalities in the first half of this year are up over 10
    percent.
        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, reshape our transportation system and transform our
    economy, it is their awesome potential to revolutionize roadway safety
    that has us so 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's a choice to speed or drive drunk, to send a
    text message from behind the wheel or misjudge the stopping distance.
        And that 94 percent figure represents the untold potential of
    automated vehicle technologies. We envision a future where advanced
    technologies not only help reduce crashes, but also make possible a
    world in which fully self-driving cars hold the potential to eliminate
    traffic fatalities altogether.
        The Department of Transportation views this moment as the cusp of a
    new technological revolution that may transform roadway safety forever.
        The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, which the Department and
    NHTSA issued in mid-September, is the world's first comprehensive
    government action to guide the safe and efficient development and
    deployment of these technologies. Today, I will discuss that Policy,
    how we developed it, and where we are going next.
        In January of this year, Secretary Foxx made two important
    announcements.
        First, he announced that President Obama was making a $3.9 billion
    budget request for automated vehicles research. This is a major
    commitment from the Administration to advance this technology, and DOT
    continues to strongly support this request.
        Second, he directed NHTSA to write a new policy covering four
    areas: One, vehicle performance guidance for automakers, tech
    companies, researchers and other developers and testers 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.
        Over the subsequent 9 months, NHTSA hit the road, traveling to
    discuss automated vehicles with industry, academics, State governments,
    safety and mobility advocates, and the public. This Policy is the
    product of that significant input.
        Before discussing the individual components, I would like to share
    a few thoughts about our approach.
        First it is important to understand our traditional approach to
    regulating motor vehicles. For 50 years, our approach has largely been
    reactive. NHTSA has prescribed safety standards, and then responded to
    problems as they arise.
        A traditional approach to regulating these new technologies would
    be to engage solely in rulemaking process, writing new regulations that
    prescribe specific standards. Our view is that approach would stymie
    innovation and stall the introduction of these technologies.
        It would also be a long process. Rulemakings, and the research
    necessary to support them, take years, meaning that any rule we might
    offer today would likely be woefully out-of-date by the time it took
    effect, given the pace of technological development in this space. Let
    me be clear that using the notice-and-comment rulemaking process to
    establish new standards will absolutely play an important role as this
    technology matures and is adopted. But it is not the only tool in our
    bag, and we have created an innovative approach that will better serve
    both safety and innovation in the immediate term.
        Our Policy represents a continuation of the new proactive safety
    approach that we have built at NHTSA under the leadership of Secretary
    Foxx. This Policy allows NHTSA to work with automakers and developers
    on the front end, to ensure that sound approaches to safety are
    followed throughout the entire design and development process. This is
    a new approach, and it's going to take some adjustment for everyone
    involved. But we are confident that it will help us accomplish two
    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.
        As the Federal regulator with the responsibility of ensuring
    vehicles are as safe as they can possibly be, we play an important role
    on behalf of the American public to ensure that vehicle technologies do
    not present safety threats.
        At the same time, we recognize the great lifesaving potential of
    these new technologies, and want to do everything we can to make sure
    that potential is fully realized and that they are deployed as quickly
    as possible to save as many lives as we can.
        Some people have talked about safety and vehicle automation as on
    the opposite ends of a spectrum, as if there were a trade-off between
    safety and innovation. But at the Department of Transportation, we view
    our role as promoting safety innovation. Our Policy is designed to
    promote the safe and expeditious deployment of new technologies that
    have the potential to reduce crashes and save lives.
        Our approach is not prescriptive. It does not tell developers how
    they must provide safety, but instead it builds a transparent and
    proactive approach to ensure that they are properly addressing the
    critical safety areas.
        Finally, I want to be clear that while this Policy establishes an
    important framework for the development and deployment of automated
    vehicles, it is not the final word. In our view, this Policy is the
    right tool at the right time. It answers a call from industry, State
    and local governments, safety and mobility advocates and many others to
    lay a clear path forward for the safe deployment of automated vehicles
    and technologies.
        But we intend this Policy to evolve over time. That evolution will
    be based on comments we receive from the public, our own experience in
    implementing it over the coming months and years, and, perhaps most
    importantly, based on the rapid evolution of the technology itself. We
    have designed this Policy to be nimble and flexible, to allow us to
    stay at the leading edge of this revolution.
        Before I discuss each component of the Policy, allow me to say a
    few words on definitions.
        First, it is important to note that with this Policy, we are
    officially adopting the SAE International levels of automation, ranging
    from zero to five. The primary focus of the Policy overall is on what
    we refer to as ``highly automated vehicles'', or HAVs. Those are
    vehicles at levels three through five on the SAE level scale, or
    vehicles that--at least in some circumstances--take over full control
    of the driving task. A portion of the first section of the Policy also
    applies to Level 2 vehicle systems, which include advanced driver-
    assistance systems already on the road today.
        The Policy covers all automated vehicles that are designed to
    operate on public roads. That includes personal light vehicles, as well
    as heavy trucks. It even includes vehicles that might be designed to
    not carry passengers at all.
        Finally, I note that most of the Policy is effective immediately.
    We expect that developers and manufacturers of AV technologies will use
    the Policy to guide their safety approach. Some portions of the
    Policy--notably the Safety Assessment Letter in the Vehicle Performance
    Guidance--will become effective following a Paperwork Reduction Act
    process that we expect to be completed within the next few months.`
    Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles
        The first section is the Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated
    Vehicles. This is guidance for manufacturers, developers and other
    organizations involved in the development of automated vehicles. The
    heart of the Guidance is a 15 point ``Safety Assessment'' that spells
    out the critical safety areas that developers should address for the
    safe design, development, testing and deployment of highly automated
    vehicles prior to the sale or operation of such vehicles on public
    roads.
        The Safety Assessment covers areas such as the operational design
    domain--essentially the where and when an AV is designed to operate
    automatically--fallback conditions, cybersecurity, privacy, and the
    human-machine interface.
        We identified these areas through our extensive consultations with
    industry, academia and advocates as the critical safety issues that
    must be addressed to ensure that automated technologies are safe.
        Critically, the Guidance does not specify how AV developers are
    intended to address the areas. Instead, the Guidance asks developers to
    document their own processes and then provide NHTSA with a Safety
    Assessment letter in which they explain their approach. This process is
    expected to yield a variety of different approaches for every one of
    the areas. That is intentional, and is one of the ways that we are
    preserving and promoting the innovation process. Government does not
    have all the answers, and our view is that the more approaches that
    innovators take to solving these problems, the more likely we are to
    find the best way.
    Model State Policy
        The second section is the Model State Policy. For the last 50
    years, there has been a fairly clear division of responsibility between
    the Federal Government and the States for the oversight and regulation
    of motor vehicles. Generally speaking, it has been the Federal
    Government's responsibility to regulate motor vehicles and equipment
    safety, while the States have regulated drivers and traffic laws.
        That division of responsibility may be less clear in a highly
    automated vehicle world where increasingly the vehicle's automated
    systems become the driver.
        The Model State Policy delineates the Federal and State roles for
    the regulation of these vehicles, and it outlines the approach we
    recommend to States as they consider the regulation of testing and
    operation of automated vehicles on their public roads. Our goal is to
    build a consistent national framework for the development and
    deployment of automated vehicles, so that users can take their vehicles
    across State lines as they can today, and so that developers are
    building toward a single set of standards, rather than 50.
        The Model State Policy confirms that States retain their
    traditional responsibilities for vehicle licensing and registration,
    traffic laws and enforcement, and motor vehicle insurance and liability
    regimes. At the same time, the Policy reaffirms that the Federal
    Government will continue to be responsible for the oversight of vehicle
    safety and design, including automated features.
        The Policy was developed in close coordination with the American
    Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), individual States
    and other stakeholders. It suggests recommended areas for States to
    consider in the development of their own regulations, including testing
    regimes and registration. It also identifies a number of areas that
    need to be further discussed and developed, including how law
    enforcement will interact with highly automated vehicles, and the
    development of a consistent approach to insurance and liability
    challenges. We also note in the Policy that States do not have to take
    any action at all.
    NHTSA's Current Regulatory Tools
        The third section addresses NHTSA's Current Regulatory Tools. This
    section discusses how NHTSA will use the tools currently at its
    disposal to promote and expedite the safe development and deployment of
    highly automated vehicles.
        The first of those tools discussed is our interpretation authority.
    The current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards generally do not
    contemplate automated vehicle technologies. Therefore, it can sometimes
    be unclear how those standards apply to advanced technologies. In this
    section, we lay out the process by which developers of AV technologies
    can submit interpretation requests to the agency to determine whether
    and how their technologies conform with the standards. The agency also
    commits to a greatly expedited process for reviewing these
    interpretation requests. On simple safety-related interpretation
    requests, we commit to providing answers within 60 days. Compared to
    historical norms, that is lightning speed.
        The second tool discussed is our exemption authority. Congress has
    granted NHTSA the authority to provide exemptions to manufacturers to
    deploy vehicles that do not conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards. While these exemptions are admittedly limited--to 2,500
    vehicles for each of 2 years--the Agency views this tool as an
    important way of enabling a manufacturer to put a test fleet on the
    road to gather critical safety data and improve its technologies. The
    Policy similarly commits to an expedited process on simple safety-
    related exemptions, providing an answer within 6 months from the
    application.
        The Agency's broadest power is its ability to write new safety
    standards. While this tool tends to take the longest amount of time--
    usually a period of years--it is the method that will ultimately allow
    for the large-scale deployment of nontraditional vehicle designs and
    equipment under consistent, broadly applicable standards. In addition,
    to the extent that performance-based standards are adopted, this tool
    has the potential to allow for technological innovation while
    maintaining safety.
        In this section, we also highlight that the Agency retains its
    broad defects and enforcement authority. We use that authority to
    investigate any unreasonable risks to safety, and to recall unsafe
    vehicles from the road. The same day NHTSA issued the Policy, we also
    issued an Enforcement Guidance Bulletin that makes clear that the
    Agency's traditional enforcement authorities extend to advanced vehicle
    technologies.
    Modern Regulatory Tools
        The fourth and final section of the Policy discusses Modern
    Regulatory Tools, identifying 12 potential new tools, authorities and
    resources that could aid the safe deployment of new lifesaving
    technologies and enable the Agency to be more nimble and flexible.
        Today's governing statutes and regulations were developed before
    highly automated vehicles were even a remote notion. For that reason,
    current authorities and tools alone may not be sufficient to ensure
    that highly automated vehicles are introduced safely, and to realize
    their full safety promise. This challenge requires NHTSA to examine
    whether the ways in which the Agency has addressed safety for the last
    several decades should be expanded and supplemented.
        The new tools identified in this section include premarket
    approval, expanded exemption authority, imminent hazard authority, new
    research and hiring tools, and others that may better equip the Agency
    in the future as more technologies move from the lab to the road. These
    tools are offered for consideration by policymakers, industry,
    advocates and the public as we move forward.
        One thing we know for certain is that the agency will need
    additional resources as this technology develops and is adopted. I have
    great confidence in the NHTSA team's expertise and ability. But it is
    undeniable that as more automakers move technology from the lab to the
    test track to the road, we will need to make sure our Agency is
    properly resourced to maintain pace.
        We continue to support the President's budget request for more
    research dollars, and are committed to working with you in the coming
    months and years to identify what resources--both in personnel and
    research funding--will be necessary to achieve our mission.
    Next Steps
        Finally, with respect to the Policy, I would like to highlight once
    again that we fully intend this Policy to be the first iteration of
    many to come. The Policy is effective now, and will continue to evolve
    based on feedback and our experience implementing it, and, most
    importantly, to keep pace with innovation. To that end, each section of
    the Policy highlights a series of next steps that we will take to
    implement and improve the Policy over time.
        The first is our solicitation of public input. We are doing that
    through an open comment period that is open now through November 22nd.
    NHTSA is also hosting a series of public workshops that began earlier
    this month on different sections of the Policy. I will note here that
    the full Policy, additional materials, and the portal for public
    comments can be found at www.nhtsa.gov/AV.
        Over the coming months we will be engaging experts to review the
    Policy, issuing further guidance on the Safety Assessment letter, and
    engaging stakeholders across the spectrum to help flesh out other areas
    of the Policy. For example, we will work with law enforcement
    organizations to further the conversation about how AVs will interact
    with the police, and work with industry to build the framework for the
    data sharing discussed in the Vehicle Performance Guidance. We are also
    engaged with other operating modes throughout the Department of
    Transportation, recognizing the roles and responsibilities they play
    with respect to public transit, commercial freight operations, and the
    highway system on which automated vehicles will operate.
        We do not pretend to have answered every question in this Policy,
    and we will continue the conversation with the public about the best
    ways to develop and improve our Policy as we learn more. To that end,
    the Department of Transportation has committed to reviewing and
    updating the Policy annually.
        As I conclude, I want to say a few words about the importance of
    the present moment in history. We have an industry that is rapidly
    developing innovative new technologies. And we have a government that
    is inspired and excited about the future of this technology.
        But that future is not without threats. Bad actors or bad incidents
    could threaten to derail our collective efforts.
        I want to close with the words President Obama used when he
    announced our new Policy in an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He
    wrote, ``There are always those who argue that government should stay
    out of free enterprise entirely, but I think most Americans would agree
    we still need rules to keep our air and water clean, and our food and
    medicine safe. That's the general principle here. What's more, 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 strong view that 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 the industry is on the side
    of safety. We encourage you to join with us as we continue to develop
    this Policy and show the American public that their safety is the
    highest priority for all of us.
        Thank you.

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Hersman.
    STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH HERSMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
        Ms. Hersman. Chairman Collins, Senator Reed, thank you for
    having me today. I'd like to acknowledge my board chair, Mr.
    John Surma, who is here with me in the audience today.
        Today we have millions of drivers behind the wheel, we
    spend millions of dollars on education and enforcement
    campaigns, but we still lose tens of thousands of people on our
    roadways and experience billions of dollars in economic losses
    as a result of highway crashes. In spite of safer vehicle
    designs and record-setting seatbelt use rates across the
    Nation, operating a motor vehicle remains one of the deadliest
    things that we do every day.
        Compared to other high-income countries, the United States'
    death rate is more than double our counterparts, and it's not
    because we don't have automated vehicles. It's because we
    aren't willing to do the hard things that we know will save
    lives.
        Three to five thousand lives per year would be saved if
    everyone buckled up. Ten thousand lives would be saved if
    nobody drove drunk. Just three technologies that are available
    on cars today--automatic emergency braking, lane departure
    warning, and blind spot detection--if these were all standard
    equipment on cars, 10,000 lives could be saved.
        The AV policy begins an important discussion, and we
    applaud NHTSA and DOT for issuing it. Federal leadership on
    motor vehicle safety is necessary because we can only have one
    level of safety when it comes to our stakeholders and our
    constituents. Your constituents need to be confident that
    vehicles are safe regardless of where they reside.
    Manufacturers need certainty in order to invest in design and
    production, and States do not possess the expertise or the
    resources to replicate design, testing, and reporting programs.
        Further, a patchwork of requirements will result in
    confusion for consumers and increased costs for manufacturers
    and operators attempting to comply with myriad requirements.
        Finally, the absence of a safe, workable standard will
    drive development and testing and deployment overseas,
    resulting in the flight of innovation from the United States
    and the jobs that accompany it to locations outside of our
    borders.
        NSC fully believes that automated vehicles have the
    potential to save lives and prevent injuries, but here are
    several key issues that we recommend that policymakers
    consider.
        Delayed integration into the fleet. It will be a long time
    before highly automated vehicles replace our current fleet. How
    do we ensure rapid acceptance and adoption of lifesaving
    technologies that are available today? Electronic stability
    control paints the picture of the headwinds that we're facing.
        DSRC--also known as V2V, V2I, and V2X--complementary
    technology must be taken into account. We need a belt-and-
    suspenders approach when it comes to highway safety.
        Data sharing in a post-crash event. My experience at the
    NTSB taught me that we must rely on the data for truths. If you
    can't access it, you won't learn the lessons.
        De-identified data. The automotive industry must figure out
    how to balance privacy and proprietary concerns against the
    predictive value of big data. Too many lives are at stake.
    Cooperation will help us unravel unintended consequences and
    identify new failure modes.
        Consumer education. Today, 40 percent of consumers are
    startled by the way that their car has behaved. We will not
    realize the full benefit of technology if we don't keep human
    beings in the loop.
        Lack of common taxonomy and standards. Today, manufacturers
    have multiple names and different performance expectations for
    similar systems. Shouldn't all AEB systems prevent collisions?
        NHTSA resources. We cannot ask NHTSA to do more with less.
    Automated vehicles will require more evaluation, more testing,
    and more expertise than NHTSA possesses today.
        Although we can imagine a future with automated vehicles,
    the transition from Level 1 to Level 5 will be messy as we deal
    with predictable human-machine issues. We cannot afford to
    ignore the carnage on our roadways that is a national epidemic.
    Efforts like Road to Zero will decrease fatalities today,
    tomorrow, and in the future if we embrace proven counter-
    measures and accelerate deployment of effective ADAS
    technologies and highly automated vehicles.
        The National Safety Council appreciates the committee's
    leadership. If safety for the traveling public is the ultimate
    goal, advanced technology provides the most promising
    opportunity to achieve that outcome and will go a long way
    toward eliminating preventable deaths in our lifetime. Thank
    you.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Deborah A.P. Hersman
        Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed and other members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
    The National Safety Council (NSC) is a 100-year-old nonprofit with a
    vision to end preventable deaths in our lifetime at work, in homes and
    communities and on the road through leadership, research, education and
    advocacy. Our more than 13,500 member companies represent employees at
    more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. For decades we have advocated for
    safer cars, safer drivers and a more forgiving environment in and
    around vehicles. We have led large scale public education campaigns on
    the importance of seatbelts and airbags, eliminating distracted
    driving, and helping consumers understand the technologies in their
    vehicles to reduce deaths and injuries on our roadways. We also educate
    close to 1.3 million drivers a year in Defensive Driving courses.
       national highway traffic safety administration automated vehicles
                                     policy
        The rapid pace of technological advancement means that regulators
    are hard-pressed to keep ahead of industry as manufacturers offer
    systems unheard of just a decade ago. However, NSC believes there are
    appropriate and necessary roles for both innovation by manufacturers
    and regulation by officials charged with ensuring public safety. The
    NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Federal
    Automated Vehicles Policy (AV policy) is a step in the right direction.
    It provides a framework in which manufacturers can work and States can
    establish appropriate enforcement and oversight, while underscoring
    NHTSA safety authority and recognizing the need for additional tools to
    keep pace in this fast-moving environment. It also provides guidance
    for more uniform Federal oversight rather than a potential patchwork of
    regulations by the States.
        Federal leadership on motor vehicle safety is necessary because
    there should only be ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY. Consumers need confidence in
    vehicles regardless of where they reside; manufacturers need certainty
    in order to invest in design and production, and States do not possess
    the expertise and the resources to replicate design, testing and
    reporting programs. Further, a patchwork of requirements will result in
    confusion for consumers and increased cost for manufacturers and
    operators attempting to comply with a myriad of requirements. Finally,
    the absence of a safe, workable standard will drive development,
    testing and deployment overseas, resulting in the flight of innovation
    and the jobs that accompany it to locations outside of the U.S.
                the lifesaving potential of advanced technology
        NSC believes advanced vehicle technology, up to and including fully
    automated vehicles, can provide many benefits to society. The most
    important contribution will be the potential to greatly reduce the
    number of fatal crashes on our roadways, which are increasing. Every
    day we lose approximately 100 people in motor vehicles crashes, and
    every year more than 4 million people are injured. Beyond the human
    toll, these deaths and injuries cost society over $379 billion,
    including productivity losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle property
    damages and employer costs.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Injury Facts 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NSC data reveal that the 19,100 roadway fatalities during the first
    6 months of 2016 are 9 percent higher than the same period last year
    and 18 percent higher than the same period 2 years ago. If we are to
    make a meaningful change in this trend, there must be a sense of
    urgency coupled with large, near term gains to save lives on our
    roadways.

                        Motor Vehicle Deaths on the Rise

    Source: NSC analysis of National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
    mortality data and NSC estimate for 2016.

        While the absolute numbers of fatalities change from year to year,
    many of the same behavioral problems remain persistent and have been
    represented in the data for decades. For example, in 2014:
        9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812231.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3,179 people were killed in distraction related crashes \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    812260.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        9,385 people were killed while unrestrained.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812246.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NHTSA estimates that 94 percent of all fatal crashes have an
    element of human error. Therefore, if we are to eliminate or reduce the
    number of fatalities on our roadways, advances in vehicle technology
    must be part of the solution. However, it will likely be decades before
    we have meaningful fleet penetration of fully automated vehicles.
        Last month, the NSC and the National Transportation Safety Board
    (NTSB) hosted a full day event with dozens of expert panelists focused
    on Reaching Zero Crashes: A dialogue on the Role of Advanced Driver
    Assistance Systems (ADAS).\5\ While there is a great deal of excitement
    about highly automated vehicles (HAVs), automated vehicles and their
    potential to save lives, it is important to recognize that many legacy
    technologies represent the building blocks for fully automated
    vehicles. Greater consumer acceptance of the dozens of safety
    technologies that are available today would lead to more rapid adoption
    of them, saving lives and preventing injuries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2016_dte_RT_agenda.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As an example, Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is a technology
    that uses automatic computer controlled braking of individual wheels to
    help the driver maintain control in risky driving scenarios. ESC
    primarily mitigates single vehicle, loss of control crashes in which
    drivers would run off the road. For passenger cars as well as light
    trucks and vans, it is estimated that ESC systems have saved more than
    4,100 lives during the 5-year period from 2010 to 2014, but
    incorporation into vehicles on the road remains slow.\6\ The following
    charts from the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI) reveal how slowly
    ADAS technologies are achieving penetration in the U.S. fleet due to
    normal turnover of inventory--with the average age of cars in the U.S.
    fleet being 11.5 years old.\7\ Electronic stability control has been
    available for decades and was mandated on all new passenger cars by the
    2012 model year, but in 2015 only 40 percent of registered vehicles
    were equipped with ESC. Despite a clear life-saving benefit, full fleet
    penetration of this technology is not predicted until the 2040s.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    812277.
        \7\ Http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/
    publications/national_transportation_
    statistics/html/table_01_26.html_mfd.
        \8\ Http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/
    2016_dte_RT_p1_p3_moore.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       New Vehicle Series With Electronic Stability Control by Model Year

    Source: HLDI.

     Registered Vehicles With Electronic Stability Control by Calendar Year

    Source: HLDI.

          Registered Vehicles With Available ESC, Actual and Predicted

    Source: HLDI.

        ADAS already operate on the roadways today, but more could be done
    to encourage greater fleet penetration. Features like lane departure
    warning systems, blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise control and
    others help to prevent or mitigate crashes. The cost of these
    technologies is declining and their impact is measurable. According to
    the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), if four current
    technologies--forward collision warning/mitigation, lane departure
    warning/prevention, side view assist/blind spot monitoring, and
    adaptive headlights--were deployed in all passenger vehicles, they
    could prevent or mitigate as many as 1.86 million crashes and save more
    than 10,000 lives per year.\9\ However, front crash prevention,
    commonly referred to as automatic emergency braking, which was an
    option in about half new 2015 model year cars, was in only 8 percent of
    registered cars in 2015.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.020.
        \10\ Http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/
    2016_dte_RT_p1_p3_moore.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Crashes Relevant to 4 Crash Avoidance Systems FARS and GES, 2004-2008

    Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

        Similar conclusions were reached in a July 2016, Carnegie Mellon
    study which stated that just three technologies--forward collision
    warning, lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring--could have
    prevented or reduced as many as 1.3 million crashes annually and over
    10,000 fatal crashes.\11\ This study further found that almost one
    quarter of all crashes could be affected by these crash avoidance
    systems, but only 2 percent of 2013 model year cars included these
    systems as standard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.06.017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While many of these technologies are available on higher value cars
    or as part of an upgraded technology package today, they are not
    standard equipment on all makes and models. Safety should not be just
    for those who can afford it, especially for technologies that will
    result in thousands of lives saved every year. The Carnegie Mellon
    study estimated that if all light-duty vehicles were equipped with the
    three technologies, they would provide a lower bound annual benefit of
    about $18 billion. With 2015 pricing, it would cost about $13 billion
    to equip all light-duty vehicles with the three technologies, resulting
    in an annual net benefit of about $4 billion or a $20 per vehicle net
    benefit. By assuming all relevant crashes are avoided, the total upper
    bound annual net benefit from all three technologies combined is about
    $202 billion or an $861 per vehicle net benefit, at current technology
    costs.
        NSC recognizes and applauds the voluntary commitment made earlier
    this year by 20 automakers to include automatic emergency braking (AEB)
    on all vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2022. Toyota has already committed
    to beat this date by several years. Given the slow turnover of the
    fleet, we encourage other manufacturers to view the 2022 date as a
    finish line rather than a starting point and accelerate the roll out of
    AEB and other lifesaving technologies.
        Whether mandated or optional, in many cases these systems can
    perform driving tasks more predictably, more conservatively and more
    safely than a human driver, and may act without driver input if a
    driver is distracted, impaired or incapacitated. However, because there
    are no minimum standards for many of these technologies, legitimate
    questions about their effectiveness remain. The line between ADAS and
    highly automated vehicles may be blurred, as we have progressed far
    down the path of advanced features with few questions and widespread
    acceptance of semi-automated features.
                      dedicated short range communication
        Another component of ADAS and automated vehicle systems is
    dedicated short range communication (DSRC), which would allow vehicles
    to communicate over dedicated spectrum bands with each other,
    pedestrians, and infrastructure to prevent collisions. This technology,
    often referred to as V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle), V2I (vehicle-to-
    infrastructure), V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian), or V2X (vehicle-to-
    everything), is pending a rulemaking decision by NHTSA to establish
    performance standards. NSC encourages NHTSA to release this standard
    soon so that implementation of V2X can be more widespread.
        DSRC can create redundant safety systems in motor vehicles. In
    other modes of transportation, fail-safe designs can support operator
    error, but in highway vehicles that task has fallen solely on drivers.
    DSRC would allow a vehicle to communicate with a red light to
    compensate for a fatigued driver, stop a car to prevent a collision
    with a pedestrian if a driver fails to detect him or her, and prevent
    or mitigate collisions between vehicles equipped with DSRC. DSRC has
    been deployed by some manufacturers, but NSC believes it is an
    important option in a safe systems approach to the design of HAVs and
    anticipates it will be more widely deployed if there is more regulatory
    certainty.
                             education and training
        One component in the AV policy that should be a requirement moving
    forward is the incorporation of driver education and training about new
    safety technologies. With nearly 17.4 million new passenger cars and
    trucks sold in 2015,\12\ understanding the technology on these vehicles
    is necessary, yet a University of Iowa survey found that 40 percent of
    respondents reported they had experienced a situation in which their
    vehicle acted in an unexpected way.\13\ When this occurs in a real-life
    driving situation, among multiple drivers, it can lead to disastrous
    outcomes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Http://www.autoalliance.org/auto-marketplace/sales-data.
        \13\ University of Iowa. National Consumer Survey of Driving Safety
    Technologies. July 30, 2015. Accessible at http://ppc.uiowa.edu/sites/
    default/files/national_consumer_survey_
    technical_report_final_8.7.15.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Safety Council and our research partners at the
    University of Iowa are focused on educating consumers about in-vehicle
    safety technology through our MyCarDoesWhat campaign.\14\ This brand
    agnostic education campaign informs drivers about how safety
    technologies work, how to best interact with them, and how to identify
    situations when the technology may not perform optimally and should not
    be relied upon. Because of the need for continued human involvement in
    the operation of many of these features, the campaign tagline is You
    are your car's best safety feature.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ www.mycardoeswhat.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Visitors to MyCarDoesWhat.org realize improvement in general
    knowledge and accurate comprehension of vehicle safety features.
    Drivers cannot effectively use these life-saving technologies if they
    do not understand both their functions and limitations. The AV policy
    proposes that this education be delivered in multiple ways, including
    computer based, hands-on and virtual reality training, and other
    innovative approaches. The MyCarDoesWhat education campaign follows
    that approach, and is developing virtual reality modules for release
    early next year. Further, we recommend ongoing evaluation to determine
    the effectiveness of the various messages, methods of delivery and
    media so they can be improved over time.
               standardized nomenclature and performance outcomes
        Another way to reduce consumer confusion is to standardize the
    nomenclature or taxonomy for advanced technologies. NSC, the State of
    California, and Consumer Reports have recommended that, at the very
    least, systems that are not completely automated or Level 5 should not
    be described as such. ADAS, with emphasis on driver assist, represents
    the vehicles being sold today and requires drivers to remain fully
    engaged in the driving task. That fact is often lost in marketing,
    media reports and consumer expectations. Labeling a motor vehicle as
    ``autonomous'' today, or even using terms such as ``autopilot'', only
    confuses consumers and can contribute to losses of situational
    awareness around the driving task.
        By establishing standard nomenclature and establishing clear
    performance outcomes, consumers will better understand what they should
    expect from these technologies. For example, vehicles marketed as
    having AEB will not necessarily come to a complete stop before a
    collision.\15\ Some AEB systems only operate at higher speeds, and some
    are designed to slow rather than stop prior to a collision. These
    nuances may not be easily understood by consumers. IIHS reports that
    systems with a warning only, but no automatic corrective action, reduce
    frontal crash rates by about 25 percent, but vehicles with automatic
    braking reduce crashes by more than 40 percent. Vehicles with a warning
    and automatic braking reduce crash rates by about 50 percent.
    Establishing a standardized, results-based, understandable definition
    of AEB and other ADAS technologies would benefit consumers,
    manufacturers, and dealers, as well as organizations that evaluate
    vehicles for their safety benefits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/Driver-Assist-
    Technologies.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) program has operated
    for nearly 40 years with a goal of testing vehicle safety systems and
    educating consumers about them. Practically, it has created a mechanism
    to allow consumers to evaluate vehicles on safety systems. NSC supports
    NCAP and believes it is an important program to improve the safety of
    the motor vehicle fleet. Standardized nomenclature and performance
    outcomes will ensure NCAP can more effectively compare vehicle safety
    systems between manufacturers, and even between a manufacturer's own
    models.
                          data protection and sharing
        The National Safety Council is very bullish on ADAS, and eventually
    fully automated vehicles, because we know when implemented safely and
    properly, they will help us realize huge gains in reducing roadway
    fatalities. But a minimum requirement, if we are to realize the life-
    saving benefits, will be ensuring that we have reliable event data
    recorders that produce data in a standardized format that is
    downloadable for investigators, law enforcement, State highway safety
    offices, insurers and other relevant stakeholders. Following a crash,
    we must be able to answer simple questions like whether the vehicle
    systems or the human driver had control of the car, if and how the
    vehicle was communicating with the driver, and if all systems were
    working as designed.
        The AV policy details the importance of data collection as these
    technologies begin to be tested in real-world scenarios. Understanding
    the circumstances and causes surrounding malfunctions, including at
    lower levels of automation, will help make this technology stronger and
    safer, and ensure failures are less likely to occur as technology
    evolves. This will be especially important in assuring consumers of the
    reliability of ADAS and automated technology. As the former Chairman of
    the NTSB, I believe that minimum parameters should be set for data
    preservation, standardization of formats, ease of access for post-crash
    evaluation, and establishment of privacy protections early in the
    process. Data-sharing programs require greater maturity and a strong
    safety culture committed to continuous improvement.
        Event data recorders (EDRs) are widely used throughout the
    automotive industry in vehicles of all shapes and sizes, yielding
    valuable data in crash reconstruction efforts. Similar devices are used
    in other modes of transportation as well. Amtrak utilizes event data
    recorders that automatically transmit data from locomotive recorders to
    a control center when an event occurs. In the aviation industry, crash-
    hardened ``black box'' data recorders store thousands of parameters of
    data. Much of this information is collected after normal flights and
    analyzed by the operator to learn about and improve operations, and in
    the case of an incident, the data is invaluable to investigators to
    determine what occurred. The same could be true for motor vehicles.
        Missing from the policy, however, is clarification on whether
    lower-level systems (below Level 3) should be subject to the same data
    collection guidelines. The current event data recorder standards do not
    require the majority of Levels 1 and 2 safety systems' sensors be
    tracked.\16\ This lack of information limits real world data
    availability that could guide the future development of these
    technologies to make them safer. Currently, there is no easy way for
    manufacturers, law enforcement, investigators or vehicle owners to
    understand whether deployed systems were active during a crash, whether
    they malfunctioned, or whether they helped mitigate damage or injury or
    returned the car to a safe state in event of a malfunction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ 49 CFR 563.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Information sharing is included in the AV policy. However, the
    policy fails to mention the public health argument for collecting data
    from electronic devices in the car in the event of a crash. Acquiring
    an understanding of what happens when systems perform as intended, fail
    as expected, or fail in unexpected ways will yield valuable information
    for manufacturers--some of whom have common suppliers. Further, in-
    service data, as well as near miss and post-crash information sharing,
    can help civil engineers and planners design better and safer roadways,
    as well as help safety and health professionals design better
    interventions to discourage risky driving or affect the behaviors of
    other roadway users.
        De-identified data sharing has been in existence in the aviation
    industry for many years and proven highly successful. The Aviation
    Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) system allows for
    sharing of de-identified data across the aviation industry, making it
    possible for the industry to identify trends and act on them. Analysis
    of de-identified data will provide windows in to leading indicators in
    the motor vehicle industry. Leading indicators are ``proactive,
    preventative and predictive measures that monitor and provide current
    information about the effective performance, activities and processes
    of a . . . system that drive the identification and eliminate or
    control of risks.'' \17\ The NSC Campbell Institute, a leader in
    workplace safety, health and sustainability, states that tracking
    leading indicators allows world-class safety organizations to make
    further improvements to their safety records.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/
    download.php?id=20130925358263a8956de938e7c00
    a2bbbb8413d.
        \18\ Http://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/file/
    download.php?id=2015092336b107f72d10a379134
    af9249d3457ab.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The AV policy also suggests that auto manufacturers use EDRs to
    gain a better understanding of how human operators engage with advanced
    technology. This knowledge will allow manufacturers to be nimbler and
    make adjustments in near real time for some systems based on what is
    actually occurring in the driver's seat, rather than making changes
    based on assumptions and estimations that must be accommodated in a
    later model year. Collecting and sharing de-identified data about near
    misses and other relevant problems could also help by aggregating
    useful information for the automotive industry, allowing them to take
    proactive steps based on leading indicators rather than waiting for a
    crash or a series of crashes to occur. Finally, this data would be
    useful to researchers and the safety community in analyzing the safety
    benefits--and potential drawbacks--of these technologies as they
    continue to mature.
        While there are competing priorities regarding protecting personal
    privacy and proprietary systems or designs, NSC believes that safety
    should be the ultimate priority, and that other concerns need to be
    accommodated to prioritize safety. NHTSA should facilitate data sharing
    as widely as possible and require that manufacturers provide
    accessible, standardized data to law enforcement, State highway safety
    offices, investigators, insurers, and/or other relevant stakeholders.
                 american national standards institute standard
        As important as it is for the average consumer to know and
    understand the ADAS and automated technology, there is also work to be
    done on this issue as it relates to the technology and its rollout to
    commercial fleets. As such, NSC is taking a leading role working with
    the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and a wide array of
    experts in the automotive industry, technology sector, academia and
    fleet management, to develop an ANSI (American National Standards
    Institute) standard to address policies, procedures and management
    processes that will assist in the control of risks and exposures
    associated with the operation of autonomous fleet vehicles on public
    thoroughfares.
    national highway traffic safety administration resources and oversight
                      in the midst of changing technology
        In response to reports of repeated incidents of unintended
    acceleration in Toyota vehicles in 2009-2010, the National Research
    Council Transportation Research Board conducted an investigation into
    whether NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) had
    reached the correct conclusion in its own investigation, as well as to
    produce advice on how to best handle future issues involving the safe
    performance of vehicle electronics. This research resulted in a report,
    released on January 18, 2012.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/
    newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13342.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Research Council found that while NHTSA's decision to close its
    investigation was justified, it was ``troubling that NHTSA could not
    convincingly address public concerns about the safety of automotive
    electronics.'' More specifically, the Research Council stated that ``to
    respond effectively and confidently to claims of defects in the more
    complex electronic systems . . .  NHTSA will require additional
    specialized technical expertise.'' While they acknowledged it was
    unrealistic to expect NHTSA to hire and maintain these specialized
    personnel in a constantly evolving field, they made a specific
    recommendation that NHTSA establish a standing technical advisory panel
    with members representing a wide array of technical expertise central
    to the design, development, and safety assurance of automotive
    electronics systems.
        With technology advancing as quickly as it is, it is difficult to
    keep up with advances without appropriate resources. Last year, NSC
    supported the administration's NHTSA funding request of $1.1813
    billion, which included $200 million for the Autonomous Vehicle
    Development program. We encourage this Committee and Congress to fully
    fund NHTSA, including requested investments in programs that will
    support the development of ADAS and HAVs. We also recommend that NHTSA
    consider how to best take advantage of existing knowledge by
    establishing an advisory committee or similar mechanism to engage
    experts in the field of advanced technology and automotive electronic
    systems.
                                  road to zero
        On October 5, NSC, NHSTA, the Federal Highway Administration
    (FHWA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
    announced the Road to Zero (RTZ) Coalition. RTZ is a partnership
    initiative focused on dramatic reductions in roadway fatalities. Over
    80 public and private organizations attended the announcement to learn
    more about committing to a shared vision of zero fatalities on our
    roadways. The first meeting of the coalition will be on December 15.
        The purpose of the Road to Zero Coalition is to (1) encourage and
    facilitate widespread implementation of countermeasures to reduce motor
    vehicle crash deaths in the near term; (2) develop a scenario-based
    vision for zero U.S. traffic deaths in the future; and (3) provide a
    roadmap for policymakers and stakeholders to eliminate traffic deaths.
        NSC is joined on the Steering Group for the Road to Zero Coalition
    by the following organizations: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
    American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
    Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), Governors Highway Safety
    Association (GHSA), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Intelligent Car
    Coalition, International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),
    Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), National Association of State
    Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO), National Association of
    City Transportation Officials (NACTO), National Association of County
    Engineers (NACE), and the Vision Zero Network.
        On behalf of the Coalition, the NSC will administer a grant program
    to support national non-profit organizations committed to roadway
    safety programs that address the overlaps and gaps between roadway
    users, vehicles and infrastructure. In addition, the Coalition will
    look at engaging others in near term solutions and countermeasures to
    reduce the death toll on our roadways. Finally, we will also provide
    critical input for the development of a future community scenario with
    zero traffic fatalities--an effort to look at the measures, programs
    and technologies will be necessary to reach zero highway fatalities in
    30 years and work back from there. NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, and NSC are
    sponsoring the development of the scenario-based vision for zero
    traffic deaths in the U.S. in a 30-year timeframe, and the RAND
    Corporation has been retained to produce the scenario over the next 12-
    18 months. I look forward to briefing this Committee and others in
    Congress on the results of these activities and the efforts of the
    Coalition to reach zero deaths on our roadways.
                                   conclusion
        Today, we have millions of drivers behind the wheel, spend millions
    of dollars on education and enforcement campaigns, and still recognize
    billions in economic loses as a result of crashes. In spite of safer
    vehicle designs and record-setting seat belt use rates across the
    Nation, operating a motor vehicle remains one of the deadliest things
    we do on a daily basis.
        NSC believes fully automated vehicles have the potential to save
    lives and prevent injuries, but--as outlined above--there are several
    key issues that policymakers must address. The AV policy begins this
    discussion, and we applaud NHTSA and DOT for issuing it.
        It will be a long time before HAVs replace our current fleet. The
    transition will likely be messy as we deal with a complex and ever-
    changing Human-Machine interface. There will be an evolution of the
    existing technologies and perhaps a revolution when it comes to new and
    different technologies. We need to be prepared for unanticipated
    consequences and new failure modes.
        Although we can imagine a future with automated vehicles, it will
    be a long and winding road to get to the destination of zero fatalities
    as a result of HAVs. We cannot afford to ignore the carnage on our
    highways that is a national epidemic today. The U.S. trails other
    industrialized countries in addressing highway deaths. Efforts like
    Road to Zero will decrease fatalities today, tomorrow, and in the
    future if we embrace proven countermeasures and accelerate deployment
    of effective ADAS technologies.
        NSC appreciates this Committee's leadership on vehicle technology
    and safe roadway transportation. If safety for the traveling public is
    the ultimate goal, advanced technology provides the most promising
    opportunity to achieve that outcome, and will go a long way toward
    reaching the goal of eliminating preventable deaths in our lifetime.

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Ms. Hersman.
        Mr. Brubaker.
    STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL BRUBAKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
                ALLIANCE FOR TRANSPORTATION INNOVATION
        Mr. Brubaker. Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Alliance for
    Transportation Innovation, I would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to share our views on the role of government in
    integrating autonomous vehicles onto our Nation's roads.
        The safety and social benefits that can be achieved by
    replacing human drivers with modern sensors and computers are
    too profound not to be encouraged through government policy.
    Yet regulation has failed to keep pace with innovation, and we
    see evidence of a significant gap in understanding of these
    technologies within all levels of government. It's a gap that
    must be bridged so regulators can better understand when it's
    best to lead, follow, or move out of the way.
        We believe the Administration's recently released AV policy
    is a good first step in opening communication channels that can
    help to bridge this gap. We will formally be commenting on this
    policy by the end of the week.
        But despite this disconnect industry and innovators are
    still working hard to integrate the development and deployment
    of autonomous systems and are investing billions of dollars
    with safety top of mind. These technologies are already being
    tested on our roads. In fact, just 3 weeks ago we saw the first
    commercial delivery of a truckload of beer delivered by a self-
    driving tractor trailer. Shortly, some in the auto industry
    will be prepared to offer full self-driving capability to the
    public, and government leaders must ensure that our current
    regulatory approaches do not constrain the development of these
    technologies. Lives depend on it.
        To put a fine point on the subject, human drivers are
    simply killers. Errors in human judgment while at the controls
    of motor vehicles account for more than 90 percent of the car
    crashes that last year killed over 34,000 people in the United
    States and claimed 1.3 million lives around the globe.
        Computers don't get tired. They don't text. They don't
    drink and drive, and they don't get road rage. Networks,
    sensors, maps, computing, artificial intelligence, machine
    learning, and vehicle controls work in concert to detect
    objects, analyze probabilities, consider options, make
    decisions, and take actions, all at the speed of light, and all
    with significantly greater reliability and efficiency than
    humans.
        This capability is improving rapidly, and government needs
    to keep pace or risk undermining the promise of tomorrow by
    applying the regulations of yesteryear. Government cannot
    simply allow itself to be the obstacle to saving lives.
        We hear a lot about these 34,000 fatal crashes and the fact
    that 94 percent of them are caused by human error. But the
    problem with statistics is they numb us with the fact that
    we're talking about people, individual parents, siblings, sons
    and daughters who are suddenly and cruelly taken away from us.
    Sons like Leo Vagias--and his father Teddy is right here behind
    me--and his best friend Sam Cali were killed in a very
    preventable car crash just this past June in New Jersey in a
    scenario that gets repeated too often and claims 96 lives a
    day. It needs to stop, and we have a collective obligation--
    industry, government, and citizens--to accelerate the
    development, testing and deployment of life-saving self-driving
    technologies.
        But this journey to self-driving is complex, and
    integrating these technologies onto our Nation's highways will
    require unprecedented coordination and cooperation among
    industry, government, and citizens. We must win over a
    skeptical public by demonstrating that the underlying
    technologies are effective, safe and secure, and because these
    vehicles are going to operate on our public roadways, we've got
    to ensure that government encourages their safe and responsible
    deployment. Legal liability insurance issues must be addressed,
    and economic impacts and potential social disruption must be
    understood.
        Given these complexities, ATI21.org believes that only
    executive leadership with Congress on this issue will provide
    the necessary national vision, goals, and direction required
    across all sectors of our economy. That is why we recently
    published our National Strategic Framework to Accelerate Life-
    Saving Self-Driving Vehicles. We designed this document to
    develop a pathway to successful integration of autonomous
    vehicles into America's transportation system.
        [The document link follows:]

        Http://www.ati21.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Final-ATI-Strategy-
    Document.pdf.

        One area of emphasis in that framework is data. We believe
    that data is the key to speeding the safe deployment of these
    technologies. That's why we're recommending the creation of a
    National Self-Driving Data Repository. We envision that this is
    a highly secured, trusted, opt-in data repository with a number
    of positive incentives that can be leveraged in a way to
    encourage participation, incentives like indemnification, and
    rapid regulatory approvals. Such a repository will help us
    better understand the level of safety and performance, as well
    as enable us to identify real and emerging potential issues,
    and inform regulators, industry and the public based on near
    real-time data.
        We have shared this national framework with the
    subcommittee and with the Trump transition team, and we're
    available to discuss this in detail.
        [The article link follows:]

        Https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-next-
    president-should-make-driverless-cars-a-white-house-priority-group-
    says/2016/10/20/6c548212-9636-11e6-bc79-
    af1cd3d2984b_story.html?utm_term=.3299c046b7aa.

        The convergence of technology and transportation has the
    potential to dramatically improve the safe and efficient
    movement of people and goods. Over the next few years the Trump
    Administration and Congress will have an unprecedented
    opportunity to lead a cooperative effort between industry,
    government, and the public that holds the promise of saving
    lives. We look forward to working with you to advance this
    agenda. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul R. Brubaker
        Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, on behalf of the Alliance for Transportation Innovation
    (ATI21.org), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our
    views on integrating autonomous vehicles onto our Nation's roads.
        ATI21.org is a not-for-profit created to accelerate the deployment
    of technologies and innovation that can dramatically improve the safe
    and efficient movement of people and goods. Our members are
    associations, companies, and government and academic entities, as well
    as individuals who are dedicated to our mission.
        The need to accelerate the path to self-driving is not only
    critical to our country's economic future, but also our technological
    standing in the world. The potential safety and social benefits are
    enormous, and we are on the cusp of reliably and safely replacing human
    drivers with technology enabled mobility platforms--self-driving
    vehicles--that will transform how we move people and goods.
        Accelerating development and deployment of self-driving vehicles
    holds the promise of saving tens of thousands of lives every year,
    reducing crash-related injuries, and fundamentally transforming
    personal mobility. As soon as we achieve full self-driving, distracted
    and drunk driving will no longer claim lives; adult children will not
    have to have the conversation with aging parents about taking away
    their car keys; the poor will have access to much more convenient and
    affordable transportation; and the physically and developmentally
    disabled, including my soon to be adult son on the autism spectrum,
    will have access to transportation options. There is no doubt that
    safe, affordable, accessible, and convenient transportation is critical
    for everyone's quality of life.
        While the technologies to enable self-driving are being rapidly
    developed, the desire to get these capabilities to market are
    highlighting profound shortcomings in our national approach to
    regulation. Specifically, the regulatory process is simply not keeping
    up with the pace of innovation. While this is not unique to self-
    driving, the rapid development of autonomous vehicles presents us with
    an opportunity to revisit our regulatory approach and offer reforms
    that are more suitable to the digital age. It is imperative. In this
    case the cost of delay is measured in lost members of our families, of
    pain and suffering, and the denial of economic, health and social
    opportunity for the elderly, disabled and the impoverished.
        That said, in the Obama Administration, Transportation Secretary
    Anthony Foxx and Administrator Mark Rosekind of the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) get it. It is clear that the
    administration has a profound understanding of the critical
    technologies that have rapidly developed during the President's tenure
    and have laid the groundwork for the next administration to propel us
    into the self-driving future. The path will not be easy. There are
    considerable and complex cultural and regulatory barriers that must be
    overcome, and industry, researchers, the public, and government at all
    levels will need to engage and collaborate.
        In late September the Department of Transportation issued its much
    anticipated autonomous vehicle (AV) policy guidance in what we believe
    represented a well-intentioned and thoughtful first-step toward
    ensuring that the Department, and NHTSA specifically, is heading toward
    a more responsive regulatory approach that is more suitable for
    accelerating the safe deployment of highly autonomous vehicles on our
    Nation's roads.
        While these initial guidelines are not perfect, ATI21.org believes
    the Department of Transportation should be commended for recognizing a
    number of critical issues that must become priorities for industry and
    government to safely deploy autonomous vehicles. We also commend the
    Department for its clear willingness to engage with both the
    traditional auto industry and technology sectors. We believe such an
    open and productive dialogue with all interested parties is the first
    step to evolving toward a much more responsive and effective regulatory
    framework than the existing model.
        Specifically, there are several positive provisions included in
    this initial version of the AV policy. First, the Department's 15-point
    safety assessment covers all the major key areas that are critical to
    the safe design of highly autonomous vehicles. Second, the Department
    rightfully asserted its appropriate and exclusive role as the Nation's
    vehicle safety regulator and offered a model policy that can help guide
    States in formulating appropriate regulatory frameworks. Lastly, the
    Department was quite clear that it intended this process to be
    iterative and recognized the need to evolve and even adopt new
    regulatory models that could keep pace with the innovation cycle. We
    believe these are all excellent first steps in developing an
    appropriate regulatory framework.
        There are however two sections of the AV Policy document that gave
    us pause. Specifically, the section on the use of existing regulatory
    tools and the examples given as possible future regulatory approaches
    is no better and potentially worse than the existing tools.
        Although the policy includes language about revising and
    streamlining processes related to interpretations and waivers, we
    believe the underlying Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS),
    while arguably effective for traditional motor vehicle design approval,
    will prove to be an unworkable foundation for accelerating the design
    and deployment of highly autonomous vehicles. As was highlighted in the
    March 2016 report by the Volpe National Transportation Research Center,
    there are considerable challenges in applying these standards to SAE
    level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles.\1,\\2\ For example, the FMVSS makes
    more than 250 individual references to human drivers, and eliminating
    traditional design features such as steering wheels and pedals, which
    can be anticipated in level 4 and 5 vehicles, would violate roughly a
    third of the standards and half of the Series 100 crash avoidance
    requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Review of
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles,
    Preliminary Report-March 2016, prepared for the Intelligent
    Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, NHTSA.
        \2\ Levels of driving automation are defined in the SAE
    International Standard J3016. It identifies six levels of driving
    automation from ``no automation'' (0) to ``full automation'' (5), with
    level 4 being ``high'' and Level 5 being ``full.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While we commend the Department for beginning what we believe is a
    long overdue conversation on the need to create a much more responsive
    and timely regulatory approach, we believe the examples offered such as
    pre-approval of designs based on the FAA model or the FDA medical
    device approach are neither particularly efficient nor applicable or
    fitting.
        Data is the key to reforming the regulatory process in a manner
    that will allow the creation of a regulatory approach that is rapid,
    efficient, and effective. Specifically, a central repository for
    collecting, storing, and analyzing all operational and testing data
    from across the industry is necessary to create a responsive regulatory
    environment. Neither the NHTSA nor any existing industry group is
    positioned to perform this task. Consequently, we are recommending the
    establishment of an independent, federally chartered organization to
    securely and confidentially collect and analyze all operational and
    test data from across industry that will include simulation data. By
    collecting real-time data and applying modern analytical methods, we
    are confident that, if properly established, this organization can
    rapidly inform industry and NHTSA of real and potential issues. We
    recommend that this effort be funded from existing dollars. We would be
    happy to consult with the Subcommittee on the specific details of this
    recommendation.
        The second area we would like to highlight in our testimony this
    morning is our call for a National Strategic Framework to Advance Life-
    Saving Self-Driving Vehicles. We created this document calling for
    presidential level leadership on self-driving.
        Accelerating the path to self-driving is an enormously complex
    undertaking that will go beyond the responsibility of the U.S.
    Department of Transportation. While there are major roles and policy
    levers that both the Federal Government as a whole and U.S. Department
    of Transportation can take to accelerate deployment and ensure that
    only safe vehicles make it to market, it is critical that all levels of
    government work together, that industry and the research community
    continues to drive innovation and has a path to market, and perhaps
    most importantly that citizens are informed, engaged and welcoming of
    what will prove to be a major cultural shift.
        Not unlike past transitions to transportation-related innovation,
    success will depend on high levels of cooperation and engagement across
    government, industry, and the public. This was true of steamships,
    railroads, motor vehicles and aviation. The disruptive transition to
    self-driving will require similar coordination, cooperation, and
    support.
        As is true with all disruptive innovation throughout history, we
    can expect to experience both positive and negative effects as we begin
    integrating autonomous vehicles onto the Nation's roads. It is critical
    that we thoughtfully consider the obvious consequences, both good and
    bad, that will undoubtedly arise from our transition from what we refer
    to as the ``crash economy'' to a new mobility paradigm.
        As I mentioned earlier, the major reason for making this transition
    is to save lives and reduce injuries. Last year, over 35,000 Americans
    died in car crashes. This year that number is expected to climb and may
    exceed 40,000. Millions more are injured including many with life-
    changing debilitating injuries. We know that crashes cost the U.S.
    economy almost $1 trillion annually. Let us be clear, we would not
    tolerate such cost and carnage in any other mode of transportation, and
    now, the tools are arriving to make these tragedies preventable.
        Autonomous features and ultimately self-driving vehicles hold
    promise to dramatically reduce fatalities and injuries as NHTSA
    estimates that more than 94 percent of these crashes are the result of
    human error. We simply should not allow more than 90 of our fellow
    citizens to die every day when we can create the conditions to prevent
    it. The sooner we fully integrate autonomous vehicles onto our
    highways, the sooner we will realize a dramatic reduction in the number
    of preventable fatalities and injuries.
        Getting this transition right will not be easy. Moving from the
    crash economy to a dramatically safer, accessible, affordable, and
    convenient mobility paradigm is a complex undertaking requiring
    unprecedented cooperation and coordination among industry,
    associations, and research and government institutions at all levels.
        We believe such an effort will require presidential leadership and
    that the incoming administration and Congress should work in concert to
    create the conditions necessary to accelerate the development, testing,
    and deployment of these capabilities as well as proactively address
    some of the anticipated consequences of transition.
        At ATI21.org, we announced the publication of our initial framework
    for accelerating the deployment of self-driving vehicles last month.
    The framework is not a prescriptive list of recommended actions but
    rather an outline of key challenges areas that must be addressed in
    order to accelerate the integration of autonomous vehicles on our
    Nation's highways.
        Between now and Inauguration Day, we will be soliciting reaction to
    the challenge areas and hosting a series of expert panels to explore
    and produce recommendations on each challenge area. We intend to update
    the framework based on panel input and host a final review and input
    session for the entire document on January 4th with the Consumer
    Technology Association in advance of the Consumer Electronics Show.
        In short, ATI21.org is calling for a National Strategy to Advance
    Self-Driving (NSAS) and urging the next president to issue an executive
    order that would describe the challenges and create a Program
    Management Office (PMO) within the Office of Science and Technology
    Policy (OSTP). We recommend funding the activity as a government-wide
    technology initiative through existing Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) authority under a provision in the Clinger-Cohen Act. The PMO
    would operate under a 4-year charter to collaborate with relevant
    stakeholders, assemble experts, develop outcome-focused and actionable
    strategies, and identify funding streams to address each of the
    challenge areas.
        We have identified the following challenge areas:
      --Earning public trust
      --Increasing confidence in self-driving technology
      --Ensuring robust cybersecurity
      --Developing standards and regulations that encourage self-driving
      --Creating the legal, liability, and insurance framework for
            accelerating the deployment of self-driving vehicles
      --Adopting reasonable data and privacy policies
      --Accelerating the transition to a fully self-driving fleet
      --Understanding and planning for economic disruption and labor
            transition
        As we say in the framework, accelerating the path to self-driving
    will not be easy. The incoming president by leading us though this
    ambitious effort early in the new term can ensure dramatic progress
    toward creating a new mobility paradigm that will create safe,
    convenient, resilient, and accessible transportation options to all
    Americans regardless of their ability, age, or economic condition.
    ATI21.org believes this is a transportation legacy that we can be proud
    to leave to future generations.
        In the coming months, we look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee and Congress to work on creating the conditions necessary
    to speed integration of autonomous vehicles on the Nation's highways.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Dr. Kalra.
    STATEMENT OF DR. NIDHI KALRA, CO-DIRECTOR, RAND CENTER
                FOR DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
        Dr. Kalra. Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today on the future of autonomous vehicles.
        My name is Nidhi Kalra, and I'm an Information Scientist at
    the RAND Corporation. RAND is a non-profit, non-partisan
    research institution committed to improving public policy
    through objective research and analysis. I have a Ph.D. in
    robotics and have been studying autonomous vehicles for 10
    years. And in the interest of full disclosure, my spouse is the
    co-founder of an autonomous vehicle start-up in Silicon Valley,
    though his work has no bearing on my testimony, or vice-versa.
        Now, there are three issues I'd like to discuss today, the
    safety of autonomous vehicles, their benefits for mobility, and
    the urgency of addressing distortions in the transportation
    market so we can harness their benefits and mitigate their
    drawbacks.
        So first let's talk about safety. Will autonomous vehicles
    be safe before they're allowed on the road for consumer use? We
    may not know. Real-world driving is currently the only method
    of demonstrating their safety. But suppose a fleet of
    autonomous vehicles has a 20 percent lower fatality rate than
    human drivers. They would have to be driven 5 billion miles to
    prove it, and a fleet of test vehicles, 100 test vehicles would
    have to be driven 225 years to cover this distance. It's
    impossible if we ever want them on the road for consumer use.
        But now let's consider two things. First, Americans as a
    whole drive more than this every day. We drive 8 billion miles
    every day. So once autonomous vehicles are widely deployed for
    consumer use, we may know very quickly how safe they are. And
    consider that autonomous vehicles will improve over time. So
    when a human driver makes a mistake, only that person, at best,
    is able to learn from the experience, but that's not with
    autonomous vehicles. When one vehicle makes a mistake or has an
    experience on the road, that information can be used to improve
    the entire fleet.
        So experience may be one of the most important tools for
    both demonstrating and improving autonomous vehicle safety. So
    I think an important question is how do we enable autonomous
    vehicles to get experience while mitigating the safety risks
    they pose? And I suggest two things--strategic pilot studies
    and data sharing--that can help.
        Pilot studies could start with real-world testing in lower-
    risk conditions like operating vehicles in well-maintained
    areas and at low speeds, and then could be expanded as safety
    is demonstrated.
        As for data sharing, developers are already using the
    experiences of one vehicle to improve their fleet, but data
    sharing across the industry could mean that the experiences of
    every vehicle can improve the entire industry.
        Second, let's talk about mobility. Autonomous vehicles
    could improve mobility for millions of Americans who are
    elderly, young, have disabilities, or live in poverty. But
    policies may be needed to make them affordable, available, and
    accessible. Policymakers can incentivize developers to bring
    these technologies to those markets sooner than they might
    otherwise, or to integrate them with transit and para-transit.
    Policymakers may need to work with developers to help make sure
    they're accessible, meaning that they comply with ADA
    guidelines and use different forms of payment, for example.
        And while the cost of shared autonomous vehicles is
    expected to be low, policymakers could extend transit and para-
    transit reduced fares to these other technologies to make them
    all the more affordable for these vulnerable populations.
        Third, let's talk about market distortions. Autonomous
    vehicles could also significantly affect traffic congestion,
    energy pollution and land use, maybe for the better, but maybe
    for the worse. So to harness their benefits and mitigate their
    drawbacks, policymakers should address the existing distortions
    in the transportation market that lead to undesirable outcomes
    and subsidize desirable outcomes.
        Now, there are many policy options to address distortions,
    like strengthening the auto insurance market to encourage
    safety, implementing congestion pricing to reduce congestion,
    and offering rebates for fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce
    pollution.
        Now, I can't today give each policy the discussion it
    warrants, but now is the time to address these distortions,
    because autonomous vehicles could improve our transportation
    system tremendously if the right market signals are in place.
    And there is currently a window of opportunity to send those
    new market signals because consumer expectations about
    autonomous vehicle performance and cost aren't yet set.
        So, let me conclude. In the 1990s, we couldn't forecast the
    impact that the Internet has now had. Similarly, today we can't
    forecast the impact that autonomous vehicles will have on our
    future, but we can shape that future, and I would like to leave
    you with two recommendations.
        First, as I noted, widespread experience may be the key to
    figuring out both how safe autonomous vehicles are and how they
    get better. So it's important to get them that experience as
    safely as possible.
        And second, correcting market distortions will be critical
    to encouraging better outcomes for our transportation system
    and for our society.
        Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Dr. Nidhi Kalra
        Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, my name is Nidhi Kalra of the RAND Corporation.\1\
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on important emerging
    opportunities and risks related to autonomous vehicles. Autonomous
    vehicles have the potential to change transportation profoundly, in the
    United States and around the world. There is much opportunity for
    improvement, but also potential for added risks and harms. How
    autonomous vehicles ultimately shape our future is not foretold; it
    depends on many technology and policy choices we make today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops
    solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities
    throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more
    prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public
    interest.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, I would like to discuss three important questions about the
    future of autonomous vehicles and how policies can shape it. First,
    will autonomous vehicles be safe before they are allowed on the road
    for consumer use? Second, how can autonomous vehicles improve mobility
    for Americans who currently may have limited mobility? Third, what
    mechanisms can help realize the benefits and mitigate the drawbacks of
    autonomous vehicles? I will focus most of my remarks on fully
    autonomous vehicles--those that can operate without a human driver some
    or all of the time--rather than on vehicles that require continuous
    human oversight.
     will autonomous vehicles be safe before they are allowed on the road
                               for consumer use?
        In the United States, roughly 32,000 people are killed and more
    than 2 million are injured in motor vehicle crashes every year.\2\
    Although safety has generally improved over the past several decades,
    2015 saw 35,000 road fatalities, the largest increase in fatalities in
    this country in more than 50 years. This occurred partly because
    Americans drove more and partly because they drove worse.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Motor Vehicle Safety Data,
    Table 2-17, Washington, D.C.: Research and Innovative Technology
    Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        U.S. motor vehicle crashes as a whole can pose enormous economic
    and social costs--more than $800 billion in a single year.\3\ And more
    than 90 percent of crashes are caused by human errors,\4\ such as
    driving too fast and misjudging other drivers' behaviors, as well as
    alcohol impairment, distraction, and fatigue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Lawrence Blincoe, Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja, and Bruce A.
    Lawrence, The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes
    2010 (Revised), Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration, DOT HS 812 013, 2014, revised May 2015.
        \4\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
    Facts, A Brief Statistical Summary: Critical Reasons for Crashes
    Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey,
    Washington, D.C.: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S.
    Department of Transportation, DOT HS 812 115, February 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Autonomous Vehicles Present Benefits and Risks to Safety
        Autonomous vehicles have the potential to significantly mitigate
    this public safety crisis by eliminating many of the mistakes that
    human drivers routinely make.\5\ To begin with, autonomous vehicles are
    never drunk, distracted, or tired; these factors are involved in 41
    percent, 10 percent, and 2.5 percent, respectively, of all fatal
    crashes.\6\ Autonomous vehicles could perform better than human drivers
    because of better perception (e.g., no blind spots), better
    decisionmaking (e.g., more-accurate planning of complex driving
    maneuvers), and better execution (e.g., faster and more-precise control
    of steering, brakes, and acceleration).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ James M. Anderson, Nidhi Kalra, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul
    Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola, Autonomous
    Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers, Santa Monica, Calif.:
    RAND Corporation, RR-433-2-RC, 2014; and Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara
    Kockelman, ``Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities,
    Barriers and Policy Recommendations,'' Transportation Research Part A:
    Policy and Practice, Vol. 77, July 2015, pp. 167-181.
        \6\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
    Facts: Crash Stats, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Statistics
    and Analysis, DOT HS 811 449, March 2011; Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics, Occupant and Non-Motorist Fatalities in Crashes by Number
    of Vehicles and Alcohol Involvement (Updated July 2014), Table 2-20,
    Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014; and U.S.
    Department of Transportation, Fact Sheet: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
    and Individuals with Disabilities Section 5310, Washington D.C., 2015.
    This does not mean that 53.5 percent of all fatal crashes are caused by
    these factors because a crash may involve, but not be strictly caused
    by, one of these factors, and because more than one of these factors
    may be involved in a single crash.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, autonomous vehicles might not eliminate all crashes. For
    instance, inclement weather and complex driving environments pose
    challenges for autonomous vehicles, as well as for human drivers, and
    autonomous vehicles might perform worse than human drivers in some
    cases.\7\ There is also the potential for autonomous vehicles to pose
    new and serious crash risks--for example, crashes resulting from cyber
    attacks.\8\ Clearly, autonomous vehicles present both enormous
    potential benefits and potential risks to transportation safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Lee Gomes, Hidden Obstacles for Google's Self-Driving Cars:
    Impressive Progress Hides Major Limitations of Google's Quest for
    Automated Driving, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 28,
    2014.
        \8\ Anderson et al., 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released
    much-anticipated guidelines intended to outline best practices for
    autonomous vehicle safety, many looked to that guidance to answer the
    key question: Will autonomous vehicles be safe? I believe the answer is
    ``maybe.'' Answering the question requires considering two issues.
    First, how should autonomous vehicle safety be measured, and second,
    what threshold of safety should be required before autonomous vehicles
    are made publicly available? In essence, what test do autonomous
    vehicles have to take and what constitutes a passing grade? Both are
    genuinely open questions, so it is understandable that Federal
    guidelines have not yet answered them.
    There Is No Proven, Feasible Way to Determine Autonomous Vehicle Safety
        There are no road tests that could demonstrate how safe an
    autonomous vehicle is--there are too many conditions and scenarios to
    test them all. (A road test that a person takes at the Department of
    Motor Vehicles also does not prove that he or she will be a good
    driver; rather, the road test determines whether the person can perform
    a specific set of driving skills under regular traffic situations.
    While this type of evidence is viewed as adequate for licensing human
    drivers, it is not generally viewed as adequate for robot drivers.)
        A logical alternative is to test-drive autonomous vehicles
    extensively in real traffic and observe their performance before making
    them commercially available. Although this is a helpful first step, it
    is not sufficient to prove safety. Even though the number of crashes,
    injuries, and fatalities from human drivers is high, the rate of these
    failures is low in comparison with the number of miles that people
    drive. Americans drive nearly 3 trillion miles every year.\9\ The
    35,092 fatalities and 2.44 million injuries in 2015 correspond to a
    failure rate of 1.12 fatalities and 78 injuries per 100 million miles
    driven. Given that current traffic fatalities and injuries are rare
    events compared with vehicle miles traveled, fully autonomous vehicles
    would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes
    hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms
    of fatalities and injuries. Under even aggressive testing assumptions,
    existing fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to
    drive these miles--an impossible proposition if the aim is to
    demonstrate their performance prior to releasing them on the roads for
    consumer use.\10\ And, in the meantime, human drivers would continue to
    cause avoidable crashes and enormous harms to people and property.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2015.
        \10\ Nidhi Kalra and Susan M. Paddock, Driving to Safety: How Many
    Miles of Driving Would It Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle
    Reliability? Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1478-RC, 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Developers of this technology and third-party testers need to
    develop innovative methods of demonstrating safety and reliability.
    These methods may include but are not limited to accelerated
    testing,\11\ virtual testing and simulations,\12\ mathematical modeling
    and analysis,\13\ scenario and behavior testing,\14\ and pilot
    studies,\15\ as well as extensive focused testing of hardware and
    software systems. This is a rapidly growing area of research and
    development. There are promising ideas but no demonstrated and accepted
    methods of proving safety. In sum, no one yet knows how autonomous
    vehicles should be tested. It is therefore reasonable that the current
    Federal guidelines have not specified a test either.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Wayne B. Nelson, Accelerated Testing: Statistical Models, Test
    Plans, and Data Analysis, Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
        \12\ Suren Chen and Feng Chen, ``Simulation-Based Assessment of
    Vehicle Safety Behavior under Hazardous Driving Conditions,'' Journal
    of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 4, 2010, pp. 304-315;
    Siddartha Khastgir, Stewart A. Birrell, Gunwant Dhadyalla, and Paul A.
    Jennings, ``Development of a Drive-In Driver-in-the-Loop Fully
    Immersive Driving Simulator for Virtual Validation of Automotive
    Systems,'' paper presented at IEEE 81st Vehicular Technology
    Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, May 11-14, 2015; and Stephanie Olivares,
    Nikolaus Rebernik, Arno Eichberger, and Ernst Stadlober, ``Virtual
    Stochastic Testing of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems,'' in Tim
    Schulze, Beate Muller, and Gereon Meyer, eds., Advanced Microsystems
    for Automotive Applications 2015: Smart Systems for Green and Automated
    Driving, New York: Springer, 2015.
        \13\ Khashayar Hojjati-Emami, Balbir Dhillon, and Kouroush Jenab,
    ``Reliability Prediction for the Vehicles Equipped with Advanced Driver
    Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Passive Safety Systems (PSS),''
    International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, Vol. 3,
    No. 5, 2012, pp. 731-1742; and R. Kianfar, P. Falcone, and J.
    Fredriksson, ``Safety Verification of Automated Driving Systems,'' IEEE
    Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter
    2013, pp. 73-186.
        \14\ California Department of Motor Vehicles, Express Terms Title
    13, Division 1, Chapter 1 Article 3.7--Autonomous Vehicles, 2015; and
    Michael Sivak, and Brandon Schoettle, Should We Require Licensing Tests
    and Graduated Licensing for Self-Driving Vehicles? University of
    Michigan: Transportation Research Institute, Technical Report UMTRI-
    2015-33, 2015.
        \15\ ANWB, Experiments on Autonomous and Automated Driving: An
    Overview 2015, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There Is No Consensus on How Safe Autonomous Vehicles Should Be
        The second issue of how safe autonomous vehicles should be is worth
    considering, even if their degree of safety cannot yet be fully proven.
    Some will insist that anything short of totally eliminating risk is a
    safety compromise. They might feel that it is acceptable if humans make
    mistakes, but not if machines do. But, again, waiting for autonomous
    vehicles to operate perfectly misses opportunities to save lives
    because it leaves far-from-perfect human drivers behind the wheel.
        It seems sensible that autonomous vehicles should be allowed on
    America's roads when they are judged safer than the average human
    driver, allowing more lives to be saved and sooner while still ensuring
    that autonomous vehicles do not create new risks. An argument can be
    made that autonomous vehicles could be allowed even when they are not
    as safe as average human drivers if developers can use early deployment
    as a way to rapidly improve the vehicles. The vehicles could become at
    least as good as the average human sooner than they would otherwise,
    and thus save more lives overall.
        The lack of consensus on this point is not a failure of sound
    thinking. It is not a failure at all, but rather a genuine expression
    of Americans' different values and beliefs when it comes to humans
    versus machines. It is therefore reasonable that the Federal guidelines
    also do not draw a line in the sand.
        While these are difficult decisions, our differences in values and
    beliefs can be informed by thinking not only about safety today but
    also about the arc of safety in the coming decades. Our discourse on
    the question of how safe the vehicles need to be focuses on the safety
    of autonomous vehicles at the time that they are first introduced for
    consumer use. But this thinking should be expanded to consider the
    evolution of autonomous vehicle safety over time, not just at the start
    of vehicle deployment. When a human driver makes a mistake on the road,
    typically only that individual can learn from that experience to
    improve his or her driving habits. The other drivers on the road are
    largely unaffected. This is not the case with autonomous vehicles,
    which can use experience and learning to improve performance, not just
    of the individual vehicle but of the entire fleet. This is because,
    when an algorithm or software is updated and improved for one vehicle,
    it can be updated for all vehicles. For this reason, experience may be
    one of the most important tools for improving autonomous vehicle safety
    and, by extension, transportation safety.
    Policymakers Can Promote Autonomous Vehicle Safety
        This raises an important question: How do we enable autonomous
    vehicles to improve as quickly as possible while lowering the risks
    they pose? There are several tactics policymakers could consider to
    accelerate autonomous vehicles' improvement.
        A first step is to conduct real-world but lower-risk pilot studies
    of autonomous vehicles. Risk can be lowered first by operating
    autonomous vehicles in conditions in which crashes are less likely.
    This can include limiting autonomous vehicle pilots to areas with less-
    complex terrain, to routes that are well maintained and easier to
    navigate, to nondangerous weather conditions, or to some combination of
    these controls. It can also include educating communities about safe
    behavior in and around autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, risk can be
    lowered by designing and operating vehicles so that when crashes occur,
    the consequences of the crash to passengers and bystanders are fewer.
    This could be accomplished by limiting vehicle speed, ensuring that all
    pilot-study passengers wear seatbelts, and so forth. These
    strategically limited pilot studies can then be expanded as safe
    operation of autonomous vehicles is demonstrated.
        A second consideration is the role of sharing driving data across
    the industry and with policymakers. Autonomous vehicle developers
    already use the experiences of a single vehicle to improve the safety
    of their individual fleets. This improvement could occur even faster if
    the experiences of each vehicle in each fleet could be used across all
    developers to improve the entire industry. There are certainly
    nontrivial concerns about protecting trade secrets, but these concerns
    could be addressed and must be balanced with the societal need for safe
    autonomous vehicle technology.
        In sum, it may not be possible to know what the safety risk of
    autonomous vehicles is, and Americans may not agree on what it should
    be. All the same, there are ways of lowering that risk that deserve
    careful consideration.
        how can autonomous vehicles improve mobility for americans who
                      currently may have limited mobility?
        For almost all Americans, the ability to get around is essential
    for living a rich, productive, and healthy life: being able to get to a
    place of work, to visit friends and family, to access healthcare and
    other services, to participate in civic activities, and to be connected
    to the external world in all other ways. Even with the increasing
    ability to interact and transact online, the importance of mobility in
    today's world remains vital. Despite its importance, many Americans
    have limited, and sometimes very limited, mobility as a result of
    advanced age, disabilities, or lack of means. Whatever the reason,
    limited mobility has significant negative consequences. Autonomous
    vehicles could help.
    Autonomous Vehicles Could Help Many Older Americans Who Face Limited or
            Declining Mobility
        The experiences of older Americans, especially those over 75, are
    emblematic of the challenges of limited mobility. The number of
    Americans 65 and older will increase from 48 million in 2015 (15
    percent of today's population) to 74 million in 2030 (23 percent of the
    population). The number of Americans 75 and older will increase from 20
    million in 2014 (6 percent of today's population) to 35 million in 2030
    (10 percent of the population.) \16\ Older Americans are living longer
    and working longer than ever before. The labor force participation of
    those over 65 is expected to be 21.7 percent in 2024, up from 12.4
    percent in 1994.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Population by Sex and
    Age for the United States: 2015 to 2060 (NP2014-T9), spreadsheet,
    December 2014. As of November 8, 2016: http://www.census.gov/
    population/projections/files/summary/NP2014-T9.xls.
        \17\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Civilian Labor Force
    Participation Rate by Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity,'' web page,
    December 2015. As of November 8, 2016: http://www.bls.gov/emp/
    ep_table_303.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Driving is important to their quality of life. Of adults over 65,
    80 percent live in car-dependent areas and 90 percent say they intend
    to age in place.\18\ Eighty-five percent of adults aged 65 to 84 hold
    licenses, and almost 60 percent of adults over 85 hold licenses.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ David Dudley, ``The Driverless Car Is (Almost) Here,'' AARP
    The Magazine, December 2014/January 2015. As of November 8, 2016:
    http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-2014/google-
    self-driving-car.html.
        \19\ Policy and Governmental Affairs Office of Highway Police
    Information, ``Distribution of Licensed Drivers--2014 By Sex and
    Percentage in Each Age Group and Relation to Population,'' web page,
    U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2014. As of November 8,
    2016: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/
    dl20.cfm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Driving is risky for many older Americans. A recent study found
    that, when compared with drivers aged 55 to 64, drivers over 75 were
    more than 2.5 times as likely to die in a car crash, and drivers over
    85 were almost four times as likely.\20\ This is due both to increased
    likelihood of getting into crashes and greater vulnerability to
    injuries.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, ``Drivers Over 65 Almost
    Twice as Likely as Middle-Aged Drivers to Die in Car Crashes, According
    to AAA Foundation Study,'' February 18, 2004. As of November 8, 2016:
    https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/DriversOver65.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But giving up driving has risks as well. Driving cessation almost
    doubles the risk of increased depressive symptoms and is correlated
    with (though not strictly a cause of) cognitive, social, and physical
    declines and higher rates of entry into long-term care.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Stanford Chihuri, Thelma J. Mielenz, Charles J. DiMaggio,
    Marian E. Betz, Carolyn DiGuiseppi, Vanya C. Jones, and Guohua Li,
    ``Driving Cessation and Health Outcomes in Older Adults,'' American
    Geriatric Society, Vol. 64, 2016, pp. 332-341.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Geography can further affect mobility. Approximately 18 percent of
    the rural population is 65 years or older, compared with 13.5 percent
    in non-rural areas.\22\ Compared with their counterparts in urban
    areas, older adults in rural areas must take longer trips for
    healthcare and other services and have fewer alternatives to
    driving.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Percent of the Total Population Who Are
    65 Years and Over--United States--Urban/Rural and Inside/Outside
    Metropolitan and Micropolitan Area,'' American FactFinder, 2014. As of
    November 8, 2016: http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/
    14_5YR/GCT0103.US26
        \23\ J. E. Burkhardt, A. T. McGavock, C. A. Nelson, and C. G. B.
    Mitchel, Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons Transit
    Cooperative Research Program, Washington D.C.: Transport Research
    Board, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Autonomous vehicles offer a promising solution. Fully automated
    vehicles that do not require human intervention would allow many older
    adults to travel by car, without having to drive. It could increase
    their mobility, with all of the associated social and economic
    benefits, while mitigating much of the safety risk. This, in turn, may
    allow more people to age in place, remaining in their homes for much
    longer than they might otherwise be able to.
    Autonomous Vehicles Could Improve Mobility for Many Others
        Older adults are just one group of Americans that could benefit
    from increased mobility from autonomous vehicles. Many people with
    disabilities, young people, and people living in poverty face mobility
    challenges that could be alleviated by autonomous vehicles.
        In 2010, 56.7 million individuals (18.7 percent of the population)
    identified as having a disability.\24\ Only 65 percent of individuals
    with disabilities drive, compared with 88 percent of individuals
    without disabilities.\25\ In spite of the Americans with Disabilities
    Act, which mandates that transit authorities operating a fixed route
    system provide paratransit or a comparable service to individuals with
    a disability,\26\ individuals with disabilities often have limited
    mobility because of a lack of availability or access to services. One
    survey showed that 12 percent of persons with disabilities reported
    having a harder time obtaining the transportation they need to be
    independent, compared with 3 percent of others, the top two reasons
    being no or limited public transportation (33 percent) and not having a
    car (26 percent).\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Matthew W. Brault, Americans with Disabilities: 2010, U.S.
    Census Bureau, July 2012.
        \25\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Freedom to Travel,
    Washington D.C.: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2003.
        \26\ U.S. Department of Justice, Information and Technical
    Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2016.
        \27\ U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are also 25 million young Americans between the ages of 12
    and 17 who have mobility needs but are not yet old enough to drive or
    are novice drivers.\28\ Getting to school and academic enrichment
    opportunities, social and extracurricular activities, and even first
    jobs can be a challenge. Many depend on buses (principally to school)
    or their parents--or forgo travel. For many working parents, there is a
    trade-off between supporting their own and their children's mobility
    needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
    ``POP1 Child Population: Number of Children (in millions) Ages 0-17 in
    the United States by Age, 1950-2015 and Projected 2016-2050,'' 2016. As
    of November 8, 2016: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/
    pop1.asp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Americans living in poverty also face mobility challenges. About
    43.1 million people (13.3 percent of the population) live in
    poverty.\29\ This includes older adults and many individuals with
    disabilities. In 2014, 10 percent of older adults and 28.5 percent of
    individuals with a disability had a yearly income below the poverty
    line.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica L. Semega, and Melissa A.
    Kollar, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015, U.S. Census
    Bureau, September 2016. As of November 8, 2016: http://www.census.gov/
    library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html.
        \30\ C. DeNavas-Walt and B. D. Proctor, Income and Poverty in the
    United States: 2014, Washington D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        About 24 percent of households below the poverty line do not own a
    vehicle, compared with just 2 percent of households with incomes over
    $100,000. Individuals living in poverty are about three times as likely
    to take transit and 1.5 times more likely to walk.\31\ While these are
    desirable ways to get around for environmental and physical health
    reasons, they can take much more time and limit travel to destinations
    that are accessible by these modes. This is important because research
    shows that access to efficient transportation is important for escaping
    poverty (via access to education, training, and work) and achieving
    upward economic mobility.\32\ In sum, there are millions of Americans
    with limited mobility, and autonomous vehicles could help them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Mobility Challenges for
    Households in Poverty: 2009 National Household Travel Survey,'' FHWA
    NHTS Brief, 2014.
        \32\ Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, ``The Impacts of
    Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects
    and County-Level Estimates,'' Harvard University, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility Are Keys to Realizing
            These Benefits
        Simply bringing autonomous vehicles to market might not fully solve
    the mobility challenges Americans face. Autonomous vehicles, like other
    transportation options, must also be affordable, available, and
    accessible. Fortunately, autonomous vehicles may have advantages over
    conventional transit, taxi, or vehicle-sharing services.
        For many older adults, individuals with disabilities, and other
    people living below the poverty line, the costs of a personally owned
    vehicle are prohibitive. The costs of a privately owned autonomous
    vehicle are expected to be much higher, particularly initially. Shared
    autonomous vehicles will be the key to affordability. Shared vehicles
    are vehicles that are not personally owned but instead are available
    for many people to use, either on demand or through a reservation
    system, and are typically pay-per-use. Some estimates suggest that the
    per-mile cost of using a shared autonomous vehicle service could be 30
    percent to 90 percent less than owning a conventional vehicle or using
    conventional taxis, depending on the nature of the service.\33\ In
    other words, the per-trip costs could be comparable to transit, but
    with greater convenience and speed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Lawrence D. Burnes, William C. Jordan, and Bonnie A.
    Scarborough, Transforming Personal Mobility, The Earth Institute,
    Columbia University, January 27, 2013; and Tasha Keeney, ``What If Uber
    Were to Adopt Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs)?'' ARK Invest, June 22,
    2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, shared autonomous vehicles must be available where people
    live. Car-sharing vehicles and taxis are not readily available in most
    small towns and rural communities because there are too few people to
    support the services. Furthermore, those who live in poor urban areas
    are another underserved segment in today's mobility market. Transit may
    not offer complete solutions, and taxis have historically been scarce
    because of the low demand compared to wealthier urban areas.\34\ The
    lower cost of shared autonomous vehicles may increase the availability
    in underserved regions where other transportation solutions are
    limited.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Mark W. Frankena and Paul A. Pautler, An Economic Analysis of
    Taxicab Regulation, Bureau of Economics, No. 1103, May 1984; Nelson
    Nygaard, Boston Taxi Consultant Report, 2013; and Hara Associates Inc.,
    Best Practices Studies of Taxi Regulation: Taxi User Surveys, prepared
    for San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2013. Today's ride
    share services may be helping provide better service in these
    underserved populations (see the Uber-funded study by Rosanna Smart,
    Brad Rowe, Angela Hawken, Mark Kleiman, Nate Mladenovic, Peter Gehred,
    and Clarissa Manning, Faster and Cheaper: How Ride-Sourcing Fills a Gap
    in Low-Income Los Angeles Neighborhoods, BOTEC Analysis Corporation,
    July 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, shared autonomous vehicles need to be accessible. This
    includes vehicle design, websites, and technology interfaces that are
    consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act and other accessibility
    standards and guidelines. It also includes implementing diverse payment
    systems that do not require smart phones or credit cards. Meeting these
    design goals can be expensive. For example, the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the cost of a new vehicle
    with adaptive equipment (e.g., mechanical hand controls, power transfer
    seats, and lifts and ramps) can be $20,000-$80,000.\35\ The cost for
    accessible autonomous vehicles may be lower because the vehicle only
    needs to be modified for passenger use; it does not need to be modified
    to enable driving.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Adapting Motor
    Vehicles for People with Disabilities, June 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policymakers Can Promote Affordability, Availability, and Accessibility
        All of this suggests that autonomous vehicles may increase mobility
    for historically underserved populations in a way that is more
    affordable, available, and accessible than existing transportation
    options. However, there is a clear and essential role for sound policy
    in realizing these benefits.
        First, policymakers can create incentives for manufacturers to
    prioritize these markets and reach them sooner than they might
    otherwise. Incentives can include cost-sharing programs, subsidies, or
    other financial levers. They can also include partnerships to integrate
    both public and private shared autonomous vehicles into existing
    transit and paratransit services so that they are complementary rather
    than competing. This may involve making payment seamless across modes,
    providing transfer benefits across modes, and integrating scheduling.
    Private ride-share services are already working with transit agencies
    to provide connections to existing transit services, but primarily in
    urban areas.
        Second, policymakers may need to incentivize technology developers
    to ensure that accessibility for diverse populations is a priority when
    designing these vehicles. This includes facilitating collaboration
    between developers, healthcare providers, independent living centers
    and other facilities, and, most importantly, the users themselves.
    Participatory design will be key.
        Third, while the cost of shared autonomous vehicles is expected to
    be lower than many alternatives, public assistance may still be
    warranted. In many regions, seniors and individuals with disabilities
    ride transit at a discounted rate or even for free. Policies would be
    needed to extend these discounts to shared autonomous vehicle services.
        In sum, autonomous vehicles present an enormous opportunity to
    improve mobility for millions of Americans who are currently
    underserved by our existing transportation system. The social, health,
    and economic benefits could be enormous. Policymakers can play an
    important and distinct role in prioritizing and enabling the technology
    so that autonomous vehicles can help democratize America's
    transportation system.
        what mechanisms can help realize the benefits and mitigate the
                       drawbacks of autonomous vehicles?
        In addition to transforming safety and mobility, autonomous
    vehicles may also shape other areas of transportation, including
    congestion, energy and pollution, and land use. Some potential impacts
    will be positive while others will be negative. All of the impacts are
    complex and difficult to predict, but despite the uncertainty,
    policymakers can help nudge the free market in the right direction.
    The Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Congestion
        Congestion has enormous societal costs. Travel delays resulting
    from traffic congestion caused drivers to waste more than 3 billion
    gallons of fuel and kept travelers stuck in their cars for nearly 7
    billion extra hours--42 hours per rush-hour commuter.\36\ The total
    cost to the United States was $960 per commuter, or $160 billion for
    the Nation as a whole.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ David L. Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Timothy J. Lomax, The 2015
    Urban Mobility Scorecard, College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M
    Transportation Institute, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even if autonomous vehicles had no impact on the incidence of
    congestion, they could reduce the cost of congestion. If individuals
    can work in their cars, the cost of the time spent in traffic could be
    reduced substantially, even if the time itself is not reduced.
        Nevertheless, the potential impact of autonomous vehicles on
    traffic congestion itself could be substantial but is uncertain.
    Traffic congestion could be significantly reduced because more vehicles
    can fit on a given stretch of roadway if they are autonomous. In the
    near term, autonomous vehicle platooning (where cars drive close
    together to reduce air resistance and increase fuel economy) can enable
    greater throughput; in the longer term, if a large number of vehicles
    are autonomous, lanes could be made narrower, creating more usable road
    space. If autonomous vehicles are much safer, they could significantly
    reduce crashes, which are a major source of congestion. Shared
    autonomous vehicles could provide better connections to main transit
    lines, leading to increases in use.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Johanna Zmud, Jason Wagner, Richard T. Baker, Ginger Goodin,
    Maarit Moran, Nidhi Kalra, and Dan Fagnant, Policy and Planning Actions
    to Internalize Societal Impacts of CV and AV Systems in Market
    Decisions, interim deliverable to the National Cooperative Highway
    Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National
    Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, May 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, there is a flip side. Because autonomous vehicles will
    lower the costs of driving by car--by enabling productivity in the
    vehicle, reducing fuel costs through greater fuel economy, avoiding
    parking fees, and lowering insurance costs through greater safety--they
    could also increase the amount of driving. Improvements in mobility for
    underserved populations would also add to the amount of driving. If
    people can do the same things from the comfort of their own cars, fewer
    people might take public transit.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Zmud et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accurately predicting the net effect on transportation demand is
    impossible because of the disruptive nature of autonomous vehicles.
    Just as we could not predict in 1990 how the Internet would change how
    and how much we would communicate 20 years later, we cannot confidently
    predict today how autonomous vehicles will change how and how much we
    will travel 20 years from now.
    The Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Energy
        Autonomous vehicles could increase fuel efficiency, but the net
    effect is unclear because they may increase travel demand, which could
    negate those gains. To the extent that fossil fuels remain the primary
    source of transportation energy, this would have knock-on effects in
    foreign oil dependence, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
        The way people operate and maintain vehicles is inefficient.
    Aggressive driving alone can drop fuel economy by 25 percent, and not
    using cruise control on highways can drop it another 7 percent.\39\
    Autonomous vehicles can avoid these behaviors and thus reduce fuel
    consumption. Adding to this, even relatively simple levels of
    automation can enable platooning.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle, ``Eco-Driving: Strategic,
    Tactical, and Operational Decisions of the Driver That Influence
    Vehicle Fuel Economy,'' Transport Policy, Vol. 22, July 2012, pp. 96-
    99.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the longer term, if autonomous vehicles that crash less are
    widely used, they could be built lighter, which will further reduce
    fuel consumption and emissions. Less obviously, fully autonomous
    vehicles might be able to jump-start alternative transportation fuels.
    One of the key obstacles to both plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel
    cells, which have zero tailpipe emissions and can use renewable energy,
    is the lack of refueling or charging infrastructure. This becomes much
    less of a problem if cars can drive themselves to refueling or
    recharging stations because far fewer stations are needed.\40\ One
    recent study showed that electric shared autonomous vehicles could
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by 87-94 percent relative to
    current conventional vehicles and 63-82 percent below projected model
    year 2030 hybrid vehicles because of decreases in future carbon
    intensity of electricity, ``right sizing'' of vehicles, and higher
    miles traveled per vehicle.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Anderson et al., 2014.
        \41\ Jeffery B. Greenblatt and Samveg Saxena, ``Autonomous Taxis
    Could Greatly Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions of U.S. Light-Duty
    Vehicles,'' Nature Climate Change, Vol. 5, No. 9, 2015, pp. 860-863.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the other hand, passengers may prefer larger autonomous vehicles
    to allow them to take better advantage of the opportunity to do things
    other than driving, resulting in lower fuel economy and greater
    emissions.\42\ And, of course, they may drive more.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Anderson et al., 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Land Use
        Automobile use has influenced the form and extent of land
    development in the United States, leading in large part to sprawl (that
    is, low-density, inefficient land-use patterns).\43\ The land allocated
    to automobile infrastructure poses a cost to society: It could
    otherwise be used for farms, open space, homes, businesses, and other
    facilities, with associated environmental, economic, and public health
    effects.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Robert Burchell, George Lowenstein, William R. Dolphin,
    Catherine C. Galley, Anthony Downs, Samuel Seskin Katherine Gray Still,
    and Terry Moore, Costs of Sprawl-2000 TRCP Report 74, Federal Transit
    Administration, 2002.
        \44\ M. A. Delucchi and J. J. Murphy, ``How Large Are Tax Subsidies
    to Motor-Vehicle Users in the U.S.?'' Transport Policy, Vol. 15, 2008,
    pp. 196-208.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Autonomous vehicles may affect land use in two opposite ways, and
    both could take place. Commute time and distance are among the key
    factors households consider in deciding where to live. While areas
    father away from central business districts offer many benefits,
    particularly in housing size and cost, a longer commute may be too
    costly, both in terms of travel and time costs. However, given the
    ability to engage in other activities while in an autonomous vehicle,
    the opportunity cost of transportation declines. This could increase
    the willingness of households to locate farther away from the urban
    core, increasing urban sprawl.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Anderson et al., 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the other hand, autonomous vehicles could also lead to greater
    density in core urban areas. Driving remains the dominant mode of
    passenger travel in the United States, even in large cities with good
    transit options, but the typical automobile is parked for about 95
    percent of its lifetime.\46\ As of a decade ago, the total area devoted
    to parking spaces in major central business districts was, on average,
    about 31 percent of the district area.\47\ The emergence of autonomous
    vehicles could sharply reduce the amount of parking needed in core
    urban areas in several ways. First, after dropping off its passenger or
    passengers in a downtown location, an autonomous vehicle could pilot
    itself to a remote lot in a peripheral area, reducing the amount of
    parking needed in the densest urban areas where land values are
    highest. Second, as described earlier, autonomous vehicle technology
    might lead to a new model for urban mobility in the form of driverless
    taxis. Under such a system, autonomous vehicles would not need to park
    after every trip; rather, after dropping off one passenger, they would
    simply travel to pick up the next passenger. Third, the convenience and
    low cost of such a system might induce many urban dwellers to forgo car
    ownership, or at least to reduce the number of cars owned. Thus,
    driverless taxis could reduce the number of parking spaces needed in
    residential buildings, as well as at commercial centers.\48\ These
    effects, emphasizing the service character of transportation, could
    free up substantial amounts of space in urban areas for other valuable
    uses: homes, businesses, parks, hospitals, and so on.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Donald C. Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago:
    Planner's Press, 2005.
        \47\ Shoup, 2005.
        \48\ Zmud et al., 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Driving Externalities May Prevent the Benefits from Being Realized
        While the effects of autonomous vehicles are complex, some outcomes
    are clear wins. If safe autonomous vehicles are developed and used
    widely and responsibly, the current public safety crisis in the U.S.
    transportation system could be mitigated. If safe and usable autonomous
    vehicles are developed, mobility could increase for millions of
    Americans who currently have limited mobility. In addition, if the
    potential increase in transportation demand created by autonomous
    vehicles were mitigated or decoupled from fossil fuels, there could be
    enormous energy security, public health, and environmental benefits.
    Related to this, if shared autonomous vehicles are widely available and
    widely used, this could reduce private vehicle ownership and the need
    for road infrastructure, allowing repurposing of land to more
    economically productive uses.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ Zmud et al., 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yet these outcomes may not actually be realized because many
    benefits accrue to society rather than to either the producers or
    consumers of autonomous vehicles. Consumers may be unwilling to pay for
    expensive technology if much of the benefits go to others, and
    consequently, producers may be less willing to develop them. Thus,
    there is less incentive for producers and consumers to take actions
    that would achieve beneficial outcomes.\50\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Zmud et al., 2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Safety is a good example of this phenomenon, with significant
    consequences for autonomous vehicles. When an individual drives
    unsafely or operates an unsafe vehicle, he not only puts his own well-
    being at risk but also the well-being of all other road users around
    him, including pedestrians and bicyclists. However, in our current
    transportation and legal system, an individual is responsible for only
    a fraction of the full cost of being unsafe. In many States, motorists
    are required to carry only $30,000 (or less) worth of liability
    insurance--far less than is necessary to compensate someone for a
    serious injury, much less a loss of life. This leaves a huge gap
    between the harms that are regularly inflicted by drivers and the
    amount available for legal recovery. In essence, society subsidizes
    dangerous vehicles and driving behavior, creating less incentive for
    safer vehicles and behaviors.
        Economists call this an externality. An externality is an effect
    that one party imposes on another party without compensating them for
    the effect if it is negative or charging them for it if it is
    positive.\51\ The free market does not allocate resources well in the
    presence of externalities because the true costs and benefits of
    actions are distorted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ James M. Buchanan and Wm. Craig Stubblewine, ``Externality,''
    Economica, Vol. 29, No. 116, 1962, pp. 371-84.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consider how the safety externality dampens the market for safe
    vehicles, including safe autonomous vehicles. First, buyers' incentive
    to purchase safe autonomous vehicles (which we can expect to be
    expensive, at least at first) is less than it would be if full social
    benefits of safe vehicles were reflected in a lower price tag. Second,
    and related, auto manufactures' incentives to create as-safe-as-
    possible autonomous vehicles are less than they should be, because
    safety is undervalued in the marketplace.\52\ The result is that very
    safe autonomous vehicles could be technologically feasible, but fewer
    firms will develop them and fewer individuals will buy them because
    many of their benefits accrue to the public rather than the purchaser.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ This externality explains, in part, why there is little market
    for vehicles that are designed to better protect individuals outside of
    the vehicle in the event of a crash. The technology exists, but the
    societal benefit of protecting others does not reach the buyer in the
    form of a relatively lower-priced vehicle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Safety is just one externality. Many of the benefits and the costs
    of autonomous vehicles (and vehicles in general) are external. If a
    buyer's car is energy efficient, it helps the buyer somewhat, but most
    of the benefits go to other people (e.g., the people who breathe the
    air in the area where that vehicle is driven). Those costs (e.g., of
    poor air quality) are real and are borne by society. If the benefits of
    reducing pollution are not factored into the buyer's cost of the
    vehicle, there is little incentive for them to buy it, particularly if
    the vehicle is more expensive than less-efficient alternatives.
    Policymakers Can Promote Beneficial Outcomes by Internalizing
            Externalities
        So, how can we solve the externality problem? The key is to use
    policy tools to ``internalize'' externalities so that market prices
    reflect the true costs and benefits of private-sector actions. This can
    be done with subsidies, user fees, mandates, and privileges to ensure
    that producers and consumers of autonomous vehicles receive the benefit
    from (and are thus incentivized toward) making choices that benefit
    society.
        As just one example, when a driver uses a busy road, he adds to
    congestion that other travelers experience, but he does not have to pay
    for the cost of that extra congestion--the lost productivity of others
    as they sit in traffic, the delay in goods movement, and the local
    increase in pollution. But congestion is a problem that could be
    solved. Nearly all passenger vehicles in this country have space for at
    least four people, but on average, there are just 1.67 passengers.\53\
    Those unused seats are extra, already-built transportation capacity.
    But that capacity is not used because, in large part, the costs of
    carpooling are internal (the driver bears the cost of the effort and
    hassle) but the benefits of carpooling remain external (the driver does
    not benefit from reducing society's congestion). High-occupancy-vehicle
    (HOV) lanes are one partial remedy: They help internalize the positive
    externalities of carpooling by enabling carpoolers to themselves bypass
    congestion and get to their destinations faster.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ Federal Highway Administration, Summary of Travel Trends: 2009
    National Household Travel Survey, June 2011. As of November 8, 2016:
    http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are many policy options to internalize not only the
    congestion externality but also the other driving externalities related
    to safety, pollution, oil dependence, and mobility. These include
    creating insurance requirements that strengthen the market for road
    safety, offering transit incentives that reduce congestion, and
    offering rebates for using fuel-efficient vehicles, among others. Each
    option has a long history of research and discussion, and these and
    other options have been implemented to varying degrees.
        It is not possible today to give each policy the discussion it
    warrants. Nevertheless, now is the time to revisit the impact of
    driving externalities and the policies to internalize them, because
    autonomous vehicles could improve our transportation system
    tremendously, provided the right market signals are in place. In other
    words, because so many of the benefits and costs of autonomous vehicles
    would accrue to people other than the buyer, internalizing
    externalities is a key step to ensuring that society minimizes their
    disadvantages and maximizes their benefits.
        There is also a current window of opportunity to send those new
    market signals because consumer expectations about autonomous vehicle
    costs, performance, and other characteristics are not yet set. For
    instance, congestion pricing requires drivers to pay a fee to travel
    during peak rush hour, because driving during rush hour imposes higher
    congestion costs on everyone than driving at other times does. Although
    congestion pricing is widely recognized as an effective means of
    internalizing the cost of congestion and thereby reducing congestion,
    it has been difficult to implement, partly because drivers are
    unaccustomed to paying different prices based on when they travel.
    However, today, many private ride-sharing companies charge an extra fee
    for their services during rush hour, analogous to congestion pricing.
    Because these services are new and the reasons for the charge are
    understandable to consumers (greater demand for a limited supply of
    goods), these fees have been generally acceptable. Similarly, consumers
    may be more amenable to new policies that internalize the externalities
    of driving now, before autonomous vehicles are available, rather than
    later, once expectations about autonomous vehicles are set. Of course,
    these policies must apply to all auto travel, not just autonomous
    vehicle travel, for the market signals to be clear.
        In sum, it is not possible to fully predict what a future with
    autonomous vehicles will look like. However, by using the current
    window of opportunity to internalize the externalities of driving, it
    is possible to send the right market signals, paving the way for a
    future transportation system that maximizes the potential advantages
    while minimizing the potential disadvantages. This is an exciting
    future of increased mobility and economic growth and greater
    transportation safety, efficiency, equity, and sustainability.

        [Conflict of Interest Statement: Nidhi Kalra's spouse, David
    Ferguson, is co-founder and president of Nuro, an autonomous vehicle
    startup. He previously served as a principal engineer for Google's
    driverless car project. This written testimony was carefully reviewed
    by subject-matter experts within the RAND Corporation; the research
    quality assurance team for the RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and
    Environment division; and the RAND Office of Congressional Relations.
    However, the opinions and conclusions expressed in this testimony are
    the author's alone and should not be interpreted as representing those
    of the RAND Corporation or any of the sponsors of its research.]

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    and I am going to start my questions with you.

                              MOBILITY FOR SENIORS

        As a senator representing a State with the oldest median
    age in the country, I can see tremendous potential for seniors
    whose vision has diminished to the point where they no longer
    can safely drive being able to use these autonomous vehicles so
    that they can maintain a measure of independence and not be
    dependent on others. So I see that, in addition to the safety
    benefits, and really the two are linked, as being a tremendous
    advantage.
        Another advantage which I wondered whether you had analyzed
    at all is whether there would be an impact on the insurance
    market and the rates that individuals would pay for insurance
    if they are driving cars with either limited safety features
    that have been added to it or are fully autonomous.
        Dr. Kalra. I appreciate the note about seniors. My
    grandparents are in that same boat, so I understand that very
    clearly.
        In terms of insurance, yes, in the long run we might expect
    insurance rates to go down because fewer crashes mean lower
    costs for personal injury and damage, and eventually they may
    be needed for declining auto insurance. But in the short run,
    it's actually hard to say what the effect of insurance is going
    to be, for a few reasons.
        First, it may take many years or many decades for the fleet
    to become largely autonomous, so the risks may not change as
    quickly as we anticipate.
        Second, because at least for some types of autonomous
    vehicles there's going to be shared control between the human
    and the machine, there may be over-reliance on the technology,
    which is one of the things we've seen with Tesla. So it may not
    necessarily translate into lower crashes or crash rates. That
    remains to be seen.
        And third, the car repair costs for a crash could actually
    increase, because right now if I rear-end someone, it's a few
    hundred dollars to bang out that bumper, but in the future it
    could be much more expensive.
        Now, there's a different issue with people who are insured
    at the minimum insurance rate, but that's a little more
    complicated. We can go there if you want to.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.

                         EXISTING VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

        Administrator, we heard Ms. Hersman say that three
    technologies, if they were mandated, could save some 10,000
    lives. Now, whenever the Federal Government mandates, there is
    obviously cost involved. But I am curious whether NHTSA has
    considered mandating proven safety technologies that are
    available right now on new vehicles as they're manufactured. I
    should make that clear.
        Mr. Rosekind. In fact, I think as soon as anybody says to
    any of you ``We need to regulate to get safety,'' the first
    thing you need to ask is what are we going to regulate? Because
    for regulation we need performance criteria, testing, we need
    to know that there's enough penetration that we have sufficient
    data, cost/benefit analyses, et cetera.
        I say that because the last technologies that we have seen
    come through rulemaking are things like electronic stability
    control, that rear visibility camera that you like so much,
    advanced air bags. Those took 6, 8, and 10 years to actually
    get through the regulatory process. That's really important
    because in these new technologies, by the time those rules
    would come out it would be irrelevant for the new technology
    that would have evolved.
        And I say that because, quickly, in September of 2015 we
    actually challenged the auto industry: how do you take
    automatic emergency braking and make it standard on all
    vehicles? This is called democratizing safety. So it's not just
    on high-end or an option. Basically what they did was in March
    come back, and 20 automakers are going to make AEB standard by
    2022 on all vehicles in our country. That will beat regulation
    by 3 or 4 years. We can count the lives saved.
        So there are ways to do this besides regulation, and I
    think we have to use the right tool. For the moment, this
    policy is the right tool at the right time.

                    STATE REGULATIONS OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES

        Senator Collins. Well, let me ask you the other side of
    that coin. The guidance the Department has put out said a 15-
    point safety assessment is voluntary, but as you're well aware,
    States like California are already proposing to make it
    mandatory for companies that want to test or deploy automated
    vehicles. What can you do, what can NHTSA do to ensure that
    States do not arbitrarily mandate various aspects of your
    guidance document, thereby creating a patchwork of ever-
    changing State laws that would stymie innovation and the
    deployment of these vehicles?
        Mr. Rosekind. Really, a huge part of including that piece,
    the model state policy, was to differentiate the Federal versus
    State roles. In fact, directly to your point, we make it
    absolutely clear that States actually have to do nothing in
    this area. They can actually support the advancement of these
    safety technologies with no policy or regulations. If they
    choose to, we identify some areas where they can move forward.
    Everyone on the State level that we've interacted with is
    absolutely interested in seeing a consistent framework and
    trying to avoid the patchwork. This is an area I think we need
    to watch and see it develop.
        And California, as you mentioned, if you look at their
    early, sort of recommended policies, they've changed
    dramatically in their latest proposals because they waited for
    this policy.
        So I think everybody is seeing an effort and an interest
    right now in trying to prevent that patchwork, and we're going
    to have to wait and see how it actually develops.
        Senator Collins. But should the States even be involved in
    this area, or should it be left up to the Federal Government so
    that there is a nationwide standard and approach?
        Mr. Rosekind. In the policy we make that explicit, here's
    what the Federal Government is concerned about, standards for
    the vehicles, defects, et cetera, and the States, they still
    stay responsible and they don't have to do anything. We make
    that explicit.
        Senator Collins. You do, but if California is moving
    forward to implement your guidance and make it mandatory, isn't
    that contrary to the goal of your guidance?
        Mr. Rosekind. Two things. One is we are explicit in there
    saying that this policy was not intended to codify, and at the
    same time I think right now California has not actually put
    their regulations out. They've put a proposal out. They've
    talked about other aspects, that they want to evaluate it, and
    they're even questioning the language that's being used, and
    that's what I'm saying. I don't think we even know what their
    final stance is going to be, because they have continually
    emphasized the need for consistent framework.
        Senator Collins. Senator Reed.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Chairman, very much.
        I agree with Mr. Brubaker; computers don't get tired, they
    don't get road rage, but they open a whole new dimension of
    cyber security which we have to deal with. I know,
    Administrator, the FAVP encourages information sharing on cyber
    security, but we've seen incidents in which systems have been
    hacked recently, vulnerabilities in automobiles, GPS systems,
    insurance plugins have been used.
        So can you give us an idea of what you're doing in terms of
    ensuring that we can reassure the public that these vehicles
    will not be subject to cyber attacks?
        Mr. Rosekind. Thank you for emphasizing this issue because,
    as you've heard from pretty much everybody, without public
    confidence in these vehicles, it's just not going to happen.
        So specifically to cyber security, NHTSA has actually been
    on this for many years. In 2012 we formalized that with a
    group, an office within the agency. Just recently we have had a
    roundtable with 300 people, pulling them together. We had an
    intra-government meeting after that, which has resulted in
    everything from urging and supporting an agency, Auto ISAC,
    Information Sharing and Analysis Center, within the industry.
    The industry has come out with their own best practices. Just a
    few weeks ago, NHTSA came out with its own cyber security best
    practices. Just yesterday the Department of Homeland Security
    actually highlighted our cyber security best practices, a model
    for other industries to go after.
        So the good news is all of this has been done before an
    incident has actually occurred within the auto industry. One
    that everybody knows about, about a year ago in July Wired
    Magazine, that was planned. That was a researcher demonstrating
    it could be done. I'd point out that even with the authorities
    and tools we had, within 3 days the defect was called and 1.4
    million vehicles basically were already under remedy at that
    point.
        So I would just say it's a constant vulnerability. It
    clearly is a threat that needs to be addressed. But for the
    moment there's a lot of action going on in that arena.
        Senator Reed. Let me just quickly follow up with Ms.
    Hersman, and thank you. How do you think outside expertise
    could assist in combatting these cyber threats and regulating
    advanced technologies like HAVs?
        Ms. Hersman. I think there's a tremendous opportunity to
    call on experts, just like this committee does. Things change
    very quickly, and when it comes to technology, we certainly
    can't expect NHTSA to always stay on the cutting edge.
    Potentially having advisory groups, organizations that will
    assist them in evaluating new cutting-edge technology is an
    opportunity that they should consider and take advantage of
    going forward. We're going to ask so much of this agency when
    it comes to looking at the evolution of technology that we need
    to support them and give them opportunities to get the best and
    the brightest to weigh in on it.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.

                                IMPACT ON LABOR

        Dr. Kalra, I seem to be emphasizing the potential
    challenges rather than the golden opportunities, but we should
    do that. And one of them, as I mentioned in my statement, is
    employment, roughly 3 to 4 million jobs that are good jobs.
    You've done some work, I believe, on this. You made some
    comments in your discussion.
        Can you just comment upon the implications of the labor
    market, both positive and negative, for these vehicles?
        Dr. Kalra. Absolutely. So you're absolutely right that
    there are millions of Americans who make their living behind
    the wheel, and there's no question that autonomous vehicles do
    threaten those jobs. I think we have to stare that back in the
    face. The question is what to do about it.
        This transition to full autonomy is going to take time, so
    time can be an advantage in this respect in that we are ahead
    of the curve. We can start thinking now about how to develop an
    alternative job market, where that's possible. We also know
    that freight may be one of the areas that is first hit because
    of the private nature of the industry and because we're talking
    about goods movement rather than people movement. So the
    technology may make its way there faster. One aspect of that is
    that many freight experts project a lack of supply of drivers
    in the future, so there may be a little cushion in there.
        In terms of on the flip side, autonomous vehicles will
    create new kinds of jobs or increase the technical nature of
    existing jobs. An auto body shop is not going to look the same
    as it does today. So we need to prepare our young people
    especially, people in community colleges, for those high-tech
    jobs.
        The broader issue is that autonomous vehicles could and, I
    believe, will democratize transportation and give mobility to
    people who currently don't have it. Important to that is
    physical mobility. Being able to get around is one of the most
    important things to help people out of poverty, getting them
    access to training, getting them to jobs. The unfortunate part
    is people who have the least access to transportation often are
    the ones who struggle to get jobs, people who are in poverty
    who can't afford their cars.
        So there's two sides of this coin. I think we need to do
    everything we can to bring mobility to people who are currently
    underserved by our transportation system, while providing
    cushion to people who will be negatively affected.
        Senator Reed. Your comments seem to be there has to be a
    conscious, deliberate planning process because this is coming.
        Dr. Kalra. That is right.
        Senator Reed. And your best guess at when we'll see, for
    example, significant autonomy in freight delivery? Is it 5
    years? 10 years? Too far to guess?
        Dr. Kalra. I can only guess. I would be surprised if we
    don't have it in 10 years. I would be surprised if we do have
    it in the next two to three.
        Senator Reed. Okay. Anybody else want to take a wild guess,
    like the lottery?
        Senator Reed. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Daines.

                                 DATA SECURITY

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
    Reed. And thank you for testifying here today. This is a topic
    that covers many issues I care deeply about. As a 5th
    generation Montanan, we have a lot of open space, a lot of
    roadways. In fact, we just wrapped up the election season, and
    one of the candidates running for governor traveled 64,000
    miles during the course of the campaign on the roads. So that
    kind of puts in perspective that we're not as big as Texas or
    Alaska or California, but we have to drive a lot more. So I
    care very much about what you're talking about, saving lives,
    to improve passenger and freight mobility, very important for
    us in a State that requires moving our products, ag products
    particularly, around the world.
        I'm very excited about these new technologies. I spent 12
    years in the cloud computing business, executive capacity,
    before I came to politics.
        So I wanted to follow up on Senator Reed's question on the
    cyber piece here, Mr. Rosekind. You said in your testimony that
    the quickest way to slam the brakes on innovation is for the
    public to lose confidence. I think that's well said. I was a
    private employee for 28 years, and the best was when I didn't
    have my information compromised, until I became a Federal
    employee. Then I got the letter from OPM. Thank you, Federal
    Government here. I never had that issue in the private sector.
        Mr. Rosekind. I got that letter, too.
        Senator Daines. Many of us did. I'm sure if we polled the
    audience here, there would be a lot of hands going up. Clearly,
    we want to make sure we're protecting privacy and hardening our
    systems.
        Many consumers no longer have confidence in the government.
    I appreciate the fact that you're bringing some advisory groups
    in to bring that perspective. Going fast, at the speed of
    business out there, sometimes I think government needs to.
        How is NHTSA gaining the public's confidence with this
    latest guidance that you're looking at here as it relates to
    cybersecurity?
        Mr. Rosekind. I think in the policy, one of the ways
    actually that we're trying to do that is through the innovation
    approach. I think, just like when people talk about regulation,
    when you talk about cyber security, if someone were to say
    regulate that, as you know, the speed that this stuff is
    changing, by the time you get through a 6- to 10-year
    regulation it's not going to be relevant anymore.
        So, one of the 15 safety assessment items is cyber
    security. Everybody has to tell us how they're addressing that
    particular issue, and our intent here is to see as many
    different forms of innovation coming to us as we can, and the
    data will drive the safest and best way to protect these
    systems. In fact, at some point, if there are best practices,
    it should be based on that data. In the future if there's
    rulemaking, it should probably be based as a foundation on
    whatever those best practices were.
        Senator Daines. I know industry has been working
    collaboratively to address cyber and published some best
    practices in July. How did NHTSA's guidance incorporate their
    experiences and expertise?
        Mr. Rosekind. We had a lot of interaction with them. We
    knew what was coming. In fact, I would highlight not just this
    policy but our own best practices came out just a few weeks
    ago, and they complement exactly what we know the industry was
    doing.
        Senator Daines. So I guess my understanding is they didn't
    go through a notice and comment process before being issued.
    Afterwards DOT solicited comments, and I think they're due next
    week. So my question, I guess, is why wasn't there more
    consultation with industry before the guidance was issued?
        Mr. Rosekind. Well, let's keep them separated. The best
    practices came out a few weeks ago, and the policy came out
    September 20th. We actually have an extensive amount of open
    time. So the policy is under a 60-day comment period right now.
    That closes November 22nd. And what was already identified in
    here is 23 next steps. So we actually have a whole new set of
    public meetings that are coming up to talk about all the
    different elements. We just did that last week. We had a
    meeting on the letter, which includes the cyber security part.
    So there's all kinds of other opportunity for people to add
    input.
        Senator Daines. And that's helpful, and I know Senator
    Collins was talking with us a bit about some of this guidance,
    which becomes quasi-regulation. You touched on the time
    required to go through the formal rulemaking process, and the
    guidance allows you to be more nimble, but it may not always be
    as transparent. I think that's one of the political concerns we
    hear.

                               RULEMAKING PROCESS

        Should voluntary guidance policies be used to expedite the
    rulemaking process or Federal enforcement action?
        Mr. Rosekind. I think what we're trying to do is continue
    our enforcement and regulatory tools. We have those
    authorities. We're not giving any of them up. All we've done is
    try and complement those with the way to support innovation at
    this time. It is absolutely possible, if you come in with the
    right data, that we will use that data to create best practices
    and rulemaking. We actually identify potential rulemaking in
    here as well. So that is just one more tool that's being
    included to deal with this fast-paced technology.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. I'm running out of time.

                             DRIVING IN RURAL AREAS

        Dr. Kalra, a question. You discussed lowering the risk to
    pilot programs and raised questions about the ability of this
    technology to function better than humans in complex
    conditions. I come from a State that has a lot of rural roads.
    Fifty-four percent of automobile fatalities occur on rural
    roads despite the fact that just 19 percent of Americans live
    in rural areas.
        How do you incorporate issues like we have in Montana of
    unmapped roads, gravel, snow, wildlife, where 95 percent of the
    roads are rural? As we know, accidents often happen when things
    we don't anticipate occur. How do we lower the risk of these
    technologies in rural settings?
        Dr. Kalra. By testing them in those environments. And I'll
    point to the University of Michigan's testing center for
    autonomous vehicles, where they are committed to testing on
    different kinds of road surfaces, in different kinds of weather
    conditions. We need to get autonomous vehicles not only in
    sunny Southern California but also in Montana, and I think that
    has to be a priority.
        Senator Daines. The sun shines a lot in Montana, but we
    also have ice and big elk out there at times.
        Dr. Kalra. I'm from North Dakota. I know that ice.
        Senator Daines. Oh, you do understand that.
        Dr. Kalra. I do.
        Senator Daines. You might understand ice better than I
    understand it, I think.
        Anyway, thank you. I'm out of time.

                              CYBERSECURITY RISKS

        Senator Collins. Thank you for raising that very important
    issue, which is one that concerns me as well.
        Mr. Brubaker, both of my colleagues have brought up the
    cyber security issue, which is also of great concern to me as
    we've seen we have rogue States and terrorist groups that seem
    to be able to hack into virtually any database. What is the
    industry doing to address the cyber security risks of
    autonomous vehicles, and do you think that there's more that
    NHTSA could do to proactively address such a risk?
        Mr. Brubaker. Yes, I do. The one thing I would caution is
    you want to be very careful in regulating cyber security and
    establishing cyber rules because you tend to lock in a solution
    that's relevant for that time period, but it's not timeless.
        But to answer your specific question about what NHTSA can
    do, I would actually start by going across the river to the
    five-sided building and start talking to the people who have
    been doing embedded system cyber security for years who are
    really good at it. One of the key elements of the third offset
    strategy the Department is pursuing right now--and I know both
    you and the ranking member have a strong defense background, so
    you would get this--is really focusing in on automation and
    robotics, advanced robotics. So they're doing the kind of cyber
    security strategy and employing the kind of tactics that you
    need to really lock down these embedded systems, and they've
    been doing it pretty successfully for years.
        So I think the one thing that we could do is look across
    the river, look to the IC, the intelligence community, for
    lessons learned on how they do encryption, how they do
    authentication. I know that the industry has issued its best
    practices but, frankly, when I look at it, I think it's a lot
    of reinventing the wheel, a lot of things that have already
    been done.
        I would also say, again, the caution on the regulatory
    piece is we've had the Federal Information Security Management
    Act, FISMA, for a number of years, but it didn't prevent the
    OPM hack. So you can issue the regulations, and you can comply
    with those regulations, and you can go down a cyber security
    checklist, but unless it's substantive, and unless it's moving,
    because it's a constant game with the adversaries, and you need
    to understand their motives and what they're about and do the
    risk assessment accordingly and structure your systems from the
    ground up.
        The one area that I think industry has really got to pay
    very close attention to is supply chain integrity, where
    they're securing the components, they know where those
    components come from, they have visibility end to end, and
    there are a handful of companies out there who are focused on
    it, automakers that are focused on it. But by and large, the
    industry is having a very difficult time adjusting its culture
    to harden its systems.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.

                               DISTRACTED DRIVING

        Ms. Hersman, yesterday's New York Times quoted you in the
    area of distracted driving, and you pointed out that new
    technologies that are intended to allow the driver to keep his
    or her hands on the wheel may actually be preventing the driver
    from paying attention to his or her driving environment, and
    the article quotes you as saying it's the cognitive workload on
    your brain that's the problem.
        Are you concerned that automated and self-driving
    vehicles--well, self-driving vehicles are not a problem if we
    really get to that stage. But the semi-automated, if you will--
    you have your scale for the degree of automation--are going to
    produce even more distracted drivers and thus more crashes?
        Ms. Hersman. I would say there are always unintended
    consequences when we introduce new things. We do know that
    people are very distracted today. People are addicted to their
    devices that they bring into the car with them. The challenge
    with moving to things like hands-free is that people think that
    the distraction is in their hands, but the distraction is
    really in your brain. We would have outlawed stick-shift cars a
    long time ago if it was our hands that were the problem.
        So when we look at automating vehicles further, what that
    does is potentially has the human being stepping back a little
    bit, and human beings typically are not good monitors. When
    everything works according to plan 99 times out of 100, it's
    hard for the human being to pay attention 100 percent of the
    time. In aviation we call this over-reliance on automation. We
    saw pilots' skills deteriorate as airplanes performed more
    functions for the pilot.
        One of the challenges is how do you compel the human being
    to pay attention so that when they need to take over or when
    they need to intervene, they're ready and they're prepared to
    do so? If you could text, if you could read the newspaper, if
    you could do other things, 99 percent of the time it might work
    well. It's that one time that you need to intervene that you're
    not prepared to, and we haven't even touched on impaired
    drivers and drivers who might be sleeping, who might be
    fatigued or not paying attention.
        So there definitely are some risks and some tradeoffs. I
    think a number of the panelists have touched on these. That's
    why we talk about the messy transition between Level 1 and
    Level 5 and having to keep that human in the loop, how can you
    compel them when they need to be engaged to do it.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.

                        LESSONS FROM VOLVO DEMONSTRATION

        Administrator, last month the world's first shipment by a
    self-driving truck was made by an auto Volvo truck. I watched
    the video of that. There was a professional driver on board
    but, in fact, the truck was driving itself 120 miles along
    Interstate 25, and it was operating fully autonomously without
    that driver's assistance. It was very exciting to watch, but
    I'll have to admit to you it also made me a bit nervous as I
    watched it.
        Are there any lessons from that test that NHTSA has learned
    so far, and would it have any effect on where you're going with
    your future guidance?
        Mr. Rosekind. Absolutely. Let me just add a little bit to
    that confidence. That was actually at 2:00 a.m. in the morning
    with a patrol car behind them, so there was a lot more
    protection there than just what you see in the video, which was
    very promotional.
        Having said that, there is a lot of lessons learned, and
    part of the reason to have the policy out is so that people are
    basically handling all these safety issues before they're ever
    out testing or deploying these kinds of things. That's part of
    what we're trying to do, is be proactive instead of reactive,
    wait for something bad to happen and then react to it. We'd
    rather deal with all of these issues, not just with that truck
    example but what's going on in Pittsburgh. You cited all of the
    exciting things that are happening, but we really need to make
    sure that safety is being addressed, at least for these 15
    items, before these things get tested or deployed on the road.
        Senator Collins. Senator Reed. Thank you.

                                IMPACT ON LABOR

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Ms. Chairman.
        Mr. Brubaker, you in your testimony note also this
    potential labor shift and that we have to be prepared to
    respond to it. Could you just give us your advice or your
    thoughts on the type of coordination at the Federal level we
    have to take to anticipate this and deal with it?
        Mr. Brubaker. Sure, absolutely. I want to commend the
    subcommittee for the language that they put in the report
    language last year asking the Secretary to devote funds to TRB
    (Transportation Research Board) to study the economic impacts
    of these self-driving technologies because, as we all know,
    there will be displacement, and we really need to understand it
    and get proactive.
        So it's going to involve a number of different Federal
    agencies. I mean, the obvious one is the Department of Labor.
    They would be best poised to kind of understand where the
    shifts are. But I think even to the point where you're
    identifying the most vulnerable professions would be very, very
    helpful. And then even to the point where if people wanted to
    volunteer proactively for retraining and job placement in
    needed skill areas, we could coordinate that, and it's one of
    the areas that we lay out in our framework. It's the eighth
    area where we really need to be mindful of it and very
    sensitive.
        I mean, I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, and I saw what
    happens when people don't--and how they vote later--when people
    aren't treated with respect.
        Senator Reed. That's exactly right. I was in Niles a few
    months ago, right outside of Youngstown.
        Mr. Brubaker. Near my hometown.
        Senator Reed. So I get it. We have to be very, very
    conscious of this.

            NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION GUIDANCE

        Doctor, you and RAND published a guide on this technology
    in 2014. As you look at NHTSA's guidance, do you think they're
    addressing policy areas that need to be addressed at the
    Federal level? I have harped on employment and cyber security.
    Are there other issues?
        Dr. Kalra. Can I ask, do you mean for NHTSA in particular,
    or the Federal Government in general?
        Senator Reed. NHTSA in particular, and then go big.
        Dr. Kalra. Okay. For NHTSA, I think they need to continue
    the course that they're going on. Their guidance is admirable.
    It threads the needle well on how do you provide guidance and a
    framework for safety while allowing innovation to occur. But
    one of those items is, for example, ethics, and it asks
    developers to say how will the car handle ethical issues. Even
    if the reporting is done, it's not clear that reporting will
    lead to safety. So there's a gap there because even though one
    can follow the guidelines, that doesn't mean autonomous
    vehicles will be safe, and that's because no one really knows
    how to prove safety in advance of getting these vehicles on the
    road.
        So I think continuing in that direction is important.
        For the Federal Government more broadly, in addition to the
    economic issues, I just want to reiterate that there are market
    distortions. I know this is wonky, this is what RAND does, but
    there are market distortions in our transportation system that
    mean that we don't take full advantage of the opportunity for
    cost savings.
        I'll be very specific. When we have pollution, whether it's
    factory pollution or automotive pollution, that's a real cost
    to our society. It is paid in healthcare. It is paid. It's not
    an invisible cost; it's a real cost. The question is who pays
    for it? So as long as the market does not take into account the
    costs that we all bear for some of these activities, there
    isn't an incentive, a market incentive to reduce them.
        So I think that is something that often gets overlooked as
    we talk about the safety of autonomous vehicles, which is
    understandable. But I would encourage us, if we want this
    future of sustainability and efficiency and mobility for
    everyone, to look at the other things in our transportation
    market that are preventing us already from achieving those
    goals.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Ms. Hersman, in terms of NHTSA's guidance, do you think it
    effectively addresses safety concerns from your perspective?
        Ms. Hersman. I would say it's a good first step, and I
    think we can see the challenge that exists of not having
    anything and having a vacuum, and then the States are stepping
    in, there's a patchwork system. But I think we're also so in
    the early days here. There's so much that we don't know. If
    they were to put out regulations right now, they probably
    wouldn't be the right ones.
        So I think when we look at the balance between the Wild
    West of doing nothing and saying nothing on this and letting
    everyone do whatever they want versus locking everything down
    with prescriptive regulations going into the future, I think
    they've really tried to achieve a fine balance there. I think
    there's more work to be done, absolutely. But I think this
    gives people something to react to. It gives us a framework to
    start from.
        I do want to go back to the issue of workplace. We're a
    safety organization, so we track deaths and injuries. The
    transportation industry is one of the most dangerous when it
    comes to workers' health and their injuries and deaths. They're
    just behind the construction industry for absolute numbers of
    fatalities, and just behind agriculture and mining for the
    rates. So it's a very dangerous job. Forty percent of workplace
    fatalities are motor vehicle crash related.
        So those folks, we want to make them safer too. So if we
    can have that path to figure out how to take care of them over
    the long run, I think this will be good for them as far as
    their safety.

                               ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

        Senator Reed. There are so many opportunities for safety,
    for improved productivity, for better health effects. But then
    there's the other side of the equation of what about the
    drivers that have done a good job, the defined pension, et
    cetera, and suddenly there's an autonomous vehicles and thank
    you very much for your service. We have to deal with that.
        And that goes to the question of there are some people that
    might prefer the Wild West, let the chips fall where they may
    and this will work itself out. But that goes to, Mr. Rosekind,
    the agency has to have a role here.
        So can you just give us a sense of what that role is going
    forward as you deal with a very sophisticated industry that is
    conscious of these issues, the safety advocates of the cyber
    dimensions? Can you just give us assurance that it won't be the
    Wild West but it will be innovative and based on good
    experience?
        Mr. Rosekind. You've just heard from pretty much everybody
    on the panel what a challenging arena to address. How do you
    make sure you don't clamp it down, all this great American
    entrepreneurial spirit that could save lives and make life so
    much better for everybody? Henry Claypool is over there. We
    talk about the elderly. He's representing the disabled
    community. Never had driver's licenses; don't need them.
    Autonomous vehicles can do it. We're just talking about great
    entrepreneurship and innovation being tremendous and not
    wanting the Wild, Wild West. That's why it's the right tool at
    the right time.
        The policy is intended, we hope, to be literally as
    innovative for the government as it is for the technology
    companies. This is a first step. In fact, in there we make a
    commitment that in a year, with all of the different 23 next
    steps that are going on, on an annual basis this policy will be
    reviewed and updated. We can't do that with regulation in any
    kind of effective way.
        So we're trying to strike for a very first effort that
    right balance, to support innovation and safety. People think
    they're at the opposite ends. We're trying to support that
    middle ground, safety and innovation, because we're talking
    about 32,092 lives, and we could save all of them. Autonomous
    vehicles should play a critical role in us getting there.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                             ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

        Senator Collins. Thank you and I appreciate very much you
    bringing up the employment impact, which is certainly something
    for us all to think about as well.
        I just have a couple more questions. One, Dr. Kalra, do you
    see any energy consumption and environmental benefits from the
    deployment of autonomous vehicles?
        Dr. Kalra. Absolutely. There are tremendous benefits and
    risks. But the benefits include, for example, if we have a
    large number of autonomous vehicles, we can increase the
    throughput of vehicles on our roads, reduce congestion, because
    a lot of congestion is actually caused by crashes. So there's a
    reduction in congestion, which immediately translates into a
    reduction in fuel consumption.
        But if we think big, one of the biggest challenges we have
    in getting real alternative fuels, like hydrogen, into our
    transportation system is the infrastructure problem, meaning
    the distribution problem of how many hydrogen stations do you
    need. And if an autonomous vehicle, fully autonomous, can drive
    itself to a hydrogen station in the future, gas up at 2:00 in
    the morning, or maybe there are long lines but no one cares
    because there's no one in there, autonomous vehicles could
    actually make possible transportation fuels that right now are
    struggling to get off the ground because of these logistical
    issues.
        So the opportunities, dare I say it, are limitless for
    improvement. But again, the market signals should also be in
    play.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.

                             ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

        I have one final question that I wanted to ask each of you,
    and that is as I have gotten more involved in this fascinating
    issue, there is a question that keeps occurring to me, and that
    is the ethical considerations that a human driver makes when
    faced with two unpalatable choices. I wonder how do you teach a
    fully autonomous vehicle judgment, the kind of judgment that
    that professional truck driver has because of his or her many
    years of experience.
        I was thinking--and we've all been in these kinds of
    situations where you have to make a split-second judgment on
    whether you're going to swerve around a vehicle that suddenly
    stopped or has spun on an icy road and risk going off the road
    and hitting a tree, perhaps killing yourself and your
    passengers, or a pedestrian or a bicyclist has darted in front
    of you in the road, and yet if you slam on the brakes you're
    going to be back-ended.
        I mean, driving is not a simple task. It requires complex
    judgments all the time. So how does a self-driving vehicle make
    those kinds of judgments?
        We'll start with the Administrator, and I'd like to go
    right down the line.
        Mr. Rosekind. I am going to use that to address two things.
    You've just raised a great example of all the unknowns that are
    out there still related to autonomous vehicles, and the
    questions you've just raised--and there are many, many more
    related to ethics--there are no answers right now. But we are
    taking hands off the wheel, human hands, and putting them into
    the hands of a coder, because that car will be programmed to
    make decisions, basically.
        So I think that's why, for example, people have questioned
    us--it's part of our 15-item assessment. We put ethics in
    there, and people have questions. When you think about when
    people are really going to accept these and have confidence,
    and we know the ethics are going to be an issue people are
    going to ask about, there are no answers right now. That's why
    it's in there for us to really look at the innovation of what
    people bring to this.
        But let me just add one element to that that nobody is
    really talking about. I've been fortunate over about the last
    decade to get to know Captain Gene Cernan, the Apollo 17
    astronaut, the last man who walked on the moon. One of my
    favorite sayings at safety meetings with him is, you know, I'm
    never going to live long enough to make all the mistakes that
    could kill me, right? So why does he go to safety meetings? For
    just that reason.
        So think about how all of us learned to drive a vehicle.
    Our experience is those ethical decisions we're going to make
    are based on our personal experience. Now, with autonomous
    vehicles, if we collect all of this information and share those
    cases where somebody died in some unique edge or corner case,
    if that information were shared, no other person should ever
    lose their life in that same situation because that information
    gets shared with the entire fleet, with every vehicle that's
    out there. That's the future that we could look toward,
    including in these ethical issues. We get to make decisions at
    some point that we could share and make sure that everybody
    basically is allowed the same opportunity to be safe.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Ms. Hersman.
        Ms. Hersman. I would probably fall back on the 10 years
    that I spent at the NTSB and say that we've got to take care of
    the data. That means we've got to learn from the data. It's got
    to be accessible. We have to have standardized, accessible
    formats.
        If you think about black boxes on airplanes, that's how we
    learn. We know what happened. When it comes to autonomous
    vehicles, or even something that's in-between, in order to
    understand those decisions or those outcomes that you talked
    about, who was in charge? The car, the human, or some
    combination of the two?
        We've got to share that data. When we talk about mistakes
    that occurred or close calls or things that happened, if we
    don't have all manufacturers willing to share those lessons
    learned, we're going to have to have each provider learn the
    lesson anew every time. So we've got to look at this
    holistically and say there will be failures. Will there be
    deaths? Absolutely, as this technology rolls out. Will there be
    things that happen that we don't expect? I can't tell you how
    many investigations we went into and people said this was never
    supposed to happen. This scenario was 10 to the minus 9th. It
    was never going to occur, and it did.
        So things will happen, but that data to me is incredibly
    important to how this rolls out and to maintain that confidence
    going forward. We've got to learn.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Mr. Brubaker.
        Mr. Brubaker. Yes. So these ethical issues when they get
    raised cause me to lose the rest of my hair here. Part of the
    issue is we're all thinking about this in a human context.
    We're all sort of applying that judgment that we have to make,
    and what we're not cognizant of or what we're really not
    thinking through is that the level of situational awareness
    that these vehicles are going to have far exceeds that of a
    human. You're talking about redundant sensors. You're talking
    about the ability to see far beyond what a human eye can see
    and have this 360-degree, 24/7 situational awareness.
        The data is important. I agree with the two prior speakers.
    But the thing that we have to remember is that this is all
    about artificial intelligence. This is about instantly
    assessing the situation, constantly assessing it, calculating
    probabilities and reducing the risk of being in an emergent
    situation where you've got to make two really unpalatable
    choices.
        So my whole view on this, and this is from having lots and
    lots of conversations with people in the AI world and people
    who are looking at this and building the sensor suites and
    mashing up this technology, that those ethical considerations
    are--I don't want to call them a red herring, but in many cases
    the whole notion is to create the kind of technology that will
    avoid those emerging situations in the first place.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Dr. Kalra.
        Dr. Kalra. I agree with the other speakers in almost every
    regard. I do want to say that when we raise these vivid
    examples of swerve or do this, people don't actually make
    ethical judgments when they decide what to do. They make snap
    judgments. They don't have time. They barely react. It's just a
    knee-jerk thing that you do without thinking about the
    consequences. The ethical things that we do when we drive, or
    the unethical things, are driving when we're intoxicated, or
    texting while we drive, and autonomous vehicles won't make
    those kinds of ethical mistakes.
        But the ethical judgments that autonomous vehicles will
    have to make I don't believe are the pedestrian versus the
    driver but really about how the autonomous vehicle distributes
    risk on the road at every moment of driving. The example I'll
    give is when I'm driving and there's a bicyclist next to me,
    I'll drive in the middle of the lane because I want to
    distribute the risk differently between the bicycle, myself,
    and the other people who might be on the road. Autonomous
    vehicles will have to make those judgments, and I think
    attention needs to be placed on how do autonomous vehicles
    ethically distribute regular risk on the road rather than in
    the sort of imminent crash cases, and there's no answers to
    this because even ethicists don't have the thing that's the
    right thing to do. But I would urge us to put our attention on
    those everyday kinds of ethical problems.
        Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
        Senator Reed, do you have anything else?
        Senator Reed. No.
        Senator Collins. I want to thank you all for testifying
    today. This was a superb panel.
        This technology is so fascinating and moving so quickly,
    and the fact that it could substantially reduce or perhaps one
    day even eliminate the 94 percent of crashes that are
    attributable to human error is truly an astonishing fact, and
    that's one fact that prompted me to call this hearing.
        I appreciate your advancing our understanding of the
    issues, the technology, and the policy considerations that we
    will have to face.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The hearing record will remain open until next Wednesday,
    November 23rd, 2016. There may be additional questions
    submitted by us or by our colleagues for the record. We very
    much appreciate your cooperation, and we look forward to
    continue to working with you.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., Wednesday, November 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

                  MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING

        [Clerk's Note.--The following outside witness testimonies
    were received subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the
    record.]
    Prepared Statement of John Bozzella, President and CEO, Association of
                               Global Automakers
        On behalf of the Association of Global Automakers (``Global
    Automakers''), I am pleased to provide the following statement for the
    record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
    hearing entitled ``The Automated & Self-Driving Vehicle Revolution:
    What Is the Role of Government?'' Global Automakers represents
    international automobile manufacturers that design, build, and sell
    cars and light trucks in the United States. These companies have
    invested $52 billion in U.S.-based facilities, directly employ more
    than 100,000 Americans, and sell 47 percent of all new vehicles
    purchased annually in the country. Combined, our members operate more
    than 300 production, design, R&D, sales, finance and other facilities
    across the United States.
        The automotive industry is in the midst of an unprecedented wave of
    technological innovation that is redefining how we think about
    transportation. Advancements in connected and automated vehicle
    technology promise to enhance mobility, help save lives, improve
    transportation efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption and associated
    emissions. Over the past several decades, our members have made
    tremendous strides in safety by improving vehicle crashworthiness;
    today, automakers are deploying crash avoidance technologies to help
    prevent crashes from occurring altogether. Our members are at the
    forefront of this innovation, as they have made, and continue to make,
    substantial investments in the research and development of automated
    vehicle systems and other advanced automotive technologies.
        With the introduction of advanced sensors such as cameras and
    radar, a number of vehicles on the road today already provide automated
    functionality through advanced crash-avoidance and convenience features
    like automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, and adaptive
    cruise control. These systems, which are foundational to the
    development of more highly automated systems, are designed to provide
    support to the driver only in certain situations. As these systems
    become more advanced, a vehicle's capability to operate without active
    control by the driver will increase.
        The next breakthrough in vehicle safety, and a critical technology
    for realizing the benefits of automated driving, is Dedicated Short
    Range Communications (DSRC) connected car technology. This technology
    supports vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) allowing cars to have
    greater 360-degree situational awareness. Through DSRC, vehicles can
    speak to each other and to surrounding infrastructure at the rate of
    ten times per second to avoid crashes and improve mobility. This
    technology is on the road today; pilot projects and deployments around
    the country are using DSRC supported applications to demonstrate the
    value of connected mobility to the traveling public. Soon, and
    increasingly into the future, we will share our roads with automated
    vehicles; V2V has the ability to connect all vehicles, regardless of
    mode or level of automation.
        While we are indeed at the cusp of a transportation revolution
    through connected automation, these transformations are not inevitable
    nor accidental. Public policy can either spur investment and
    innovation, or hinder them, depending on which policy choices are made.
    Effective public policy on connected and automated vehicles should have
    two components. First, it should be flexible and provide room for
    innovators to develop, test and sell new technologies. Overly
    prescriptive and rigid regulation would slow and limit innovation.
    Second, manufacturers should be able to build vehicles and systems that
    can be sold in all fifty States. A patchwork of inconsistent laws and
    regulation would be unworkable.
        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Federal
    Automated Vehicle Policy, released in September 2016, provides a policy
    framework that is more flexible and nimble than the formal rulemaking
    process, and recognizes that technology can advance more rapidly than
    regulation. Last month, NHTSA issued its Cybersecurity Best Practices
    for Modern Vehicles to complement the important efforts already
    underway within the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center
    (Auto-ISAC) to develop industry-led best practices to enhance vehicle
    cybersecurity as systems become more electronic and connected. Issues
    of consumer privacy have also been addressed through the automakers'
    consumer privacy protection principles. These actions, by Federal
    regulators and industry, help spur the development of live-saving
    technologies and ensure that the public has confidence in them.
        The NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy is intended to address
    a number of key policy questions and is a positive first step to
    demonstrate Federal leadership. The Policy is divided into four main
    sections. First, the Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated
    Vehicles outlines recommended practices for the safe pre-deployment
    design, development and testing of highly automated vehicle systems
    prior to the sale or operation on public roads. The Guidance was
    designed to be flexible and dynamic; it is intended by NHTSA to
    highlight important areas that manufacturers should consider and
    address as they design and test their systems. The Guidance provides
    for a ``Safety Assessment Letter,'' a voluntary tool by which
    developers would communicate to the agency how it addresses fifteen key
    safety areas in designing their vehicles and systems. NHTSA is in the
    midst of developing a template for the Letter, and we believe NHTSA
    should establish a clearly defined and practicable approach that does
    not create an undue administrative burden that could slow innovation.
    It is also our expectation that NHTSA will not use the Guidance and the
    Safety Assessment Letter as a mechanism for ``premarket approval'' (or
    ``premarket disapproval'') of automated vehicle technology, as this
    would extend beyond the agency's current authority.
        Second, the agency has developed a Model State Policy which seeks
    to provide guidance to the States in order to help support a more
    uniform nationwide approach to automated vehicle policy. While the
    Policy cannot in itself preempt State action, it does set a clear
    marker in defining the roles of State government in addressing issues
    related to vehicle automation. We support the strong statements in the
    Policy that affirm that ``[t]he shared objective is to ensure the
    establishment of a consistent national framework rather than a
    patchwork of incompatible laws,'' and that ``[the] Guidance is not
    intended for States to codify as legal requirements for the
    development, design, manufacture, testing, and operation of automated
    vehicles.''
        However, despite the guidance in the Model State Policy, several
    States are in the process of establishing their own regulatory programs
    for automated vehicles. In some instances, State departments of motor
    vehicles would assume the responsibility of determining whether a
    particular automated vehicle or system is safe and thus may be sold or
    operated in the State. Such State-by-State regulations would present a
    significant obstacle to the future testing and deployment of automated
    vehicles. While the Model State Policy clearly delineates the Federal
    roles and States' roles, it does not clearly limit or prevent State
    regulation of automated vehicle design and performance.
        Additionally, we have some concerns with certain recommendations in
    the Model State Policy that encourage States to regulate automated
    vehicle test programs. Already, we have seen State proposals to require
    manufacturers to obtain an ordinance authorizing testing from each
    local jurisdiction in which testing will be conducted. However, Federal
    law authorizes original manufacturers to conduct on-road test programs
    and authorizes NHTSA to regulate test programs. Allowing a patchwork of
    State and local test requirements for automated vehicle testing would
    significantly obstruct the development of these vehicles. We are open
    to working with NHTSA and Congress to ensure there is a path forward
    for automated vehicle deployment without unnecessary obstacles at the
    State level.
        Third, the Federal Policy provides a useful description of the
    agency's current regulatory tools, which includes issuance of safety
    standards, interpretations of the meaning and application of standards,
    and exemptions from standards, as well as the agency's ability to take
    enforcement action regarding safety related defects. Each of these
    tools could have a valuable application in facilitating and regulating
    the entry of automated vehicles into U.S. commerce. At the same time,
    we must consider the long-term efficacy of these tools in determining
    whether other regulatory and non-regulatory policies may be appropriate
    and necessary in the future. It is important that any action be data
    driven and technology neutral.
        Finally, the agency discusses the potential new tools and
    authorities that may be necessary in addressing the challenges and
    opportunities involved in facilitating the deployment of automated
    vehicles. We agree with NHTSA's assessment that new authorities could
    assist the agency in facilitating the development and introduction of
    automated technology. However, imprudent legislation in this area could
    have the opposite effect and delay technology development. For example,
    we see no basis at all for any change to the self-certification system
    for vehicles. The Federal Policy's discussion of the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) process of ``premarket approval'' is not practical
    given the structural differences between the automotive industry and
    aviation sector, and implementation of such an approach could
    significantly slow innovation. Similarly, the Safety Assessment Letter
    should not be used as a means to prohibit testing or deployment of
    technology without adequate data to support an unreasonable safety
    risk.
        We believe that NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy is an
    important first step in the development of a flexible and nimble
    approach that can adapt to the pace of technology. However, the
    document requires further clarification and refinement to achieve these
    goals. Global Automakers is currently preparing comments on the NHTSA
    guidance and will provide a copy to the Committee upon submission to
    NHTSA. Additionally, we agree with NHTSA that the agency should update
    its Federal Automated Vehicle Policy and regularly review the Policy,
    as it is designed to never be frozen or final. Global Automakers and
    its members remain committed to working with Federal, State, and local
    governments to ensure there is a flexible, consistent framework for
    automated vehicle technologies so consumers can fully realize the
    benefits as quickly as possible.
        In addition, the Federal Government must move expeditiously to
    establish a framework for the deployment V2V communications through
    DSRC connectivity. NHTSA is developing a new vehicle safety standard
    that would require vehicles to be equipped with DSRC technology. Global
    Automakers looks forward to the release of the proposed rule, and will
    continue to work with the Federal Communications Commission to ensure
    that the 5.9 GHz Safety Spectrum remains free from harmful interference
    to support DSRC technology.
        The automobile industry continues to provide innovative
    technologies with demonstrable safety, mobility, and environmental
    benefits. To achieve these benefits, there must be close collaboration
    and coordination among and between government, industry, academia, and
    other stakeholders. Global Automakers and our member companies believe
    that connected and automated vehicles represent the next giant leap
    towards our shared long-term goal of safer and cleaner, and more
    efficient vehicle transportation.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
        There are public perceptions that auto accidents and insurance
    costs are decreasing. In fact, our roads are becoming increasingly
    dangerous and auto repair and medical costs are increasing. According
    to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA),
    17,775 people died on our Nation's roads in the first half of 2016.
    Traffic deaths are increasing at the fastest rate in 50 years, with a
    10.4 percent increase in the first 6 months of this year. Even adjusted
    for the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the fatality rate
    increased 6.6 percent to 1.12 per 100 million VMT. Non-fatal injuries
    are on the rise as well, increasing 28 percent since 2009, according to
    the National Safety Council. Someday, self-driving cars may reduce the
    number of accidents and deaths. However, the potential of automated
    vehicle technology stands in sharp contrast to what is happening on our
    roads today.
        The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) is
    composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest
    cross section of insurers of any national trade association. PCI
    members write $202 billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the
    Nation's property casualty insurance. That figure includes over $97
    billion, or 42 percent, of the auto insurance premium written in the
    United States. PCI's analysis has found that since 2013, auto claims
    frequency has increased nearly 5 percent, increasing the overall cost
    of claims by more than 18 percent. PCI has analyzed the recent increase
    in auto insurance claim frequency and found strong correlations with
    traffic congestion and distracted driving, weaker correlations from
    increasing populations of novice and older drivers, and some
    correlation with liberalized marijuana laws.
        While it is important to prepare for the automated vehicle of the
    future, we urge policymakers to continue to focus on the auto safety
    challenges that face us today, such as distracted and impaired driving.
    H.R. 22, the FAST Act, provides for increased public awareness,
    improved enforcement, and establishing an enforceable impairment
    standard for drivers under the influence of marijuana. These provisions
    are critical to reducing accidents, injuries and deaths on our Nation's
    roads. The importance of addressing these issues was also the subject
    of a bipartisan letter from 23 members of Congress to Transportation
    Secretary Foxx urging prompt implementation of these FAST Act
    provisions.
        [The bipartisan letter is attached.]
        NHTSA recently unveiled its ``Federal Automated Vehicle Policy,''
    which is intended to provide guidance for States on the testing and
    deployment of highly automated vehicles (HAVs). While mentions of
    insurance are few, the new policy raises issues that are important to
    the automobile insurance market as it seeks to adapt and develop new
    products to meet consumer needs.
       recognition of state regulation of insurance and liability issues
        NHTSA's policy identifies the following as Federal
    responsibilities: setting and enforcing safety standards for motor
    vehicles, recalls, promoting public awareness and providing guidance
    for the States. NHTSA's policy also recognizes that it is the State's
    role to license drivers and vehicles, enforce traffic laws, regulate
    motor vehicle insurance, and legislate regarding tort and criminal
    liability issues pertaining to automated vehicles. PCI shares the view
    that the States should continue to have primacy on motor vehicle
    insurance and liability issues as they do today, and we support NHTSA's
    recognition of that role.
        NHTSA's policy also repeats the recommendation from its 2013
    guidance that entities testing automated technology should provide
    proof of financial responsibility coverage of at least $5 million. PCI
    has not taken a position on this coverage requirement. However, as HAVs
    are deployed for public use, States will need to consider what, if any,
    changes need to be made to existing State motor vehicle financial
    responsibility laws.
                           data collection and access
        As policymakers consider what data should be collected and retained
    by automated vehicles, it is essential that insurers have reasonable
    access to the data for providing customer service for claims handling
    and underwriting purposes. In many auto accidents, apportionment of
    liability is likely to hinge upon whether or not a human driver or the
    vehicle itself was in control and what actions either the driver or the
    vehicle took or did not take immediately prior to the loss event.
    Access to data for insurers will speed claims handling and potentially
    avoid disputes that could delay compensation to accident victims.
    Access to historical anonymized data on the different automated vehicle
    systems will also be important to help insurers innovate and develop
    new insurance products as the nature of the risk changes.
                                   conclusion
        Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future.
    Implementing clear policies on the Federal and State roles in
    regulating automated vehicle technology and ensuring that insurers have
    access to vehicle data on reasonable terms to efficiently handle
    claims, develop products and underwrite are essential to that future.
    However, policymakers must not lose sight of the auto safety issues
    that face us today. We look forward to working with policymakers at the
    Federal and State level to reduce accidents on our roads today and in
    the future.

                                   Attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]