[Senate Hearing 116-618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 116-618

                       HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES:
      FEDERAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE DEPLOYMENT OF SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 20, 2019

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov



                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

52-797 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023












       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada

                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on November 20, 2019................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    21
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    24
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    27
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    31
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    33
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    35
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    36
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    38
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    40
    Letter dated November 19, 2019 from Senator Edward J. Markey 
      to Elon Musk, Co-Founder and CEO, Tesla....................    42
    Consumer Watchdog report.....................................    50
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    44
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    47
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    48

                               Witnesses

Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, Department 
  of Transportation..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Dr. James C. Owens, Acting Administrator, National Highway 
  Traffic Safety Administration..................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III, Chairman, National Transportation 
  Safety Board...................................................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15

                                Appendix

Letter dated November 18, 2019 to Chairman Wicker and Ranking 
  Member Cantwell from Jamie Boone, Vice President, Government 
  Affairs, Consumer Technology Association.......................   101
Letter dated November 19, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. 
  Maria Cantwell from Tim Day, Senior Vice President, C--TEC U.S. 
  Chamber of Commerce............................................   104
Letter dated November 19, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. 
  Maria Cantwell from Brad Stertz, PAVE Co-Chair, Director of 
  Government Affairs, Audi USA and Kelly Nantel, PAVE Co-Chair, 
  Vice President of Communications and Advocacy, National Safety 
  Council........................................................   104
Letter dated November 20, 2019 to Chairman Roger Wicker and 
  Ranking Member Maria Cantwell from Gerardo Interiano, Head of 
  Government Relations, Aurora...................................   105
Letter dated November 20, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. 
  Maria Cantwell from Robyn Boerstling, Vice President, 
  Infrastructure, Innovation and Human Resources Policy, National 
  Association of Manufacturers...................................   106
Letter dated November 20, 2019 to Chairman Wicker and Ranking 
  Member Cantwell from David Estrada, Chief Legal and Policy 
  Officer, Nuro..................................................   112
Letter dated November 20, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. 
  Maria Cantwell from Robbie Diamond, President and CEO, Securing 
  America's Future Energy........................................   114
Letter dated November 20, 2019 to Chairman Wicker and Ranking 
  Member Cantwell from Danielle Burr, Head of Federal Affairs, 
  Uber...........................................................   115
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
  Safety, prepared statement.....................................   117
Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 
  of American Railroads, prepared statement......................   130
Prepared statement of American Property Casualty Insurance 
  Association....................................................   133
John Bozzella, President and CEO, Association of Global 
  Automakers, Inc., prepared statement...........................   134
Prepared statement of the National Association of Mutual 
  Insurance Companies............................................   136
Prepared statement of the National Safety Council................   139
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Joel Szabat by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   143
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................   144
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   144
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   145
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   146
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. James C. Owens by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   146
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................   147
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................   148
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   148
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   150
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   151
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   153
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   153
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   155
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt 
  III by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   155
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................   156
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   157
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   158
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   159









 
                       HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES:
                      FEDERAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE
                    DEPLOYMENT OF SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Blunt, 
Fischer, Blackburn, Capito, Young, Scott, Cantwell, Blumenthal, 
Schatz, Markey, Peters, Duckworth, Tester, Sinema, and Rosen.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order and we've been 
told that it's all right to begin. The Committee convenes today 
for a hearing to examine Highly Automated Vehicles: Federal 
perspectives on the deployment of safety technology. I'm glad 
to convene this hearing. Senator Cantwell and her staff will be 
here momentarily.
    I want to welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them for 
appearing. We'll hear from Mr. Joel Szabat, Acting Under 
Secretary of Transportation for Policy; Dr. James Owens, Acting 
Administrator of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
or NHTSA; and Mr. Robert Sumwalt, Chair of the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
    Today's hearing will focus on the Federal Government's role 
in realizing the opportunities offered by automated vehicles 
[AVs]. These technological advancements in the transportation 
industry have the potential to revolutionize our society by 
improving safety and mobility for all Americans. This committee 
is advancing the safe testing and deployment of this 
technology.
    As the fatal crash in Tempe, Arizona, highlights, safety is 
and will continue to be paramount. In the Tempe crash, Ms. 
Elaine Herzberg was tragically struck and killed by an Uber 
test vehicle while crossing the street. Records show that the 
vehicle detected Ms. Herzberg's--Mrs. Herzberg's presence 5.6 
seconds before the crash, but failed to brake. It is imperative 
that manufacturers learn from this incident and prevent similar 
tragedies from happening again.
    Today's hearing provides an opportunity to discuss how 
these safety challenges can be addressed while continuing to 
move forward with this technology. The witnesses should discuss 
best practices and ongoing efforts to ensure safety, that is a 
priority during testing.
    Recently, the Department of Transportation started to 
update its processes and regulations through guidance 
documents, requests for information, grants, and proposed 
rulemakings. I commend Secretary Chao's work across modal 
agencies, including through the Non-traditional and Emerging 
Transportation Technology or NETT Council, to help Federal 
policy keep pace with innovation.
    I invite today's witnesses to update the Committee on the 
Department's efforts to oversee and regulate AVs and describe 
next steps in this process. The Committee seeks recommendations 
on how Congress may further support the Department of 
Transportation's work on automated vehicles.
    These recent efforts are a step in the right direction. 
But, with AVs already being tested on our roads in more than 34 
states, strong Federal leadership is required to govern the 
successful implementation of this technology. This year, the 
Commerce Committee has restarted its efforts to craft 
legislation to set a Federal regulatory framework governing the 
safety of AVs. Led by Senators Thune and Peters, this Committee 
is working with the House Energy and Commerce Committee to 
draft bipartisan, bicameral legislation through a consultative 
process involving stakeholders. The Committee have already 
received more than 100 letters from industry, state and local 
governments, and consumer and disability advocates.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for witnesses to share 
further information that may instruct Congress's work on AV 
legislation. We would like to hear how such legislation would 
advance AV integration and testing and facilitate deployment of 
AVs.
    As we continue to develop a regulatory framework, the 
discussion should also be driven by the potential benefits of 
AVs to improve the country's transportation systems. According 
to NHTSA, more than 36,000 people were killed on U.S. roads 
last year. Ninety-four percent of all traffic crashes are due 
to human error. Automated technology thus has the potential to 
save thousands of lives by reducing crashes due to impairment, 
distraction, fatigue, and more.
    In addition to improving safety, AVs represent an 
opportunity to provide greater mobility to different segments 
of the population. AV technology could improve transportation 
for the disabled and the elderly, giving them newfound 
independence.
    As technology continues to improve, AVs will be 
increasingly part of our daily lives. Therefore, it is up to us 
to ensure that the safety benefits of these vehicles are fully 
realized. KPMG found that, while the U.S. is home to the 
world's leading AV companies, the U.S. ranks 9th in the world 
in legislation and policy governing AVs. Without a strong 
national approach, other countries will have the opportunity to 
take our place as a leader in this field.
    I look forward to a good discussion with the witnesses and 
my colleagues today as we consider the safe testing and 
development of automated vehicles. I now turn to my friend and 
Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for holding this hearing. And I would be remiss if I didn't 
thank Senator Thune and Senator Peters for their longstanding 
work and coordination on this issue. We're here today because 
we want to discuss the issues of technology advancements that 
we've had in the past, such as everything from seatbelts to 
airbags to electronic stability controls and how it's helped 
us.
    You mentioned the number of incidents, yet tragically, more 
than 36,000 people died on our roadways in 2018. This remains 
far too many. Today over 90 percent of our roadways fatalities 
are contributed to human error and there are ways in which 
advancements in technology have the potential to drive down 
these numbers. But obviously we have to talk about how these 
technologies and automation are affecting our vehicles and the 
importance of the human element process.
    Research also consistently shows that drivers disengage 
from a task of driving when using automated tools. I believe 
the interaction between humans and technology, particularly 
this whole area of automation, is one that we know is going to 
be very much part of the future, but needs a lot more 
attention.
    Over the past 3 years, more companies have been putting 
automated vehicles, otherwise known as AVs, out on the road, 
and sometimes ending in fatal consequences. In several of these 
accidents, the drivers were not paying attention to the roadway 
and unable to intervene to avoid the crash. Drivers relied on 
technology to safely operate as intended, and when the 
technology failed, the consequences were severe. This pattern 
with AV technologies cannot continue. So what we need to do is 
continue to learn from these lessons and make sure that we're 
putting safeguards in place.
    Just yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board 
held a hearing on a fatal crash involving one of Uber's 
automated test vehicles. The NTSB noted that Uber made the 
decision to remove an automated braking system before testing 
the AV out on the road, which left the driver as the last line 
of defense. The driver's inattentiveness led to a pedestrian 
being fatally struck by this test vehicle. The NTSB highlighted 
Uber's poor safety culture, which ultimately led to this 
unbelievably tragic death. So I want to thank the NTSB for 
being here today and for your continued work.
    Uber has made changes to address the safety culture in 
response to the NTSB, but I want to make a point that a 
positive safety culture everywhere is helpful to all of us. 
Over 80 companies are currently testing automated vehicles on 
the public roadways, and we need to know that everyone has 
safety at the forefront of their decisions. We need to know 
what Federal regulators are doing to ensure companies are 
thoughtful through these testing issues. And as I said, I feel 
like we as an entity can do a lot more on this human-technology 
interface, and knowing what to do about it and what the 
response times could possibly be.
    The National Highway Safety Transportation Administration 
has voluntary safety assessments as a way for companies to 
communicate how they are prioritizing safety. However, some of 
these self-assessments read more like a marketing brochure than 
critical assessments. Noticeably missing from the list of 
companies that submitted voluntary assessments were Tesla and 
Uber, both of which had fatal incidents.
    So I do think it raises a question about what kind of 
structure we need to have in place to make sure that these 
safety safeguards are not just voluntary, but have to be met, 
and that the regulators are playing their role.
    So Mr. Chairman I look forward to hearing more at the 
hearing today about these important issues and, again, thank 
you to our witnesses for being here.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Cantwell and we'll now 
begin our testimony with Mr. Szabat. Thank you sir for being 
here.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL SZABAT,

               ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY,

                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Szabat. Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the United States 
Department of Transportation and Secretary Elaine L. Chao. 
We're testifying about the Department's efforts to support the 
safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the 
Nation's transportation system.
    The Secretary's top priority for the department has been, 
is and will remain safety. One of our other priorities is for 
the Department to engage with emerging technologies to ensure 
that legitimate concerns over safety, security and privacy are 
addressed without hampering innovation. These advanced vehicle 
technologies have the potential for improving safety on our 
roads. As the Chairman just mentioned, human behavior is a 
factor in up to 94 percent of serious crashes.
    Our focus on safety was clarified in the September 2017 
release of Automated Driving Systems 2.0, A Vision for Safety, 
which serves as the cornerstone for automated vehicle efforts.
    This approach was fundamental to the development of 
Automated Vehicles 3.0, Preparing for the Future of 
Transportation. This document expanded the scope to provide a 
framework for a multimodal approach to the safe and full 
integration of automated vehicles into our nation's broader 
surface transportation system. A point that Ranking Member 
Cantwell just made. The vision laid out an AV 3.0, serves as a 
foundation for the actions the Department is taking today.
    For example, in September, Secretary Chao announced $60 
million in automated driving system demonstration grants for 
eight projects in seven states. These grants were focused first 
and foremost on the safe demonstration of these technologies. 
Second, on the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in the 
community where these demonstrations occur, signifying a broad 
coalition of engaged and willing stakeholders. Last, on 
generating the actual data needed to help update future 
regulations and standards.
    Similarly, one of the key areas of focus for the Department 
is the development of automated vehicle technology for use by 
people with all types of disabilities. We take to heart the 
mantra, nothing about us, without us; including people who have 
disabilities in decisionmaking process, as accessibility 
technologies developed. We hope this message resonated in 
particular to the inclusive design challenge which Secretary 
Chao announced as part of the nearly $50 million--as part of 
nearly $50 million in accessibility-related research and 
technology deployment at the recent Access and Mobility For All 
summit.
    We are also working with our partners across the Federal 
Government to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach 
to these technologies. Working with the White House Office of 
Science and Technology Policy. We are leading in development of 
a document that will catalog all actions being taken by over 30 
Federal agencies, expanding the principles from AV 3.0, and 
helping to provide a full understanding of the U.S. 
Government's investments and engagements with these 
technologies.
    In addition, the Department is working to publish a 
comprehensive plan that outlines the steps needed to be taken 
from where we are today to the safe and full integration of 
these technologies into the American transportation system. The 
Department appreciates the collaborative relationship it has 
enjoyed with this committee and with the Congress as it seeks 
to update legislation regarding automated vehicles. It is vital 
to understand your congressional priorities as we work to 
update our regulations, conduct policy initiatives, and shape 
our research into these areas.
    We look forward to this continued collaborative 
relationship and working with you to ensure the future of the 
American transportation system and that it is safer, more 
efficient, and more accessible for all. Thank you. I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Szabat follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under Secretary for 
                  Policy, Department of Transportation
    Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to 
testify on behalf of the United States Department of Transportation 
(USDOT) and Secretary Elaine L. Chao about the Department's efforts to 
support the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the 
Nation's transportation system.
    The Department has previously testified about the safety potential 
of advanced vehicle technologies, including Advanced Driver Assistance 
Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving System (ADS) technologies. These 
advanced vehicle technologies have the potential to mitigate crashes 
associated with irresponsible and often illegal behavior by assuring 
compliance with traffic laws, eliminating driver distraction, and 
improving vehicle responses to emergency situations.
    At the beginning of this Administration, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) led in the development and 
publication of Automated Driving Systems 2.0, A Vision for Safety (ADS 
2.0). ADS 2.0 improves and refines previous policy and incorporates 
feedback received through public comments and Congressional hearings. 
ADS 2.0 supports the safe deployment of automated vehicle automated 
driving systems (ADS) by providing voluntary guidance that encourages 
best practices and prioritizes safety.
    This focus on safety served as the cornerstone for the Department's 
efforts to develop an updated, multi-modal guidance document: Preparing 
for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0)\1\. 
AV 3.0 provides a framework and multimodal approach for the safe 
integration of ADS technology into the Nation's broader surface 
transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-
initiatives/automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-
automated-vehicle-30.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The multimodal approach enshrined in 3.0 adds to, the work NHTSA is 
doing regarding the safety of the vehicles and vehicle equipment by 
including roads and road users to the automation safety equation. The 
guidance includes:

  1.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) existing 
        authorities around the safe operation of commercial motor 
        vehicles;

  2.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) safety authority over 
        public transportation; and,

  3.  The state and local transportation agencies, whose work is 
        preparing for the impacts of automation on infrastructure.

    AV 3.0 also includes other transportation modes at USDOT engaging 
with vehicle automation, such as the Maritime Administration (MARAD), 
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) which provided input based on its decades of 
experience with automation in aviation, as aircraft automation provides 
greater levels of safety and efficiency in aviation operations. Many 
lessons learned and safety approaches in aviation are considered by the 
automotive industry.
    As described above, the Department involved multiple modes and 
broad stakeholder groups to establish a holistic and durable framework. 
In addition, the Department laid out a number of key principles for how 
to address the public's concerns regarding the safety, security, and 
privacy of these technologies.
    AV 3.0 provided new safety guidance, building upon what we already 
knew and expanding it to emerging modes of transportation. It reduced 
some of the policy uncertainty our partners face as they approach 
difficult, novel, and complex questions, and outlines the process for 
working with the USDOT.
    So, first and foremost, safety is our top priority. The Department 
will lead efforts to address potential safety risks and advance the 
life-saving potential of automation, which will not only protect the 
public from any potential safety risks but also strengthen public 
confidence in these emerging technologies. Secondly, we will be 
technology neutral. The government will not dictate what types of 
technologies innovators must use to achieve higher levels of safety. We 
are dedicated to using the 5.9 GHz band for transportation safety 
purposes, and for near-term innovations such as automation and 
artificial intelligence, but we do not want to be prescriptive 
regarding whether they should use Dedicated Short Range Communications 
(DSRC), Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X) or a future 5G 
technology. While we are ``technology-neutral,'' we care deeply about 
safety outcomes and will require proof that a crash-prevention 
technology works in the most dynamic and complex of transportation 
scenarios that are most frequent cause of crashes. We support an 
innovative ecosystem that will produce technology with the best 
benefits for safety and for crash prevention capabilities, which also 
delivers congestion mitigation, and deployed.
    We will continue to modernize our regulations. NHTSA has numerous 
ongoing rulemakings related to automated vehicles, and ADAS and ADS 
technology. FMCSA is also continuing to work on revisions to it 
regulations, while FHWA is working to update the Manual of Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices to take into account AVs.
    We are preparing proactively for automation. This includes not only 
the work of updating regulations, but also thinking through the 
potential workforce impacts and training needs, working with industry 
and stakeholders to describe the capabilities and limitations of the 
technologies, and identifying and managing data needs while ensuring 
privacy and addressing security impacts.
    And, finally, we seek to ensure that people understand that the 
Department is seeking to provide additional options for safe 
transportation, including emerging and non-traditional modes driven by 
innovation. We must prepare for a future where there are traditional 
vehicles driving side-by-side with vehicles that include many different 
types of advanced technologies, some with no human driver at all.
    One of the most tangible outputs of AV 3.0 to date has been the $60 
million Automated Driving System Demonstration Grants in Federal 
funding announced by Secretary Chao on September 18, 2019. The 
Department received 73 applications \2\ for these grants, and awarded 
eight grants in seven states. These grants focus on the ability to 
demonstrate these technologies safely, so that people can see, touch, 
and learn about them. It is our hope that the more Americans can engage 
with these technologies, the more comfortable they may become with 
them. The ADS Demonstration Grants also required applicants to bring 
together partnerships in the community that harness the collective 
expertise, ingenuity, and knowledge of multiple stakeholders to support 
technology deployment and understanding. This ensures that there is a 
level of education and comfort with the types of demonstrations 
envisioned. The awards also focus on generating the types of data that 
may be useful to the Department as it evaluates the safety of AV. The 
ADS Demonstration Grants are required to generate the data that may 
someday help safety experts, economists, or regulatory lawyers focusing 
on future regulatory paths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.transportation.gov/av/grants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accessibility also remains a key area of focus for the Department. 
One of the important documents for laying the groundwork for our 
accessibility initiatives prior to AV 3.0 was the publication by our 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics of Travel Patterns of American 
Adults with Disabilities.\3\ This report identified that most Americans 
will have a disability at some point in their lifetime, whether it's 
visual, auditory, cognitive, or mobility-related, or through the 
challenges of becoming older. Automated vehicle technologies can open 
new labor opportunities, or help people connect with their families and 
communities. As the Department works through its initiatives, we 
continue to encourage the industry to focus on a vision of universal 
accessibility and universally designed products that accommodate 
individual preferences and abilities. The Department will protect the 
ability of consumers to make the mobility choices that best suit their 
needs. We will support automation technologies that enhance individual 
freedom by expanding access to safe and independent mobility to people 
with disabilities and older Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.bts.gov/topics/passenger-travel/travel-patterns-
american-adults-disabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the ways the Department is focusing on accessibility and 
working proactively with stakeholders is through the Inclusive Design 
Challenge, which Secretary Chao announced October 29, 2019 at the 
Access and Mobility for All Summit. This challenge, which will make up 
to $5 million in cash prizes available, was developed alongside 
innovators, people with disabilities and advocacy groups, to support 
the development of vehicle design solutions to enable accessible 
automated vehicles. The Department aims to increase availability and 
decrease cost of aftermarket modifications that improve accessibility 
of vehicles today and spark development for future automated vehicles.
    The Department has also been working with partners across the 
Federal Government, industry, labor, and the public on the potential 
impacts of Automated Vehicle Technologies to the American workforce. 
The Department is conducting a study alongside the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Commerce to address issues 
pertaining to the workforce with the introduction and adoption of 
automation, primarily focused on impacts to commercial motor vehicle 
and transit bus operators. The study focuses on labor force 
transformation/labor force training, technology, operational safety, 
and quality of life.
    The AV 3.0 document continued this conversation, noting that this 
is not the first time the Department has faced concerns over people 
losing their jobs because of automation. The FAA has dealt with this 
question going back decades, as auto-pilot technologies developed. 
These concerns were understandable, but today we see that pilots are 
still very highly valued, very highly respected, and well-paid, and 
there is still a shortage of airline pilots. Automation improved their 
lives in many ways, notably improving safety and the quality of their 
jobs. While we cannot predict the development of automated trucking 
technologies, we've seen similar issues in the past and we must learn 
from these experiences.
    As we look at all the AV-related actions across the government, we 
have asked ourselves how to best ensure they are aligned, complementary 
and non-duplicative. We are doing this in two ways.
    First, the USDOT is working hand-in-hand with the White House 
Office of Science and Technology Policy to catalogue and align all of 
the activities among all of our Federal partners to ensure they are 
aligned under one set of principles. There are over 30 Federal agencies 
working in this area, with actions and authorities that can help 
provide a full understanding of the U.S. government's investments and 
engagements with the technologies. There is great value in bringing 
together this information in one place so that all partners--Congress, 
Federal, State, local, tribal, industry, advocacy groups and the 
public--can have a better understanding of the entire ecosystem.
    Second, work continues on a comprehensive plan for the safe and 
full integration of automated vehicle technology into our national 
transportation system. As part of any comprehensive plan, one must 
envision the end state, compare it to the current situation, and 
outline the actions that the Department needs to take to support this 
future. As envisioned in AV 3.0, the foundation for this document will 
be the Department's approach to safety.
    The Department looks forward to continuing to work with the 
Committee and the Congress to provide feedback and technical assistance 
on any automated vehicle-related bills or provisions. The Department 
has appreciated the opportunity to work closely with our Congressional 
partners on ongoing legislative development, as well as focusing the 
regulatory updates, policy initiatives, and research needed to enable a 
future with a safer and more efficient transportation system for all.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 
have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Szabat. Dr. Owens, 
you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. OWENS,

                     ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,

         NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Owens. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Cantwell and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting 
me to testify today regarding NHTSA's efforts under the 
leadership of Secretary Elaine Chao to facilitate the safe 
testing and deployment of advanced vehicle technologies.
    Safety is NHTSA's number one priority and we work to 
enhance vehicle and highway safety by using the wide variety of 
tools at our disposal. We exercise broad enforcement authority 
to require the recall of any vehicle or equipment, including 
software, that poses an unreasonable risk to safety. The Agency 
also adopts safety standards when technologies are proven and 
the standards are supported by clear evidence and sound 
science. We conduct research into technology and behavior to 
help make vehicles and their drivers safer and we partner with 
state and local officials to improve highway safety and with 
many stakeholders to raise public awareness about safe driving 
behaviors.
    Our efforts are making a difference. Over the past 50 years 
our Nation has seen a dramatic decline in crash fatality rates, 
but we still lost 36,560 lives on our highways last year, so we 
still have a long way go.
    New vehicles are safer than ever before, but we believe 
that new technologies can and will make them even safer in the 
future. Today, developers are investing billions of dollars in 
advanced technologies that are helping drivers avoid crashes or 
reduce the severity of crashes that do occur. This innovation 
is leading to growing levels of automation that can address 
some of the unsafe driving behaviors that cause most serious 
crashes.
    The United States leads the world in advanced vehicle 
technologies because innovators are able to develop safety 
enhancing technologies here. NHTSA exercises careful oversight 
over these developing technologies by closely communicating 
with developers, conducting research into emerging technologies 
and human factors, investigating incidents and complaints, and 
when necessary and appropriate, exercising our broad 
enforcement authority. And when the time is right, when the 
technology is proven, we may adopt performance-based standards 
for automated vehicles.
    Importantly all vehicles on our roads today, even those 
being tested, require an operator to be in control or ready to 
take control as a fallback and the operator is responsible for 
ensuring the safe operation of their vehicle at all times. 
NHTSA is engaged in research on these emerging technologies as 
technologies advance from traditional vehicles to those with 
increasing levels of automation, we must address the ability of 
human drivers to assume control when necessary. NHTSA is 
currently engaged in human factors research to evaluate various 
methods for notifying and engaging the driver as needed to 
maintain safe operation of the vehicle.
    Vehicles with advanced levels of automation will affect 
more than just their operators and occupants. We are 
researching how these vehicles can influence and take into 
consideration the behavior of pedestrians, bicyclists, and 
other vehicles. NHTSA began exploring ways to address 
automation and its policies and regulations several years ago 
and we are working on numerous regulatory initiatives related 
to the future governance of automated technologies. NHTSA also 
continues to engage in frequent dialogue with innovators to 
ensure that our safety concerns are incorporated in all stages 
of product development.
    In closing, along with our state and local partners, NHTSA 
will continue to use all of its tools to support the safe 
development, deployment, and oversight of advanced vehicle 
technologies. Thank you and I look forward to answering any 
questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Owens follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. James C. Owens, Acting Administrator, 
             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members 
of the Committee. I am James Owens, Acting Administrator of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Thank you for 
inviting me to testify today on the subject of NHTSA's efforts, under 
the leadership of Secretary Chao, to facilitate the safe testing and 
deployment of advanced vehicle technologies, such as Automated Driving 
Systems (ADS).
    Safety is the Department's and NHTSA's number one priority, and we 
are committed to reducing crashes, preventing death and serious 
injuries, and lowering the economic costs of roadway crashes. The 
agency works to enhance vehicle and highway safety by using the wide 
array of tools at our disposal.
    First and foremost, everything at NHTSA begins with data: it drives 
our research, rulemakings, enforcement activities, and public education 
campaigns. We collect safety data that helps all NHTSA stakeholders 
better identify challenges and opportunities for improvement.
    We conduct research on emerging technologies, safety issues, and 
ways to improve the safety of current motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment. We also research human behavior to identify ways to 
encourage people to make safer choices when driving and to avoid 
driving when drowsy or impaired.
    Next, we promote investment in improving vehicular safety, first by 
establishing minimum safety standards for motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment. We also evaluate and rate new vehicles through our 
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), empowering consumers with safety 
information to help them select the best vehicles for their needs and--
because consumers value safety--this creates market-based incentives 
for manufacturers to design safer vehicles to earn higher ratings.
    At all times--including where our regulations have not adopted 
minimum standards--we stand ready with the full force of our 
enforcement tools to protect the public, to investigate potential 
safety issues, and to compel recalls when we find evidence of 
noncompliance or an unreasonable risk to safety. Our enforcement and 
defect authority is broad, and we do not hesitate to use it when we 
detect an unreasonable risk to public safety.
    Finally, we partner with State and local officials, including law 
enforcement, to improve highway safety. We also work with many 
stakeholder partners to develop advertising campaigns to educate the 
public and encourage drivers to make safer choices, using resources 
provided to NHTSA by Congress.
    Our efforts are having an impact--over the past 50 years, our 
Nation has seen a dramatic decline in crash fatality rates. In fact, 
the fatality rate in the early 1970s was about four times higher than 
today; the percentage of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities declined 
from nearly 50 percent of all fatalities in 1982 to less than 30 
percent in 2018; and seat belt use has increased to about 90 percent 
nationwide.
    We are proud that, through the adoption of improved safety features 
and other lifesaving technologies such as air bags and electronic 
stability control, new vehicles have become much safer. Recent data 
indicates that vehicle occupants have a significantly greater chance of 
surviving a serious crash if they are in a newer vehicle than in an 
older one. These technological improvements to vehicle safety are the 
combined result of NHTSA's safety standards and the voluntary 
investments that automakers have made in response to consumer demand 
for enhanced safety.
    But we still have a long way to go. While we are pleased that 
fatalities on our Nation's roadways fell by 2.4 percent in 2018, or 913 
fewer lives lost than in 2017, we also must remember that 36,560 people 
were killed in traffic crashes in 2018. That's more than 36,000 
families who lost loved ones. Our efforts to reduce fatal crashes and 
serious injuries will continue by promoting additional investment and 
innovation to reduce the incidence of crashes, and to reduce the 
severity of crashes when they do occur.
    One of the primary causes of serious crashes is human error. Our 
research indicates that four behavioral factors are involved in the 
vast majority of roadway fatalities: speeding, driving while impaired 
by drugs or alcohol, failing to wear seatbelts, and driving while 
distracted. NHTSA works closely with our State and local partners on 
high-visibility enforcement and advertising campaigns to target these 
behaviors. Our efforts have helped to increase the use of seat belts 
and reduce the number of impairment-related crashes.
    In addition to our work with State and local partners, we also 
believe that advanced technologies have the potential to make our 
roadways significantly safer. We have already seen technologies improve 
the occupant protection of vehicles, while crash avoidance technologies 
such as electronic stability control have avoided or mitigated 
thousands of crashes and saved thousands of lives over the past decade.
    States are deploying technology for traffic safety using 75 
megahertz in the 5.9 Gigahertz band set aside by the Federal 
Communications Commission. The purpose of this Safety Band is to keep a 
dedicated transportation safety communication channel. Now, new vehicle 
and infrastructure technology being developed here and elsewhere use 
this band to communicate between vehicles to stop them from crashing, 
and between vehicles and infrastructure such as traffic lights to 
smooth traffic flow. Toyota is planning to deploy this technology in 
Japan and Volkswagen in Europe. The commitment of airwaves for 
transportation use was--and still is--a prudent decision.
    Today, many manufacturers are developing and rolling out new 
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) such as automatic emergency 
braking and lane keeping assistance, which can help drivers avoid 
crashes or help reduce the severity of crashes that do occur. We expect 
that these and other developing technologies will help reduce 
fatalities among pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and the 
early data on the efficacy of these technologies are promising.
    It is critical that the public understands a vital fact about 
current technologies: all vehicles sold to the public today require a 
driver to be fully attentive and cognitively engaged in the driving 
task at all times. This is true even if the car is equipped with any of 
the ADAS technologies currently on the market. While these ADAS 
technologies are improving and enhancing safety, they are not self-
driving. Misusing driver assistance systems by failing to maintain 
control of the operation of the vehicle at all times can result in 
serious and even deadly crashes. Consumer education is an important 
tool in ensuring that ADAS technologies are used in a way that enhances 
safety.
    In addition to driver assistance technologies, we are seeing 
significant investments in more advanced Automated Driving Systems 
(ADS) that might one day allow vehicles to drive themselves and thereby 
have the potential to greatly reduce the number of fatal crashes 
involving human error or poor choices. ADS technologies may also 
enhance mobility for underserved communities and reduce congestion on 
our crowded highways. These technologies are being developed today by 
many different innovators, and NHTSA is actively participating by 
maintaining a close dialogue with developers to ensure that our safety 
concerns, including concerns about the cybersecurity of vehicles, are 
incorporated into the product development process.
    Together, ADAS and ADS technologies are part of a technological 
revolution in transportation that promises to change our most basic 
assumptions about what vehicles can do.
    But as with any revolution, these developments also carry 
uncertainty. Advanced technologies may not always work as designed or 
advertised. Driving is an extremely complex task, and developers 
acknowledge there will be substantial challenges in getting ADSs ready 
for deployment. As a result, we are likely to see an extended period 
during which ADS-equipped vehicles are being tested and deployed, 
likely only on a limited basis. If the history of other vehicle 
technologies is any guide, some versions of these technologies will 
work better than others. But let me assure you: along with our State 
and local partners, NHTSA will continue to use all of its tools to 
support the safe development, deployment, and oversight of advanced 
vehicle technologies.
    My testimony today will elaborate on the tools NHTSA leverages to 
promote safety with respect to both ADAS and ADS technologies, 
including data and research, rulemaking, enforcement, and public 
education.
Data and Research Tools
    A great deal of ADAS and ADS technology is still under development. 
Accordingly, many of NHTSA's current activities are focused on data 
collection and research to support updating and modernizing regulations 
for older technologies, and to support developing future test 
procedures for ADAS and ADS technologies. Some examples include: 
assessing the effectiveness of newer driver assistance systems, 
evaluating human interactions with ADS technology, studying the 
protection of occupants in alternative seating arrangements and 
orientations, and evaluating component and cybersecurity safety.
    As we transition from traditional vehicles and those with limited 
ADAS features to ever increasing levels of automation, we will address 
the ability of drivers to assume control when necessary. In all but 
fully automated vehicles, which are not commercially available yet, 
driver readiness to resume control is critical to safety. NHTSA is 
currently engaged in human factors research to evaluate various methods 
for notifying and engaging the human driver as needed to maintain safe 
operation of the vehicle.
    One of the most exciting promises of ADS technology is the 
potential to provide mobility options not previously afforded to people 
with physical, sensory, and/or cognitive disabilities. As an example, 
accessible ADS-equipped vehicles are expected to provide information 
through appropriate modes to interact with vehicle occupants. Research 
is also underway to explore the information needs of people with 
disabilities.
    Vehicles that are fully automated will affect more than just their 
operators and occupants. We are researching how these vehicles 
influence and take into consideration the behavior of pedestrians, 
bicyclists, and other humans and vehicles using the roadway. This type 
of research is needed to understand human behavior in response to 
automation and the new challenges such interactions will bring.
    NHTSA is working closely with industry partners to broadly 
implement cybersecurity best practices. NHTSA encourages greater 
utilization of the Automotive Information Sharing Analysis Center 
(Auto-ISAC), which continues to grow, adding several new members in 
2018 and releasing seven Auto-ISAC Best Practices guides thus far. 
NHTSA is also working to update the agency's ``Cybersecurity Best 
Practices for Modern Vehicles'' document.
    For the past few years, NHTSA and the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE) International have conducted joint government/industry 
cybersecurity workshops to discuss how to address critical issues 
unique to the automotive industry. The agency, along with many other 
Federal agencies and industry partners, participated in the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security's 2018 biennial exercise, Cyber Storm, 
and we are preparing now for the 2020 exercise.
    Lastly, in coordination with the industry, NHTSA conducts and 
publishes innovative research into mitigation strategies, testing 
methods, system interfaces, and organizational preparedness that 
support the continuous improvement of cybersecurity of modern vehicles. 
Our researchers are in frequent contact with industry and developers to 
discuss their findings.
Guidance and Rulemaking Tools
    In addition to advancing critical research, NHTSA works closely 
with the industry and technology companies to promote safety as 
innovators develop ADAS and ADS technology.
    ``Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for Safety 2.0'' (ADS 2.0), 
which was issued in September 2017, improved and further refined a 
flexible, non-regulatory approach to ADS technology safety by 
supporting the automotive industry and key stakeholders, including 
State and local governments, as they further develop and design best 
practices for safe testing and deployment of ADS levels 3-5.
    In October 2018, the U.S. DOT released ``Preparing for the Future 
of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0'' (AV 3.0).\1\ AV 3.0 builds 
on, but does not replace, the voluntary guidance provided in ADS 2.0, 
expanding the scope to all surface on-road transportation systems. As 
with ADS 2.0, AV 3.0 was developed with input from a diverse group of 
stakeholders. And, of course, it is critical that the United States 
maintain its leadership in the area of advanced vehicle technologies, 
and the evidence indicates that we are succeeding. In fact, at the June 
2019 United Nations World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP.29) meeting, the Contracting Parties approved a 
Framework Document to guide the future work of the United Nations on 
Automated Vehicles. The framework is modeled on ADS 2.0, and was 
drafted by NHTSA staff in close cooperation with Japan, China, and the 
European Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For more information on the Department's AV activities, please 
see: https://www.trans
portation.gov/AV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NHTSA and the U.S. DOT's guidance will evolve as technology does, 
with safety as the constant cornerstone of our policies and 
initiatives.
    To help facilitate the development of advanced vehicle 
technologies, NHTSA uses its rulemaking tools to promote investment in 
improving vehicle safety. It establishes regulations to adopt minimum 
safety standards for motor vehicles, and minimum performance 
requirements for vehicles that are equipped with a specific technology.
    Some of NHTSA's existing policies and regulations will require 
updating to address the innovative vehicle designs being introduced by 
ADS developers. Knowing this, NHTSA began exploring ways to address 
automation several years ago. Currently, NHTSA is working on numerous 
regulatory initiatives related to future governance of ADS 
technologies. Some of these initiatives seek comment on requirements 
that may not serve any safety purpose if applied to ADS-equipped 
vehicles and thus may unnecessarily increase their cost. Other 
initiatives address test procedure challenges introduced by some ADS-
equipped vehicles.
    Existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) may present 
unintended and unnecessary barriers for future ADS vehicles without 
drivers. Historically, FMVSS have been based on the concept of a human 
driver operating the vehicle. With the introduction of ADS, the driving 
tasks will increasingly shift from humans to the system. The absence of 
a human driver creates opportunities for vehicle manufacturers to 
design new vehicle architectures that may remove driving controls, 
change seating configurations, and establish new interfaces for 
passengers in a manner consistent with safety. The agency is gathering 
information to support decisions about potential adaptation of 
regulations to address unnecessary barriers to such innovative designs 
while ensuring that these vehicles would have equivalent levels of 
safety and performance to systems and components covered by existing 
safety standards. NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) on May 28, 2019, to seek comments on existing motor vehicle 
regulatory barriers in the crash avoidance standards to the 
introduction and certification of ADS.
    We are also undertaking several actions to update the process by 
which industry may seek exemptions from regulatory requirements. By 
proposing improvements to the current exemption processes, we hope to 
facilitate testing and enhanced safety oversight by allowing a wider 
variety of entities to request exemptions to operate nonconforming 
vehicles on public roads for purposes of research and demonstrations. 
One NPRM, titled ``Expansion of Temporary Exemption Program to Domestic 
Manufacturers for Research, Demonstrations, and Other Purposes,'' will 
propose new submission and reporting requirements for vehicles to be 
exempted, mirroring those applicable to exempted imported vehicles.\2\ 
All such exemptions would require demonstration that the vehicles would 
have an equivalent level of safety to our existing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2127-AM14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Tools
    All new vehicles, including ADS-equipped vehicles, must comply with 
existing FMVSS, and all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are 
subject to NHTSA's broad and powerful safety defect authority. That 
means that defective vehicles and equipment must be recalled and 
repaired when the manufacturer or the agency determines that the 
vehicles or equipment present an unreasonable risk to safety. 
Manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of any safety-
related defects and remedy those defects for free.
    While NHTSA is committed to working with industry to foster 
innovation and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the 
development of advanced safety technologies, the agency's first and 
foremost priority is safety. As manufacturers develop and test advanced 
vehicle technologies, NHTSA will continue to engage in ongoing dialogue 
with innovators to ensure that our safety concerns are incorporated in 
product development, and we will also remain vigilant to ensure these 
innovative technologies do not pose an unreasonable risk to safety. As 
ever, the agency will not hesitate to use its enforcement authorities 
when it is necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the 
traveling public.
Public Education Tools
    NHTSA understands that realizing the lifesaving potential of 
advanced vehicle technologies will rely heavily on consumer acceptance, 
and so it is vital to build public confidence through education and 
outreach. We believe this is a crucial component to fostering 
transparency and understanding of these systems.
    To promote public engagement and transparency around the testing 
and development of ADS technologies, the agency established the 
voluntary safety self-assessment (VSSA) as a mechanism for entities 
that are developing and testing ADSs to communicate how they are 
prioritizing safety. As companies release VSSAs, NHTSA creates links to 
these materials on its VSSA Disclosure Index website.\3\ It has been 
our experience that most companies approach the agency before 
publishing VSSAs, and the agency stands ready to assist by providing 
technical feedback as the documents are developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ To view the VSSAs currently available, please visit: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in order to promote transparent public engagement, 
when companies petition NHTSA for exemptions from any of the FMVSSs for 
testing or deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles, the agency issues a 
public Request for Comment to take into consideration public input 
before granting or denying a request. If it grants such a petition, the 
agency will decide what terms and conditions should be placed on the 
grant to promote public safety and provide data needed to carry out its 
regulatory and oversight responsibilities.
    NHTSA is also planning to conduct additional consumer market 
research to help identify the most effective ways to communicate and 
educate consumers about the different levels of driving automation. 
These efforts will also further inform NHTSA's media campaigns to 
increase consumer familiarity with advanced vehicle technologies, 
inform outreach efforts at consumer events, and enhance public facing 
materials on NHTSA's website.
    Finally, NHTSA announced it will be updating NCAP, the agency's 
premier consumer information program for evaluating and communicating 
vehicle safety performance to consumers through 5-star safety ratings. 
NCAP is a powerful tool for promoting safety advances in vehicles. This 
year marks NCAP's 40th anniversary, and as with any program that has 
withstood the test of time, it continues to evolve to best empower the 
public to make more informed purchasing decisions. NHTSA recently 
announced plans to begin proposing major upgrades to NCAP in 2020. The 
agency will accelerate NCAP modernization to keep pace with newer 
safety technologies and help create additional market-based incentives 
for automakers to continue to invest in life-saving vehicle 
technologies. These upgrades reflect the comments and feedback we 
received from last year's public meeting, and they are expected to 
include new technologies, new test procedures, updates to vehicle 
labeling, advancements in crash-test dummies, and continued consumer 
research to ensure NCAP's products are effectively meeting the public's 
need. The agency will also consider including newer technologies tied 
to pedestrian and bicyclist safety in NCAP. And because we know that 
consumers demand safety, NCAP modernization will continue to deploy 
market-based incentives and competitive pressure to drive further 
safety-enhancing innovation by industry.
Conclusion
    Innovation is advancing rapidly in the automotive sector, and the 
development of these technologies promises to save lives and reduce 
injuries on our Nation's roads. NHTSA's work will continue to 
prioritize the safety of automobiles as they become more complex with 
more advanced and automated technologies. NHTSA will continue to engage 
industry, States, consumers, Congress, and other stakeholders to draft 
automated vehicle polices and regulations that position the United 
States as the world's leader in automated vehicle technology while 
fulfilling NHTSA's vital safety mission.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 
look forward to answering any of your questions and to continuing to 
work with you to save lives on America's roadways.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Sumwalt, welcome 
back to the Committee.

  STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. SUMWALT III, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 
                  TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

    Mr. SUMWALT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today regarding the NTSB's 
perspective of the safe testing and deployment of highly 
automated vehicles.
    As you well know, each year over 36,000 lives are lost on 
our Nation's roadways. We see great potential in the ability of 
automated driving systems to prevent or mitigate many of these 
tragedies. These systems hold a promise to be safer than human 
drivers, but until that promise is realized, the testing and 
development of AV systems requires appropriate safeguards and 
close interaction between Federal agencies, state and local 
governments, and industry.
    Yesterday, the NTSB met to determine the probable cause of 
a crash involving Uber's Advanced Technologies Group 
developmental automated driving system that struck and killed a 
pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona that occurred last year. There 
were technical, human, and organizational factors that led to 
this tragedy. The vehicle's automated driving system did not 
accurately detect the pedestrian crossing mid-block outside of 
a cross walk. The operator responsible for monitoring the 
automation was distracted by her cellphone and did not detect 
the pedestrian in time to prevent the crash. Uber Technologies' 
poor safety culture exhibited by a lack of risk assessment 
procedures and ineffective oversight of the vehicle operator 
was inadequate to ensure the safe testing of its AVs on public 
roads. And additionally, the Arizona Department of 
Transportation failed to perform sufficient oversight of AVs 
doing such testing.
    As a result of this crash investigation, we made safety 
recommendations that will improve the safe testing and 
deployment of highly automated vehicles on our Nation's 
roadways. We recommended that NHTSA require entities that 
intend to test a developmental automated driving system on 
public roads, submit safety self-assessment reports. Such 
reports are currently voluntary. NHTSA's evaluation of these 
reports would provide a uniform minimum level of assessment 
that will aid states with AV testing.
    States that have no or only minimal requirements related to 
AV testing can improve the safety of such testing by 
implementing a thorough application of review processes before 
granting testing permits. We issued recommendations to address 
these issues.
    As we discuss how highly automated vehicles can be safely 
tested and deployed on our Nation's roadways, it is critical 
that regulators and policymakers recognize the risk associated 
with partial driving automation systems that are currently 
being sold to consumers and operated on our roadways today.
    My written testimony provides details regarding our past 
and ongoing investigations into vehicles operating with partial 
automation. These investigations highlight the need for the 
Federal Government and industry to incorporate system 
safeguards that limit the use of AV control systems to those 
conditions for which they were designed and to develop system 
applications that more effectively sense the driver's level of 
engagement to ensure that they are supervising the AV control 
systems.
    And finally, I must highlight the importance of event data 
recorders for improving the safety of AVs. As more automation 
is deployed, manufacturers, regulators and crash investigators 
all need specific detailed information to determine how the 
systems perform so that automation and safety can be improved. 
We've made recommendations to DOT and NHTSA in this area, which 
still require action.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sumwalt follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III, Chairman, 
                  National Transportation Safety Board
    Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members 
of the Committee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) to testify before you today.
    The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with 
investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and 
significant accidents in other modes of transportation--highway, rail, 
marine, and pipeline. We determine the probable cause of the accidents 
we investigate, and we issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing 
future accidents. In addition, we conduct special transportation safety 
studies and special investigations and coordinate the resources of the 
Federal government and other organizations to assist victims and their 
family members who have been impacted by major transportation 
disasters. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency--we do not promulgate 
operating standards, nor do we certificate organizations, individuals, 
or equipment. The goal of our work is to foster safety improvements, 
through safety recommendations, for the traveling public.
    Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death and injuries in 
the United States. In 2018, 36,560 people lost their lives in crashes 
on our Nation's highways.\1\ The large majority of these tragedies can 
be directly linked to human error. Humans make mistakes and bad 
decisions, such as driving while they are impaired, distracted, or 
fatigued. Automated vehicle (AV) and collision avoidance technology 
have the potential to reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, 2018, Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes 
Overview, DOT Hs 812 826, October 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today I will discuss some of the lessons learned from NTSB crash 
investigations and recommendations regarding the safe testing and 
deployment of highly automated vehicles. A focus of my testimony will 
be an overview of the findings and recommendations of our recently 
completed investigation of a developmental automated driving system 
(ADS) that collided with, and killed, a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, 
on March 18, 2018.
    While there is often a desire to jump directly to the end of the 
technological spectrum--highly automated ``self-driving'' vehicles--it 
is imperative that regulators and policy makers do not ignore the risks 
associated with partial driving automation systems currently being 
operated on our highways. I will provide an overview of NTSB crash 
investigations involving Tesla model vehicles operating with partial 
automation and related recommendations addressing the safe deployment 
of automated control systems.
Automated Driving Systems
    The use of AV controls and systems is accelerating rapidly in all 
modes of transportation. We have monitored AV development and have a 
long history of calling for systems to assist the operator in 
performing the driving task. One of the main sources of confusion in 
discussions about AVs is the language used in the industry, and by 
researchers and regulators, compared to that used by the general 
public. Industry, regulators, and academics frequently use the six-
level SAE automation taxonomy as a reference point when discussing 
vehicle capabilities and operator responsibilities.\2\ However, the SAE 
automation levels may not be easily relatable to the general public. At 
the same time, the terms used by vehicle manufacturers to market their 
partial driving automation systems (SAE level 2) such as ProPilot 
(Nissan), Pilot Assist (Volvo), and Autopilot (Tesla)--can add to 
public confusion about the degree of automation in the production-level 
vehicles now available. Although the general public frequently uses 
``self-driving vehicle'' to describe currently available vehicles, it 
is an incorrect portrayal of the capabilities of vehicles on the roads 
in the United States today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ SAE International Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to 
Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, Recommended 
Practice J3016, June 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In describing highly automated vehicles (SAE levels 3 to 5), SAE 
recommends the term ``automated driving system.'' The defining 
characteristic of an ADS is that the system takes full control of all 
aspects of the driving task. Although a geographical area, 
environmental conditions, or a human occupant's availability may limit 
the domain where an ADS is operational, the system is responsible for 
controlling the vehicle and avoiding hazards in that domain. We 
recently completed our investigation of a fatal crash in Tempe, 
Arizona, involving an ADS-equipped vehicle and made recommendations 
regarding the testing and deployment of these systems.
Tempe, Arizona, Crash Investigation
    On March 18, 2018, at 9:58 p.m., an automated test vehicle, based 
on a modified 2017 Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle (SUV), struck a 
pedestrian walking midblock across North Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. 
The SUV was operated by the Advanced Technologies Group (ATG) of Uber 
Technologies, Inc., which had modified the vehicle with a proprietary 
developmental ADS. An operator occupied the driver's seat of the SUV, 
which was being controlled by the ADS. As a result of the crash, the 
pedestrian sustained fatal injuries.
    We determined that the probable cause of the crash was the failure 
of the vehicle operator to monitor the driving environment and the 
operation of the ADS because she was visually distracted throughout the 
trip by her personal cell phone. Contributing to the crash were the 
Uber ATG's (1) inadequate safety risk-assessment procedures, (2) 
ineffective oversight of the vehicle operator, and (3) lack of adequate 
mechanisms for addressing the operator's automation complacency--all a 
consequence of inadequate safety culture. Further factors contributing 
to the crash were (1) the impaired pedestrian's crossing of North Mill 
Avenue outside a crosswalk, and (2) the Arizona Department of 
Transportation's insufficient oversight of AV testing.
    At the time of the crash, the Uber ATG had an inadequate safety 
culture, exhibited by inadequate safety risk-management procedures and 
safety policies, lack of oversight of vehicle operators, and lack of 
personnel with backgrounds in safety management systems. For example, 
we concluded that the Uber ATG's deactivation of the Volvo forward 
collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems without 
replacing their full capabilities removed a layer of safety redundancy 
and increased the risks associated with testing ADSs on public roads.
    Although the ATG has made safety improvements in organizational, 
operational, and technical areas, we remain concerned regarding the 
safety culture of the numerous other ADS developers who are conducting 
similar testing.
    Furthermore, a manufacturer is not the only entity with a role in 
ensuring the safe testing of AVs on public roads. To establish a robust 
safety framework, it is necessary to involve Federal agencies, which 
can establish and mandate ADS performance standards, and the states, 
which traditionally regulate drivers and vehicle operation on public 
roads. During our review of the role of Federal and state oversight, we 
identified the need for improved safety risk-management requirements 
for testing ADS on public roads.
Federal Oversight
    We see enormous potential in the ability of ADS to mitigate or 
prevent crashes on our roadways. A promise of the upcoming ADSs is that 
such systems will be safer than a human driver. Until that promise is 
realized, the testing of developmental ADS--with all its expected 
failures and limitations--requires appropriate safeguards when 
conducted on public roads. Unfortunately, there has been an absence of 
safety regulations and Federal guidance regarding how to adequately 
evaluate an ADS, which has prompted some states to develop their own 
requirements for AV testing.
    Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
has published three iterations of AV guidance, it provides insufficient 
instructions on how ADS developers should accomplish the safety goals 
of the 12 ADS safety elements--for example, training vehicle operators, 
ensuring oversight, and evaluating whether an ADS has reached a level 
of safety functionality.\3\ More limiting aspects of the policy pertain 
to (1) the absence of a NHTSA process for evaluating the adequacy of a 
safety self-assessment report, and (2) the lack of a mandatory 
submission requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See NHTSA 2016 Federal Automated Vehicle Policy--Accelerating 
the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety; NHTSA 2017 Automated Driving 
System 2.0: A Vision for Safety; and NHTSA 2018 Preparing for the 
Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0. The 12 safety 
elements described in ADS 2.0 are: system safety, operational design 
domain, object event detection and response, fallback (minimal risk 
condition), validation methods, human-machine interface, vehicle 
cybersecurity, crashworthiness, post-crash ADS behavior, data 
recording, consumer education and training, and federal/state/local 
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The shortcomings of the policy are exacerbated by the lack of 
assessment procedures and the difficulties in their development. For 
example, one of the 12 safety areas is ``object and event detection and 
response,'' pertaining to the capability of an ADS to detect, classify, 
and respond to objects and events in the environment. In this regard, 
we understand the difficulties in developing a ``vision test'' or 
standardized metric for assessing the perception of an ADS. In another 
of the 12 safety elements of its automated vehicle policy, human-
machine interface, NHTSA addresses the need for monitoring driver 
engagement. NHTSA guidelines states, ``entities are encouraged to 
consider whether it is reasonable and appropriate to incorporate driver 
engagement monitoring.'' Because of the complexity of assessing all the 
relevant safety elements, to determine if sufficient safeguards exist 
for the testing and deployment of ADSs, a holistic assessment is 
needed, particularly when performance metrics may not exist.
    The traditional division of oversight, in which NHTSA controls 
vehicle safety and the states monitor drivers, may not be easily 
applicable to developmental automated test vehicles. It might not be 
immediately apparent who controls the vehicle, or whether vehicle 
control and supervision is shared between the computer (the vehicle) 
and the human operator. A lack of appropriate policy from NHTSA and the 
states leaves the public vulnerable to potentially unsafe testing 
practices. To ensure that testing of AVs on public roads is conducted 
with minimal safety risk, meaningful action from both NHTSA and the 
states is critical.
    If the process of submission of safety self-assessment reports were 
mandatory and included a process for the ongoing evaluation by NHTSA, 
it could serve as a criterion for judging whether a manufacturer's 
approach to ADS development and testing met the minimal intent of the 
12 ADS safety elements. NHTSA's evaluation of a safety plan could also 
provide a minimum safeguard for the testing of developmental ADSs on 
public roads. Furthermore, assessment by NHTSA would provide important 
support to states when evaluating the appropriateness of a developer's 
approach to the testing AVs.
    As an outcome of the Tempe, Arizona, investigation, we recommended 
that NHTSA require entities who are testing or who intend to test a 
developmental ADS on public roads to submit a safety self-assessment 
report to the agency. We also recommended that NHTSA establish a 
process for evaluating the safety self-assessment report and determine 
whether the plans include appropriate safeguards for testing a 
developmental ADS on public roads, including adequate monitoring of 
vehicle operator engagement, if applicable.
State Oversight and Legislation
    In the absence of Federal ADS safety standards or specific ADS 
assessment protocols, many states have begun legislating requirements 
for AV testing. The development of state-based requirements could be 
attributed to the concerns of many states about the safety risk of 
introducing ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads. The requirements 
vary. Some states, such as Arizona, impose minimal restrictions. Other 
states have established requirements that include a more in-depth 
application and review process. In the Tempe crash investigation, we 
determined that Arizona's lack of a safety-focused application-approval 
process for ADS testing at the time of the crash, and its inaction in 
developing such a process following the crash, demonstrate the state's 
shortcomings in improving the safety of ADS testing and safeguarding 
the public.
    Currently, 21 states lack regulations pertaining to ADS testing. 
Although 29 states have some type of ADS-related policy, the 
requirements for testing vary considerably. Furthermore, the existence 
of a regulation is not a sure indication of a comprehensive and safety-
driven ADS testing policy. In fact, Arizona was one of the 29 states 
that had some form of regulation pertaining to ADS testing, but, as 
stated previously, the safety application approval process was lacking.
    States that have no, or only minimal, requirements related to AV 
testing can improve the safety of such testing by implementing a 
thorough application and review process before granting testing 
permits. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
(AAMVA) has developed numerous model programs for motor vehicle 
administration, law enforcement, and highway safety in general. In May 
2018, AAMVA published Jurisdictional Guidelines for the Safe Testing 
and Deployment of Highly Automated Vehicles. Although the guidance 
contains elements of ADS testing, the AAMVA document lacked specific 
guidance for developers on how to accomplish the included 
recommendations. The guidance did include a very important element--the 
need for jurisdictions to identify a lead agency and establish an AV 
committee to develop strategies for addressing AV testing. However, the 
guidance does not include recommendations requiring ADS developers to 
submit a safety plan and for the state's AV committee to review and 
approve such a plan.
    Because states would benefit from adopting regulations that require 
a thorough review of ADS developers' safety plans, including methods of 
risk management, we recommended that AAMVA encourage states to (1) 
require developers to submit an application for testing ADS-equipped 
vehicles that, at a minimum, details a plan to manage the risk 
associated with crashes and operator inattentiveness and establish 
countermeasures to prevent crashes or mitigate crash severity within 
the ADS testing parameters, and (2) establish a task group of experts 
to evaluate the application before granting a testing permit. Similar 
recommendations were also issued to the state of Arizona.
Partial Driving Automation System Safety
    Although much attention and Federal effort has been focused on 
highly automated SAE Level 3-5 vehicles, of equal and more immediate 
concern should be the current deployment of partial driving automation 
systems on our Nation's highways. Between May 2016 and March 2019, we 
investigated four crashes--three resulting in fatal injuries--involving 
Tesla model vehicles with Autopilot engaged.\4\ When Autopilot is 
activated and multiple subsystems, like traffic aware cruise control 
(TACC) and Autosteer, are combined to provide both lateral and 
longitudinal vehicle motion control, the system is considered an SAE 
Level 2 partial driving automation system. These Level 2 systems are 
considered by NHTSA to be advanced driver assistance systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Investigations into two of the fatal crashes occurring in 
Delray Beach, Florida, and Mountain View, California, are ongoing, with 
final reports scheduled to be released in early 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following our investigation of the March 2016 fatal crash involving 
a Tesla Model S 70D in Williston, Florida, we issued several safety 
recommendations aimed at preventing similar crashes involving vehicles 
operating with partial driving automation systems.\5\ A few important 
safety issues identified in the Williston crash investigation included 
(1) limiting the operational design domains for partial driving 
automation systems, (2) monitoring an AV driver's level of engagement, 
and (3) the need for more robust event data recorders for AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Collision Between a Car Operating with Automated Vehicle 
Control Systems and a Tractor-Semitrailer Truck Near Williston, 
Florida, May 7, 2016, NTSB/HAR-17/02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Design Domain Restrictions
    SAE J3016 discusses the need for manufacturers to accurately 
describe AV features and clearly define the level of driving automation 
and its capabilities, but also its operational design domain--the 
conditions in which the driving automation system is intended to 
operate. Examples of such conditions include roadway type, geographic 
location, clear roadway markings, weather conditions, speed range, 
lighting conditions, and other manufacturer-defined system performance 
criteria or constraints. Tesla, for example outlined many operating 
conditions and limitations based upon the Autopilot partial automation 
system design, such as that it is (1) designed for use on highways with 
a center divider, (2) designed for areas with no cross traffic and 
clear lane markings, (3) not for use on city streets or where traffic 
conditions are constantly changing, (4) not for use on winding roads 
with sharp curves, and (5) not for use in inclement weather conditions 
with poor visibility.
    Despite communicating to owners and drivers these operating 
conditions and limitations, Tesla Autopilot firmware does not restrict 
the system's use based on functional road classification. Essentially, 
the system can be used on any roads with adequate lane markings. This 
situation allows a driver to activate driving automation systems at 
locations and under circumstances for which their use is not 
appropriate or safe, such as roadways with cross traffic. The Tesla 
Model S in the Williston, Florida, crash collided with a tractor-
trailer combination vehicle crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a 
nonlimited access highway. Partial AV operation on nonlimited access 
highways presents challenges with the detection of crossing vehicles, 
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and traffic controls at intersections, 
such as red traffic lights. As a result, we concluded that, if AV 
control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to 
those conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the 
risk of driver misuse remains. We recommended that Tesla and other 
manufacturers of Level 2 automation:

        Incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated 
        vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were 
        designed. (H-17-41)

    Five automobile manufacturers responded to this recommendation with 
steps they were taking to mitigate operation under conditions for which 
they were designed. Tesla, however, advised us that operational design 
limits are not applicable to Level 2 driver assist systems, such as 
Autopilot, because the driver determines the acceptable operating 
environment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Tesla provided this response during NTSB's ongoing 
investigation of the Mountain View, CA crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tesla vehicles continue to be involved in crashes with Autopilot 
engaged in operating areas outside the intended roadway operational 
design domain. In March 2019, in Delray Beach, Florida, a fatal crash 
involving a 2019 Tesla Model 3 occurred under circumstances very 
similar to the Williston, Florida, crash.\7\ The Delray Beach highway 
operating environment, like the cross-traffic conditions in Williston, 
was outside the Tesla Autopilot system's operational design domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See Delray Beach Highway Preliminary Report (HWY19FH008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today's Level 2 partial driving automation systems can assess the 
vehicle's location and current roadway type or classification, and 
determine whether the roadway is appropriate to the system's 
operational design domain. Following the Williston crash, we made a 
recommendation to NHTSA to address this vital safety concern. We 
recommended that NHTSA:

        Develop a method to verify that manufacturers of vehicles 
        equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems incorporate 
        system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle 
        control systems to those conditions for which they were 
        designed. (H-17-38)

        In response to Safety Recommendation H-17-38, NHTSA wrote the 
        following:

        The agency has no current plans to develop a specific method to 
        verify manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 systems 
        incorporate safeguards limiting the use of automated vehicle 
        control systems to those conditions for which they were 
        designed. Instead, if NHTSA identifies a safety-related defect 
        trend in design or performance of a system, or identifies 
        through its research or otherwise, any incidents in which a 
        system did not perform as designed, it would exercise its 
        authority as appropriate.

    The current status of this safety recommendation is ``Open--
Unacceptable Response.'' We believe that NHTSA's reactive, rather than 
proactive, safety position is misguided, and the agency should take 
immediate action to verify that manufacturers are incorporating 
operational domain design safeguards into their systems.
Monitoring an AV Driver's Level of Engagement
    Based on system design, in an SAE-defined Level 2 partial 
automation system, it is the driver's responsibility to monitor the 
automation, maintain situational awareness of traffic conditions, 
understand the limitations of the automation, and be available to 
intervene and take over for the partial automation system at any time. 
In practice, however, drivers are poor at monitoring automation and do 
not perform well on tasks requiring passive vigilance. Research shows 
that drivers often become disengaged from the driving task, both for 
momentary and prolonged periods during automated phases of driving.
    In the Williston, Florida, crash, we found that the driver was 
disengaged from supervising the Autopilot partial automation. Tesla 
assesses the driver's level of engagement by monitoring driver 
interaction with the steering wheel through changes in steering wheel 
torque. In the Williston accident, when Autopilot was active prior to 
the crash, the system detected that the driver applied steering wheel 
torque only 2 percent of the time. Because Tesla uses steering wheel 
torque as a metric of driver engagement, the low percentage of driver 
applied torque in the Williston crash indicated a highly disengaged 
driver. This measure of driver engagement, however, is misleading. 
Because driving is a highly visual task, a driver's touch or torque of 
the steering wheel may not accurately indicate that he or she is fully 
engaged with the driving task. Simply checking whether the driver has 
placed a hand on the steering wheel gives little indication of where 
the driver is focusing his or her attention.
    Following our Williston, investigation, we concluded that the way 
the Tesla Autopilot system monitored and responded to the driver's 
interaction with the steering wheel was not an effective method of 
ensuring driver engagement. As a result, we recommended that six 
manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 driving automation 
systems:

        Develop applications to more effectively sense the driver's 
        level of engagement and alert the driver when engagement is 
        lacking while automated vehicle control systems are in use. (H-
        17-42)

    In response to Safety Recommendation H-17-42, five of the six 
manufacturers responded with actions they were taking to monitor a 
driver's level of engagement. Tesla was the only manufacturer that did 
not officially respond. Because the operational design of partial 
driving automation systems requires an attentive driver as an integral 
system element, we will continue to advocate for manufacturers' 
improved monitoring of driver's level of engagement while supervising 
automation.
Event Data Recorders for Automated Vehicles
    Title 49 CFR Part 563 sets forth requirements for data elements, 
data capture and format, data retrieval, and data crash survivability 
for event data recorders (EDRs) installed in light vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012.\8\ The regulation did not 
mandate the installation of EDRs in light vehicles; rather, if the 
vehicle manufacturer chose to install an EDR, the regulation defines 
the format and specifies the requirements for providing commercially 
available tools and the methods for retrieving data from the EDR in the 
event of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The EDR requirements apply to ``light vehicles'' required to 
have frontal airbags--those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,855 
kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 
2,495 kilograms (5,500 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 13, 2012, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) mandating that an EDR that meets 49 CFR Part 563 requirements 
be installed on most light vehicles. On February 8, 2019, NHTSA 
withdrew the NPRM because the agency determined that a mandate was not 
necessary. NHTSA's internal analysis showed that, for model year 2017, 
99.6 percent of new light vehicles sold were equipped with EDRs that 
met Part 563 requirements. NHTSA added that, given the near universal 
installation of EDRs in light vehicles, it no longer believed that the 
safety benefits of mandating EDRs justified the expenditure of limited 
agency resources.
    In withdrawing the final rule, NHTSA said that it would continue 
its efforts to modernize and improve EDR regulations, including 
fulfilling the agency's statutory mandate to promulgate regulations 
establishing an appropriate recording duration for EDR data to 
``provide accident investigators with vehicle-related information 
pertinent to crashes involving such motor vehicles.'' \9\ Because 49 
CFR 563 data recording requirements codified more than a decade ago are 
very limited (only 15 data elements require reporting), NHTSA stated 
that it is actively investigating whether the agency should consider 
revising the data elements covered by Part 563 to account for advanced 
safety features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act 
Public Law 114-94 (Dec. 4, 2015) section 24303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent Tesla crash investigations, we were able to retrieve data 
from the EDR, but the EDR data recorded did not address the partial 
driving automation system's activation or engagement. As a result, we 
used other proprietary manufacturer data to interpret the automation 
system's functionality, but this type of data is not available on many 
vehicles operating with these systems today. Further, there are 
currently no commercially available tools for an independently 
retrieving and reviewing any non-EDR vehicle data, and other 
manufacturers of vehicles with driving automation systems control 
access to the postcrash proprietary information associated with their 
vehicles.
    As more manufacturers deploy driving automation systems on their 
vehicles, to improve system safety, it will be necessary to develop 
detailed information about how the active safety systems performed 
during, and how drivers responded to, a crash sequence. Manufacturers, 
regulators, and crash investigators all need specific data in the event 
of a system malfunction or crash. Recorded data can be used to improve 
the automated systems and to understand situations that may not have 
been considered in the original designs. NTSB investigators need 
effective event data to conduct valid and productive investigations 
involving vehicles using AV control systems. Further, data are needed 
to distinguish between automated control actions and driver control 
actions.
    Following the Williston crash, we made a recommendation to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the need to define data 
parameters necessary to understand AV control systems and two 
recommendations to NHTSA to define a standard reporting format and to 
require manufacturers equipped with driving automation systems to 
report incidents, crashes, and vehicle miles operated with the systems 
enabled.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ The current status of safety recommendation H-17-37 is 
``Open--Initial Response Received.'' H-17-39 and -40 are both 
classified ``Open--Acceptable Response.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the DOT:

        Define the data parameters needed to understand the automated 
        vehicle control systems involved in a crash. The parameters 
        must reflect the vehicle's control status and the frequency and 
        duration of control actions to adequately characterize driver 
        and vehicle performance before and during a crash. (H-17-37)

        To NHTSA:

        Use the data parameters defined by the U.S. Department of 
        Transportation in response to Safety Recommendation H-17-37 as 
        a benchmark for new vehicles equipped with automated vehicle 
        control systems so that they capture data that reflect the 
        vehicle's control status and the frequency and duration of 
        control actions needed to adequately characterize driver and 
        vehicle performance before and during a crash; the captured 
        data should be readily available to, at a minimum, National 
        Transportation Safety Board investigators and National Highway 
        Traffic Safety Administration regulators. (H-17-39)

        Define a standard format for reporting automated vehicle 
        control data and require manufacturers of vehicles equipped 
        with automated vehicle control systems to report incidents, 
        crashes, and vehicle miles operated with such systems enabled. 
        (H-17-40)

    In response to these recommendations, NHTSA has communicated with 
SAE International about developing industry standards, but explained 
the following:

        Manufacturers are not currently required to enable vehicles to 
        record data from usage of driving automation systems (SAE 
        levels 1-2) or operation of such systems during crash triggered 
        events. The ability for traditional vehicle manufacturers and 
        other stakeholders to report on automated technology system use 
        and its operation during incidents and crashes is highly 
        dependent on each vehicle's specific recording and downloading 
        technology.

    Additionally, NHTSA stated that it believes developing recording 
requirements is best accomplished through voluntary compliance until 
industry consensus on standard data elements can be established.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ NTSB experience with crashes involving different levels of 
driving automation shows that the amount and availability of recorded 
data varies widely among manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is unlikely that crash investigators and regulators will fully 
understand the causal factors in a crash without easily accessible data 
from driving automation systems; therefore, we will continue to 
advocate action on these safety recommendations.
Conclusion
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 
highly automated vehicles and some initial steps that can be taken by 
the DOT and states to advance the safe testing and deployment of 
automated driving systems. I will be happy to answer any questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you to all three, three witnesses.
    Senator Cantwell and I have decided that because of the 
leadership of Senator Thune and Senator Peters on this issue 
we'll let them go first in terms of questions. So the Chair 
recognizes Senator Thune for so much time as he may consume.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
your continued support of this critical legislative initiative. 
Automated vehicles have potential to drastically improve the 
safety of our Nation's roads and that's why I remain committed 
to working with Senator Peters, with this Committee, and with 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee to develop a 
legislative framework for automated vehicles.
    Similar to legislative efforts last year, any AV 
legislation developed in this Congress should ensure that the 
traditional roles of Federal and state regulators are 
preserved, build on NHTSA's current efforts to address 
incompatible regulatory requirements that were not written with 
AVs in mind and enhancing NHTSA's visibility to expand testing 
and grant exemptions where existing requirements may inhibit 
safety innovations.
    Together these provisions will encourage the development of 
advanced solutions to improve vehicle safety, while providing 
important data that will inform the development of a safe and 
nationally consistent regulatory framework for AVs. I look 
forward to continued work on this effort to harness the safety, 
quality of life, and economic benefits of this critical 
emerging technology.
    Mr. Szabat, the Department of Transportation has made 
important strides already with respect to testing and deploying 
automated vehicles, including the publication of comprehensive 
guidance like AV 3.0. As Congress considers AV legislation, how 
can we best build upon the Department's efforts to encourage 
the safe and efficient integration of these vehicles into the 
Nation's transportation system?
    Mr. Szabat. Senator Thune thank you for that question, 
which kind of gets to the heart of our next steps of what we do 
with autonomous vehicles.
    In our AV 3.0 guidance, we refer to interoperability as 
that relationship--the Federal relationship between the states 
and local governments on one hand and the Federal Government on 
the other. And you're exactly right that one of the emerging 
issues that we have is how do we better define those 
relationships, especially in this period where we're trying to 
mix increasing use of autonomous vehicles with existing 
vehicles that are human driver controlled and human driven.
    So I would just suggest two things for the Committee's 
consideration. One is, you know, the message that we hear loud 
and clear from the state and local governments is work with us. 
Do not impose upon us. So what that means for us, for Dr. Owens 
and NHTSA on the regulatory side or on the legislative front, 
to try to ensure that what we do, we do it in coordination with 
them, as opposed to a top down approach.
    And the second point I think, which ties to the first, from 
our perspective, would be flexibility in legislation. As Mr. 
Sumwalt mentioned in his testimony, this is an emerging 
technology whether you have voluntary or mandatory standards or 
what those standards will be, they're going to have to evolve 
over time as the technologies evolve. So as you address these 
issues of from the legislative side, from a statutory side, 
we'd ask you to please ensure that we--and our state and local 
partners, have the flexibility we need to ensure that the best 
technologies get adapted as quickly as possible.
    Senator Thune. South Dakota plays host to hundreds of 
thousands of visitors at the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, 
which is home to over 114,000 registered motorcycles. As a 
result, motorcycle safety is a top priority. In developing a 
regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles, can you speak to 
how other road users such as motorcycles are considered?
    Mr. Szabat. Thank you again, for the question Senator 
Thune. Secretary Chao likes to say that people are policy and 
if that's the case, motorcyclists are well-developed in the 
development of policy in the Department. We have a motorcycle 
clique in the Office of Policy in the Department and of the 
five outstanding Secretaries of Transportation that I've been 
honored to serve, one of whom--one of them, she was an avid 
Harley rider herself. So we have concerns for motorcycles in 
our blood as well.
    As we look to bring automated systems and driver assistance 
systems into play with vehicles, I think most members, I 
believe, here are aware one of the key precepts that we have, 
and this goes back to AV 2.0 and 3.0, is that they have to be 
able to be integrated with other road users. And those other 
road users include of course, pedestrians and bicyclists but 
also drivers of non-automated vehicles, but especially 
including motorcyclist as well, and that will continue to be a 
priority of ours going forward.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Owens, Dr. Owens, I should say, you 
mentioned in your testimony that NHTSA intends to issue a 
proposed rulemaking to modify reporting and submission 
requirements for exemptions. How do you believe the proposed 
changes will improve the exemption process, particularly for 
the unique circumstances associated with AVs while still 
maintaining the highest level of safety?
    And then let me just as a follow up to that ask a second 
question. Do you see areas where Congress can be helpful in 
expanding or improving the current exemption framework?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator Thune. So as you noted, we 
are currently working on updating and improving our exemptions 
approval process. We are receiving a number of petitions. We 
expect to receive quite a few more petitions in the next coming 
years regarding exemptions from the FMVSS for novel vehicle 
designs.
    Let me start by noting that all vehicles today must comply 
with the FMVSS. If an autonomous driving system or a test 
vehicle is compliant with the FMVSS, there is no need for an 
exemption from the Department. We also will note that the FMVSS 
were developed in order to protect the occupants of vehicles. 
And so, we must proceed very carefully and cautiously when 
we're determining which exemptions we can amend or which 
standards--I'm sorry, we can amend in order to ensure that we 
are remaining consistent with safety.
    Having said that, there are quite a few developers who are 
looking at novel vehicle designs and for those novel vehicle 
designs, our regulatory standards, the standards that we 
established years ago may stand as an unintended and possibly 
unnecessary barrier to regulatory development, to technological 
development. So we are looking to streamline our exemptions 
petition process so as to make it help us reach a conclusion 
more quickly.
    You also asked the question about the number of exemptions. 
We have heard from a number of developers. As you know right 
now under the statute, we have the authority to grant an 
exemption of up to 2,500 vehicles per year, that is a fairly 
small number for vehicle manufacturers and we've heard from a 
number of manufacturers that that small number may not be 
enough to help them pay for the research and development that 
they incur in order to develop these novel vehicle designs.
    So that in the future if we're given greater flexibility to 
grant more exemptions, a larger number of exemptions, 
potentially flexibility that would allow us, allow the agency 
to make a determination on a case-by-case basis which vehicles, 
which designs, you know, have a greater likelihood of safety, 
less likelihood of safety. And then, we can make a risk-based 
decision on the number of vehicles that may be exempted.
    As we're hearing from industry, that potentially would be 
helpful for the ultimate development of this industry.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. And my time has expired Mr. 
Chairman, but for the record the second question about what 
role Congress might be----
    The Chairman. Go ahead with that. It's OK.
    Senator Thune. Yes.
    The Chairman. We're going to be very flexible with you and 
Senator Peters.
    Senator Thune. OK, thank you. Yes. The second question had 
to do with what, how you see Congress playing a role and what 
can we do as you look at expanding, improving the current 
exemption framework?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. So as I noted there's a 
statutory cap right now of 2,500 vehicles per year that we can 
provide an exemption for. We're hearing from industry that that 
cap may be too small. In certain circumstances, it may be 
appropriate and consistent with safety for NHTSA to grant an 
exemption potentially that would be higher than that cap. That 
would require a statutory change.
    Senator Thune. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Thune. Senator 
Peters.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to 
thank Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell. Thank you 
for putting together this hearing and for your leadership on 
this issue as well. Senator Thune, it's great working with you 
on this issue and as I listened to your opening comments and 
your questions, it's clear we're very closely aligned on all of 
these issues and hopefully we'll be able to get some very 
important legislation across the line as quickly as possible.
    I particularly appreciated Senator Thune's comments on 
motorcycles. I'm an avid motorcyclist and there's no question 
this will enhance the safety for motorcyclists. The number one 
reason for accidents is a car hitting a motorcyclist pulling 
out in front, situational awareness with these technologies 
will save lives of motorcyclists all across the country, as 
well as lives in auto accidents.
    This is without question, probably the most transformative 
technology in the auto industry since the first car came off of 
the assembly line. And we know what happened at the beginning 
of the 1900s when that happened and the transformational 
impacts throughout our economy and our society.
    That's what's going to happen with the deployment of self-
driving cars. Safety first and foremost is important and it has 
to be our focus. We've already heard this statistics, all of 
you have mentioned nearly 40,000 people die on our highways and 
that's why I also, as we are leaning into this and Senator 
Thune and I and all the stakeholders are leaning into having 
thoughtful approach to this. We also understand that delay 
should not be an option. This debate is not being held in a 
vacuum. This debate is happening while nearly a hundred people 
die every single day on our highways.
    Today a hundred--roughly a hundred folks will die on our 
highways, not to mention the countless serious injuries, 
debilitating injuries. It's happening today. There should be 
public outrage about the number of people who die on our 
highways every single day. If we have these types of incidents 
of deaths in any other capacity, the American public says, why 
are you not doing this? Why are you not addressing this issue 
as fast and as quickly as possible? Obviously doing it in a 
thoughtful, deliberative way, but we need to move the ball as 
aggressively as we can.
    And I'd say it's not just about public safety. We also know 
that our international competitors are racing to develop these 
technologies because of their transformational nature, 
particularly in their use of artificial intelligence and 
machine learning. What will be gained through the deployment of 
this technology will be game changing and every single industry 
and will allow for rapid advances in economic development. So 
it is imperative for us to act quickly from a safety 
perspective and from an economic competitive standpoint in the, 
in the world economy.
    So my question for you Chairman Sumwalt, in your testimony 
you note that there has been an absence of safety regulations 
and Federal guidance. So my question to you, is it fair to say 
that the associated public safety risk in the absence of clear 
Federal rules or a Federal statutory framework to guide safe 
deployment and testing as it exists now, and we need to close 
that gap as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Senator Peters, I want to thank you and 
Senator Thune for your leadership as well as that of this 
committee in this very important area. And what we have found 
is that NHTSA currently has a voluntary requirement or 
voluntary guidelines for automated AV developers to submit a 
test plan safety assessment, self-assessment to NHTSA. NHTSA 
will presumably review it.
    What we believe is that that loophole needs to be closed. 
We feel that NHTSA needs to actually require AV manufacturers 
to submit a safety self-assessment, NHTSA should then review it 
and assess it. That is something that we recommended yesterday. 
We feel that needs to be done.
    Senator Peters. Acting Administrator Owens, NHTSA has 
cautioned automakers about naming and marketing features in 
today's cars that give consumers the impression that they can 
basically let the cars drive on their own. In fact, the last 
hearing that we had, I think roughly 2 years ago we pushed 
pretty aggressively that the marketing of some of these 
technologies needs to reflect the actual capabilities of those 
automobiles. And given the preponderance of high profile 
crashes that we have seen to-date that have involved driver 
assist that was marketed as autopilot. Do you think that 
NHTSA's warnings to industries have been adequate? Because 
autopilot seems to indicate a greater capability than actually 
exists.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator Peters. We have certainly 
been in close communication with all developers and we 
encourage all developers to make their consumers aware of the 
limits of their technology. If we determine that a nomenclature 
of a particular feature is inappropriate and contributes to the 
unsafe driving experience, we or the FTC could potentially take 
action. And we review these incidents very carefully.
    We do note that these car companies, a number of car 
companies do try to market to their consumers and inform them 
of the limits and remind them that a driver--the driver needs 
to remain attentive and in control at all times. As I noted in 
my opening testimony, all vehicles in the United States today 
do require an operator to be in control or ready to take 
control. And the operator is responsible for the safe operation 
of that vehicle at all times.
    NHTSA is interested in and empowering consumers with better 
information about these advanced features. We're seeing a whole 
galaxy of advanced safety features that are rolling out in the 
market today. We know these technologies are saving lives 
today. They're avoiding crashes. They're reducing the number of 
hospitalizations, that's all to the good. We have been 
facilitating and working with stakeholders, and we support the 
effort of stakeholders to develop a common nomenclature, a 
common naming system, so that we can better inform consumers 
about what they can expect from different features a vehicle 
might contain.
    This is something that would go beyond just the 
trademarked, you know, names that particular manufacturers give 
to particular features, but rather would help a consumer 
understand if Vehicle A has this feature and Vehicle B have the 
same feature. They're providing the same technology even if 
they are given different names.
    So this is an ongoing effort. We certainly support the 
continued efforts to provide a more uniform common harmonized 
naming system so that consumers won't be confused. And 
hopefully, that will also assist consumers in making decisions 
about which vehicles best suit their family's needs.
    Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that and I think as you 
answered the question, I think it's also clear as to why it's 
important that we move very quickly, again, in a deliberate, 
thoughtful way to get to the level for the highly automated 
cars, Levels 4 and 5, because until you get to that point to 
have a requirement that a driver stay engaged and have complete 
situational awareness while the technology is piloting a car is 
a pretty big expectation. It's not what we do as human beings 
generally, we'll over rely on a technology and if it's not 
capable of actually carrying out all of the duties that you 
think it's going to carry out, that can lead to tragic 
consequences.
    I think it's another argument as to why we need a Federal 
framework, why we had to have requirements that allow us to 
move this as quickly as possible, again, in a deliberate, 
thoughtful way so that we get through that dangerous period 
from the Level 2, 3 into the Level 4 cars. So I appreciate your 
work on that area.
    Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one last question. The 
other issue that I think is important for us to deal with is 
the degree to which automation will change jobs and skills 
today and the future. And as a nation, I'm concerned that we're 
not doing enough to prepare for those jobs and with the 
automation of vehicles that will certainly have an impact on 
tomorrow's jobs. So Acting Under Secretary Szabat, your written 
testimony touches on the Department's study on labor force 
transformations associated with automation.
    My Workforce Data Act with Senator Young, I would direct 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure and track the impact 
of automation on workforce, not just the number of jobs created 
or eliminated, but also changes to the skills in demand as a 
result of adapting to these new technologies. So my question to 
you, sir, would skills focused data help inform the Department 
as you are considering the implications for the transportation 
workforce as a result of these new emerging technologies?
    Mr. Szabat. Thank you Senator for the question and for your 
focus on this important issue. The short answer to your 
question is yes, but would you like me to elaborate?
    Senator Peters. If you want to say a couple of words more 
words, that's fine, but I'm over time, so it'd be brief 
through.
    Mr. Szabat. OK. So to be brief we've allocated $1.5 million 
to conduct a study on workforce impact. We're developing this 
report in coordination with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, 
and the Department of Health and Human Services. As you might 
expect when you do interagency coordination, these reports do 
take time to get out. But we're looking to get this out as 
quickly as we can because we also--as you do, we recognize the 
importance of the impact of this technology.
    Senator Peters. Great. Thank you for all of your testimony. 
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for your indulgence.
    The Chairman. And thank you to Senator Thune and Senator 
Peters on this issue. We'll now revert to the 5-minute rule and 
the next round of questioning would go to Senator Fischer.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take note 
of the rule. Mr. Szabat in DOT's AV 3.0 policy documents says, 
``no state or local government may enforce a law on the safety 
performance of a motor vehicle.'' It then states that Federal 
preemption ``does not extend to state and local traffic laws, 
such as speed limits.'' The AV START Act passed by this 
Committee in the previous Congress included similar standards 
where the Federal Government maintained preemption regarding 
the design and performance of an AV.
    Does DOT continue to agree with this policy that the 
Federal Government should oversee AV safety performance and 
states and localities should oversee traffic laws, licensing, 
insurance and liability?
    Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for the question. That kind 
of goes to the heart of the Federalist approach that we have to 
take an approach in trying to tackle this issue. The short 
answer is yes. If you have a moment for more, a longer answer I 
would defer to Dr. Owens to elaborate our position.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Dr. Owens.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. So as you know, in our 
system of laws, we have a Federal state framework for the 
regulation of motor vehicles. NHTSA--when NHTSA establishes an 
equipment standard, a standard relating to the safe operation 
of equipment and the safe performance of equipment, that is 
exclusive, that is uniform across the country. And that 
continues to be necessary to ensure that we don't have a 
patchwork of potentially inconsistent regulations across the 
country, which could harm economic growth, which could create 
confusion and ultimately could negatively affect safety.
    On the other hand, states will and do have the authority to 
ensure the safe operation of vehicles on their roads. If a 
vehicle exceeds the speed limit, if a vehicle is driven in a 
reckless manner from vehicles driven in a manner that can harm 
someone, we believe the state should and can and should retain 
the authority to exercise their law enforcement powers to 
ensure the safety of their citizens.
    Senator Fischer. The short answer is there is 
responsibilities at all levels of government.
    Dr. Owens. Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Fischer. Dr. Owens is, you know, AVs are becoming 
more sophisticated and they have the potential to take on more 
operational roles. We see this today with advanced driver 
assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control. You touched 
on this earlier, but I'd like to look at it from a consumer's 
point of view. What steps will NHTSA take to educate consumers 
on the technologies that are out there so that they can 
understand what an AV is capable of?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. NHTSA is going to take a 
number of steps. First of all, we're supporting the effort by 
stakeholders to adopt a common nomenclature so that consumers 
can better understand what a feature is when it crosses across 
different makes and models. Right now, I believe there is 
some--we have a concern that there is some consumer confusion 
about what a particular feature can achieve.
    In addition, we are conducting tests into ADAS systems and 
we, in fact this week, we're publishing a request for public 
comment in the Federal Register on proposed test procedures 
related to a number of ADAS systems establishing uniform test 
procedures that are objective, replicable. That will help us 
establish performance metrics that we can then communicate to 
consumers down the road about how these different systems are 
performing under different conditions. As part of that we, last 
month we announced that we're going to upgrade our new car 
assessment program that's NHTSA's five-star safety rating 
system. We're going to modernize and upgrade the system to 
include more advanced technologies, more crash avoidance 
technologies in this safety system, in the safety rating to 
help empower consumers to make better informed decisions about 
which vehicles best suit their families' needs.
    Senator Fischer. In my first question, I brought it 
preemption and said there were differences in what the Federal 
Government, state government, local governments may do with 
regards to addressing the different responsibilities. When we 
look at autonomous vehicles, do you see a point where the 
Federal Government would possibly offer advice to states on how 
these vehicles should be regulated because of the differences 
in technologies involved in them?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you. Senator. We work closely with our 
state partners on vehicle testing, including advanced vehicle 
technologies. We stand ready to help guide them in this as this 
revolution, this technological revolution takes over.
    Senator Fischer. And again, with looking at consumers and 
the education of consumers.
    Dr. Owens. Yes ma'am. We stand ready to assist states in 
any way we can to help improve consumer awareness.
    Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Fisher. Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses, Chairman Sumwalt thank you for your recommendations 
yesterday and previous recommendations. I wanted Dr. Owens if I 
could just get a little more specificity, my colleague, Senator 
Peters started down this line, but I just want to make sure I'm 
clear about where NHTSA is today.
    So one of the things that has been discussed before with 
NTSB is establishing minimum safety standards, particularly on 
Levels 1 and 2. So we're just talking about, you know, braking 
and steering systems and the automation. So, is NHTSA for 
establishing minimum safety standards?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. So we will establish safety 
standards when we determine that the technology is proven and 
that the establishing a standard would be overall beneficial to 
the public safety.
    As it stands right now, these technologies are still very 
much in the emerging phase. They're rolling out into the public 
and we're seeing a lot of safety benefits. But we also know 
that developers are continuing to make significant improvements 
and upgrades to those technologies today. If we establish 
standards too quickly, we run the risk of stymieing innovation. 
So we want to step back.
    We want to let the innovation occur and the competition 
occur. And meanwhile, we continue to conduct research into how 
these technologies perform. And we regularly communicate with 
developers on our findings, and we learn from developers what 
technologies that they're pursuing, so we can better ensure 
that they're incorporating safety into their designs.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Sumwalt, what's wrong with having 
minimum safety standards now?
    Mr. Sumwalt. That's a really good point. And we did, of 
course, yesterday's Board meeting really was focused on the 
testing of AV systems. So again, we do believe that NHTSA plays 
a key role in evaluating the assessment plans for the testing 
plans, which right now is just a voluntary standard.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm going to get to that question 
next, but I'm assuming, Dr. Owens, that you do believe that we 
need to have, not voluntary, but mandatory standards and safety 
assessments?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. So we established the safety 
assessment letter process as a voluntary process to encourage 
industry to better educate the public and to come forward with 
more information. I can tell you behind the scenes, the 
developers are in constant communication with our staff to 
discuss technical issues. We--those discussions help us better 
learn what technologies are being pursued and what the 
effectiveness of those technologies are. And that also helps us 
have better assurance that these that their product development 
is properly incorporating safety into their features. So we 
were----
    Senator Cantwell. So you believe in ignoring what NTSB has 
said about making them mandatory?
    Dr. Owens. So we're aware of the recommendation we've 
received from the NTSB. We will carefully evaluate it and get 
back to the NTSB as soon as we can.
    Senator Cantwell. And what about guidance on elements of 
advanced operations? What about giving guidance on elements of, 
you know, moving forward?
    Dr. Owens. Again, we will--we stand ready to review and 
assess and evaluate the recommendations from the NTSB and we'll 
get back to them as soon as we can.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Sumwalt or Mr. Szabat, do you want to 
jump in here?
    Here's the problem. We are going to keep going, that's for 
sure. But this human interface and this technology needs some 
standards. It doesn't mean that they'll never change, but we 
are hearing from NTSB that if you even want to have a safe 
testing environment, you'll need to put some conditions on 
that. And so, this is about all of us getting together and I 
believe that should be in the most transparent way possible 
because that is how we're going to solve these solutions and 
keep moving forward.
    So, Mr. Sumwalt?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you. I'd love 
to weigh in on that. There are only 16 AV manufacturers who 
have submitted these voluntary guidance, these voluntary safety 
self-assessments. There has only been 16 out of maybe 80.
    Senator Cantwell. So Uber didn't do a self-assessment, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Correct, Uber did not submit a safety self-
assessment report prior to the Tempe crash. However, afterward, 
they did submit a report to NHTSA. And the efficacy of these 
assessments ranges from anything that might look like a 
marketing brochure to somewhat more detailed. So whatever's 
working right now is not working as well as we believe it 
should.
    Senator Cantwell. I think that's the point. Look, we know 
as Senator Peters said, that the eventuality here is going to 
improve on the human interface, but at the same time you have 
to set some parameters of how it's going to move forward on 
testing. We've had people describe that they don't want to see 
them in their cul-de-sac because they're worried. We have to do 
better in this particular area. I think on all of 
transportation, obviously this issue of automation, human 
factor response, testing needs a lot more attention.
    Mr. Sumwalt. Well, and there's probably a rush to the 
market there. And so, the manufacturers are not going to be 
objective in evaluating their own safety assessment. So there, 
there needs to be a Federal look at these assessments to make 
sure that they're done properly. And that's why we issued those 
recommendations yesterday.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Cantwell. Senator Capito, 
then followed by Senator Schatz.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here today. Dr. Owens we've talked--we've heard a lot 
about safety and we've learned a lot about the testing. My 
understanding is that you have documented automated testing, 
active or planned in 34 states and the District of Columbia, is 
that correct?
    Dr. Owens. Yes. I believe that's the case.
    Senator Capito. And for my state, West Virginia is one of 
the 16 states that's not among the testing. So is my assumption 
that the testing is in all different types of environments 
within the 34 states and how far advanced is this testing in a 
lot of these states? Or is it just in the planning phase?
    Dr. Owens. There is testing of various technologies at 
various levels of effectiveness going on across the country. 
It's concentrated largely in places that have more stable, 
controllable weather because you want to start with simpler 
conditions before you move to more challenging conditions with 
some of these new technologies.
    Senator Capito. Right. Which leads me to one of the 
challenges, I think, in terms of as this advances rural America 
is--it depends on how rural you are, like, I guess your 
landscape and your weather and other things. So Mr. Szabat--did 
I say that correctly?
    Mr. Szabat. I answer to anything close Senator, Szabat.
    Senator Capito. Szabat, sorry about that. In rural 
communities, you know, there are obviously transportation 
challenges just in general because tend to have higher poverty 
areas. There are no transport systems, transit systems in these 
areas. So there, there could be a whole economic model for 
rural America. So I'm interested in knowing what you think from 
a policy perspective would attract AV deployment into rural 
communities so that this can be, as it advances obviously it's 
not going to be in the beginning, but as it advances, states 
like mine could take advantage of that.
    Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for the question. And 
obviously, while I think that the Committee's jurisdiction, 
your interest of course matters of economic, our primary focus 
in the Department has to remain, you know, the safety issue.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Szabat. And there are huge safety issues as to why this 
matters to us. Only about 20 percent of the population lives in 
what are defined as rural areas, but 46 percent of the highway 
fatalities take place in rural areas. And almost half of the 
driving in rural areas is taking place by people from urban 
areas transiting through a rural area. So this is--so the 
safety impacts in rural areas, both with autonomous vehicles 
and others, are something that matters to all Americans, not 
just to Americans in rural areas.
    And second, to build on Dr. Owens response, you had asked 
what was being done in rural areas focus specifically. When we 
awarded our ADS demonstration grants, two of them were awarded 
specifically to focus on issues that are particular to rural 
areas. So the University of Iowa has a project aimed at 
deployments in non-urban environments and Texas A&M has a 
project titled, ``Automated Vehicles for All,'' which is also 
aimed at deploying AVs and areas with what we define as 
suboptimal road striping, signage, and quality, which are the 
kind of road conditions that you would find frequently in more 
rural areas.
    Senator Capito. Yes. One of the issues when we brought this 
before the Committee before, too is the lack of connectivity in 
some areas and would that have impact, I'm sure that's being 
investigated in the testing phase as well. Does anybody have a 
response to that? Dr. Owens.
    Dr. Owens. So connectivity is a struggle in rural areas. I 
mean, there's rural broadband is certainly a problem.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Dr. Owens. And that's beyond NHTSA's remit. I will note 
though, that we're also interested in connectivity for the 
ability to have communications from vehicle-to-vehicle or 
vehicle-to-infrastructure.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Dr. Owens. And there's a 75 megahertz of spectrum that is 
set aside by the FCC for the use in this space. We call it the 
Safety Band and we're hoping to preserve that 75 megahertz 
because it is now time, the technology is now there, that we 
can start deploying this potentially life-saving technology 
that will help rural as well as urban areas.
    Senator Capito. OK. Last question. One of the discussions 
that we had when we passed our bill was about trucks, and 
obviously we remained focused on automobiles, is some of the 
testing that's going on in some of these areas testing some of 
the truck technology or fleet kinds of applicability of AV 
technology in that area? Dr. Owens.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you Senator. There is absolutely testing 
that's going on with large trucks right now. We're conducting 
research into automatic emergency braking with respect to large 
trucks. We know that industry has been rolling out automatic 
emergency braking technologies and other crash avoidance 
technologies into large trucks. This is--there's an opportunity 
here for us to reduce crashes with large trucks as well as 
passenger vehicles.
    Senator Capito. Obviously on our high speed interstate 
highways. Like I'll use 81, going down in through Virginia, 
which has a huge amount of truck traffic. The safer we can make 
that road and a lot of roads like that, I think that would be 
terrific. Thank you.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Capito. Senator Schatz.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 
the testifiers. I want to start with Mr. Owens. NHTSA is tasked 
with making our roads safe for all users and you have some of 
the smartest safety engineers, but with backgrounds in 
automotive engineering, product safety, and mobility. But as we 
move into an AI environment, my basic question is what's your 
staffing plan? What's your capacity building plan as it relates 
to software engineers? And sort of looking under the hood of 
some of this AI to make sure that you're not watching a machine 
operate while what really ends up mattering from a safety 
perspective is code.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you Senator. And NHTSA absolutely has 
technicians on staff who have capabilities with software. We've 
been regulating software for a very long time as you know.
    Senator Schatz. Sure. But is the, I guess the question is, 
I'm not asking you whether you have some capability, I'm asking 
whether or not you're going to have to ramp up like the rest of 
us in terms of the transformation of your agency to keep up 
with what's about to happen.
    Dr. Owens. Senator, as we encounter new challenges and 
opportunities in the industry, we do increase our resources. We 
also have the ability to increase our resources through 
contractors or working with other government agencies when we 
encounter issues that require specific technical expertise.
    But we absolutely are committed to ensuring that our staff, 
our agency has a technical knowhow to address emerging issues.
    Senator Schatz. Do you have a staffing plan for this?
    Dr. Owens. We have--yes, we have a staffing plan that 
addresses emerging issues. We have a very large research group 
within NHTSA and we ensure that we ensure that when we 
encounter a situation in which we identify that we need to have 
more expertise, we can get that expertise either through direct 
hiring or through contract or work with our government 
partners.
    Senator Schatz. And you think you're going to do it by 
mostly by contracting or what? I mean, give me a little detail. 
I get that you have the capacity to do this. I get generally 
you have the flexibility to make adjustments. I'm asking you, 
however, do you see in the say next 16 to 18 months a need to 
hire more or contract for more software engineers and others 
who can analyze what's happening in this space?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, as we encounter new technologies, we 
make our staffing plans accordingly. We make sure we have the 
technical skills on staff to address these issues. If we--as 
these technologies are coming on board, we do address our 
resources to meet the needs.
    Senator Schatz. OK. Mr. Sumwalt, it seems to me that safety 
depends partly on the ability for the operator, the operator of 
a vehicle to understand how this technology works. And my 
concern is specifically with respect to Tesla and the claims 
that they made about being able to go on full autopilot or have 
a fully self-driving car. My understanding is that A, that's 
not true. And B, your agency referred that to the FTC. Am I 
getting that right?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Senator, thank you for the question. I don't 
think that it was us who referred it to the FTC. I could be 
wrong about that, but we have expressed concerns that I think, 
perhaps it may have been NHTSA that did that.
    Senator Schatz. Was it NHTSA?
    Dr. Owens. We've had conversations with the FTC about a 
variety of emerging issues.
    Senator Schatz. Again, I guess, the question I have because 
we don't want to get into someone's marketing claims. On the 
other hand, these are not marketing claims. These are safety 
claims. And as operators are trying to interpret what Levels 1 
through 5 mean for them in terms of their responsibility as a 
driver, that they across the Rubicon and they go into one of 
your agency's Federal jurisdiction, if not the Federal Trade 
Commission in terms of being deceptive to the users.
    So where resides the stick? How do you go after a company 
that makes a false claim about how autonomous a vehicle is? Go 
ahead, Mr. Owens.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. NHTSA has very broad defect 
authority. If we determine that any piece of motor vehicle 
equipment presents an unreasonable risk to safety, we do not 
hesitate to take action to ensure that it's subject to recall.
    If we determine that a piece of equipment is so 
misunderstood by the public, that it is subject to significant 
misuse, that is something that we could potentially take action 
on.
    Senator Schatz. Do I have your commitment, do we have your 
commitment to watch all of the claims by all of the auto 
manufacturers to ensure that there's some relationship between 
what they're claiming and reality? And that they take 
responsibility to educate their consumers?
    Because what I don't want is for their marketing team and 
their general counsel to get together and just say, I think we 
can slide by this statutory requirement. They should have an 
affirmative obligation to make sure that the, that the 
purchaser and then the operator knows what in the world they're 
buying.
    Dr. Owens. We have many conversations with developers and, 
when we have concerns or when complaints are raised to us, we 
will investigate every such concern. Every such complaint.
    If we determine that there is a problem, that it poses or 
is unreasonable as to safety, we will not hesitate to take 
action. Having said that, we also have conversations with the 
developers to help them better approach the market. So we do 
have a lot of conversations on these grounds.
    Senator Schatz. One final question. Were these Tesla 
automobiles fully self-driving or did they provide full 
autopilot?
    Dr. Owens. There are no fully automated vehicles on our 
roads today. Every vehicle requires an operator to be in 
control or ready to take control.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Udall, you are next.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you very much Chairman Wicker and 
Ranking Member Cantwell. While I appreciate the potential 
benefits of autonomous vehicles, I remain concerned that humans 
will be used as test dummies instead of self-certification and 
deregulation. I want to see strong independent safety 
regulations from the agencies in front of us today.
    The self-certification approach did not work out well for 
the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and now Boeing is paying the price. We 
should heed that lesson when it comes to finding out the best 
way to deploy autonomous vehicles. The public does not want 
their safety watchdogs getting too cozy with industry and the 
industry should welcome strong safety regulation as being in 
their long-term interest, being in their best long-term 
interest. While autonomous vehicle technology has safety 
potential, I want to also focus on witnesses and this Committee 
on Technology to eliminate drunk driving.
    It's totally unacceptable that DUIs kill around 10,000 
people every year in this country. Nearly 30 percent of all 
traffic fatalities. The Federal Government has been spending 
tens of millions of dollars on technology to stop drunk driving 
and it's time to get moving. Senator Rick Scott and I recently 
introduced the RIDE Act, which requires the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to initiate and finalize a 
rulemaking to require technology to detect impaired drivers and 
stop them from driving in all new vehicles by 2024. Our bill 
does not require one specific technology, such as federally 
funded driver alcohol detection system for safety to be used, 
but allows any technology that keeps impaired drivers off the 
roads.
    Dr. Owens, this is a question on DUI. This is an important 
question, particularly given the lack of movement on required 
rulemakings that are so long overdue. When this bill becomes 
law, do you believe that NHTSA has the necessary resources to 
work with the auto manufacturers and other interested parties 
to complete a rulemaking on DUI technology in a timely manner?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. We take alcohol impaired 
driving very seriously at NHTSA. As you say, far too many of 
our citizens are being killed on our roads because drivers are 
driving in an impaired state. I've had the opportunity to visit 
the DADSS facility here in Virginia and their research facility 
up in Massachusetts over the past month and a half.
    And I can tell you that the technologies are very 
promising, but they're not quite there yet. We certainly want 
to see these technologies get into cars as soon as possible, 
but we also need to make sure that when these technologies are 
rolled out and if there's a standard in place, that the 
technology is not premature because we also don't want to see a 
public backlash if there are too many people who have to walk 
home in the snow late at night because their vehicle 
accidentally said or had a mistaken false positive.
    Having said that, we support the states who are 
demonstrating, who have pilot programs. We stand ready to 
support any state who wants to expand on these pilot programs. 
And we stand ready to do the research necessary. We have the 
resources necessary to do the research to determine what 
technologies are effective and what technologies will not have 
too many false--so many false positives that we'll have a 
backlash.
    Senator Udall. I would just note that many states are 
moving very aggressively in this area and they're having very 
good success in terms of their numbers on bringing down the 
deaths from drinking and driving. I have a great deal of 
respect for the employees of NHTSA, but I'm concerned the 
agency does not have the resources necessary to perform 
essential oversight over the design, manufacture, and 
installation of impairment technology. I think this is a 
concern many of us share.
    If NHTSA is enabled to push rules out in a timely manner, 
how can we be assured that the Agency can conduct adequate 
oversight, including over something as complex and 
unprecedented as self-driving cars?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. We have the resources to 
oversee matters within our purview. We do an enormous amount of 
rulemaking, and an enormous amount of research underlying that 
rulemaking. All of our rules, when we proceed with standards, 
they're very technical standards. They require clear evidence 
and sound science in order for us to proceed. So we take our 
mission very seriously. And you know, we are with respect to 
impairment devices, impairment reduction devices--working 
closely, we are funding the effort, and we're closely 
overseeing the research efforts that are going on right now.
    Senator Udall. To both Chairman Sumwalt and Dr. Owens, 
after witnessing what happened with Boeing and the 737 MAX 8, 
are you personally confident that every manufacturer of 
autonomous vehicle technology would slow down or stop their 
deployment given the intense investor and market pressures to 
make money if they became internally aware of a safety problem?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Thank you for that question Senator Udall. 
Yes, we found that there does need to be some level of 
oversight with respect to the testing of automated vehicles. We 
think that's important with respect to evaluating the safety of 
these operators, of these manufacturers.
    Senator Udall. Dr. Owens, do you have a brief comment?
    Dr. Owens. Yes, Senator. So we do exercise safety oversight 
over these developing vehicles. Any under the law, any 
manufacturer who discovers a safety problem has to make us 
aware. If they do not make us aware, they will be subject to 
penalties and civil action. We do not hesitate to take action. 
If we determine that any piece of motor vehicle equipment poses 
an unreasonable risk to safety, we can assure that it is 
recalled. This is an authority that exists whether or not we 
have a regulatory standard in place.
    Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Udall. Senator Duckworth.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we sit here 
today, millions of Americans are getting ready to go start 
traveling next week for Thanksgiving. I hope everyone has a 
happy and a very safe upcoming holiday season, especially 
during this high period of travel on our roadways.
    Chairman Sumwalt and Secretary Szabat, it's good to see you 
both again. Dr. Owens as this is our first encounter, I'd like 
to invite you to my office in the upcoming weeks to discuss 
your new role and NHTSA's ongoing efforts.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. I'd appreciate that.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have three 
primary goals when it comes to autonomous vehicle legislation. 
First, and my top priority, is reducing risk on our roadways 
and one day eliminating traffic fatalities. While traffic 
deaths were down by 2.4 percent last year compared to 2017 
there were still 36,560 fatalities on our roadways. That's 
roughly the entire population of Rock Island, Illinois in a 
single year.
    During this same period, pedestrian deaths increased by 
more than 3 percent and bicycle deaths rose by more than 6 
percent. Most of these incidents are result of driver error and 
AV technologies present an opportunity to address this 
variable. I applaud Senator Peters and Senator Thune for their 
leadership in developing the AV START Act in the 115th 
Congress. This effort focused this committee's attention on 
important and complex issues and I look forward to continuing 
these discussions over the coming weeks and months.
    My second goal for autonomous vehicles is to expand and 
improve mobility options for the disability community. Far too 
often travel options with disabled individuals are limited in 
ways that non-disabled individuals take for granted. Autonomous 
vehicles could provide mobility opportunities never before 
imagined, and this is a critical component for any long-term 
legislative effort.
    Third, I also want to make sure that we don't view AV 
policies exclusively through the keyhole of vehicles safety 
standards. We need to keep an eye on the impacts autonomous 
vehicles will have on our roadway infrastructure. Last year I 
included language in AV Start requiring DOT to study these 
issues and include a similar provision in the EPW Committee's 
highway bill in July.
    Chairman Sumwalt, NTSB's recent AV-related investigations 
paint a clear picture that driver engagement played a 
significant role in some of these incidents. Several NTSB 
recommendations call on manufacturers and operators to improve 
a driver's level of engagement. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Senator Duckworth, that's exactly correct.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. So Dr. Owens, Level Zero 
vehicles include technologies like automatic emergency braking, 
lane departure warning, but requires the driver to continue 
controlling the vehicle at all times. And meanwhile, a Level 5 
vehicle theoretically could drive someone to and from a 
destination under reasonable conditions without anyone in the 
driver's seat. Does NHTSA certify a vehicle that is a Level 1 
versus a Level 2, and so on?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, we do not certify the different levels 
of automation.
    Senator Duckworth. OK. So as Level 2 technologies inched 
toward Level 3 automation, I want to know more about NHTSA's 
plans to ensure consumers are fully prepared to drive or occupy 
these vehicles safely and effectively.
    This morning NHTSA released a request for comment on draft 
research procedures to assess certain advanced driver 
assistance systems, like blind spot intervention, opposing 
traffic safety assist, and traffic jam assist. I have no idea 
what these mechanisms do for safety, but we seem to be creeping 
toward an over-reliance on technologies rather than improving 
driver engagement. I appreciate this RFC for research purposes, 
but I'm increasingly concerned that NHTSA is more focused on 
technology than on safety and on driver engagement.
    Dr. Owens when we meet in my office, I'd like to follow up 
on this point including what steps DOT is taking to better 
understand advanced technologies to improve a vehicle's 
responsiveness from objects and people on the road.
    Dr. Owens. Thank you Senator, I'd be happy to discuss this 
with you further.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I 
yield back.
    Senator Blumenthal [presiding]. The Acting Chair recognizes 
Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. I want to thank you Acting Chair for 
recognizing me and I want to thank the panel for being here 
today. I've got a number of questions that you're just going to 
have to educate me on and that is, is have you guys done any 
projections as to when Level 5 will occur? How many years out 
are we from Level 5 autonomous vehicles?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. We have not done an official 
projection. It is several years, more than several years off 
before we're at Level 5. What we're finding both from our own 
research and what we're hearing from industry is that 
developing a fully autonomous vehicles in a complex surface 
driving environment is very hard. It's very difficult. It's 
more complicated and difficult than was anticipated several 
years ago.
    So the technologies are continuing to be developed and 
improved, but they're not going to be here yet and they're not 
going to be here next year or the year after I would expect.
    Senator Tester. OK. I mean, your answer intimated to me 
that it may never be here.
    Dr. Owens. I would expect it's going to happen.
    Senator Tester. OK.
    Dr. Owens. It's just a question of when.
    Senator Tester. OK. Because I think the projection is 
important because then you know where the workload is. Five 
years?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, this is something where the technology 
is taking the lead, not the regulators. So when the technology 
is ready we'll be in a better position to know exactly what the 
time line is.
    Senator Tester. OK, I got you. So the question I have, 
because I come from a very rural frontier area and I heard one 
of you talk about 75 megahertz, I've got a couple of pickups 
that I can, they'll bounce down the road using sensors, 
cameras, whatever you want to call and pretty much keep you on 
the road most of the time. But the question becomes with was 
fully autonomous. Is it, do you anticipate that the 75 
megahertz is going to be a necessity for the fully autonomous 
vehicle? Is that what you're hearing from the folks that you're 
working with?
    Mr. Szabat. Senator thank you for the question because it 
is an important one for the eventual deployment and development 
of whether they're autonomous vehicles that are assisting 
drivers or autonomous vehicles operating by themselves.
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Mr. Szabat. So again, short answer again is yes.
    Senator Tester. It's going to be necessary.
    Mr. Szabat. Yes. And the question is, do you need exactly 
75 megahertz?
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Mr. Szabat. Can you do 55? Would we need 80 or 90?
    Senator Tester. Yes, I got you.
    Mr. Szabat. But there's some large section of spectrum that 
will be necessary.
    Senator Tester. And the other question I had was, is 
satellite able to do this?
    Mr. Szabat. So the way the way it's structured right now 
Senator, is it's not, it's not currently reliant on satellites. 
DSRC technology is more direct vehicle-to-infrastructure. 
However, the emerging technologies that we have such as CV2X 
would require cell tower or satellite type connections and so 
there's a potential that yes, it would require that going 
forward.
    Senator Tester. So, the problem we have here is that if 75 
is necessary and I don't think we're a five or even 10 years 
out from having the kind of Internet necessary and that kind of 
cell service necessary to be able to support this, then what 
happens to that driver who's well-educated as everybody's 
talked about as what their car will do in the years, in the 
future. But they come to my house and the car isn?t going to 
operate the way it does if you're in Chicago. How are they 
going to know about this stuff?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. It's important to note that 
the way these technologies will work, is they will beam from 
one vehicle to another vehicle and you'll be able to tell each 
other, the two vehicles will be able to talk and tell each 
other where they are and where they're headed. So you don't 
need to have rural broadband.
    Senator Tester. Regardless if you have 75 megahertz, 
regardless of whether you have the service or not out there?
    Dr. Owens. The 75 megahertz was set aside for the public to 
use for intelligent transportation services by the FCC. That 75 
megahertz is what the devices would use in the spectrum in 
order for the vehicles to talk to each other or to the 
infrastructure.
    Senator Tester. So they don't need cell towers? They don't 
need high speed Internet to make this work?
    Dr. Owens. They--my understanding is they do not need high 
speed Internet necessarily. What they need are the ability--the 
radios, the antenna--to talk to each other directly. It's 
almost like----
    Senator Tester. I got you. That's if I'm going to crash 
into the car ahead of me. What about keep it on the road?
    Dr. Owens. So these technologies are mostly designed right 
now to, look at--to reduce crashes or to help you talk to the 
infrastructure to turn the lights green.
    Senator Tester. But if you have a fully autonomous vehicle 
or even one that's mostly there, they're going to pretty much 
drive it for you. They're going to keep you between the white 
lines.
    Dr. Owens. Yes, Senator. But for the foreseeable future, we 
expect that once we start seeing fully autonomous vehicles on 
our roads, we'll have decades in which we will have human 
driven vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles.
    Senator Tester. I got you. The question is that, and I have 
no doubt about that, the question is what do you do when the 
service is not there? I got the talking between cars, but the 
service is not there to keep that car on the road. And I've 
been doing just fine driving between Bismarck and Fargo, but 
ain't doing very good driving between Great Falls on Havre, 
Montana.
    Mr. Sumwalt. And Senator, I think you asked exactly the 
right question as, I think, as we transition beyond Level 4 to 
Level 5 service levels where you know, you're going to have a 
period where autonomous vehicles can operate only in certain 
environments. And it could be we're not in a position to 
project because this is where the technology has not yet played 
out. But it could be future technologies are so dependent on 
certain types of satellite communications that are not 
prevalent in rural areas that the Level 4 vehicles do not 
operate extensively in rural areas. And that'll be incumbent 
upon us to have a national policy of how we get them there.
    Senator Tester. So I would just tell you, you guys got a 
lot of work cut out for you because there's so many--there are 
so many factors. You've got a dead antelope laying on the road. 
I can see the car swerving over or potentially stopping, but if 
it swerves over and there's another car coming on a two lane 
highway. Now you've created a head on collision with AV. And 
so, you've got a lot of work cut out for you and I appreciate 
the Chairman and Ranking Member having this hearing and 
appreciate you guys being here.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Tester. Senator Markey.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you Mr. Chairman. As we debate the 
future of fully self-driving cars, we also need to focus on the 
present rollout of driver assistance features that are actually 
driver replacement technologies for some of our most basic 
tasks on the road. For example, Tesla markets its autopilot 
system as a driver assistance feature that allows a car to 
center itself in a lane and to offer speed changing cruise 
control and self-park. To make sure that drivers are still 
paying attention, Tesla requires them to keep their hands on 
the wheel while autopilot is active. Keep your hands on the 
wheel.
    However, according to a recent report on NBC Boston, Tesla 
drivers have identified a variety of tricks to make autopilot 
believe they are focused on the road, even if they are 
literally asleep at the wheel. Alarmingly. You can go to 
YouTube right now and learn about some of these tricks. You can 
take a water bottle, take an orange and put it right into the 
steering wheel. And then that tricks the system to believing 
that your hands are on the wheel. And then the car just drives 
as though it's a fully autonomous vehicle and not something 
that just human helped in the driving.
    And NBC Boston reported that one driver actually used these 
tricks and fell asleep at the wheel while their car drove 14 
miles on autopilot with a water bottle in the steering wheel or 
with an orange in the steering wheel. That's not safe. 
Somebody's going to die because they can go to YouTube as a 
driver, find a way to do this and then some innocent person on 
the street will wind up dead or a driver in another car will 
wind up dead.
    So we can't entrust the lives of our drivers and everyone 
else on the road to a water bottle. And that's why I sent a 
letter to Tesla this week urging the company to fix the safety 
flaws that allow drivers to trick autopilot before any 
tragedies occur.
    Dr. Owens, these videos are on YouTube right now. So NHTSA 
must know what is happening as well.
    The Chairman. Let's put that letter in the record at this 
point.
    Senator Markey. I asked unanimous consent to do that.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [Senator Markey's letter to Tesla is entered.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Senator Markey. So NHTSA must know what is happening if 
it's on YouTube. So tell me what NHTSA is doing, what you're 
telling Tesla to make sure that these safety issues are fixed 
and that these cars don't wind up killing people?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator Markey. It is unfortunate 
when drivers misuse their vehicles and engage in unsafe 
behaviors. This is the cause, as you know, of most serious 
crashes and fatalities in the United States.
    Senator Markey. So what are you telling Tesla to do in 
order to fix this defect that can easily circumvent what the 
safety precautions are supposed to be? What are you telling 
Tesla to do?
    Dr. Owens. We are in close communication with Tesla on a 
variety of issues, a number of complaints.
    Senator Markey. No, on this issue. What are you telling--
what is NHTSA telling Tesla to do on this issue to fix it so 
that this kind of circumvention of the safety procedures 
doesn't wind up with somebody dying because of the way in which 
drivers can now use this technology? What are you telling them?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, I'd be happy to follow up with you on 
the specifics of this case. I will note that we've become aware 
that----
    Senator Markey. So you have not, have you had any 
conversations with Tesla?
    Dr. Owens.--our technical staff has routine conversations 
with every----
    Senator Markey. On this issue? On the issue of a water 
bottle able to take over a steering wheel and allow the driver 
just to go to sleep, have you had that conversation?
    Dr. Owens. I would have to get back to you on that.
    Senator Markey. You don't know--I would urge you to do that 
very quickly because Tesla should disable autopilot until it 
finds the problem, until it fixes the problem, until it can 
assure consumers who don't own that vehicle, that they're safe 
on the roads or safe on the sidewalks from an accident 
occurring. Will you do that?
    Dr. Owens. Yes Senator, we will work with your staff and as 
I said, we're in communication with Tesla. I'll also note 
that----
    Senator Markey. Yes, you're in touch with them. You're not 
in touch with them on this issue. That's my problem. This is 
something that you can go to YouTube right now, which is what I 
did to pull down this picture of how you can use a water bottle 
to take over a vehicle.
    Dr. Owens. I will make sure that we're in touch with Tesla 
about this specific issue.
    Senator Markey. OK. Well, if you tell them to fix it or 
just disable that technology, that would be my advice to you. 
So I thank you Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you Senator Markey.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me pursue 
that very good line of questioning.
    Mr. Sumwalt, in your testimony, you state that you offered 
recommendations to Tesla and other manufacturers after the 
fatal Tesla Model S crash in Williston, Florida. These were 
recommendations to incorporate system safeguards that limit the 
use of autonomous vehicle control systems to those conditions 
for which they were designed. Five auto manufacturers responded 
with steps to meet your recommendation. Tesla informed you that 
the operational design domain ODD restrictions would not be 
applied. I'm baffled. Is there any explanation for Tesla giving 
you that response?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Senator Blumenthal, we are extremely 
disappointed with that response. We found that the having 
something on the wheel is not an effective surrogate for 
determining whether or not the driver is engaged.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what are you going to do about it? 
Have you gone back to Tesla and demanded that they acknowledge 
that these ODD restrictions should apply?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Senator Blumenthal is, I think you are aware 
of the NTSB does not have the statutory authority to force 
anybody to do anything. But----
    Senator Blumenthal. I am well aware of that fact and I 
regret it, and I don't blame you for it, but what have you 
recommended to other agencies and who should be held 
accountable?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Well, that's certainly what Congress can step 
in and cause change to be made and we're happy that Congress 
does do that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you because my time is 
limited, I'm going to move, but I would like further responses 
from others to that question about Tesla.
    In the United States, one fatality occurs approximately 
every 100 million miles driven in non-automated vehicles. 
According to the RAND Corporation, proved with 95 percent 
confidence that a driverless car is as safe as human drivers, a 
driverless car would have to drive 275 miles without a 
fatality. According to this metric in California, to put it in 
perspective, last year, all the companies testing AVs drove a 
total of 2.1 million miles. So we are nowhere near close to 
that metric, this data is far from promising.
    Are you concerned that auto manufacturers are trying to put 
these cars on the road too quickly without the level of testing 
that should be required?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Is that directed to me, Senator Blumenthal?
    Senator Blumenthal. Yes.
    Mr. Sumwalt. What we have noticed from our investigation 
that we completed yesterday is that there is not a sufficient 
oversight at the Federal level to make sure that the 
manufacturers of these AVs have put in place a cell safety 
self-assessment. That is what we have determined.
    Senator Blumenthal. Not sufficient oversight.
    Mr. Sumwalt. That is correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me follow up on Senator Tester's 
question to you Dr. Owens. He asked when a Level 5 car will be 
on the road. And let me ask you that question again. Can you 
give us any ballpark number of years?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. This is an area 
again, where the technology is driving the----
    Senator Blumenthal. I understand, but if you can't, I heard 
your answer before. The way I would interpret your answer, we 
have no idea when Level 5 cars will be safely on the roads. Is 
that pretty much correct?
    Dr. Owens. I would expect it's not going to be within the 
next couple of years. So it's probably five, 10 years off or, 
or longer perhaps. Developers are giving us different answers.
    Senator Blumenthal. At least five, which probably is 10 and 
maybe longer. Is that correct?
    Dr. Owens. It depends on when the technology is proven and 
that is something that is very much in development.
    Senator Blumenthal. When will we see Level 3 cars on the 
road?
    Dr. Owens. We could see Level 3 cars relatively soon. There 
are a number of manufacturers who are working on those 
technologies right now.
    Senator Blumenthal. When will we see them on the road 
safely?
    Dr. Owens. Our hope, our intention is that these cars are 
on the road safely from the first day that they're on the road.
    Senator Blumenthal. And when you say relatively soon, are 
we talking 5 years, 10 years?
    Dr. Owens. We could potentially be seeing Level 3 vehicles 
on the roads within the next couple of years.
    Senator Blumenthal. Within the next 2 years?
    Dr. Owens. Potentially.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about cyber, finally. 
The introduction of Internet connected cars have already 
created safety and privacy risks for drivers and others. I 
don't think you've been asked about this issue. And probably 
the reason is that we don't know what Federal agency will be 
responsible for protecting against hacking against cyber 
intrusion.
    Which Federal agency is primarily responsible? Who exactly 
is going to be held accountable for ensuring that cars on the 
road are not vulnerable to cybersecurity risks?
    Dr. Owens. Senator Blumenthal, if the cybersecurity affects 
the safe operation of the vehicle, then it's within NHTSA's 
purview. If it affects privacy, then that would be something 
that would probably be within the FTC's per view.
    I can tell you that we are very active in the cybersecurity 
area. It's a significant threat, it's an evolving dynamic 
threat. Our cars today are heavily computerized. We have--we 
treat software exactly the same as hardware when it comes to 
defects. And in fact, we've issued a recall relating to a 
cybersecurity vulnerability several years ago and that resulted 
in the recall of 1.4 million vehicles.
    We're in the process of updating our cybersecurity best 
practices right now and we encourage the creation of the 
automotive ISAC. Which is a forum for industry to come together 
to discuss lessons learned and incident management.
    Internally when we learn of an incident or a vulnerability 
we take action, we validate whether the incident or 
vulnerability poses a safety risk. And if we determine that it 
presents an unreasonable risk to safety, we will not hesitate 
to take action to ensure that there's a recall in place.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you all for being 
here.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. We have a vote 
on but I think we can squeeze the next two questioners in. And 
so, Senator Sinema is recognized.

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman we're little so we 
can squeeze.
    Senator Rosen. Yes, we are----
    Senator Sinema. Yes. Arizona, thanks to its highly skilled 
workforce and excellent weather is a magnet for autonomous 
vehicle development and testing. The New York Times called 
Arizona the place where self-driving cars go to learn. And 
Arizonans are at the forefront of this innovative technology 
that's creating great STEM jobs and revolutionizing the future 
of transportation. Many groundbreaking companies have invested 
in Arizona and these operations are growing as the technology 
advances.
    For example, the autonomous vehicle company, Waymo, has 
hundreds of vehicles in the Valley, including a partnership 
with Lyft for ride-sharing and a partnership with Valley Metro 
for last mile service for seniors. Earlier this year, Nuro, a 
company developing passenger-less cargo vehicles performed a 
pilot program with Fry's food stores to deliver groceries in 
the City of Scottsdale. And Too Simple, an autonomous trucking 
company with a facility in Tucson has been testing its vehicles 
on the I-10, between Phoenix and Tucson.
    With all of these advancements, it's critical to remember 
that safety for both passengers and the public is the most 
important priority for autonomous vehicle manufacturing and 
testing. Sadly, last year, Arizona was a site of a fatality 
related to testing self-driving cars. Yesterday the NTSB 
released its final report regarding the 2018 collision 
involving a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona. The NTSB report 
determined the probable cause of the accident was distraction 
of the safety driver and included recommendations about testing 
procedures and oversight.
    My first question is for Chairman Sumwalt. In the final 
report, the NTSB calls for greater oversight of AV testing from 
both the Federal Government and state governments. Can you 
describe the NTSB's recommended breakdown of safety 
responsibility between the state and Federal Government related 
to AV testing?
    Mr. Sumwalt. Yes, Senator Sinema, thank you very much for 
that question. And we do feel that the states certainly retain 
the responsibility for--they need to know what self-driving 
vehicles are being tested on their roadways, the qualifications 
of the person who will actually be monitoring the self-driving 
car while it's being tested. We want to make sure that the 
state has in place a plan to assess the safety of this before 
it begins.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is for Acting 
Under Secretary Szabat and Acting Administrator Owens. 
According to the NTSB report, the pedestrian fatality in Tempe 
could have been avoided had the safety driver been paying 
attention to the roadway. But until a manufacturer perfects a 
completely autonomous vehicle, the driver still plays an 
important role during testing, even if the car takes on more 
driving tasks. So driver engagement and the interface between 
the machine and the driver is crucial for safety, particularly 
during vehicle testing. The DOT's AV 3.0 guidance addresses 
human factors and drive engagement.
    So based on this accident, what is the DOT doing to keep 
safety drivers engaged and is the DOT planning to change or 
update its guidance based on this crash in Arizona?
    Dr. Owens. Thank you, Senator. What happened in Tempe was a 
terrible tragedy and our condolences go to the family of the 
victim.
    As you note, every vehicle on the roads today requires an 
operator to be in control and that operator has the 
responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle at 
all times and particularly when a vehicle is in test operation. 
When there's on-road testing that's going on, the company that 
is doing the testing has the obligation to ensure that their 
test drivers are properly qualified, properly trained and 
properly supervised, and that the test is conducted in a manner 
that is fully consistent with safety.
    We are currently undertaking a special crash investigation 
into the Tempe incident. So I'm not able to speak more 
specifically about that incident at this time. But what I will 
note is that we encourage--we encourage the states, our state 
partners, as well as industry, to ensure that when they're 
taking action that they're doing so in a manner that is 
consistent with safety.
    Mr. Szabat. And Madam Senator, if I may add AV 3.0 will be 
updated. That update will include the lessons learned from this 
from this crash. It will include, be informed by the 
recommendations that we have received from the NTSB as well.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Rosen.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to go very 
quickly because we have votes right now. I want to just switch 
over to talk about disabled populations because self-driving 
cars have the potential to dramatically improve the lives of 
people who cannot drive or have limited access to 
transportation. Their potential to increase mobility for 
Americans with disabilities bring more people into the 
workforce and community and save substantially on healthcare is 
vast.
    So just this morning I met with the Nevada Center for 
Excellence in Disabilities. They're attending a conference here 
in DC. They're talking about their transit challenges faced not 
just by Nevadans with disabilities, but all across this Nation. 
So we need to be careful in how we craft regulations to allow 
growth in the field of autonomous vehicles while ensuring we're 
meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities 
Acts and respect those who have disabilities, including the 
over 300,000 Nevadans.
    So, Mr. Szabat, just quickly, can you talk about how the 
car manufacturers, technology companies, policymakers, how can 
we ensure that our constituents with disabilities, sensory, 
cognitive, physical, wheelchairs how can we fully--how can they 
fully benefit using this new technology?
    Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for raising this issue. This 
from our perspective is one of the great potential benefits as 
we further develop autonomous vehicle technologies, is its 
ability to increase the freedom and mobility of America's 
disabled communities.
    As I mentioned, my opening statement, I think one of the 
key lessons that we've learned going into this is that the key 
stakeholder we have here are the members of the communities 
themselves. And, you know, their mantra is nothing about us 
without us. And we in the Department are trying to incorporate 
that into our own planning. So rather than a top down, we want 
to work with them as the technology develops to identify where 
it can have the best access for the communities.
    So as part of that you know, we hosted just a few weeks ago 
the Access of Mobility for All Summit in the Department. But 
we've announced $50 million in new initiatives to expand access 
for people with disabilities. I think a key part of this is 
we're going to have a complete trip deployment solicitation, 
$40 million will be available to enable communities to showcase 
innovative partnerships, technologies to determine how can we 
help the communities. And we'll be soliciting input from the 
communities themselves to help us determine how we can do that.
    Senator Rosen. Now, that's fantastic, especially on our 
Aging Committee, those of us getting older, having increased 
needs that will be very effective. I'm going to yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen. And Senator Markey 
has requested to be recognized for two minutes.
    Senator Markey. Two minutes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And I've denied that request.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Senator Markey is recognized.
    Senator Markey. These new vehicles are just computers on 
wheels. They can be cyber hacked, they can be taken over. It 
can be a very dangerous situation. And that remote control 
takeover of a car can be very dangerous.
    A recent report by Consumer Watchdog automakers have 
acknowledged the dangers of Internet-connected cars to their 
investors and shareholders, but they have not disclosed those 
same cyber risks to the public at-large. And I asked unanimous 
consent that this report be entered into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection it will be done.
    [Consumer Watchdog report entered.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Senator Markey. In response to this news, Senator 
Blumenthal and I sent a letter to NHTSA asking the Agency to 
share any information it has about these cyber risks and any 
actions it's taking to protect consumers.
    Dr. Owens, NHTSA still hasn't responded to our letter. So 
please respond to my question now. Should consumers be told 
about the cyber risks of their Internet-connected cars? Yes or 
no? Investors are told of the risks, consumers are not. Should 
consumers also be told of the risks?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, every computer is potentially 
vulnerable to cybersecurity risk. So----
    Senator Markey. I know that. And so, don't investors--
because the investors are told of the risks, should consumers 
be told of the risks?
    Dr. Owens. Senator, if we determine that there is a 
cybersecurity incident or risk that poses a risk to safety, we 
will conduct a recall and that will--and that is a public 
action and the public will be aware of an identified incident 
or vulnerability. We did so in 2015, we recalled 1.4 million 
vehicles for a cybersecurity vulnerability that we identified.
    Senator Markey. Well the, the problem is that they feel 
they have an obligation to notify investors and shareholders of 
these defects in the vehicle. Why don't you make sure that they 
notify consumers of the same defects in these vehicles?
    Obviously it's relevant information that the automakers 
have to disclose with regard to the safety of the vehicles, who 
better to get the information than consumers. So I just urge 
you very strongly and we're going to be on you and answer our 
letter. Answer the letter that Senator Blumenthal and I have 
sent you. Will you do that?
    Dr. Owens. Yes, Senator, we will.
    Senator Markey. And when will you get that back to us?
    Dr. Owens. As soon as we can.
    Senator Markey. Yes, that's not a good answer given that 
we've waited since August. That's why actually in addition, 
Senator Blumenthal and I had introduced a Spy Car Act that 
directs NHTSA to establish Federal cybersecurity standards to 
secure our cars. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Do you think you might be able to get an 
answer within two weeks to that letter Dr. Owens?
    Dr. Owens. In my time in government, I've come to hesitate 
about giving deadlines because I inevitably get it wrong. But I 
can assure you we want to get this out as soon as we can.
    The Chairman. Try to try to do that within a couple of 
weeks.
    Senator Markey. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. If you don't mind. Well, it's been a good 
hearing and we have a vote on and we're going to close the 
hearing at this point.
    I think a healthy degree of skepticism is always good. At 
the same time, I think a decade or two from now we'll look back 
and be amazed that there was ever a question that AVs will save 
lives and make the traveling public safer. It does. Let me just 
ask all three of you.
    Is there any question in your minds that, that we are 
headed toward a dramatic reduction in accidents and in traffic 
fatalities as we move forward with AVs? Is there any question? 
Mr. Szabat?
    Mr. Szabat. Senator, no.
    The Chairman. Dr. Owens?
    Dr. Owens. We don't have any questions about that.
    The Chairman. And Mr. Sumwalt, you can't answer with one 
word so elaborate because you're such a great witness.
    Mr. Sumwalt. Well, thank you. I do think that it holds 
great promise to improve safety, but it has to be done 
properly.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, I want to thank 
the witnesses and all the members for really, really good 
questions.
    The hearing record will remain open for two weeks as usual. 
During this time Senators are asked to submit any questions for 
the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible, but 
no later than Wednesday, December 12, 2019.
    And Dr. Owens there is a common frustration among members 
of the House and Senate at getting letters answered. So do the 
best, your absolute best you possibly can, in responding to 
Senator Markey's request. And I now conclude the hearing and 
announce that we are adjourned.
    Thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                            Consumer Technology Association
                                                  November 18, 2019

Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell;

    In advance of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation hearing on automated vehicles, the Consumer Technology 
Association (CTA) would like to highlight our support for a Federal 
self-driving vehicles bill. We applaud the leadership of the committee 
to work together in a bipartisan manner to advance legislation 
addressing self-driving vehicles. Self-driving vehicles (SDVs) will 
save thousands of lives a year on our highways and deliver life-
changing freedom and independence to seniors and people with 
disabilities--but we must have the right laws in place.
    CTA represents the entrepreneurs, technologists and innovators 
molding the future of the consumer technology industry. Our more than 
2,200 member companies include many working to transform the safety and 
efficiency of the driving experience through automated driving 
technologies and assisted and self-driving cars.
    One of the biggest challenges facing the development and 
implementation of these technologies is the growing patchwork of 
legislation and regulation across the country. Federal and state 
governments have different roles in the deployment of SDVs--and the 
expanding patchwork of local rules across the country will only delay 
SDV testing and hinder America's global leadership. A `technology-
neutral' approach to SDV rules is also critical to allow new innovators 
to enter the SDV sector, develop safer technologies, and provide 
greater efficiencies.
    Below are our key priorities for legislation related to self-
driving vehicles.
    Rulemakings, including updating existing standards and setting new 
standards;

   The current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 
        were established when the driving task was assumed to be 
        performed by a human driver and, as a result, are typically 
        drafted in a way that directly or indirectly refers to vehicle 
        controls being operated by a human. SDV design may not revolve 
        around a human driver in the vehicle. As such, current FMVSS 
        limit the ability to make significant changes to vehicle 
        design, which can preclude truly innovative approaches to fully 
        self-driving vehicles.

   While exemptions will provide some relief in the short term, 
        they are not a permanent solution. NHTSA needs to evaluate the 
        FMVSS and update outdated standards before SDVs can be deployed 
        widely. We must retain flexibility for NHTSA to update existing 
        FMVSS to allow for self-driving vehicles, create new FMVSS, or 
        a combination of both options. Additionally, NHTSA will need to 
        update its test procedures for certifying compliance in a world 
        where humans are not always the direct operators. A timeline 
        from NHTSA detailing what steps the industry will take when 
        will be important for long term planning.

   NHTSA should work in conjunction with the broad AV industry 
        and leading standards bodies to collaboratively develop 
        technology-neutral and transparent best practices and industry 
        standards.

   Expedited rulemaking should apply to both passenger and 
        passenger-less vehicles.

    Federal, State and Local Roles and access to courts;

   The Federal Government is responsible for vehicle safety and 
        performance standards (FMVSS), recalls, and issuing guidance 
        for manufacturers to follow. States are responsible for 
        regulating insurance, adjudication of liability, vehicle safety 
        inspection, vehicle registration, human driver licensing 
        requirements, and enacting and enforcing traffic laws. Any 
        legislation must clarify this division of responsibility and 
        ensure the Federal Government is solely responsible for 
        regulating vehicle safety and performance standards.

   CTA strongly opposes any provision limiting the use of 
        arbitration, a legal mechanism widely used to reduce the cost 
        of litigation for both companies and consumers, and to provide 
        more timely remedies for everyone involved in a dispute. There 
        is no clear public policy purpose to address it narrowly in the 
        context of self-driving vehicles, nor is it appropriate to make 
        changes to the Federal Arbitration Act in this bill.

    Exemptions;

   NHTSA has the authority to exempt vehicles from existing 
        FMVSS to allow for testing of new vehicle designs and safety 
        features, and for the limited sale of such vehicles. Exemptions 
        are currently available to vehicle manufacturers only on a 
        temporary basis, typically two-three years, and only a small 
        number (2,500) of exemptions are available. Expanding NHTSA's 
        exemption authority would allow manufacturers and other 
        entities to gather the data they need to improve safety and 
        performance, while preserving the agency's oversight authority 
        through the terms and conditions of individual exemptions.

   For many manufacturers, it is not economically feasible to 
        build a manufacturing line for 2,500 vehicles or less. This 
        hinders American competitiveness by disadvantaging U.S. 
        companies against foreign competitors, like China, that do not 
        have such limitations and whose companies can invest freely at 
        scale.

   The exemption process must be available to all petitioners 
        (e.g., traditional OEMs, suppliers, tech companies, and new 
        entrants) on a level playing field.

   Decisions on exemption petitions should be timely.

   Exemptions should be applicable for crashworthiness 
        standards as well as crash avoidance and post-crash standards.

    Testing Expansion;

   Expand eligibility of the FMVSS testing exemption created in 
        the FAST Act (40 USC 30112) to provide parity among automobile 
        manufacturers (OEMs), suppliers, manufacturers of ADS 
        components, and developers of automated driving vehicles and 
        automated driving systems (ADS).

   Testing, evaluation and/or demonstration of a SDV should be 
        completed only by the respective employee(s), agent(s) or fleet 
        management contractors of the manufacturer under this 
        exemption.

    Advisory Committees;

   Any advisory committee should ensure broad representation of 
        stakeholders.

    Cybersecurity;

   The industry has sought to proactively address cybersecurity 
        challenges. In 2015, the Automotive Information Sharing and 
        Analysis Center (Auto-ISAC) was created to share information 
        and collaboratively address cybersecurity threats. Proactive, 
        industry-led efforts--in contrast to a top-down regulatory 
        approach--will best ensure that industry meets cybersecurity 
        challenges without impeding innovation unnecessarily. In 
        seeking to protect consumers' security, policymakers must not 
        tie the hands of innovators, which would inhibit or prohibit 
        the best technology solutions to security challenges from 
        emerging and continually evolving.

   NHTSA should be directed to update the 2016 Cybersecurity 
        Best Practices to reflect changes in technology.

    Privacy;

   The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has primary jurisdiction 
        over privacy issues, while NHTSA remains focused on safety. As 
        NHTSA states on its website ``generally, it is the [FTC] and 
        not the U.S. Department of Transportation or NHTSA that is 
        charged with protecting consumer privacy.'' \1\ NHTSA goes on 
        to note that ``[d]espite rapid changes in technology across 
        numerous sectors, the FTC's overall approach to privacy has 
        remained consistent'' and signals the agency's intention to 
        work closely with the FTC in addressing any consumer privacy 
        implications of vehicle technologies.\2\ We support NHTSA's 
        continued commitment to defining the respective roles and 
        responsibilities of the two agencies with respect to vehicle 
        policy issues and agree with the allocation of roles that NHTSA 
        and the FTC have settled upon. Ensuring that Federal agencies 
        play complementary, as opposed to overlapping or conflicting, 
        roles with respect to AV technology is important to developing 
        a clear and consistent policy framework that fosters 
        innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Automated Driving Systems: Frequently Asked Questions, 
NAT'L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., https://www.nhtsa.gov/
manufacturers/automated-driving-systems.
    \2\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consumer Education;

   Consumer education is an essential element to ensuring the 
        acceptance and success of self-driving vehicles. Coordinated 
        efforts between the industry and DOT, like how the FAA has 
        worked with UAS stakeholders on the Know Before You Fly 
        Campaign, will be helpful in this effort.

   CTA is a founding member of Partners for Automated Vehicle 
        Education (PAVE), and industry-led effort to educate consumers 
        on both current and future vehicle technology.

    Safety Evaluation Reports;

   CTA supports the use of Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments 
        (VSSAs) as detailed in the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy 
        3.0.

    Crash Data, including reporting requirements;

   The 5th edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 
        (MMUCC) includes automated vehicle crashes. Further, state and 
        local governments are updating their data collection efforts to 
        reflect MMUCC. Therefore, we do not see a need to address crash 
        data in Federal legislation.

    Resources for NHTSA;

   CTA does not advocate on government spending; therefore, we 
        do not have a position on funding for NHTSA.

    Disability Access;

   Access for individuals with disabilities remains a top 
        priority for the industry. It is important to maintain 
        flexibility for the manufacturer to address the needs of the 
        consumer and to expedite the development of life-saving 
        technology. The disability community should be included in any 
        advisory groups related to this matter.

   States should ensure that licensure requirements for 
        individuals with a disability are compliant with the ADA.

    Maintaining DOT's existing authority over larger vehicles;

   CTA does not request any changes to DOT's existing authority 
        over larger vehicles.

    Non-AV safety requirements;

   CTA urges that AV legislation be solely focused on ADS-
        equipped vehicles defined as Levels 3 through 5 by SAE. In 
        Levels 3 through 5, the ADS monitors the driving environment. 
        In Levels 3 through 5, ADS performs the entire dynamic driving 
        task while it is engaged. NHTSA's ADS guidance and VSSA 
        elements are squarely applicable to Levels 3 through 5 only.

    Global Competitiveness.

   Congress should emphasize the necessity of Federal 
        legislation to remain competitive with other countries and 
        maintain our leadership position in automotive innovation and 
        safety.

    CTA appreciates the opportunity to provide the committee with our 
priorities for legislation addressing self-driving and automated 
vehicle technology. We look forward to working with you to advance 
legislation enabling the development and use of vehicles that will make 
our roads safer.
            Sincerely,
                                               Jamie Boone,
                                Vice President, Government Affairs,
                                       Consumer Technology Association.

CC: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation
                                 ______
                                 
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center
                                  Washington, DC, November 19, 2019

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC) 
respectfully submits the following statement for the record for the 
committee's hearing entitled, ``Highly Automated Vehicles: Federal 
Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety Technology.''
    C_TEC strongly supports the Committee's efforts to understand how 
to most effectively reduce the number of roadway fatalities and ensure 
the safety of America's transportation system. According to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 36,540 Americans lost 
their lives in 2018 due to motor vehicle crashes, 94 percent of which 
are caused by human error.
    To address this problem, C_TEC believes that the safe deployment of 
automated vehicles would dramatically reduce the number of motor 
vehicle fatalities and make our roads safer. Moreover, the introduction 
of automated vehicles would empower millions of Americans currently 
unable to drive or otherwise limited in their mobility. In addition, 
automated vehicles would bring significant economic benefits for 
American workers and consumers. Automated vehicles are projected to add 
$800 billion in cumulative economic benefits by 2050.
    C_TEC believes that Congress can take an important role in 
facilitating the safe development, testing, and deployment of this 
life-saving technology and earlier this year developed Automated 
Vehicle Policy Principles to guide our approach (attached). These 
principles include: ensure a safety first approach, preserve the 
existing delineation of regulatory roles, promote technology and 
stakeholder neutrality, advance safe automated vehicle development, 
testing, and deployment, and modernize Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards and regulations.
    Last Congress, C_TEC was supportive of the Committee's leadership 
on S. 1885, the ``American Vision for Safer Transportation through 
Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act,'' and we are 
encouraged by the current bicameral, bipartisan process to develop 
automated vehicle legislation. In addition, we are appreciative of the 
leadership shown by the Administration and by Secretary of 
Transportation Elaine Chao to advance automated vehicles and maintain 
American leadership in this technology.
    Automated vehicles has the potential to save thousands of lives 
every year, enhance mobility for millions of Americans, and spur 
economic growth. Thank you for including this statement into the 
record, and C_TEC stands ready to work with the Committee and its 
members to safely advance automated vehicles.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Tim Day,
                                             Senior Vice President,
                                        C_TEC U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

cc: Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
                                 ______
                                 
                   Partners for Automated Vehicle Education
                                                  November 19, 2019

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wicker and Senator Cantwell,

    Thank you for convening today's hearing, ``Highly Automated 
Vehicles: Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety 
Technology.'' Public hearings with experts on this important technology 
are an important venue for raising the level of public knowledge about 
automated vehicles.
    Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE) is a diverse 
coalition of safety, mobility and sustainability advocates and industry 
participants who are united by two beliefs: the belief that automated 
vehicles have substantial potential benefits, and the belief that we 
will not achieve these benefits without the understanding and trust of 
the public.
    To help achieve these potential benefits, PAVE is embarked on a 
campaign to help raise the level of public understanding about AV 
technology and its potential. This week, PAVE has teamed with the 
National League of Cities and PAVE member NAVYA to offer demonstration 
rides in a NAVYA automated shuttle to attendees at NLC's City Summit in 
San Antonio, Texas. Demonstration events like this help expose more 
Americans to these new technologies and raise their level of knowledge 
and awareness.
    PAVE does not advocate for specific public policies, legislation or 
regulation. But we recognize the potential of automated vehicles to 
help reduce the roughly 37,000 annual deaths on U.S. roads and to 
improve transportation accessibility and sustainability. PAVE is highly 
focused on creating a more informed public as well as helping to inform 
policymakers charged with crafting the policies related to automated 
vehicles that can unlock these benefits. We also recognize the need for 
public information on automated vehicles to be accurate and fact-based, 
to accurately portray the capabilities and limitations of advanced 
vehicle technologies, and to avoid misleading drivers by creating an 
inaccurate impression of those capabilities. This means drawing a clear 
line for consumers between driver assistance systems that aid drivers 
(as defined up to SAE Level 2 in the Level 0-5 scale) and higher levels 
of automation (SAE levels 3-5). PAVE's mission is to provide just that 
sort of hype-free information, so that whatever policies are 
established at the federal, state or local level, those policies are 
informed by the best information available.
    We appreciate your continued focus on these important issues and 
stand ready to assist in any way we can to help raise the level of 
knowledge and understanding on automated vehicles.
            Respectfully,

Brad Stertz
PAVE Co-Chair
Director of Government Affairs
Audi USA
  

Kelly Nantel
PAVE Co-Chair
Vice President of Communications and Advocacy
National Safety Council
      
                                 ______
                                 
                                                     Aurora
                                                  November 20, 2019
Chairman Roger Wicker,
Ranking Member Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell,

    Aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self-driving 
technology safely, quickly, and broadly. We are building the Aurora 
Driver, a platform that combines hardware, software, and data services 
that allows vehicles to move people and goods safely through the world. 
When complete, the Aurora Driver will enable a transportation 
ecosystem, bringing together automakers, logistics services, mobility 
services, and fleet management providers to deliver the benefits of 
self driving technology broadly.
    Safety is our first priority in developing the Aurora Driver.\1\ 
Our primary motivation is reducing accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 
The status quo \2\ is not acceptable and we are working to do something 
about it. We put safety top of mind with everything that we do at 
Aurora, from the people that we hire to our development and decision-
making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://medium.com/aurora-blog/putting-safety-into-practice-
auroras-safety-approach-5297
de2d8276
    \2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/roadway-fatalities-2018-
fars
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In conjunction with the hearing on ``Highly Automated Vehicles: 
Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety Technology'', we would 
like to offer a few perspectives. Aurora strongly believes that 
government and regulators are key partners to the safe and successful 
deployment of self-driving vehicle technology. There are several 
elements and examples of Aurora's approach to safety that are worth 
highlighting as the Committee considers this important topic. There are 
four pillars to our safety culture at Aurora: practice a culture of 
safety; develop the technology safely; establish safety metrics; and 
collaborate and educate. In fact, Aurora was the first company approved 
by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to test our technology 
on public roads in the state.
    Aurora published a detailed Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment (VSSA) 
outlining our focus on safety including the importance of simulation in 
the development of the Aurora Driver, our driver safety protocols and 
training programs, and our grounding policy.\3\ For example, all Aurora 
employees, from founders to engineers to vehicle operators and business 
analysts, are empowered to ground the fleet if they identify something 
they consider a safety risk. In addition, virtual testing is a critical 
component of how we develop and test our technology safely and 
efficiently. We resist the urge to put more and more cars on the road 
in an effort to ramp up on-road miles. Instead, we use on-road testing 
to validate our virtual tests. When we are on the road, we have two 
expert human vehicle operators in our cars at all times. They undergo 
an intensive six-week training program when they begin, and continue 
training each week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://aurora.tech/vssa/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We need to partner with the government to put regulations in place 
that keep citizens safe, while also encouraging rapid innovation. As a 
n example, there is currently a patchwork of regulations governing how 
humans should drive--and they often vary from state to state. Self-
driving technology can save even more lives if states and cities can 
come together and work with industry groups to agree on consistent 
standards and metrics. We have begun to work with regulators to 
brainstorm ways to bring the states and communities together to 
standardize current road rules.
    Aurora has also engaged with the Committee on your efforts to 
develop Federal highly automated vehicle legislation. Your leadership 
is greatly appreciated and we look forward to continuing to work with 
you. As your Committee approaches legislation, we continue to encourage 
you to level the playing field for all developers of self-driving 
technology and ensure that innovative, job-creating companies like 
Aurora are not disadvantaged versus incumbents.
    Aurora's primary concerns for any Federal legislation are to, 
first, ensure that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) retains its primary safety authority vis-a-vis the states and, 
second, expand the ability of all companies to take advantage of 
exemptions in the development of their self-driving systems. While 
these two issues are critical to the development of self-driving cars, 
there will be additional issue areas where Aurora can offer expertise 
and insight to the committees' future work on legislation addressing 
Level 3 automation and above. We look forward to continuing this 
conversation and reviewing language as your committee goes through the 
legislative process.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the topic of 
safety in the development and deployment of self-driving vehicle 
technology.
            Sincerely,
                                         Gerardo Interiano,
                                      Head of Government Relations.

cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation
                                 ______
                                 
                      National Association of Manufacturers
                                  Washington, DC, November 20, 2019

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    The National Association of Manufacturers welcomes the Committee's 
attention to the topic of autonomous vehicles with the hearing entitled 
``Highly Automated Vehicles: Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of 
Safety Technology,'' and we appreciate the opportunity to share our 
perspective on this important issue.
    The NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United 
States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 
50 states. Manufacturing employs more than 12.8 million men and women, 
contributes nearly $2.4 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the 
largest economic impact of any major sector and accounts for 64 percent 
of all private-sector research and development in the Nation.\1\ The 
NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the 
leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete 
in the global economy and create jobs across the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nam.org/facts-about-manufacturing/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NAM represents all parts of the passenger and commercial AV 
supply chain, including original equipment manufacturers, suppliers, 
and entities involved in the design, testing and manufacturing of ADS, 
as well as commercial vehicle and multimodal transportation 
manufacturers and suppliers. The NAM also represents manufacturers who 
rely on advanced transportation technology to better serve their 
customers and communities.
    As automotive technologies continue to advance, manufacturers in 
the United States continue to take the lead in designing and making 
products that improve safety and enhance the driving experience. 
Manufacturers have been early innovators of the technologies and 
products found in Automated Driving Systems and are building on long-
standing research, knowledge and success to advance the safe, timely 
and widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles.
    The NAM believes vehicles equipped with well-tested and proven AV 
technologies will present a new opportunity to make our roadways safer. 
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
data released last year, human error was the critical cause in 94 
percent of vehicle crashes.\2\ Safety continues to be a primary 
objective for manufacturers at every stage of the process to design, 
build, test, operate and deploy autonomous vehicles. Manufacturers 
appreciate that Congress and the Department of Transportation have 
recognized the safety improvement potential presented by AV 
technologies and the need to address barriers for innovation and 
adoption of these technologies to realize those safety benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NAM continues to call for ongoing collaboration between 
industry and government to develop a voluntary, evolving framework that 
fosters further innovation in autonomous vehicle technology by 
manufacturers in America. As the NAM's Building to Win infrastructure 
blueprint states:

        This is an exciting time for automotive and truck manufacturers 
        as well as suppliers, but to maintain a mantle of leadership, 
        our Nation's elected officials and leaders must get safety 
        regulations and the adoption of new technologies right . . . 
        Also, a Federal regulatory approach that considers the industry 
        a technology partner and allows for innovation will be 
        instrumental to the further success of automated driving 
        systems (ADS).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
IIHR.BTW_.2019.v08.pdf

    The NAM supports the ongoing work by DOT to develop a framework to 
promote progress on AV deployment and has communicated that 
manufacturers hope to see further progress on broad regulatory changes 
in the attached comments. At the same time, we urge Congress to 
recognize that Federal legislation is needed to fully advance these 
objectives. The NAM appreciates this Committee's leadership in the 
ongoing bipartisan, bicameral process to develop AV legislation. As 
these efforts progress, DOT's AV 3.0 automation principles, which 
include prioritizing safety, a commitment to remaining technology 
neutral, modernizing regulations and promoting a consistent regulatory 
and operational environment, should guide Congress as it sets out AV 
policy.
    Federal legislation is necessary to clarify the role of the Federal 
and state governments in the advancement of AV innovation. The NAM has 
long supported an approach in which the vehicle and roadway safety 
experts at DOT lead the policy development for furthering automated 
technology for all types of motor vehicles on our Nation's roadways. 
The growth of AV technology and the accompanying advancement of AV 
safety goals can best be accomplished through a government-stakeholder 
partnership that provides a clear Federal framework for the testing and 
deployment of AVs and flexibility for industry in the technical 
development and design of the technology. Federal policy should prevent 
a patchwork of conflicting state requirements that can create 
regulatory uncertainty and delay the deployment of AV technologies. 
Federal legislation can also modernize and speed the regulatory 
process, and it should advance a technology-neutral approach that 
promotes competition and aids innovation for manufacturers developing 
new products and future technologies.
    Transformational automotive technologies are advancing around the 
world, and the United States must create an environment that fosters 
safe and timely adoption of AV technologies to retain industry 
leadership and maintain global competitiveness. As this Committee 
develops legislation to support the future of transportation, we 
encourage the Committee to continue to engage with stakeholders to 
ensure that emerging solutions work for those creating, manufacturing 
and investing in AV technologies. The NAM appreciates the leadership of 
the Committee on AV policy and the opportunity to share our key 
priorities on this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                          Robyn Boerstling,
                                                    Vice President,
                 Infrastructure, Innovation and Human Resources Policy.
Enclosures: 3
                                 ______
                                 
                      National Association of Manufacturers
                                   Washington, DC, December 3, 2018
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
West Building, Room W12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001

RE: Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 
            (AV 3.0) (Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0149)

    On behalf of the 14,000 members of the National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in the 
United States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and 
in all 50 states, the NAM submits these comments in response to the 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) request for comment on Preparing 
for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0).
    Manufacturing employs more than 12 million men and women, 
contributes over $2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the 
largest economic impact of any major sector and accounts for more than 
three-quarters of all private-sector research and development in the 
Nation. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community 
and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers 
compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States.
    Manufacturers are leading innovators, designing and producing 
products that improve the lives of customers and using technologies 
that transform manufacturing processes. Manufacturers were early 
innovators of the technologies and products in Automated Driving 
Systems (ADS) and are poised to continue to lead in the safe, timely 
and widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs). The NAM 
represents all parts of the AV supply chain, including original 
equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and entities involved in the 
design, testing and manufacturing of ADS, as well as commercial vehicle 
and multimodal transportation manufacturers and suppliers. The NAM also 
represents manufacturers who rely on advanced transportation technology 
to better serve their customers and communities. The NAM welcomes the 
opportunity to comment on DOT's updated approach to ADS in AV 3.0.
    AV technology presents an opportunity to make our roadways safer. 
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
data released this year, human error was the critical cause in 94 
percent of vehicle crashes.\1\ Safety continues to be a primary 
objective for manufacturers at every stage of the process to design, 
build, test, operate and deploy autonomous vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NAM submitted comments on the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy 
(the ``Policy'') released in 2016 and Automated Driving Systems: A 
Vision for Safety (the ``Guidance'') in 2017. In both cases, we noted 
our appreciation for NHTSA's outreach to industry and highlighted the 
need for ongoing collaboration to develop a voluntary, evolving 
framework that fostered further innovation in autonomous vehicle 
technology by manufacturers in America. The NAM appreciates DOT's 
continued outreach to manufacturers and that AV 3.0 represents a 
continuation of the approach taken in the prior frameworks while also 
incorporating additional stakeholder feedback.
    The NAM has consistently called for guidance that is voluntary and 
provides flexibility for manufacturers to continue to innovate in ADS. 
AV 3.0 builds upon the voluntary guidance provided in 2017. The NAM 
appreciates that DOT continues to emphasize the voluntary nature of 
developers' safety self-assessments and supports the development of 
voluntary technical standards and approaches for AV deployment. AV 3.0 
``reaffirms DOT's reliance on a self-certification approach, rather 
than type approval, as the way to balance and promote safety 
innovation.'' Manufacturers prioritize safety and are committed to 
taking steps to build consumer confidence in the safety of AV 
technology. At this point in time, advancing AV safety goals can be 
best accomplished through a government-stakeholder partnership that 
provides a clear Federal framework for the testing and deployment of 
AVs and flexibility for industry in the technical development and 
design of the technology.
    The NAM welcomes DOT's multimodal approach to the deployment of ADS 
in AV 3.0. The updated framework incorporates commercial vehicles and 
considers the authorities of the surface transportation operating 
administrations within DOT with jurisdictions impacted by AV 
technology. The NAM agrees that the best way to achieve the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) goal of reducing crashes 
involving commercial vehicles is to create a regulatory environment 
that speeds the development of ADS in these systems. Manufacturers look 
forward to participating in the subsequent development of policy and 
regulations by FMCSA to promote the integration of ADS-equipped 
commercial motor vehicles.
    The NAM supports the continued approach in AV 3.0 to the role for 
the Federal and state governments in the advancement of AV innovation, 
specifically the call for states and localities to avoid unnecessary 
and incompatible regulations that could create hurdles for AV 
technologies. The NAM has long supported an approach to AVs in which 
the vehicle and roadway safety experts at DOT lead the policy 
development for this innovative technology. The Federal Government's 
approach should modernize the regulatory process and prevent a 
patchwork of conflicting state requirements from unnecessarily 
interfering with the timely deployment of AVs. The NAM supports 
congressional action on legislation to achieve this goal. The House of 
Representatives passed the SELF DRIVE ACT (H.R. 3388), introduced by 
Representatives Bob Latta and Jan Schakowsky, in September 2017. The AV 
START Act (S. 1885), introduced by Senators John Thune and Gary Peters, 
remains pending in the Senate. These two pieces of legislation would 
speed the development of NHTSA safety regulations workable for AVs, 
provide a pathway for AV manufacturers to test the technology while 
regulations are updated and clarify the role of the Federal and state 
governments to prevent a potentially conflicting and costly regulatory 
environment.
    This transformational automotive technology is advancing around the 
world, and the United States has an opportunity to boost its global 
competitiveness by creating an environment that fosters safe and timely 
adoption. The NAM remains committed to working with DOT and its key 
modal agencies to accomplish this shared goal.
            Comments submitted electronically by:
                                            Stephanie Hall,
                                     Director of Innovation Policy,
                                 National Association of Manufacturers.
                                 ______
                                 
                      National Association of Manufacturers
                                    Washington, DC, August 26, 2019

Docket Management Facility
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W-12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems-Equipped Commercial 
            Motor Vehicles (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037)

    On behalf of the 14,000 members of the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the largest manufacturing association in the United 
States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 
50 states, the NAM submits these comments in response to the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking regarding the safe integration of automated driving systems-
equipped commercial motor vehicles on our Nation's roadways.
    Manufacturing employs more than 12.8 million men and women, 
contributes $2.38 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the 
largest economic multiplier of any major sector and accounts for more 
than three-quarters of private-sector research and development. The NAM 
is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading 
advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the 
global economy and create jobs across the United States.
    As automotive technologies continue to advance, manufacturers in 
the United States continue to take the lead in designing and making 
products that improve safety and enhance the driving experience. 
Manufacturers have been early innovators of the technologies and 
products found in Automated Driving Systems and are building on long-
standing research, knowledge and success to advance the safe, timely 
and widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles.
    The NAM represents all parts of the passenger and commercial 
vehicle AV supply chain, including original equipment manufacturers, 
suppliers, and entities involved in the design, testing and 
manufacturing of ADS, as well as multimodal transportation 
manufacturers and suppliers developing automated technologies to 
improve all types of freight movements. The NAM also represents 
manufacturers who rely on advanced transportation technology to better 
serve their customers and communities.
    According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), human error remains the critical cause of 94 percent of 
vehicle crashes. As the NAM's Building to Win infrastructure blueprint 
states:

        This is an exciting time for automotive and truck manufacturers 
        as well as suppliers, but to maintain a mantle of leadership, 
        our Nation's elected officials and leaders must get safety 
        regulations and the adoption of new technologies right . . . 
        Also, a federal regulatory approach that considers the industry 
        a technology partner and allows for innovation will be 
        instrumental to the further success of (ADS).i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
IIHR.BTW_.2019.v08.pdf

    The NAM believes commercial motor vehicles that will be equipped 
with well-tested and proven ADS will present a new opportunity to make 
our roadways safer. At every stage of the process, safety continues to 
be the primary objective for manufacturers that are designing, 
building, testing, operating and deploying autonomous vehicles. The NAM 
agrees with the Department of Transportation's AV 3.0 estimation that 
the best way to achieve the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's (FMCSA) goal to enhance safety is to create a 
regulatory environment that encourages the safe acceleration and 
adoption of ADS in CMVs.
    The NAM applauds the DOT and FMCSA for their flexible regulatory 
approach to AV technology as it applies to passenger and commercial 
motor vehicles because the evolving transportation landscape requires 
an ongoing modernization of regulatory policies. We encourage DOT to 
expand the process of reviewing antiquated policies to make the 
application of ADS consistent with other modes of transportation, such 
as rail. The NAM submitted comments in 2018 to ``Preparing for the 
Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0'' (AV 3.0) and 
highlighted the need for ongoing collaboration with all transportation 
and manufacturing stakeholders to develop a voluntary, evolving 
framework that fostered further innovation in autonomous vehicle 
technology.
    In addition to a focus on safety, FMCSA must advance a regulatory 
policy that allows for autonomous technology to deliver increasing 
gains in freight efficiency and mobility. Ongoing innovation requires 
continued flexibility and a Federal framework that is focused on long-
term progress and prepared for ongoing technology evolutions that can 
rapidly change. In AV 3.0, FMCSA correctly decided to ``no longer 
assume that the CMV driver is always a human or that a human is 
necessarily present onboard a commercial vehicle during its 
operation.''
    Manufacturers encourage FMCSA to further explain this future-
forward approach in its Notice for Proposed Rulemaking and analyze 
future implications of that assumption regarding drivers so that 
manufacturers and suppliers can appropriately prepare products for the 
market.
    Further, as technology advances specifically around deployment of 
more advanced AV systems, FMCSA will likely need to modify policies 
surrounding certifications and training for commercial drivers, new 
digital identification, hours of service or other factors outlined in 
the ANPRM. However, it is important that any modification to FMCSA's 
current regulations be technology neutral. FMCSA must avoid technology 
mandates that stifle innovation, limit competition or disrupt supply 
chains by picking winners and losers.
    In support of interstate commerce, the Department of Transportation 
must continue to lead the development of safety-oriented policy to 
govern the continued introduction of AV technology. The FMCSA has a 
clear responsibility to regulate commercial motor vehicle safety and to 
assert Federal leadership in order to avoid regulatory uncertainty and 
prevent the deleterious impacts of a 50-state patchwork. The NAM 
strongly supports the pre-emptive authority that FMCSA reiterated in 
its AV 3.0 framework.
    Transformational automotive technologies are advancing around the 
world, and the United States has an opportunity to lead and maintain 
global competitiveness by creating an environment that fosters safe and 
timely adoption of ADS in commercial motor vehicles. DOT and FMCSA 
should continue to lead the regulatory promulgation with the input of 
all necessary stakeholders to support the many benefits of AV 
technologies. The NAM appreciates FMCSA's consideration of these 
comments on behalf of manufacturers and remains committed to working 
with the FMCSA to accomplish this shared goal.
            Comments Submitted by:
                                             Catie Kawchak,
                                   Director, Infrastructure Policy,
                                 National Association of Manufacturers.
                                 ______
                                 
                      National Association of Manufacturers
                                    Washington, DC, August 27, 2019
Docket Management Facility
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving 
            Systems (Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0036)

    On behalf of the 14,000 members of the National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in the 
United States representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and 
in all 50 states, the NAM submits these comments in response to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on Removing Regulatory Barriers for 
Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems.
    Manufacturing employs more than 12 million men and women, 
contributes over $2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the 
largest economic multiplier of any major sector and accounts for more 
than three-quarters of all private-sector research and development in 
the Nation. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing 
community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps 
manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the 
United States.
    As automotive technologies continue to advance, manufacturers in 
the United States continue to take the lead in designing and making 
products that improve safety and enhance the driving experience. 
Manufacturers have been early innovators of the technologies and 
products found in Automated Driving Systems and are building on long-
standing research, knowledge and success to advance the safe, timely 
and widespread deployment of autonomous vehicles. The NAM represents 
all parts of the passenger and commercial AV supply chain, including 
original equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and entities involved in 
the design, testing and manufacturing of ADS, as well as commercial 
vehicle and multimodal transportation manufacturers and suppliers. The 
NAM also represents manufacturers who rely on advanced transportation 
technology to better serve their customers and communities.
    The NAM believes vehicles equipped with well-tested and proven ADS 
will present a new opportunity to make our roadways safer. According to 
NHTSA data released last year, human error remains the critical cause 
of 94 percent of vehicle crashes.\1\ At every stage of the process, 
safety continues to be a primary objective for manufacturers that are 
designing, building, testing, operating and deploying autonomous 
vehicles. Manufacturers appreciate that NHTSA recognizes the safety 
improvement potential presented by ADS technologies, and the need to 
address barriers for innovation and adoption of these technologies to 
realize those safety benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812506
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NAM welcomes the opportunity to comment on this ANPRM intended 
to remove regulatory barriers that would prevent the timely deployment 
of AVs. The NAM submitted comments in 2016 to the Federal Automated 
Vehicle Policy and in 2017 to Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for 
Safety, as well as in 2018 to the Department of Transportation's 
request for comment on Preparing for the Future of Transportation: 
Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0). At each stage, the NAM continues to 
call for ongoing collaboration between industry and government to 
develop a voluntary, evolving framework that fosters further innovation 
in autonomous vehicle technology by manufacturers in America. As the 
NAM's Building to Win infrastructure blueprint states:

        This is an exciting time for automotive and truck manufacturers 
        as well as suppliers, but to maintain a mantle of leadership, 
        our Nation's elected officials and leaders must get safety 
        regulations and the adoption of new technologies right . . . 
        Also, a Federal regulatory approach that considers the industry 
        a technology partner and allows for innovation will be 
        instrumental to the further success of (ADS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
IIHR.BTW_.2019.v08.pdf 

    The NAM has consistently called for guidance that is voluntary and 
provides flexibility for manufacturers to continue to innovate in ADS 
and reiterates here its support for that approach taken by DOT with AV 
3.0. The NAM further supports the DOT's automation principles outlined 
in AV 3.0, which include prioritizing safety, committing to remaining 
technology neutral, modernizing regulations and promoting a consistent 
regulatory and operational environment. These principles should guide 
NHTSA's approach in this ANPRM to addressing compliance verification 
challenges that exist for crash avoidance standards contained in the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specific to the unique questions 
presented by ADS technologies.
    The NAM supports an approach to solving compliance verification 
challenges with AVs that provides manufacturers with maximum 
flexibility to adapt technology and innovate in a quickly evolving and 
competitive area. In this ANPRM, NHTSA provides six possible approaches 
to revising crash avoidance test procedures, specifically for ADS 
vehicles that lack manual controls. Manufacturers support an approach 
that would permit these various safety testing procedures, or 
additional new procedures if a more suitable alternative emerges. 
Keeping the door open to multiple testing procedures both promotes 
competition and aids innovation for manufacturers developing new 
products and future technologies in AVs. The growth of AV technology 
and the accompanying advancement of AV safety goals can best be 
accomplished through a government-stakeholder partnership that provides 
a clear Federal framework for the testing and deployment of AVs and 
flexibility for industry in the technical development and design of the 
technology.
    Transformational automotive technologies are advancing around the 
world, and the United States has an opportunity to lead and maintain 
global competitiveness by creating an environment that fosters safe and 
timely adoption of ADS technologies. DOT, NHTSA and the Department's 
key modal agencies should continue to consider broad regulatory changes 
necessary to foster the growth of AVs, working with stakeholders to 
ensure that emerging solutions work for those creating, manufacturing 
and investing in AV technologies. The NAM remains committed to working 
with DOT and NHTSA to accomplish these shared goals.
            Comments submitted electronically by:
                                            Stephanie Hall,
                                     Director of Innovation Policy,
                                 National Association of Manufacturers.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       Nuro
                       Mountain View, CA, November 20, 2019

Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    Thank you for your leadership in holding today's important hearing 
on the development and introduction into society of autonomous vehicle 
technology. We respectfully submit these comments on the life-saving 
benefits of autonomous vehicles versus traditional automobiles, and how 
they can expand the approach to road safety implemented by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the past several decades.
    Nuro has built a new class of vehicle from the ground up: 
lightweight, passengerless delivery vehicles, originally engineered and 
manufactured to be operated autonomously rather than retrofitted. 
Nuro's vehicles never get distracted or impaired, have complete 360-
degree vision, and are programmed to obey the rules of the road 
consistently. They offer a significant opportunity to address the more 
than 35,000 fatalities that are now occurring yearly on our roads. 
Fully passengerless vehicles like Nuro's present an untapped 
opportunity: a chance to rethink our use of the car itself.
The best way to improve American road safety is to help people to stay 
        off the roads.
    Over the past half-century, automotive safety innovation has 
focused overwhelmingly on occupant protection, reducing the occupants' 
risk of injury or death in a collision. What has escaped adequate 
consideration is that the safest protection for people is not an airbag 
or seatbelt. With 43 percent of all car trips dedicated to performing 
shopping or other errands, nearly half of all trips we take can be 
replaced by an autonomous delivery vehicle that brings items to our 
homes, while we remain safely off the roads. Imagine the safety impact 
of eliminating occupants from nearly half of all vehicle trips.
Passengerless vehicles focus on protecting people outside the vehicle, 
        not what's inside.
    Without the need for front seats or equipment to protect a driver 
or passengers, dedicated autonomous delivery vehicles can be narrower 
and lighter, taking up less space on the road and more nimbly avoiding 
pedestrians and bicyclists. With no one inside to protect, the vehicle 
can self-sacrifice to avoid a collision, prioritizing human life 
outside the vehicle at all costs. The vehicle can even be specifically 
designed with a crumple zone to mitigate the impact of crashing into 
another road user. The benefits also extend to driving behavior. With 
no one in the vehicle to get impatient or uncomfortable, Nuro's vehicle 
can choose conservative routes and driving styles, or brake suddenly in 
an emergency.
    There is an urgent need for increased focus on pedestrian safety. 
In 2018, there were 6,283 pedestrian fatalities in the United States, a 
3 percent increase from 2017, and the highest national level since 
1990. At the same time, SUVs and light trucks are an increasing share 
of American vehicles, accounting for 69 percent of new U.S. vehicle 
sales in 2018. These vehicles are 2-3 times more likely to kill 
pedestrians in a collision than a passenger car. Small, lightweight 
delivery vehicles can replace many trips by SUVs, light trucks, and 
passenger cars with a vehicle optimized for pedestrian protection.
Federal regulatory action is urgently needed to save American lives.
    Today's vehicle safety standards were developed decades prior to 
the emergence of autonomous technology. They are imbued with the 
presumption that cars will always have drivers, passengers, seats, 
airbags, brake pedals, and side mirrors. That presumption has now been 
outmoded. We respectfully submit that our Federal government should 
move quickly to bring Federal motor vehicle safety standards into the 
modern age. The opportunity to save lives is tremendous, and the timing 
is critical.
    The autonomous vehicle legislation that your Committee has been 
working towards would improve public trust in this new technology, 
create a clear regulatory framework, and promote a high standard of 
safety across the industry. Nuro supports legislation that would help 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration move expeditiously 
to set standards that ensure autonomous vehicles operate safely, while 
also removing regulatory barriers that provide no safety benefit and 
impede the deployment of safety innovations like passengerless 
vehicles.
                                 * * *
    Thank you for holding this important hearing. If you would like to 
discuss these matters further, please contact Matthew Lipka at 
[email protected] or 609-731-3896.
            Sincerely,
                                             David Estrada,
                                    Chief Legal and Policy Officer,
                                                                  Nuro.
                                 ______
                                 
                           Securing America's Future Energy
                                  Washington, DC, November 20, 2019

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
  

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.

Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    Thank you for holding today's hearing, ``Highly Automated Vehicles: 
Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety Technology,'' to 
examine the Federal government's role in overseeing the safe 
development of automated vehicle technologies and their significant 
social and economic benefits. Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) 
appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter for the hearing 
record.
    SAFE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to reducing 
U.S. oil dependence to improve
    American economic and national security. In 2006, SAFE formed the 
Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a nonpartisan group of 
business and former military leaders in support of long-term policy 
toward this goal. The ESLC is co-chaired by Frederick W. Smith, 
Chairman and CEO of FedEx, and General James T. Conway, 34th Commandant 
of the U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).
    SAFE believes that automated vehicle (AV) technology presents a 
significant opportunity to accelerate the market-based adoption of 
electric vehicles and reduce oil consumption, while also delivering 
many other public benefits including increased traffic safety and 
accessibility. Accordingly, we are supportive of policies that will 
support the safe and expeditious deployment of AVs and maximize their 
tremendous social and economic benefits.
    Significant technological progress has been made in the development 
and testing of AVs in recent years, leading to early-stage deployments 
throughout the United States. Recently, some companies have begun to 
operate AVs in commercial services on public roads without a safety 
driver.\1\ As an executive from another AV company later remarked, ``We 
now live in a post-driverless world.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/01/hailing-a-driverless-ride-in-
a-waymo/
    \2\ https://news.voyage.auto/we-now-live-in-a-driverless-world-
cb07a01159c0#_ga=2.55017067
.1948161981.1574102920-743940195.1521039822
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sharp contrast, Federal policy has struggled to keep pace with 
the rapid development of AV technology. The existing regulatory 
framework for motor vehicles was written with human-driven vehicles in 
mind, resulting in unforeseen barriers to AVs. The Federal government 
does not yet have a unified framework for AV safety, resulting in a 
lack of regulatory certainty for developers.
    Congress has a significant role to play in ensuring that AV 
technology realizes its full potential to make transportation safer, 
more efficient, and accessible to all Americans. This begins with 
creating a Federal regulatory framework to guide the safe testing and 
deployment of AV technology nationwide, while also maximizing their 
eventual benefits. To this end, we thank the Committee for its 
leadership on AV START (S. 1885) in the 115th Congress.
    While AV START ultimately was not enacted before the end of the 
last Congress, the need for AV legislation remains as urgent as ever: 
The status quo on our roadways has not changed. According to the 
National Safety Council, nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives in 
traffic collisions for the third straight year in 2018.\3\ Traffic 
congestion causes Americans to waste a total of 3.3 billion gallons of 
fuel--plus an average loss of 54 hours per commuter due to delays--
every year.\4\ Furthermore, six million Americans with a disability 
have difficulty accessing the transportation they need.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-
estimates
    \4\ https://tti.tamu.edu/news/new-study-underscores-economy-
traffic-jam-link/
    \5\ http://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Self-
Driving-Cars-The-Impact-on-People-withDisabilities_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SAFE applauds this Committee and the House Energy & Commerce 
Committee for launching a joint bipartisan effort to advance AV 
legislation in this Congress. At a high level, SAFE urges you to 
consider prioritizing the following three goals in drafting AV 
legislation:

  1)  Accelerate progress towards regulatory standards that assure the 
        safety of AVs and eliminate barriers to innovative AV designs.

  2)  Establish an interim, Federal regulatory framework that can 
        improve the governance of AVs until a long-term framework is 
        put in place; this interim framework is critical, as it would 
        govern AVs as they ramp up commercial operation.

  3)  Advance the societal benefits of AVs to increase transportation 
        access for people with disabilities, wounded veterans, and 
        disadvantaged communities.

    At the request of the Committees, SAFE provided detailed policy 
recommendations for AV legislation in a letter submitted on August 22, 
which has also been made available on our website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ http://secureenergy.org/press/safe-calls-on-congress-to-
prioritize-self-driving-legislation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you again for your attention to the issue of Federal AV 
regulation and your consideration of the tremendous potential of this 
technology. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues to 
advance policies that will allow the U.S. transportation sector to 
thrive in the decades to come.
            Thank you,
                                            Robbie Diamond,
                                                 President and CEO,
                                      Securing America's Future Energy.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       Uber
                                                  November 20, 2019
Dear Chairman Wicker & Ranking Member Cantwell,

    In advance of today's hearing, Uber appreciates the opportunity to 
offer our views on legislation that will promote the safe development 
and deployment of self-driving vehicles, and to update the committee on 
the progress we have made on safety over thee last twenty months. We 
appreciate the continued leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee on 
these important matters.
    Developing self-driving technology is one of the biggest technical 
challenges of our time. If successful, these vehicles have the 
potential to make our roads safer and transportation more affordable 
for everyone.
    We believe that safe development of safe self-driving technology 
can be further enabled by strong, evidence-based legislative and 
regulatory frameworks that build trust and confidence in the technology 
that developers are building. That's why Uber supports Congress 
advancing legislation to address those issues which are necessary for 
the development and commercialization of automated vehicles (AVs) 
featuring high degrees of automation. We believe that such legislation 
should have three essential components: (1) a framework to ensure that 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fulfills its 
responsibility to modernize safety design standards for AVs; (2) 
preemption that respects the traditional division between state and 
Federal authorities, and ensures nationwide uniformity in the approach 
to regulating AV design; and (3) exemptions for safe testing and 
deployment.
    A bill which addresses the issues identified above will not create 
a permanent regulatory structure or diminish any existing tools 
available to regulators. Rather, any legislation will serve to create 
regulatory clarity for the developers of self-driving vehicles during 
the interim period when NHTSA has not yet modernized the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to accommodate self-driving vehicles 
or related equipment. Such legislation will not diminish NHTSA's 
existing authorities to remove unsafe vehicles from the road, to 
promulgate regulations related to the design of autonomous vehicle 
equipment, or to regulate across an array of safety design issues.
    We understand the legitimate concerns and questions about the 
safety of testing developmental self-driving vehicles on public roads. 
Uber Advanced Technologies Group (ATG) remains deeply regretful for 
March 2018 crash in which an Uber ATG test vehicle, that was under 
human supervision, struck and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona. 
Since this tragic crash, Uber has worked closely with the National 
Transportation Safety Board, The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, and local officials throughout their respective 
investigations to fully understand the facts surrounding this tragic 
event. We are committed to continuous improvements and have used the 
facts from these investigations and other sources to enhance our self-
driving program and to sharing our learnings on safety with the broader 
industry. Please refer below to an overview of key changes we have 
implemented since March 2018, including hyperlinks to public resources 
and page number references to our Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment 
(VSSA).
Operational Changes
   Revised Operator Roles--Raised technical competency 
        required, added Commercial Driver's License-level medical 
        fitness requirements, and increased involvement in development 
        process, targeting roughly half of working time out of the 
        vehicle (VSSA, pages 36-37, 41-44, 55-56).

   Enhanced Operator Training--Increased training on defensive 
        driving, distracted driving, fatigue, system capabilities and 
        failure modes, and policies (blog post) (VSSA, pages 41-44).

   Revised In-Vehicle Staffing--Reverted to two Mission 
        Specialists in-vehicle for all testing and reduced hours of 
        service limit to four hours behind the wheel in a given workday 
        and two hours without taking a break or switching positions 
        (VSSA, page 36, 55-56).

   Driver Monitoring System--Added a camera system which 
        detects a distracted operator, sounds an audible alert in the 
        cabin, and immediately sends a notification to a remote 
        monitoring team for review and action (VSSA, page 56).

   Public Safety Officials & First Responders' Guide--Published 
        a tool for trained public safety officials that may interact 
        with Uber ATG's developmental self-driving vehicles (blog post, 
        guide, pocket guide).
Technical Changes
   Software Improvements--Implemented modifications to reduce 
        system latency, improve detection/tracking of pedestrians and 
        cyclists, and drive more defensively.

   Automated Emergency Braking--Implemented modifications to 
        Volvo's emergency braking system to enable simultaneous 
        operation with our self-driving technology.

   Operator Interface--Revised touchscreen software to minimize 
        distraction and introduced excess speed warning feature during 
        manual driving (VSSA, pages 55-58).

   Simulation and Track Testing--Formalized and improved the 
        process by which on-road testing is requested and approved, in 
        order to increase the accountability and traceability of every 
        mile we drive (VSSA, pages 46-50).
Organizational Changes
   Operational Safety--Created an Operational Safety team 
        within the independent System Safety team, with 
        responsibilities including Mission Specialist training.

   Systems Engineering--Established a new, separate Systems 
        Engineering and Testing team responsible for the adoption of a 
        rigorous systems engineering approach, including new practices 
        for change management and quality management.

   Safety Concern Reporting--Revamped an anonymous reporting 
        system with non-retaliatory protection as part of our 
        reinvestment in Safety Culture (VSSA, page 53).

   Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment--Published a detailed VSSA 
        in accordance with guidance from the U.S. National Highway 
        Traffic Safety Administration (blog post, report)

   Safety Case Framework--Open-sourced the framework for our 
        safety case, an argument that, when coupled with articles of 
        evidence, convinces key stakeholders that the risk of harm from 
        the system has been reduced to an acceptable level (blog post, 
        framework)

   Self-Driving Safety and Responsibility Advisory Board--
        Established an independent panel of safety experts charged with 
        reviewing and suggesting changes to Uber ATG's self-driving 
        enterprise (blog post)

    While we are proud of our progress, we will never lose sight of 
what brought us here or our responsibility to continue raising the bar 
on safety. Over the last 20 months, we have provided the NTSB with 
complete access to information about our technology and the 
developments we have made since the crash. Uber will now carefully 
review the NTSB's findings and recommendations, with an eye towards 
continuing to improve and enhance our safety program and overall safety 
culture.
            Sincerely,
                                             Danielle Burr,
                                           Head of Federal Affairs.

CC: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation
                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, 
                 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Introduction
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of 
public health, safety, and consumer organizations, insurers and 
insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety through the 
adoption of Federal and state laws, policies and regulations. Advocates 
is unique both in its board composition and its mission of advancing 
safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users, and safer 
infrastructure.
    In 2018, nearly 37,000 people were killed in motor vehicle 
crashes.\1\ Moreover, crashes impose a financial toll of over $800 
billion in total costs to society and $242 billion in direct economic 
costs, equivalent to a ``crash tax'' of $784 on every American. This 
carnage and expense is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Statistics are from the U.S. Department of Transportation 
unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available Commonsense and Cost-Effective Solutions
    Every day on average, over 100 people are killed and nearly 7,500 
people are injured in motor vehicle crashes. While far too many lives 
are lost and people are injured on our Nation's roads each year, proven 
solutions are currently available that can prevent or mitigate these 
senseless tragedies. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) currently values each life lost in a crash at $9.6 million. 
Each one of these preventable losses not only irreparably harms 
families and communities, but they also impose significant costs on 
society that can be avoided. While we are optimistic that in the future 
autonomous vehicles (AVs) may bring about meaningful and lasting 
reductions in motor vehicle crashes, that potential remains far from a 
near-term reality.
    Therefore, it is essential that advanced vehicle technologies, also 
known as advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), which prevent and 
lessen the severity of crashes be required as standard equipment on all 
new vehicles. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
has included increasing implementation of collision avoidance 
technologies in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety 
Improvements since 2016.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently available collision avoidance systems include automatic 
emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), blind spot 
detection (BSD), rear AEB and rear cross-traffic alert.
    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that:

   AEB can decrease front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 
        percent;

   LDW can reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe and head-on injury 
        crashes by over 20 percent;

   BSD can diminish injury crashes from lane change by nearly 
        25 percent;

   Rear AEB can reduce backing crashes by 78 percent when 
        combined with rearview camera and parking sensors; and,

   Rear cross-traffic alert can reduce backing crashes by 22 
        percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ IIHS, Real world benefits of crash avoidance technologies, 
available at: https://www.iihs
.org/media/259e5bbdf859-42a7-bd54-3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/
ADVANCED%20DRIVER%
20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-worldCA-benefits.pdf

    However, these crash avoidance safety systems are often sold as 
part of an additional, expensive trim package along with other non-
safety features, or included only in high end models or vehicles. 
Moreover, there are currently no minimum performance standards to 
ensure they perform as expected. Additionally, the IIHS has found that 
while nighttime visibility is essential for safety, few vehicles are 
equipped with headlights that perform well.\4\ The Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108 should be upgraded to improve 
headlight performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ IIHS, Headlights improve, but base models leave drivers in the 
dark (Nov. 29, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We urge Congress to require that advanced technologies that have 
proven to be effective at preventing and mitigating crashes be standard 
equipment with minimum performance standards. The Protecting Roadside 
First Responders Act (S. 2700/H.R. 4871) directs the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to require certain crash avoidance technologies 
that meet a minimum performance requirement in all new cars. We urge 
the Committee to advance this legislation with urgency. In a similar 
vein, new trucks and buses should be required to have proven safety 
technologies including AEB and speed limiters. Therefore, Congress 
should swiftly enact the Safe Roads Act of 2019 (H.R. 3773), the School 
Bus Safety Act of 2019 (S.2278/H.R. 3959) and the Cullum Owings Large 
Truck Safe Operating Speed Act of 2019 (S. 2033). On the path to AVs, 
requiring minimum performance standards for these foundational 
technologies will ensure the safety of motorists in vehicles and all 
roads users sharing the driving environment with them, while also 
building consumer confidence in the capabilities of these technologies.
Autonomous Vehicles are Not Ready for Public Roads, Public Sale or 
        Public Safety
    Autonomous vehicles (AVs), also known as driverless cars, are being 
developed and tested on public roads without sufficient safeguards to 
protect both those within the AVs and everyone sharing the roadways 
with them, and without express consent. Advocates is very concerned 
that an artificial rush to pass legislation, fueled by AV manufacturers 
wanting to rush their product to market and recoup their investments, 
could significantly undermine safety as well as public acceptance and 
ultimate success of these vehicles. Numerous public opinion polls show 
a high skepticism and fear about the technology, and for good reason. 
(See Attachment.)
    At least six crashes resulting in four fatalities have occurred in 
the U.S. involving cars equipped with autonomous technology that are 
being investigated by the NTSB. The outcomes of these investigations 
will further identify safety deficiencies, determine contributing 
causes, and recommend government and industry actions to prevent future 
deadly incidents. We urge Congress to allow the critical information 
from these investigations, conducted by our Nation's preeminent crash 
investigators, to be released before taking action so as to help guide 
policy.
    Just yesterday, the NTSB held a meeting to consider the probable 
cause of the tragic crash that occurred on March 18, 2018, in Tempe, 
Arizona, in which Elaine Herzberg was killed by an Uber test vehicle 
equipped with self-driving features. Several weeks ago, the NTSB opened 
the docket into this crash and a review of the materials shed light on 
the following alarming and disturbing details:

   The Uber test vehicle (Volvo XC90) was equipped with an AEB 
        system as well as a function for detecting driver alertness. 
        These systems were disabled when the vehicle automated driving 
        functions were being tested. Given the specifications of these 
        features, in simulations the Volvo would have avoided the 
        collision in 17 out of 20 different scenarios and reduced the 
        impact speed to less than ten miles per hour (mph) in the other 
        three.

   The test ``driver'' is relied on to intervene and take 
        action if the automated system exhibits erratic or unsafe 
        behavior; however, the system was not designed to alert the 
        driver to hazards in the path of travel. The automated system 
        identified the pedestrian as a hazard in the lane 1.2 second 
        before collision. The system was designed to then wait one 
        second before taking any action. At 0.2 seconds before 
        collision, the system provided an auditory signal that a 
        controlled slowdown will be initiated. The ``driver'' (the 
        fallback for this system) did not initiate a steering maneuver 
        until 0.02 seconds before collision and did not start braking 
        until after the impact. Uber had removed the second co-pilot 
        from the testing protocol in the fall of 2017.

   The crash occurred in the evening, free of any inclement 
        weather conditions, on an urban road with a speed limit of 45 
        mph. These conditions fell within the operational design domain 
        (ODD) of the automated system. However, the system was not 
        designed to account for jaywalking pedestrians despite the fact 
        that a large portion of pedestrian crashes happen on urban 
        roads, at night, and at midblock locations.

    Some proponents of advancing the deployment of AVs contend the U.S. 
is falling behind other nations. However, this fear-inducing claim is 
misleading as other countries are taking a more deliberate, careful and 
cautious approach. For example, Germany requires a human to be behind 
the wheel of a driverless car in order to take back control and has 
other important elements including requirements for vehicle data 
recording. In the United Kingdom, testing has largely been limited to a 
handful of cities, and the government has published a detailed code of 
practice for testing AVs, but not applying to vehicles for sale. In 
Asia, Japan has allowed on-road testing with a driver behind the wheel 
and is currently working on regulatory and legal schemes for 
controlling the commercial introduction of AVs, but even so has not 
begun to address the highest levels of automation. Similarly, South 
Korea has plans to test these vehicles but has generally limited 
testing to 200 miles of public roads or to test tracks.
    Furthermore, numerous industry executives and technical experts 
have stated that the technology is not ready and may not be for years 
ahead. This June, Gill Pratt, Director of the Toyota Research Institute 
said, ``None of us have any idea when full self-driving will happen,'' 
\5\ Bryan Salesky, CEO of Argo AI, said in July, ``Level 5 as it's 
defined by the SAE levels is a car that can operate anywhere--no 
geographic limitation. We're of the belief, because we're realistic, 
that Level 5 is going to be a very long time before it's possible. I'm 
not saying that Level 5 isn't possible but it is something that is way 
in the future.'' \6\ John Krafcik, CEO of Waymo, said late last year, 
``This is a very long journey. It's a very challenging technology and 
we're going to take our time. Truly every step matters.'' \7\ The 
disconnect between the readiness of the technology and the artificial 
urgency to pass legislation to allow for widespread deployment is 
alarming and the perceived need to expedite enactment of AV 
legislation, especially absent rulemaking requirements, is misguided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless, 
N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019).
    \6\ Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'', says VW-Ford AV 
boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
    \7\ WSJ Tech D. Live Conference (Nov. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing 737 MAX Crashes--Lessons Learned and Applicability to AVs
    The recent crashes involving the Boeing 737 MAX airplane tragically 
highlight the catastrophic results that can occur when automated 
technology potentially malfunctions and is not subject to thorough 
oversight. Reports indicate that many aspects of the plane's 
certification were delegated to Boeing. In fact, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) never fully evaluated the flawed automated system. 
The behavior of the planes in both crashes prior to the impact focused 
suspicion on the automated system known as the Maneuvering 
Characteristic Augmentation System (MCAS). The pilots, who were trained 
not in MCAS but were following Boeing's instructions, attempted to shut 
off and override the MCAS system when it was activating erroneously. 
However, they were unable to regain control of the aircraft. News 
reports indicate that the pilots may have had as little as 40 seconds 
to recover control of the planes in such instances. Had a thorough 
evaluation of this system been undertaken, its flaws may have been 
detected and corrected, preventing two needless tragedies and the loss 
of hundreds of innocent lives.
    Subsequent to the certification of the MAX airplane, at the 
direction of Congress, the FAA has alarmingly been given even less 
responsibility for the oversight of new technologies and equipment 
placed in planes.\8\ This change in policy was deeply concerning to 
regulators at the FAA who noted such a change in policy would ``not be 
in the best interest of safety.'' \9\ Moreover, FAA inspectors warned 
that doing so would turn the FAA into a ``rubber stamp.'' \10\ Yet, 
instead of ensuring proper government oversight, Congress created an 
advisory committee that has since become dominated by industry 
resulting in a Federal agency being deferential to the industry it is 
tasked with regulating.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Natalie Kitroeff and David Gelles, Before Crashes, Boeing 
Pushed To Undercut F.A.A. Oversight, N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 2019).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upon reviewing aspects of the crashes involving the MAX, 
comparisons to the early stages of AV development should give all 
lawmakers and regulators serious pause. Safety systems that could have 
assisted the pilots were not required as standard equipment but were 
offered as an option at an additional cost, similar to what is 
currently occurring with crash avoidance technology for vehicles. 
Pilots receive extensive training on how to properly fly a commercial 
airplane including how to utilize complex operational systems. In sharp 
contrast, there are no Federal training requirements for individuals 
testing or operating automated vehicle technology or for the consumers 
who purchase these vehicles and are using them on public roads. News 
reports indicate that the pilots may have had as little as 40 seconds 
to address a malfunction with the MCAS system and recover control of 
the plane, and were unable to do so. In AVs where drivers are expected 
to monitor their operation or serve as fall back operators, drivers 
could be faced with even shorter time periods to respond before a crash 
occurs. We urge this Committee to heed these important observations as 
it considers proper safeguards of AVs for testing and public sale.
Safeguards Necessary to Protect Public Safety
    Legislation to allow for the successful development and deployment 
of AVs must advance a public safety agenda and not just an economic 
agenda. Both goals are compatible and achievable. Any bipartisan, 
bicameral bill must ensure that the U.S. DOT conducts thorough 
oversight, establishes a regulatory structure that sets minimum safety 
performance standards and requires industry accountability before 
driverless cars are available in the marketplace and sold to the 
public. It is vital that Congress adequately addresses the broad range 
of impacts on safety, mobility and infrastructure rather than rush 
enactment of a flawed bill that jeopardizes public safety and consumer 
confidence.
    On October 28, 2019, staff of the Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee and
    House Energy and Commerce Committee released three draft sections 
of potential AV legislation. Despite numerous meetings, group letters 
and written responses from our organization and others to Committee 
staff regarding requests about safety priorities, recommended 
provisions and crucial objections, these three sections do not address 
our concerns. We vehemently oppose the use of these three sections as 
fundamental components of our Nation's first AV law. Moreover, we were 
prevented from providing a comprehensive analysis as we were not given 
access to the totality of the potential AV legislation. For the 
purposes of submitting feedback to comply with the Committees staffs' 
request, we wrote a memo outlining our concerns, redlined the sections 
accordingly, and provided proactive language that must be included in 
any AV bill. Our high level concerns follow.
    New Rulemakings to set Performance Standards are Essential. 
Legislation should include requirements for DOT to issue minimum 
performance standards by a date certain before AVs are available for 
sale in the marketplace. Congress has already established this 
precedent with other lifesaving and cost-beneficial laws resulting in 
airbags, tire pressure monitoring, rollover and ejection prevention, 
and recently, rearview cameras. Issues include:

   Human-Machine-Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement: 
        Research demonstrates that even for a driver who is alert and 
        performing the dynamic driving task, a delay in reaction time 
        occurs between observing a safety problem, reacting and taking 
        needed action. For a driver who is disengaged from the driving 
        task during autonomous operation of a vehicle (i.e., sleeping, 
        texting, watching a movie), that delay will be longer because 
        the driver must first be alerted to re-engage, understand and 
        process the situation, and then take control of the vehicle 
        before taking appropriate action. According to an article 
        published by Dr. M.L. Cummings and Jason Ryan entitled Who Is 
        in Charge? The Promises and Pitfalls of Driverless Cars, 
        ``[d]rivers in an autonomous or highly automated car were less 
        attentive to the car while the automation was active, were more 
        prone to distractions, especially to using cellular phones, and 
        were slower to recognize critical issues and to react to 
        emergency situations, for example, by braking.'' \12\ The 
        failure of the automated driving system to keep the driver 
        engaged in the driving task was identified as a problem by the 
        NTSB in its investigation of the 2016 fatal crash in Florida 
        involving a Tesla Model S. Furthermore, IIHS highlighted this 
        major safety problem in their August 7, 2018 Status Report: 
        ``Experimental studies have shown that drivers can lose track 
        of what automated systems are doing, fail to notice when 
        something goes wrong and have trouble retaking control.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Cummings, M.L., & J.C Ryan, ``Who Is in Charge? Promises and 
Pitfalls of Driverless Cars.'' TR News, (May-June 2014) 292, p. 25-30. 
See also: United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and
    Transportation, Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars, Mar. 
15, 2016, 114th Cong. 2nd Sess. (statement of Mary Cummings, PhD, 
Director, Duke Robotics Professor of Mechanical Engineering and 
Materials Science, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering 
Duke University).

   Cybersecurity Standard: AVs must be subject to cybersecurity 
        requirements to prevent against hacking. See below section on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        cybersecurity for more detail on this position.

   Electronics Safety Standard: AVs must be subject to minimum 
        performance requirements for the vehicle electronics that power 
        and operate safety and autonomous driving systems. Electronic 
        glitches are commonplace and relatively harmless in instances 
        of computer or cell phone crashes. However, if an AV fails to 
        operate properly on public roads, the outcomes could be 
        catastrophic and result in mass casualties. Interference from 
        entertainment functions and non-safety systems can affect the 
        electronics that power critical safety systems if they share 
        the same wiring and circuits. For example, in one reported 
        instance a vehicle model lost power to its dashboard lights 
        when an MP3 player was plugged in.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, NHTSA, 79 FR 10226, Feb. 24, 2014.

   ``Vision Test'' for AVs: Driverless cars must be subject to 
        a ``vision test'' to guarantee an AV will properly detect and 
        respond to other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair 
        users, roadway infrastructure, interactions with law 
        enforcement and first responders, and other objects in the 
        operating environment. A failure to properly detect and react 
        to any of these road users or conditions could have tragic 
        results, as demonstrated by the aforementioned March 2018 crash 
        in Tempe, AZ that killed a woman walking a bicycle. According 
        to the NTSB, the Uber vehicle in driverless mode misidentified 
        the woman three times before the crash. Additionally, research 
        has shown that simple modifications of a standard stop sign 
        could cause an AV system to interpret it as a 45-mile-per-hour 
        speed limit sign.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Ivan Evtimov, Kevin Eykholt, Earlence Fernandes, Tadayoshi 
Kohno, Bo Li, Atul Prakash, Amir Rahmati, Dawn Song, Robust Physical-
World Attacks on Deep Learning Models, arXiv preprint 1707.08945, 
August 2017.

   Standard for Over-the-Air Updates: It is anticipated that 
        updates will be made to AV systems over the air that may change 
        the functionality, capabilities and operational design domain 
        (ODD) of the vehicle. In fact, Tesla is already performing 
        these types of updates. In one reported instance, an update to 
        a Tesla Model 3 left the vehicle without the use of essential 
        safety systems including AEB.\15\ To protect against this type 
        of problem and other safety-critical issues that can arise from 
        over-the-air updates, a standard must be issued and provide 
        that consumers be given timely and appropriate information on 
        the details of the update as well as ensure any needed training 
        or tutorials are provided. Safety upgrades should not be 
        optional or force the consumer to incur additional expenses. 
        Also, during the update process cybersecurity must be 
        maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Patrick Olsen, Over-the-Air Update Left Tesla Model 3 Without 
Key Safety Features, Consumer Reports (Sep. 14, 2018).

   Manual Override: Occupants of a driverless car need the 
        ability to assume control or shut the system down and get to a 
        safe location in the event of a failure. A standard should be 
        established to ensure the capability for a human to assume 
        control of AV when it malfunctions or travels outside the ODD. 
        The manual override must be accessible to all occupants, 
        including people with cross-disabilities, children and other 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        vulnerable populations.

   Functional Safety Standard: Functional safety is a process 
        by which a product is designed, developed, manufactured and 
        deployed to ensure that the product as a whole will function 
        safely and as intended. Basically, a functional safety standard 
        assures consumers that a vehicle will do what a manufacturer 
        states it does, will do so safely, and will not operate outside 
        of conditions under which it can operate safely. Legislation 
        should direct NHTSA to establish a functional safety standard 
        that requires a manufacturer to certify to the Agency that an 
        AV has been tested to ensure it will operate reliably and 
        safely under the conditions the vehicle is designed to 
        encounter. Additionally, NHTSA should confirm the 
        manufacturer's certifications are accurate by conducting their 
        own testing as needed.

   Revising Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Any actions 
        by NHTSA to revise existing FMVSS in order to facilitate the 
        introduction of AVs must be conducted in a public rulemaking 
        process and meet the safety need and equivalency provided by 
        current standards.

    Broadening Statutory Exemptions from FMVSS is Unwise, Unnecessary 
and Unsafe. Federal safety standards have been established using 
thorough objective research, scientific studies and data. They are also 
subject to a robust and transparent public process and ensure the 
safety and security of all road users. No demonstrable evidence has 
been presented to show that the development and deployment of AVs 
requires larger volumes of exemptions from Federal safety standards 
which are essential to public safety. Current law already permits 
manufacturers to apply for an unlimited number of exemptions. For each 
exemption granted, manufacturers can sell up to 2,500 exempt vehicles. 
The proposed exemption process in the October 28 staff draft and 
resultant huge numbers of exempt vehicles permitted on the road 
(potentially millions) de facto turn everyone--in and around exempted 
vehicles--into unknowing and unwilling human subjects in a risky 
experiment and without an independent institutional review board (IRB). 
It is also expected that the massive influx of new vehicles exempt from 
FMVSS will have ramifications (both those that can be predicted or some 
that cause unintended consequences) for our Nation's infrastructure 
including changes to or the need to more frequently maintain signage, 
lane markings, traffic signalization, and others.
    There are substantial and grave problems with the staff draft 
language that pose serious risk to the public. Permitting major 
increases to exemption numbers beyond the current cap of 2,500 vehicles 
in a 12-month period will threaten the safety of everyone on the roads 
by exposing them to even more AVs exempt from FMVSS. Additionally, no 
metrics or criteria are enumerated for determining that these features 
or vehicles will be ``safety equivalent.'' This misguided proposal to 
drastically revise established Federal law would allow the industry to 
manufacture a large number of AVs under broad exemptions instead of 
requiring the Agency to take the necessary action to thoughtfully and 
thoroughly update and issue new standards specifically for AVs.
    The following necessary actions were identified by Advocates in 
response to the October 28 staff draft:

   1)  Strike the huge increases in exemption numbers. There should be 
        no increase in exemption numbers as manufacturers are already 
        permitted up to 2,500 for sale. There also should be no 
        ``stair-step'' approach which would allow a manufacturer to 
        simply wait out a time period and get a large number of 
        exemptions;

   2)  Replace the word ``or'' with ``and'' in determining safety 
        equivalency as safety equivalency should only be determined if 
        the exempted feature at issue meets the safety purpose and 
        intent of the standard and if the vehicle operates at an 
        overall level of safety at least equal to the safety of non-
        exempt vehicles;

   3)  Remove deadlines for NHTSA review which may limit the Agency's 
        ability to thoroughly review each application for exemption. 
        Currently, NHTSA lacks the needed resources and/or expertise to 
        accomplish the major responsibility of reviewing multiple 
        applications requesting large volumes of new exemptions. 
        Limiting deadlines will likely lead to the Agency rubber-
        stamping applications;

   4)  Enumerate criteria for review of previously granted exemptions;

   5)  Prohibit exemptions from crashworthiness standards;

   6)  Include safety-critical information in the exemption database 
        such as the level of the vehicle's automation and its ODD;

   7)  Require information provided to the Secretary by manufacturers 
        be made public, ensuring transparency;

   8)  Direct that the Secretary immediately review the safety 
        performance of an AV or AV system granted an exemption from 
        FMVSS upon a safety critical event resulting in death or 
        serious injury. If warranted, the Secretary shall issue a do 
        not drive order as well as suspend the sale of any new vehicles 
        under the exemption;

   9)  Provide NHTSA with imminent hazard authority to take immediate 
        action when the Agency determines a defect substantially 
        increases the likelihood of death and injury;

  10)  Remove the current cap on civil penalties; and,

  11)  Provide the U.S. DOT with criminal penalty authority in 
        appropriate cases in which corporate officers who acquire 
        actual knowledge of a product danger that could lead to serious 
        injury or death and fail to inform NHTSA and warn the public.

    Ensuring Proper Oversight of Testing is Fundamental. Under the FAST 
Act (P.L. 114-94, Sec. 24404), automakers are permitted to test or 
evaluate an unlimited number of vehicles that do not comply with FMVSS. 
Please note that Advocates and other organizations strongly opposed 
this provision during deliberations on the FAST Act because no safety 
conditions were required of manufacturers that put experimental 
vehicles on neighborhood streets and roads. Nonetheless, AV testing is 
already underway, as affirmed by the University of Florida 
Transportation Institute which noted that approximately 80 companies 
are currently testing autonomous technology and AVs in the U.S.\16\ The 
only change Advocates supports to current law is imposing some 
fundamental and commonsense safeguards to the existing statutory 
language which should have been enacted in the FAST Act. The need for 
such protections was underscored when the NTSB noted that ``at the time 
of the [Uber] crash and the writing of this report there was no Federal 
oversight of the testing of autonomous vehicles.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Brookings Institution, Autonomous cars: Science, technology, 
and policy (Jul. 25, 2019).
    \17\ The Operations Factors Group Chairman's Factual Report 
(HWY18MH010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The language in the October 28 staff draft broadly expands the 
eligibility pool for entities that can test, evaluate or demonstrate 
AVs to ``employees, agents, fleet management contractors, or other 
partners of the manufacturer of the highly automated vehicle, the 
automated driving system, or any component of the vehicle or system; or 
research institutions, including institutions of higher education and 
automated vehicle proving grounds.'' Taken literally, this language 
could allow a human resources manager of an AV manufacturer 
(``employee''), a sales representative of an AV manufacturer 
(``agent''), an advertising agency of an AV manufacturer (``partner''), 
or a high school (``research institution''), to name a few examples, to 
avail themselves of this exemption. Furthermore, essential and basic 
enforcement authorities to protect the public are missing.
    The following are critical actions to protect safety:

  1)  Require that any entity that is testing or evaluating an AV agree 
        to suspend testing if a safety critical event resulting in 
        death or serious injury occurs during testing. The suspension 
        will be in place until the vehicle and testing procedures can 
        be evaluated by NHTSA and corrective measures have been taken 
        by the manufacturer;

  2)  Require any entity that is testing or evaluating an AV to agree 
        to provide the Secretary any and all documentation provided to 
        state authorities;

  3)  Require any entity that is testing or evaluating an AV to agree 
        to establish an Institutional Review Board as defined in 21 CFR 
        Part 56 to evaluate any testing involving human subjects;

  4)  Significantly restrict the expansion of those eligible to test, 
        evaluate or demonstrate the motor vehicles with clear and 
        precise criteria on eligibility;

  5)  Provide NHTSA with imminent hazard authority to take immediate 
        action when the Agency determines a defect substantially 
        increases the likelihood of death and injury;

  6)  Remove the current cap on civil penalties;\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 49 USC 30165(a).

  7)  Provide the U.S. DOT with criminal penalty authority in 
        appropriate cases in which corporate officers who acquire 
        actual knowledge of a product danger that could lead to serious 
        injury or death and fail to inform NHTSA and warn the public; 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and,

  8)  Limit access to vehicles testing on public roads to individuals 
        affiliated with the AV manufacturer.

    Advisory Committees Should be Balanced and Subject to Basic 
Protocols. Advisory committees are unacceptable substitutes for the 
Agency fulfilling its statutory mission and issuing safety standards 
through open public rulemakings. The work of an advisory committee 
should in no way impair, constrain or supplant the authority of the 
Secretary or NHTSA to issue timely regulations, institute oversight 
actions and propose program policies for AVs. For example, the U.S. DOT 
should not delay or defer regulatory actions on AVs while awaiting any 
report, recommendations or approval from any advisory committees.
    Rather than expend scarce Agency funds and staff time on an 
advisory committee, NHTSA should be given the resources to hire experts 
with requisite knowledge. These types of committees, even so-called 
``balanced'' ones, allow for undue industry influence, as demonstrated 
by the Boeing tragedy chronicled recently in The New York Times on 
October 27, 2019.\19\ Committees are time consuming and drain Agency 
resources. The October 28 staff draft text lacks clear language 
indicating that the report/recommendations from the Advisory Council 
(``Council'') do not in any way delay issuance of rules or affect the 
ability of the Secretary to issue regulations and other policies. 
Strict assurance that no interest can have more representation than any 
other and a general cap on membership numbers is essential. Moreover, 
the breadth of issue areas is extremely expansive and should not be 
delegated to an advisory council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Natalie Kitroeff and David Gelles, Before Crashes, Boeing 
Pushed To Undercut F.A.A. Oversight, N.Y. Times (Oct. 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following are necessary protections to ensure the measured, 
balanced and structured nature of the Council:

  1)  Significantly reduce the technical purview of the Advisory 
        Council;

  2)  Provide authorization for a dedicated funding source so that the 
        Council does not divert money from NHTSA's budget;

  3)  Require that members of the Council submit a financial disclosure 
        that is made public;

  4)  Establish a structure of the Council including chairs, voting 
        construct, consensus requirements, and the ability for 
        dissenting members to report;

  5)  Ensure recommendations made by the Council, records of the 
        Council meetings, meeting announcements and agendas, reports, 
        transcripts, minutes and other documents are made available to 
        the public;

  6)  Enumerate representation of some essential stakeholders including 
        first responders, law enforcement, public health 
        representatives, pedestrians and bicyclists; and,

  7)  Remove the limitation on the applicability of the Federal 
        Advisory Committee Act (FACA (5 USC App.)).

    Issuing a Cybersecurity Standard is Vital for Safety and 
Protection. NHTSA must issue a minimum cybersecurity standard by a date 
certain to protect against potentially catastrophic hacks of AVs. As 
such, Advocates supports the enactment of the SPY Car Act of 2019 (S. 
2182). Numerous high profile cyber attacks on a variety of industries 
have already occurred, and AVs will not be immune to this threat. In 
2015, hackers demonstrated their ability to take over the controls of a 
sport utility vehicle (SUV) that was traveling 70 miles-per-hour on an 
Interstate outside of St. Louis, MO by accessing the vehicle's 
entertainment system using a laptop computer located miles away from 
the vehicle.\18\ Traditional vehicles, which are less complex than AVs, 
have been weaponized and used in terrorist attacks including in New 
York City (2017), Toronto, Canada (2018), Berlin, Germany (2016) and 
Nice, France (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway--
With Me in It, Wired (Jul. 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Privacy Protections Needed to Guard Against Misuse. AVs will be 
collecting significant amounts of personal data including the operation 
and location of the vehicle. Manufacturers must have robust safeguards 
and policies in place to protect this data from being stolen and/or 
misused. However, the ability of NHTSA, the NTSB and local law 
enforcement to access critical crash data in a timely manner must be 
preserved. In addition, the use of communication bandwidth needed for 
vehicle-to-everything communication must be limited to non-commercial 
use.
    Consumers Must Be Given Sufficient Information about AVs. Every 
manufacturer should be required to provide consumers with information 
about the capabilities, limitations and exemptions from safety 
standards for all vehicles sold in the U.S. During a September 2017 
NTSB hearing on the 2016 fatal Tesla crash, the Board correctly 
criticized the lack of adequate and consistent consumer information 
about the capabilities, limitations and any exemptions granted for AV 
systems. Consumer information should be available at the point of sale, 
in the owner's manual and in any over-the-air updates. NHTSA should be 
directed to immediately issue an interim final rule (IFR) requiring 
such readily available information be provided to consumers. 
Additionally, similar to the user-friendly safercar.gov website, NHTSA 
must establish a website accessible by vehicle identification number 
(VIN) with basic safety information about the AV level, safety 
exemptions, and limitations and capabilities of the AV driving system, 
including any changes made by over-the-air updates. The website will 
also allow NHTSA and other research groups to perform independent 
evaluations of the comparative safety performance of AV systems.
    Any Submission to NHTSA Should be Informative and Include 
Sufficient Data. Advocates recommends that each manufacturer be 
required to submit an Autonomous Technology Notice (ATN, formerly 
referenced by legislation as a ``Safety Evaluation Report'') as it 
requires autonomous technology manufacturers to give notice to NHTSA 
about their planned actions. The ATN is not designed to be, nor can it 
be, a substitute for NHTSA promptly issuing minimum performance 
standards through a public rulemaking process. The primary purpose of 
the ATN is to give notice to the Agency and the public of the intention 
of the manufacturer to introduce an AV or AV system into commerce and 
provide documentation of the work undertaken to ensure its safe 
performance. Any AV produced must still meet all of the FMVSS and the 
submission of an ATN alone, cannot permit, in any way whatsoever, the 
sale of an AV that does not meet all applicable Federal safety 
standards. In addition, if NHTSA finds that an ATN is deficient, 
manufacturers must be required to submit any additional information 
requested by the Agency.
    AV legislation that requires a publicly-accessible submission to 
NHTSA must ensure that the report includes sufficient data and 
documentation necessary to adequately detail and evaluate the subject 
areas. Merely allowing manufacturers to ``describe'' their AV system 
has encouraged manufacturers to submit glossy, marketing-style 
brochures with little, if any, substantive or relevant information from 
which to ascertain critical information about safety and performance. 
As such, legislative language must direct companies to both ``describe 
and document'' how they are comprehensively addressing each issue area 
under the ATN, until a safety standard for that particular issue area 
has been established.
    Past actions by several automakers to hide from the public and 
NHTSA known safety defects that have caused deaths and serious injuries 
and led to the recall of tens of millions of vehicles fortify this 
essential need. An ATN provision must require:

  1)  Submission of false or misleading information be subject to 
        criminal penalties;

  2)  The cap on civil penalties be removed;

  3)  NHTSA to verify the level of automation being asserted by the 
        manufacturer;

  4)  NHTSA be provided with sufficient time, a minimum of six months, 
        to adequately analyze the ATN and request additional 
        information if necessary; and,

  5)  At a minimum the topics covered by the ATN should include: System 
        Safety, Data Recording, Cybersecurity, Human-Machine Interface, 
        Crashworthiness, Capabilities, Post-Crash Behavior, Account for 
        Applicable Laws (i.e., compliance with traffic safety laws) and 
        Automation Function.

    Collect Standardized Data, Make it Publicly Available and Require 
EDRs. With the increasing number of AVs of different automation levels 
being tested and some being sold to the public, standardized recording 
and access to AV event data are necessary for the proper oversight and 
analysis of crashes.
    The lack of standardization and collection of data is already 
hampering understanding and investigations of AVs. For example, as a 
result of the 2016 fatal Tesla crash in Florida, the NTSB has called 
for the U.S DOT to act on data collection. The NTSB recommended that 
NHTSA implement data collection requirements for all new vehicles 
equipped with AV control systems, and to define a standard format for 
reporting this data. The NTSB also called for this data to be readily 
available to, at a minimum, the NTSB and NHTSA. This data should also 
be made public.
    Every vehicle should be equipped with an event data recorder (EDR). 
While there is currently a NHTSA requirement for what data voluntarily-
installed EDRs must capture, this information is insufficient to 
properly ascertain information about crashes involving AVs. IIHS also 
reiterated the need for EDRs in the August 7, 2018, Status Report: 
``IIHS has asked the agency to require event data recorders to encode 
information on the performance of automated driving systems in the 
moments before, during and after a crash. This information would help 
determine whether the human driver or vehicle was in control and the 
actions each entity took prior to the event.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ IIHS, Status Report, Reality Check-Research, deadly crashes 
show need for caution on road to full autonomy, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Aug. 7, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other data needs include:

  1)  Manufacturers must be required to report AV safety critical 
        events to NHTSA, including crashes and disengagements;

  2)  NHTSA's crash databases should be updated to capture AV crashes. 
        This includes a revision of Early Warning Data to ensure 
        manufacturers provide more information about crashes and 
        incidents that could indicate a safety defect and lead to a 
        recall; and,

  3)  A structure should be established to facilitate mandatory sharing 
        of AV failures by manufacturers.

    Provide Additional Resources and Enforcement Authorities. Ensuring 
NHTSA has adequate resources, funds, staff and enforcement authority is 
essential for the Agency to successfully carry out its statutory 
mission and address the multiple challenges presented by the deployment 
of self-driving technologies. Even without the upcoming enormous 
challenges AV development and deployment will create, the Agency is 
chronically underfunded; NHTSA's Operations & Research (O&R) budget is 
meager (only about $350 million annually in the past 2 years). In fact, 
this year, the Administration proposed a draconian $50 million cut in 
NHTSA's O&R budget. The Agency cannot effectively oversee a multi-
billion dollar industry and protect hundreds of millions of motorists 
without a significant increase in resources--both financial and staff. 
Currently, 95 percent of transportation-related fatalities and 99 
percent of transportation injuries, involve motor vehicles. Yet, NHTSA 
receives only one percent of the overall DOT budget. Furthermore, it is 
estimated that currently more than 70 million cars are on the road with 
an open recall.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Consumer Federation of America, Over 70 Million Vehicles On 
The Road With Open Recalls (Sep. 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any AV legislation must include the following provisions to address 
inadequate funds, staff and enforcement ability:

  1)  A significant increase in funding for NHTSA's operations and 
        research (O&R) budget;

  2)  Imminent hazard authority to take immediate action when the 
        Agency determines a defect substantially increases the 
        likelihood of death and injury; and,

  3)  Criminal penalty authority in appropriate cases in which 
        corporate officers who acquire actual knowledge of a product 
        danger that could lead to serious injury or death and fail to 
        inform NHTSA and warn the public.

    Guarantee Access for Individuals with Cross-Disabilities. 
Autonomous driving technology has the potential to increase access and 
mobility for individuals with disabilities who may have varying needs. 
However, that goal can only be realized by Congressional directive in 
legislation. People with disabilities have different requirements for 
access and mobility--AVs may help increase mobility for some members of 
the disability community but provide little or no assistance to others. 
Installing an automated system in a vehicle or removing the driver in a 
ridesharing service will not sufficiently eliminate mobility barriers 
and may even exacerbate them. For example, wheelchair users may require 
a ramp or lift system as well as assistance in ensuring the wheelchair 
is properly secured or stowed during the ride. As such, full 
accessibility for all users must be required for all types of common 
and public use AVs. Additionally, funding should be authorized to 
promote research and development of accessible AVs and standards, 
including vehicle safety and crashworthiness standards, and technical 
assistance.
    As previously stated, allowing AVs to be exempt from safety 
standards is dangerous for all road users, but could pose even more 
serious problems for people with cross-disabilities should the vehicle 
be involved in a crash, not function as intended, or have a defect. In 
the event of a failure, a person could be stranded in the vehicle with 
no driver. The diverse needs of members of the cross-disability 
community must be taken into account for systems that require human 
engagement as well as when developing a failsafe. Should there be an 
emergency that requires human intervention (such as a manual override), 
such a safeguard must be useable by any potential occupant of the 
vehicle regardless of a person's disability.
    Federal, State and Local Roles Should Not be Altered. The statutory 
mission of the U.S. DOT established by Congress in 1966 is to regulate 
the design and performance of motor vehicles to ensure public safety, 
which now includes automated driving system technology and driverless 
cars.\21\ For more than 50 years, the U.S. DOT through the NHTSA has 
issued safety standards for passenger and commercial motor vehicles. 
The role of states is to regulate road safety by the passage of traffic 
safety laws. However, in the absence of comprehensive and strong 
minimum Federal standards and regulations to govern the driverless car 
rules of the road, the states retain a legal right and a duty to its 
citizens to develop proposals and implement solutions to ensure public 
safety. There should be no attempt in legislation to prohibit states in 
any way from advancing AV safety in the absence of Federal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. 
89-563 (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    While fully driverless cars may have a future potential to reduce 
the carnage on our roads and expand mobility, commonsense, lifesaving 
solutions can and must be implemented now. Advocates urges Congress to 
direct the U.S. DOT to put the vital safeguards outlined in this 
testimony in place prior to the wide-scale deployment of unproven 
driverless cars onto public roads. We look forward to continuing to 
work with the Committee to make our Nation's roads safe for all.
                                 ______
                                 
                               Attachment
  Public Opinion Polls Show Deep Skepticism About Autonomous Vehicles
2019 Reuters/Ipsos Polli
   64 percent of Americans said they would not buy a self-
        driving car.

   67 percent said self-driving cars should be held to higher 
        safety standards than traditional cars.
2019 AAA Pollii
   71 percent of U.S. drivers surveyed would be afraid to ride 
        in a fully self-driving vehicle.
2018 SADD/State Farm Surveyiii
   When asked to rate how safe they would feel riding in a 
        fully autonomous vehicle on a one-to-five scale with one being 
        least safe and five being most safe, 55.6 percent of high 
        school students polled said one.
2018 Allianz Global Assistance Surveyiv
   57 percent of Americans say they are not very or not at all 
        interested in utilizing self-driving/autonomous vehicles--up 
        from 47 percent in 2017.

   When asked why they had a lack of interest in self-driving/
        autonomous cars, 71 percent of respondents cited safety 
        concerns--up from 65 percent in 2017.

   The number of Americans who said they were not very or not 
        at all confident that that self-driving/autonomous cars will 
        develop safely enough to consider using jumped 12 percentage 
        points from 36 percent in 2017 to 48 percent in 2018.
2018 Cox Automotive Surveyv
   45 percent of respondents believe roadways would be safer if 
        all vehicles were fully autonomous--down from 63 percent who 
        said so in 2016.

   68 percent of consumers said they'd feel uncomfortable 
        riding in an autonomous vehicle fully driven by a computer.

   84 percent of consumers think people should always have the 
        option to drive themselves even in an autonomous vehicle.

   75 percent of respondents believe autonomous vehicles need 
        real world testing in order to be perfected but: o 54 percent 
        prefer that this testing take place in a different town or city 
        from where they live; o 54 percent would not feel comfortable 
        walking near roads where these tests take place; and, o 50 
        percent would not feel comfortable driving on the same roads 
        where these tests take place.
2018 ORC International Pollvi
   69 percent of respondents said they were concerned about 
        sharing the road with driverless vehicles as motorists, 
        bicyclists and pedestrians.

   80 percent of Americans said that National Transportation 
        Safety Board (NTSB) investigations of crashes involving cars 
        equipped with self-driving technology will be helpful in 
        identifying problems and recommending improvements.

   84 percent of respondents believe the NTSB should complete 
        these crash investigations before Congress acts on driverless 
        car legislation.
2018 Public Policy Polling/Consumer Watchdog Pollvii
   When informed that Congress is currently considering 
        legislation to allow more driverless cars onto America's roads, 
        75 percent of respondents from four states (FL, CA, MI, SD) 
        agreed that we need to apply the brakes on driverless cars 
        until the technology is proven safe.

     78 percent of voters agreed in Florida.

     71 percent agreed in California.

     74 percent agreed in Michigan.

     79 percent agreed in South Dakota.

   76 percent of voters in Florida said they would not be 
        likely to ride in a driverless car if it were available. 69 
        percent said so in California, 69 percent said so in Michigan 
        and 77 percent said so in South Dakota.

   84 percent of voters in Florida agreed that there should be 
        regulations in place to help protect the public from public 
        experiments with driverless cars. 87 percent agreed in 
        California, 86 percent agreed in Michigan and 82 percent agreed 
        in South Dakota.

   80 percent of respondents agreed that Federal and state 
        governments, and not the driverless car industry, should 
        regulate driverless vehicles for the safety of riders, 
        pedestrians and other drivers.

   56 percent of voters polled said they would be very 
        concerned for their safety as a passenger, pedestrian, 
        bicyclist or other driver on the road if a driverless car 
        service were operating in their city.

   56 percent of respondents said they were very concerned 
        about the security of the data collected by driverless 
        vehicles.

   59 percent of voters polled said that they do not think that 
        in their lifetimes, driverless cars will be safe enough to use.
2018 AAA Pollviii
   73 percent of American drivers said they would be too afraid 
        to ride in a fully self-driving vehicle, up from 63 percent in 
        late 2017.

   63 percent of U.S. adults said they would feel less safe 
        sharing the road with a self-driving vehicle while walking or 
        riding a bicycle.
2018 Gallup Pollix
   52 percent of Americans said that even after driverless cars 
        are certified by government auto safety regulators, they would 
        never want to use one.
2018 CARiD Surveyx
   53 percent of respondents said they would feel somewhat or 
        very unsafe riding in an autonomous car.

   66 percent of those polled said they think the U.S. 
        government must be involved in regulating autonomous vehicles.

   75 percent of poll respondents said that if given a choice, 
        they would still rather drive than ride autonomously.
2018 Morning Consult Pollxi
   50 percent of U.S. adults said that based on what they have 
        seen, read or heard, they believe self-driving cars are 
        somewhat less safe or much less safe than regular vehicles 
        driven by humans.

   57 percent of those polled said that based on what they have 
        seen, read or heard, they have a not too favorable or not at 
        all favorable view of self-driving cars.

   38 percent of respondents said they would not ride in a 
        self-driving car, versus 19 percent who said they would and 35 
        percent who said maybe in the future.
2018 Reuters/Ipsos Pollxii
   67 percent of Americans polled said they were uncomfortable 
        with the idea of riding in self-driving cars.
2018 Morning Consult Pollxiii
   67 percent of adults polled were somewhat or very concerned 
        about cyber threats to driverless cars.
2018 ORC International Pollxiv
   64 percent of respondents said they were concerned about 
        sharing the road with driverless cars.

   63 percent said they are not comfortable with Congress 
        increasing the number of driverless cars which do not meet 
        existing Federal vehicle safety standards and would be 
        available for public sale.

   75 percent of Americans said they weren't comfortable with 
        manufacturers being able to disable vehicle controls, such as 
        the steering wheel, and brake and gas pedals, when an AV is 
        being operated by the computer.

   73 percent of those polled support the development of U.S. 
        Department of Transportation safety standards for new features 
        related to the operation of driverless cars.

   81 percent said they support U.S. Department of 
        Transportation cybersecurity rules to protect against hacking 
        of cars that are being operated by a computer.

   84 percent of Americans said they support uniform U.S. 
        Department of Transportation rules to ensure that the human 
        driver is alert in order to safely take control from the 
        computer.

   80 percent of respondents support minimum performance 
        requirements for computers that operate driverless cars similar 
        to those for computers that operate commercial airplanes.

   87 percent said it would be helpful to have a U.S. 
        Department of Transportation website for consumers to look up 
        information about the safety features of a new or used 
        driverless car which they may be purchasing.
2017 Pew Research Center Surveyxv
   56 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said they would not ride 
        in a self-driving vehicle.

   Of those who said they wouldn't, 42 percent of respondents 
        said they didn't trust the technology or feared giving up 
        control and 30 percent cited safety concerns.

   30 percent of respondents think that autonomous vehicles 
        will make roads less safe for humans if they become more 
        widespread.

   87 percent of respondents said they would favor a 
        requirement that all driverless vehicles have a human in the 
        driver's seat who can take control of the vehicle in case of an 
        emergency.

   53 percent of people surveyed said the development of 
        driverless cars makes them feel very or somewhat worried.

   52 percent said they would feel not too or not at all safe 
        sharing the road with driverless passenger vehicles.

   65 percent said they would feel not too or not at all safe 
        sharing the road with driverless freight trucks.
2017 Morning Consult/POLITICO Pollxvi
   51 percent of registered voters polled said they were not 
        too likely or not likely at all to ride as a passenger in an 
        AV.

   61 percent of respondents said they aren't likely to buy 
        self-driving cars once they become available.

   35 percent of those polled said they believe AVs are less 
        safe than the average human driver, compared to 22 percent who 
        said they were safer than human drivers and 18 percent who said 
        AVs were about the same level of safety as the average human 
        driver. Over a quarter (26 percent) said they didn't know or 
        had no opinion.
2017 Deloitte Studyxvii
   74 percent of U.S. consumers polled said they felt that 
        fully autonomous vehicles will not be safe.

   68 percent of respondents said an established track record 
        of fully autonomous cars being safely used would make them more 
        likely to ride in one.
2017 MIT AgeLab and New England Motor Press Association 
        Surveyxviii
   13 percent of respondents said they would be comfortable 
        with a fully autonomous car, down from 24 percent in a similar 
        2016 survey.

   48 percent said they would never purchase a car that 
        completely drives itself when asked about their interest in 
        purchasing a self-driving car.

   Of those who said they wouldn't purchase a completely 
        driverless car, 37 percent said they feared a loss of control, 
        29 percent said they don't trust it, 25 percent said they 
        believe it will never work perfectly, and 21 percent said it's 
        unsafe.
2017 AAA Surveyxix
   54 percent of U.S. drivers polled feel less safe at the 
        prospect of sharing the road with a self-driving vehicle. 
        Moreover, only 10 percent said they'd actually feel safer 
        sharing the roads with driverless vehicles.

   78 percent of Americans surveyed said they were afraid to 
        ride in a self-driving vehicle.
2016 Kelley Blue Book Studyxx
   51 percent of respondents said they would prefer to have 
        full control of their vehicle, even if it's not as safe for 
        other drivers.

   64 percent said they need to be in control of their vehicle.
2016 Morning Consult Pollxxi
   43 percent of registered voters polled said autonomous cars 
        are not safe. About one-third (32 percent) said they are safe, 
        but that's not much more than the 25 percent who said they 
        didn't know or didn't care.

   Majorities of voters found it unacceptable for a rider in a 
        driverless car to text or e-mail, read, watch movies or TV, be 
        drunk or sleep.

   76 percent said they were as worried about driverless cars 
        operating on the same roads as cars driven by humans.

   When asked broadly about road safety, 80 percent said they 
        were concerned. Likewise, 80 percent of respondents said they 
        were concerned about glitches in an autonomous car's software.

    Compiled by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, November 2019
    i Americans still don't trust self-driving cars, 
Reuters/Ipsos poll finds, April 2019
    ii AAA Annual Automated Vehicle Survey, March 2019
    iii SADD/State Farm, Teens' Thoughts Regarding the 
Future of Vehicle Technology, October 2018
    iv Allianz Global Assistance, Sharing Economy Index, 
September 2018
    v Cox Automotive, Evolution of Mobility: Autonomous 
Vehicles, August 2018
    vi ORC International and Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, CARAVAN Public Opinion Poll: Public to U.S. Senate: Pump the 
Brakes on Driverless Car Bill, July 2018
    vii Consumer Watchdog, As Americans Hit the Road for 
Memorial Day, Consumer Watchdog Poll Finds Voters Want Congress to 
Apply the Brakes on Driverless Cars, May 2018
    viii American Automobile Association (AAA), American 
Trust in Autonomous Vehicles Slips, May 2018
    ix Gallup, Driverless Cars Are a Tough Sell to 
Americans, April 2018
    x CARiD and Survey Monkey, How do American feel about 
autonomous driving?, April 2018
    xi Morning Consult, National Tracking Poll #180339, 
April 2018
    xii Reuters and Ipsos, Reuters and Ipsos Poll poll of 
2,592 participants conducted between Jan. 11-18, 2018, January 2018
    xiii Morning Consult, National Tracking Poll #180108, 
January 2018
    xiv ORC International and Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, CARAVAN Public Opinion Poll: Driverless Cars January 2018
    xv Smith, A. and Anderson, M., Pew Research Center, 
Automation in Everyday Life, October 2017
    xvi Morning Consult and POLITICO, National Tracking Poll 
#170904, September 2017
    xvii Deloitte Global Automotive Consumer Study, What's 
ahead for fully autonomous driving: Consumer opinions on advanced 
vehicle technology, January 2017
    xviii Abraham, H., Reimer, B., Seppelt, B., Fitzgerald, 
C., Mehler, B. and Coughlin, J., MIT AgeLab and New England Motor Press 
Association (NEMPA), Consumer Interest in Automation: Preliminary 
Observations Exploring a Year's Change, May 2017
    xix American Automobile Association (AAA), Vehicle 
Technology Survey--Phase II, March 2017
    xx Kelley Blue Book and Cox Automotive, Future 
Autonomous Vehicle Driver Study, September 2016
    xxi Nasr, A. and Johnson, F., Morning Consult, Voters 
Aren't Ready for Driverless Cars, Poll Shows, February 8, 2016
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Association of American Railroads
Introduction
    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the 
record. AAR members include the Class I freight railroads and Amtrak. 
AAR unites these organizations in working toward a single goal: to 
ensure that railroads remain the safest, most efficient, cost-
effective, and environmentally-sound mode of transportation in the 
world.
    The development of new technologies, including autonomous vehicles, 
offers the unique opportunity to dramatically improve the safety of our 
Nation's roads. These and similar technologies can also help to address 
many of the challenges our Nation faces in improving our freight-moving 
capabilities to meet the needs of tomorrow. It is essential that 
Congress and DOT facilitate the development and incorporation of these 
technologies with a focus on both of these goals.
Autonomous Vehicles and Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
    A highway-rail grade crossing is a location where a railway and 
roadway intersect at the same level. There are more than 200,000 of 
these crossings in the United States, and, unfortunately, in 2018, 
there were more than 2,200 grade crossing collisions, resulting in 840 
injuries and 262 fatalities.
    AAR and its members have worked diligently to improve the safety of 
drivers and pedestrians at grade crossings, and the railroads remain 
committed to trying to eliminate grade crossing incidents. AAR promotes 
the 3 ``E''s of grade crossing safety: education of the public about 
the dangers around railways; enforcement of traffic laws related to 
crossing signs and property laws related to trespassing; and 
engineering research and innovation to improve the safety of crossings. 
The railroads' efforts have contributed to a 55 percent reduction in 
the number of annual grade crossing collisions over the last 25 years, 
including through public safety education and awareness campaigns 
conducted by Operation Lifesaver. However, regardless of these efforts 
and advances in train control systems, trains simply cannot stop in 
time to avoid vehicles or pedestrians at grade crossings, and the vast 
majority of these accidents are due to mistakes or poor choices made by 
pedestrians or motor vehicle drivers.
    Autonomous vehicles have the potential to substantially improve 
grade crossing safety by reducing or eliminating human error by motor 
vehicle drivers. AAR has submitted comments to both the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and this and other relevant Congressional 
Committees in an effort to ensure that highly automated vehicle 
technologies include such capabilities, and DOT has indicated the 
importance of grade crossing safety by including a reference in its 
recent guidance: Autonomous Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for the Future of 
Transportation (AV 3.0). Motor vehicles must yield to trains, and 
automated vehicle systems must be designed to recognize and respond 
appropriately to warning devices and approaching trains. More 
specifically, AAR encourages DOT and Congress to ensure that autonomous 
vehicles have the following capabilities:
    First, autonomous vehicles should be able to recognize when they 
are approaching grade crossings by identifying the various signs and 
pavement markings associated with those grade crossings. There should 
be sufficient technological redundancies in place in order to ensure 
that autonomous vehicles retain the capability to make these 
determinations in various types and degrees of weather conditions, as 
well as if signage were down or misplaced or if road conditions were 
seriously deteriorated. Second, autonomous vehicles should be able to 
detect approaching trains, including identifying locomotive headlights, 
horns, or bells, and account for any variables that might obstruct 
their view. Third, autonomous vehicles should not begin crossing tracks 
unless they will be able to fully move through them. Stopping on tracks 
because of traffic queueing or other causes creates a dangerous 
situation that can be prevented with highly automated vehicle 
technology. Finally, it is important for designers of autonomous 
vehicles to understand that positive train control (PTC) is not being 
deployed across the entire rail network, and does not have the 
capability to communicate train location or speed information to 
highway vehicles in any event.
    The incorporation of the above-mentioned capabilities into highly 
automated vehicles will save lives. It is imperative that Congress and 
DOT encourage and foster the development of such technologies.
The Importance and Benefits of a Level Playing Field
    Competition in the freight transportation marketplace is fierce. 
Railroads welcome this competition, because the industry offers a 
combination of price and service that freight customers want. In order 
to ensure that customers continue to reap the benefits of this robust 
competition for their businesses, however, it is essential that the 
government not pick winners and losers by creating policies that 
artificially shift freight from one mode to another.
    This principle extends to the regulatory and policy framework 
surrounding the development and implementation of autonomous or highly 
automated vehicles. DOT's AV 3.0 guidance focuses mostly on highways 
and notes that DOT ``is in the process of identifying and modifying 
regulations that unnecessarily impede the testing, sale, operation, or 
use of automation across the surface transportation system'' and that 
DOT ``supports an environment where innovation can thrive.'' \1\ 
Railroads respectfully suggest that the same openness to regulatory 
modernization should apply to all modes of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Autonomous Vehicles 3.0: 
Preparing for the Future of Transportation, pp. 35 and 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, automation promises to significantly enhance other 
areas of rail safety beyond grade crossings. Automated technologies can 
detect a wider range of defects, respond faster, and provide a larger 
window for action than a safety system that is subject to the 
limitations inherent in human eyes, minds, and hands. Automated track 
inspections can reduce track defects, leading to fewer accidents. 
Likewise, automated inspection of locomotives and freight cars has been 
shown to reduce the occurrence of broken wheels and other mechanical 
problems. But unfortunately, due to the current limited regulatory 
framework, many new technologies can only be used in conjunction with, 
rather than as a replacement for, manual inspections required by 
existing Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations. Railroads 
can sometimes obtain a temporary FRA waiver from existing regulations, 
but that process is often cumbersome and uncertain. These regulations 
discourage investment in innovative technologies.
    Because automation in the rail industry is new and unfamiliar, 
regulators will be pressured to identify and resolve every possible 
risk before allowing testing or early deployment. That pressure must be 
resisted, because hesitation will come at a cost to safety. DOT 
recognized this in the context of autonomous vehicles in AV 3.0, when 
it claimed that ``delaying or unduly hampering . . . testing until all 
specific risks have been identified or eliminated means delaying the 
realization of global reductions in risk.'' \2\ DOT should realize 
these safety benefits for rail, as well, by encouraging early 
deployment of autonomous or highly automated technology on railroads. 
Unlocking the many potential benefits of automated technology is just 
as important for railroads as it is for other transportation modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Autonomous Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for the Future of 
Transportation, op. cit. p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Principles for the Regulation of Automated Technologies
    In formulating a regulatory framework that ensures a level playing 
field for all modes of transportation and that encourages the 
realization of the benefits of emerging technologies, railroads urge 
Congress and DOT to adhere to several principles.
    First, limited short-term waivers from existing regulations do not 
give industry sufficient confidence to invest in new technologies. 
Regulatory barriers must be overcome in ways that are more enduring 
than waivers. For example, Congress could direct DOT to make permanent 
long-standing waivers whose value has been proven through successful 
implementation. Additionally, DOT could issue waivers of indefinite 
duration and provide procedures for the expedited conversion of time-
limited waivers to permanent waivers or final rules if equivalent or 
improved safety has been demonstrated.
    Second, to the greatest extent possible, carriers and equipment 
manufacturers should be permitted to continue to create voluntary 
standards for safety technology. No one has a greater stake in the 
success of new safety technologies than carriers and their suppliers, 
and market pressures already incentivize them to create and implement 
safety technologies that work.
    Third, new regulations governing automated operations in the 
transportation sector should be performance-based, rather than 
prescriptive. This will focus industry attention and effort on the 
outcome, rather than on how that outcome is achieved. Performance 
standards would give industry discretion to experiment with new ways to 
improve safety, while still being subject to DOT oversight, which would 
oversee goal-setting, ensure that measures and data are accurate, and 
impose sanctions if carriers failed to meet their safety targets. As 
such, employees, customers, and the public at large would still be 
fully protected.
    Fourth, regulation of automated operations should occur at the 
Federal level to avoid a patchwork of state and local rules that would 
create confusion and inhibit the deployment of safety technology. State 
and local laws governing rail safety and operations are already 
preempted by Federal law and regulation, and it is especially critical 
to the efficient functioning of the national rail network that the 
principle of a uniform set of national regulations not be undercut by 
state or local laws targeting autonomous or highly automated 
technologies.
    Last, as with any new technology, public fear of the unknown is 
often unfounded but can prove to be a major obstacle. The public can 
and will read much into what DOT and FRA say, or do not say, on the 
issue of automated technologies. We urge DOT and FRA to be supportive 
of innovation and work to facilitate the realization of the benefits of 
these technologies.
Conclusion
    As FRA Administrator Ron Batory has stated, ``Technology will move 
faster than the ink can be applied or dried [on regulations]. And if we 
don't unleash technology, it will pass us up.'' Autonomous vehicles and 
highly automated technologies can make our society safer and the 
movement of freight more efficient than it has ever been. It is 
essential that DOT and Congress set goals for the incorporation of 
certain essential capabilities, while also providing a regulatory 
environment that incentivizes industry to be constantly developing new, 
and improving existing, technologies.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of American Property Casualty Insurance Association
    Automated driver assistance system (ADAS) and automated driving 
system (ADS) technology is evolving rapidly, and the increasing 
automation of the driving function presents an opportunity for society 
to improve road safety and mobility. It also presents a challenge for 
policy makers to develop an appropriate regulatory framework for the 
testing and deployment of highly automated vehicles or ``self-driving'' 
vehicles. As these innovations fundamentally change the nature of 
driving, property casualty insurers will have a key role to play in 
encouraging the safe and efficient introduction of advanced vehicle 
technology. In order to do so, insurers must have access to information 
and data to innovate and develop services, products and pricing to 
support the new automotive technologies.
    The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the 
primary national trade association for home, auto, and business 
insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private 
competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy 
dating back 150 years. APCIA members represent all sizes, structures, 
and regions--protecting families, communities, and businesses in the 
U.S. and across the globe. Together, APCIA members write 53 percent of 
the automobile insurance in the United States. We offer these comments 
to provide the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 
our perspectives on the safe testing and deployment of ADS equipped 
vehicles.
Safety Standards, Exemptions and Testing of ADS Equipped Vehicles
    As vehicle automation increases, safety standards for the use of 
vehicle automation on public roads should be established to set clear 
expectations for the public and provide clear direction for technology 
developers and manufacturers for compliance. Separate safety standards 
should be developed appropriate to each level of automation, and 
regulatory agencies should have enough staff and funding to function 
effectively and keep pace with the rapidly evolving vehicle technology.
    There should be standardization of terminology used to describe 
both automated driver assistance (ADAS) and automated driving systems 
(ADS) used for highly automated or ``self-driving'' vehicles. Common 
terminology would allow insurers to identify and differentiate systems 
by performance, for insurance product development and pricing. Common 
terminology would also enable the public to have a clearer 
understanding of the technology. Safety evaluation reports provided by 
developers and manufacturers of these systems should contain enough 
detail for regulators, insurers and the public to understand the 
technology, how it works and how to use it properly. Additionally, a 
public education program should be developed that addresses the proper 
use of both assisted (ADAS) and automated (ADS) driving systems and the 
associated risks.
    All vehicles, including highly automated vehicles, should meet all 
Federal and state safety requirements and be capable of complying with 
all state and Federal motor vehicle laws. Exceptions to existing auto 
safety laws and motor vehicle safety standards should be rare, limited 
to only the highest levels (i.e., fully autonomous) of automated 
driving and should clearly define the levels of automation to which the 
modification applies. Exceptions should not be made for collision 
protection standards.
    Highly automated vehicle testing standards should address both road 
and simulated testing, include a variety of road, weather and traffic 
conditions and apply to vehicles intended for both personal and 
commercial transportation.
Development of a Single Data Access Standard and Data Set
    As the driving function becomes increasingly automated, it will be 
necessary for insurers to determine what automated driving technology 
was engaged and how the vehicle was being operated at the time of an 
accident. Just like a human driver stores his or her recollections of 
an accident, automated driving systems should be capable of recording 
and reproducing data about how the vehicle was being operated, and the 
information used by the system to operate the vehicle. This includes, 
but is not limited to, what driving function the system was performing, 
speed of travel, braking and steering status, objects and other 
vehicles detected by cameras and sensors as well as information to 
determine if an automated vehicle operating system software was up to 
date at the time of the accident. Insurers will need access to accident 
data, pictures and video from an automated driving system on reasonable 
terms and in easily usable formats to allow for prompt resolution of 
claims for damage and injury arising from the accident.
    To facilitate that exchange, APCIA urges Congress to direct the 
appropriate Federal agencies to create a single standard for automated 
vehicle data access that follows the precedent of the Driver Privacy 
Act of 2015 which allows the vehicle owner to authorize access without 
the involvement of a third party (such as the manufacturer), provides 
access via court order or subpoena and provides access for federal, 
state and local government for safety research or for emergency 
response.
    As part of the development of the data access standard, Congress 
should direct the appropriate Federal agencies to work with state motor 
vehicle regulators and insurance regulators to develop a standard set 
of data elements to be recorded by an automated vehicle for crash 
investigation purposes.
Federal, State and Local Roles and Access to Courts
    APCIA supports preservation of the current division of Federal and 
state regulatory responsibilities for motor vehicles, with the Federal 
government setting and enforcing safety standards for motor vehicles 
and recalls, as well as setting requirements for large vehicles. The 
states should continue to have primacy on motor vehicle ``rules of the 
road'', liability issues, insurance requirements and regulation, as 
they do today. APCIA believes that our state based legal liability 
system has proven to be very adaptable to new technology and as such, 
APCIA opposes blanket immunity for manufacturers as well as strict 
liability imposed on vehicle owners for accidents involving automated 
vehicles.
Cybersecurity and Privacy
    To protect the safety of the users and other motorists, standards 
for automated and connected vehicle systems should address protection 
of safety critical systems against cyber-attack. There should also be 
standards in place to protect the privacy of vehicle owners and users. 
However, ensuring the vehicle owners ability to authorize sharing of 
vehicle data on a secure and transparent basis, must be an essential 
element of the cybersecurity or privacy regulatory framework for 
automated vehicles.
Advisory Committees
    The insurance industry has an essential role to play in encouraging 
the safe and efficient introduction of advanced vehicle technology, and 
the industry should be represented on any advisory committee related to 
automated vehicle safety or liability issues. APCIA would support an 
advisory committee on data access, however such an advisory committee 
should be in addition to, and not take the place of legislative 
language that would establish a data access framework as recommended 
earlier in these comments.
Conclusion
    Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future, 
and implementing clear standards for safety, maintaining the current 
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 underwriting methods 
are an essential first step toward that future. APCIA and its members 
stand ready to assist members of Congress and look forward to working 
together to establish a regulatory framework for automated driving.
                                 ______
                                 
        Prepared Statement of John Bozzella, President and CEO, 
                 Association of Global Automakers, Inc.
    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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
hearing entitled ``Highly Automated Vehicles: Federal Perspectives on 
the Deployment of Safety Technology.'' We commend Chairman Wicker, 
Ranking Member Cantwell, Senators Thune and Peters and other members of 
the Committee in their continued interest in automated vehicles and 
ensuring the safe deployment of advanced technologies on the Nation's 
roadways.
    Global Automakers represents the U.S. operations of international 
motor vehicle manufacturers, original equipment suppliers, and other 
automotive-related companies and trade associations. Our companies are 
technology leaders, bringing a wide range of fuel-efficient 
technologies for gasoline, plug-in, battery-electric, and fuel cell 
electric cars and trucks, and innovating in the areas of connected and 
automated technologies as well.
    Global Automakers' companies have made significant investments in 
the development and testing of automated driving systems (ADS) in the 
United States. These technologies can help address the persistent 
transportation challenges that affect safety, mobility, and economic 
growth in the United States.
    There were 36,560 fatalities on U.S. roadways in 2018. Millions 
more crashes resulted in injuries and costly medical bills and repairs. 
Increased travel demands have placed additional burden on existing 
roadway infrastructure, often leading to congestion. Travel times for 
moving people, goods and services increase annually, hampering economic 
efficiency and growth, as well as productivity and quality of life. 
Congestion also wastes energy and increases emissions.
    We therefore need to identify new opportunities to integrate highly 
automated vehicles (HAVs) and other intelligent transportation 
technologies, such as V2X communication, that will help modernize the 
U.S. transportation system and provide people with safer, cleaner, more 
efficient, and accessible mobility options.
    The challenges associated with the successful integration and 
implementation of these new technologies and systems are substantial -
from both a technology and policy standpoint. Further, public 
acceptance is critical to widespread adoption and to maximizing the 
benefits offered. Thus, successful integration of automated vehicle 
technologies will require a holistic approach that recognizes and 
balances the input of technology developers, infrastructure owner-
operators, transportation service providers, and the public.
    Safety is a priority for Global Automakers' members. We recognize 
the important role of both public and private sector organizations in 
providing the necessary assurances that key issues of concern are being 
addressed. In 2017, the Department of Transportation (DOT), through 
NHTSA, issued guidance to support the automotive industry and other key 
stakeholders as they consider best practices relative to the testing 
and deployment of automated vehicle technologies.\1\ Since then, the 
Department issued further guidance, adopting a more multimodal 
approach, while also seeking to address policy uncertainty and helping 
define processes for engaging with DOT (and its composite agencies).\2\ 
NHTSA has also taken initial steps toward addressing potential barriers 
within existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and it 
is imperative these rulemaking efforts advance swiftly to ensure HAVs 
are not otherwise prohibited from being deployed as a consequence of 
legacy regulations.\3\ Federal agencies have also been actively engaged 
in responding to safety incidents occurring on public roads, exercising 
both their investigative and enforcement authority, and providing 
additional direction and recommendations as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), DOT HS 812 442, September 2017.
    \2\ Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicle 
3.0, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), October 2018.
    \3\ NHTSA ANPRM Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With 
Automated Driving Systems (see: 84 FR 24433)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the automotive industry has been proactive in its own 
efforts to advance the safe testing of ADS on public roads. The 
development of new technology is often an iterative process driven by 
continuous improvement, not just in terms of advances in the technology 
itself, but also in the processes used for testing and evaluation. In 
this regard, a number of OEMs, suppliers, technology companies, and 
other standard-setting organizations have, through individual and 
collaborative engagements, launched efforts to share and make available 
best practices, recommendations, and principles designed to address 
potential safety 
challenges.\4\,\5\,\6\,\7\ Additional 
efforts to educate the public, through consortia such as the Partners 
for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE), also provide awareness of new 
technology and perspectives on how automated vehicle safety is being 
considered.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ NHTSA Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment Homepage--https://
www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-
assessment
    \5\ SAE-ITC AVSC Best Practice for in-vehicle fallback test driver 
(safety operator) selection, training, and oversight procedures for 
automated vehicles under test--https://avsc.sae-itc.org/principles-01-
5471WV-42925L3.html?respondentID=23171787#Started
    \6\ SAE J3018 (2019)--https://www.sae.org/standards/content/
j3018_201909/
    \7\ SAFETY FIRST FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING--https://newsroom.intel.com/
wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/07/Intel-Safety-First-for-Automated-
Driving.pdf
    \8\ Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE)--https://
pavecampaign.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rapid pace of innovation, in which existing paradigms and 
models may not best apply, presents new challenges for policymakers. 
Congress has a key role to play in advancing the testing and deployment 
of automated vehicles and establishing the United States as a leader in 
transportation innovation--particularly as other countries move forward 
in seeking to address these same issues.
    We encourage Congress' continued engagement in ensuring that 
existing regulations are modernized to accommodate highly automated 
vehicles. Legislation is also necessary to enable meaningful deployment 
of these advanced driving technologies given that existing regulations, 
understandably, did not envision the emergence of vehicles capable of 
operating without the engagement or presence of a driver. A uniform 
approach to policies can ensure that these life-saving technologies can 
be made available to the public nationwide in the safest way possible.
    Global Automakers and our member companies look forward to working 
with the Committee to help bring the benefits of connected and 
automated vehicles to the American people.
    Thank you for your continued attention to this important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Mutual 
                          Insurance Companies
    The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (``NAMIC'') 
is pleased to offer comments on the United States Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Federal perspectives on the 
deployment of safety technology for highly automated vehicles.
    NAMIC is the largest and most diverse national property/casualty 
insurance trade and political advocacy association in the United 
States. Its 1,400 member companies write all lines of property/casualty 
insurance business and include small, single-state, regional, and 
national carriers accounting for 50 percent of the automobile/
homeowners' market and 31 percent of the business insurance market. 
NAMIC has been advocating for a strong and vibrant insurance industry 
since its inception in 1895.
    These comments are submitted in response to the committee's 
interest in perspectives on the safe testing and deployment of highly 
automated vehicles, as well as recommendations for realizing the 
potential safety benefits of such vehicles.
    The development of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) may be the most 
consequential transportation issue of our time. New technology and 
novel service strategies promise faster and better mobility that will 
be less expensive, and more environmentally friendly. Spring boarding 
from existing and widely accepted ``assisted driving'' systems such as 
cruise control, ADS developers promise a wider array of functions from 
greater driver assistance to vehicles that will perform every driving 
operation with no human intervention.
Safety Must Be the Primary and Overriding Focus
    The single most important reason to support the development of ADS 
is the potential to enhance safety and save lives. While the idea of 
working, napping, or watching a movie while the car drives itself may 
be enticing to many, enhanced safety must always be the primary focus 
of ADS development. ADS that are proven safer than existing drivers 
will have innumerable benefits to society. However, the development and 
deployment of proven, safe ADS will require significant technological 
advances, revisions to the regulatory paradigm, and the active 
participation of all the stakeholders.
    The potential for technology to move the needle on crash statistics 
is extraordinary; however, there will still be crashes, especially in 
an environment where autonomous vehicles continue to share the road 
with human drivers. It is important to note that ADS, in and of 
themselves, do not fundamentally change the legal theories of liability 
associated with motor vehicle crashes. As these ADS crashes happen and 
questions of liability arise, insurance will play a crucial role for 
ADS manufacturers, suppliers, owners, operators, and passengers.
    Safety must be the primary goal for ADS development but defining 
and proving what ``improved safety'' means for ADS is not simple. 
Currently, Federal auto safety regulations focus more on the structure 
and design of vehicles and less on the driving operations that are 
subject to human control. With ADS, the vehicle will assume driving 
operations formerly performed by the human driver. Thus, the safety 
responsibilities of the vehicle will expand and will continue to expand 
until the vehicle assumes all driving operations without any human 
control. On the one hand, most car crashes involve driver error and ADS 
promises computer systems that will not replicate the conditions that 
lead to those errors--i.e. sleeping, intoxication, distraction, or 
speeding.
    According to the NHTSA, ``Fully automated vehicles that can see 
more and act faster than human drivers could greatly reduce errors, the 
resulting crashes, and their toll.'' On the other hand, the elimination 
of certain human errors does not tell us anything about the 
introduction of computer, sensor, or software error. Safe ADS will 
require a substantial amount of specialized software, sensors, 
controllers, and actuators to collectively perform without error, or at 
least as well as those human drivers, the large universe of operations 
that human drivers already perform. The bar for performance has been 
set high: human drivers in 2017 averaged 500,000 vehicle miles between 
crashes, more than one million vehicle miles between crashes with an 
injury and nearly 100 million vehicle miles between fatal crashes. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ US Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The development of ADS will require a new way to look at the 
fundamental nature of driving, and that development should not be 
hindered by requiring outdated safety requirements that do not apply to 
new technologies. At the extreme end of the spectrum, the development 
of ADS with no driver controls will mean that vehicle features that are 
now required for human operation may not be necessary or practical. 
Sound policy should include a review of which requirements would no 
longer be relevant for a fully autonomous vehicle. The Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are the U.S. Federal regulations 
specifying nationwide design, construction, performance, and durability 
requirements for auto-safety-related components, systems, and design 
features.
    FMVSS focus mostly on crash avoidance, crashworthiness, and crash 
survivability. Existing FMVSS specify that controls and displays must 
be located where they are visible to or within the reach of a person 
sitting in the driver's seat. Depending on whether the occupants have 
``dual mode'' or no control of an ADS, there may not be a ``driver's 
seat'' or the relevant controls or displays of driving operations may 
vary with the driving operations that the human retains. In various 
iterations of ADS, auto parts subject to FMVSS such as rearview mirrors 
may or may not be superfluous for driving operations. Similarly, 
controls for turn signals, lights, or wipers may or may not be required 
and may or may not be subject to safety standards.
    The focus must remain on ensuring that critical safety aspects are 
examined and validated and that any safety assurance gaps that may be 
created by the introduction of ADS onto the roads are identified and 
addressed. This is far more complicated than it may seem. While many 
human-driver focused FMVSS do not make sense for ADS, perhaps ADS-
specific safety tests should accompany broad exemptions. Existing self-
certification should be supplemented by governmentally defined and 
publicly disclosed standards and then supplemented by third-party 
validation of design and testing. Pre-market approval has many 
downsides, but some level of independent ADS safety review could 
supplement self-certification.
Insurance Companies Have the Expertise to Enhance Safe Testing and 
        Deployment of Highly Automated Vehicles
    Insurers have long championed auto and highway safety issues and 
have helped raise public awareness through the creation and ongoing 
support of auto safety research organizations such as the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute. The 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit 
scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the 
losses--deaths, injuries and property damage--from motor vehicle 
crashes. The Highway Loss Data Institute shares and supports this 
mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the 
human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of 
different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by 
vehicle make and model. Insurers have allied with safety groups to work 
together to make America's roads safer.
    The critical issues related to passenger safety, liability, and 
recovery after a crash require that insurance companies are included in 
the development, deployment, regulation, and use of ADS, including any 
NHTSA research program. Consumers will continue to look to property/
casualty insurers to provide them with the protections they have come 
to expect as this new frontier of automotive products and services 
evolves. A 2018 JD Power survey found that consumers have the highest 
levels of confidence in insurance dealing with ADS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Automated Vehicles and Insurance Pulse Survey, https://
www.namic.org/pdf/18member
advisory/181008_Automated_Vehicles_JD_Power_NAMIC_Questionnaire.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The business of insurance demands that it applies hard data and 
institutes actuarial science to assess and mitigate risk. It was more 
than 30 years ago that coalitions of insurance companies together with 
consumer groups first favored state requirements for seat belts and air 
bags and opposed the auto makers reluctance to provide such safety 
features.
    Insurers have a long and proven history of working hand-in-hand 
with regulators and auto manufacturers to facilitate developments that 
save lives and prevent injuries and damage. The revolutionary 
replacement of the human driver with ADS will require auto insurers to 
understand each vehicle's design and operation. Ultimately, drivers may 
not be comfortable with ``dual mode'' or no control whatsoever, which 
means that the insurer of that human driver must fully understand the 
planned automated driving operations as well as any possible human 
operation of the vehicle under any circumstances.
    The insurance industry understands that new and different data will 
be needed for insurers to write ADS-related insurance policies. The 
extensive history and level of human driving data that insurers have 
developed must now be supplemented by increasingly complex data on the 
automated driving systems that assist or replace those human drivers. 
Insurers have a proven record of assessing driving risks and 
communicating to auto owners the methods to mitigate that risk.
Defining and Analyzing the Appropriate Safety Data is Critical
    Insurers should have access to a robust ADS information and data 
framework--including crash accident and incident information and data 
for businesses purposes including underwriting and rating--that is 
timely, complete and useful. It is critically important for Congress to 
address these issues when writing any legislation for the development 
and deployment of automated vehicles.
    The types of objective and verifiable data that will be required to 
provide insurance for ADS--data on frequency, severity, and repairs--
are the same types of data that can authoritatively validate safety 
levels of ADS to the public and regulators. Auto insurance rates and 
coverage are established by insurance companies using vast amounts of 
historical data and established actuarial science, analyzing years of 
relevant data on frequency and severity of incidents. The rates 
determined by insurance companies are then frequently subject to a 
review by the state insurance regulators to ensure that they are fair 
and supported by data.
    Valid and understandable data on ADS is critical to safety. The 
development and deployment of ADS--particularly the proposed ADS with 
``dual mode'' or no controls for a human driver--is a game changer. It 
will entail a fundamental change in transportation, mobility, 
infrastructure, and myriad other areas. The adoption of ADS on a wide 
scale will impact millions of people and will require adaptation by 
governments, industries, and the culture in general. The precondition 
to this development is an accepted belief that ADS improve safety, 
which will itself require sufficient data and information upon which to 
validate that belief. To date, information about ADS development in 
general and safety specifically has been limited.
    ADS development is still in the early stages and myriad business, 
design, technical, and other issues are still only being discussed. In 
the competition to bring ADS to market, there should be a requisite 
level of confidentiality. Insurance companies understand confidential 
information and have a long history of working with auto companies to 
obtain and use available data. Similarly, insurance companies have deep 
experience in data security and the wide scope of data privacy 
requirements.
    At the same time, there is a significant level of concern that this 
system of voluntary self-certification by manufacturers of the safety 
of ADS may not be adequate to enable the development and public 
acceptance of safe ADS. Having defined and transparent government 
standards will result in more and better data and information on ADS 
that will help its development, the understanding and acceptance by the 
public of ADS, and the development of related businesses like insurance 
that will be critical to ADS use.
    It would be in the best interests of proponents of safe ADS to 
coordinate and consider new and improved alternatives to communicate on 
ADS technology and performance. Somewhere between the extreme poles of 
``just trust us'' and reams of Federal regulations requiring submission 
of millions of certified data points is a system of information and 
communication that is usable and comprehensible for the public, 
governments, and other industries. Validation of safe ADS development 
and a resulting public acceptance can be greatly enhanced by a 
measurable gauge of ADS safety/risks through recognized analysis of 
most relevant data. Insurers, with their direct and ongoing contact 
with drivers and owners, are a most effective way to enhance that 
communication.
Conclusion
    The insurance industry has continuously proven its commitment to 
supporting the development and deployment of real auto safety benefits 
at the earliest time. For ADS, these benefits are dependent, however, 
on many and daunting technological, logistical, and regulatory 
revisions that remain to be designed and successfully implemented. The 
existing environment of auto safety regulation evolved with a human-
driver focus and has not fully considered the many nuances of increased 
assisted and automated driving systems. As these systems develop and 
evolve, the risk of regulatory safety gaps increases and the need for a 
comprehensive reassessment of driving operation safety grows 
exponentially, staffing with the paramount focus on the safety of 
vehicle occupants, occupants of other vehicles, and the public.
    For the public to understand and accept ADS safety developments 
\3\, we must show how we got to the answer; to illustrate the exact 
steps taken to achieve specific metrics of safety for ADS. Broad 
assurances of overall safety must be bolstered by facts and data on ADS 
design and operation. Third party validation of ADS data and safety 
testing by insurers will help to develop the requisite public, insurer, 
and governmental trust to support further ADS deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ A 2019 Reuters/Ipsos poll, half of U.S. adults think automated 
vehicles are more dangerous than traditional vehicles operated by 
people, and more than 60 percent of respondents would not pay more to 
have a self-driving feature on their vehicle. Americans still don't 
trust self-driving cars, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds, at https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-self-driving-poll/americans-still-
dont-trust-self-driving-cars-reuters-ipsospoll-finds-idUSKCN1RD2QS AAA 
reports that more than 70 percent of Americans are afraid to ride in a 
self-driving car, an increase from 63 percent in 2017. Three in Four 
Americans Remain Afraid of Fully Self-Driving Vehicles, at https://
newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-driving-cars-survey/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A prerequisite of that trust, particularly for insurers, is the 
access to more and better data on the proposed and adopted design and 
operation of ADS. Through their highly regulated development of rates 
and coverage, insurers apply many of the objective and independent 
validations sought for ADS operational safety. Just as with the 
established and active advocacy of seat belts and air bags, auto 
insurance companies can work with auto manufacturers and safety 
advocates to develop and implement commercial standards that can save 
lives.
                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of the National Safety Council
    Thank you for allowing the National Safety Council (NSC) to submit 
this statement for the record. NSC is a 100-year-old nonprofit based in 
Itasca, Ill., with a mission 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 16,000 member companies 
represent employees at more than 50,000 U.S. worksites. These members 
are across the U.S. and likely are in each district represented on this 
Committee.
    The National Safety Council estimates that approximately 40,000 
people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2018.\1\ Your timing for 
this hearing is critical. As we enter the holiday season, NSC estimates 
that U.S. roads will experience 417 fatalities over the Thanksgiving 
holiday, and another 47,500 people may be seriously injured.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/2018-marks-third-straight-
year-that-motor-vehicle-deaths-are-estimated-to-have-reached-40000
    \2\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/holidays/
thanksgiving-day/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Included here are the number of people killed in motor vehicle 
crashes in 2018 from the Chairman's and Ranking Member's states.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/STSI.htm#

                Mississippi       664
                Washington      546

    These are the lives of your constituents. These mothers, fathers, 
sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles contributed to the communities in 
which they lived. Yet, our national outrage at these losses is 
conspicuously absent, particularly when you compare to deaths in other 
forms of transportation, such as aviation. These crashes and deaths on 
our roadways not only have a human toll, but there is an annual cost to 
the American economy of over $433 billion.\4\ The U.S. has consistently 
avoided the hard choices needed to save lives on the roadways, and NSC 
calls on Congress to act in a bipartisan manner to implement policies 
that will save lives. We know the solutions; we need the will to enact 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Road to Zero
    NSC is so committed to the goal of zero deaths on the roadways that 
we lead, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the 
Road to Zero Coalition, a diverse group of over 900 members committed 
to eliminating roadway fatalities by 2050. Over the past two and a half 
years, the coalition has grown to include members from across the 
country representing transportation organizations, businesses, 
academia, safety advocates and others, the first time so many 
organizations have collaborated to put forth a plan to address 
fatalities on our roads.
    The centerpiece of the coalition's work has been the creation of 
the Road to Zero report, a comprehensive roadmap of the strategies 
necessary to achieve its goal by 2050. In April 2018, the coalition 
issued its report with three primary recommendations.

  1.  Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based 
        strategies

  2.  Accelerate advanced life-saving technology in vehicles and 
        infrastructure

  3.  Prioritize safety by adopting a safe systems approach and 
        creating a positive safety culture
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. 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.
    To reach zero deaths, we need to encourage the development of 
innovations that address human errors and road design failures and, 
once proven, establish mandates for adoption of technologies that work. 
The potential safety benefits of automated vehicles could be 
incredible; however, it will be decades before we have meaningful fleet 
penetration on U.S. roadways of AVs.
    One of the biggest challenges in moving from level 1 to level 4/5 
vehicles is successfully identifying the improvements needed for the 
human-machine interface to be successful. In other industries, such as 
aviation, there have been many lessons learned regarding mode confusion 
and overreliance on automation. We must recognize that the most 
dangerous environment will exist when both the human and machine are 
involved in the safe operation of a vehicle. The greatest risks are not 
when one or the other has sole responsibility for the vehicle, but when 
the control is shared.
    Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) can prevent or mitigate 
crashes. Consumer education about these new technologies is of utmost 
importance, and NSC is expanding consumer education around these new 
technologies. NSC and the University of Iowa created the first and 
largest ADAS national campaign at, MyCarDoesWhat.org, to help. When a 
person visits MyCarDoesWhat.org, he or she learns about dozens of 
existing safety features such as lane departure warning, blind spot 
monitoring, backup cameras, automatic emergency braking and more. The 
purpose of MyCarDoesWhat is to educate the public about these assistive 
safety features in order to maximize their potential lifesaving 
benefits.
    Another way to advance consumer understanding is to standardize the 
nomenclature or taxonomy for advanced technologies. NSC recommends 
that, at the very least, systems that are not fully 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 ``automated'' or ``autonomous'' today, or even using terms 
such as ``autopilot,'' only confuse 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.
    Today (Nov. 20), NSC, in collaboration with AAA, Consumer Reports, 
and J.D. Power, released recommendations to standardize nomenclature in 
order to help educate consumers on the benefits, limitations, and 
proper use of these new technologies. (See www.nsc.org/in-thenewsroom 
for more details.) The four organizations agreed on standardized naming 
that is simple, specific, and based on system functionality in an 
effort to reduce consumer confusion. Today, 93 percent of new vehicles 
offer at least one ADAS feature and while the technology has the 
potential to improve safety and save lives, the terminology prioritizes 
marketing over clarity. We urge other safety organizations, automakers, 
journalists, and lawmakers to join us in adopting these terms.
    Additionally, the National Safety Council was a founding member of 
PAVE (Partners for Automated Vehicle Education), which launched in 
January of 2019. PAVE is a broad-based coalition that includes 
automotive and technology companies, safety and mobility advocates and 
community partners. PAVE members believe that in order to fully realize 
the benefits of self-driving technology, policymakers and the public 
need factual information about the present and future state of such 
technology. PAVE enhances public understanding through a variety of 
strategies including an educational website at PaveCampaign.org, 
``hands-on'' demonstrations allowing the public to see and experience 
driverless technology and workshops to help understand the technology. 
In the future, PAVE will produce educational toolkits for car dealers 
to help them communicate more effectively with customers about their 
vehicles' capabilities and limitations. PAVE is focusing on levels 4 
and 5 vehicles.
    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 expanding its role into ADAS safety, believing it is an 
important program to improve the safety of the motor vehicle fleet.
Data Sharing
    Congress 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. Collecting and sharing de-
identified data about near misses and other relevant problems could 
also help to aggregate useful information for the motor vehicle 
industry, allowing it to take proactive steps based on leading 
indicators rather than waiting for a crash or a series of crashes to 
occur. Finally, these data will be useful to researchers and the safety 
community in analyzing the safety benefits-and potential drawbacks-of 
these technologies as they continue to mature.
    Acquiring an understanding of what happens when systems perform as 
intended, fail as expected, or fail in unexpected ways yields 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. NHTSA has begun work 
toward data sharing, and we urge Congress to support this effort.
Prioritizing Safety
    By prioritizing safety, we commit to changing our Nation's safety 
culture. This means we have to accept that any life lost is one too 
many. Once we accept that one death is too many, we will begin thinking 
about how to take a ``safe systems'' approach to our roadways. Fully 
adopted by the aviation industry, this approach features fail-safe 
systems that anticipate human error and develop infrastructure with 
safety margins. When it comes to technology, the U.S. prioritized 
safety years ago by dedicating spectrum for safety purposes to prevent 
crashes. Today, other groups would like to take the spectrum for 
streaming services. I urge this committee to direct the U.S. DOT, the 
Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Commerce and 
others to maintain the spectrum for roadway safety purposes allowing 
vehicles to communicate with each other, infrastructure, pedestrians 
and others to prevent crashes. This spectrum provides a safety margin 
that we cannot afford to give away.
    While infrastructure change may not seem like ``high tech,'' this 
is a known solution for increasing safety and should be encouraged 
throughout the U.S. For example, in the pictures below, a multi-lane 
intersection with a red light in Scottsdale, Ariz., was replaced with a 
roundabout. With the intersection, there are 32 potential points of 
failure, but with a roundabout, those points of failure are engineered 
down to only eight. Speeds are decreased, and if crashes do occur, they 
occur at angles that are not as violent.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Infrastructure changes do not have to be expensive. Through the 
Road to Zero Coalition, NSC has awarded grants to groups across the 
country working in communities of all sizes. The biggest and hardest 
change is the shift to truly prioritize safety by changing safety 
culture on the roads. We cannot be complacent when it comes to losing 
so many people each and every day on our roads. We need leaders in this 
area, and there are none better than the members of this Committee. We 
have changed safety culture in workplaces, around seat belt usage, 
around child passenger safety seats and in other areas. We can do it 
here too with your help.
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. The integration of some of these technologies 
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.
    For these reasons, NSC respectfully urges the Committee to keep the 
following policies and potential barriers in mind:

   How will cars with newer technologies such as those with 
        ``self-driving'' features, interact with cars that are not 
        equipped with this capability? How will they interact with 
        pedestrians?

   The formal regulatory process can take many years to 
        finalize. Mandates, as well as the potential for a mandate, can 
        spur adoption by manufacturers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.iihs.org/media/31d3dcc6-79d5-48a8-bafb-
1e93df1fb16f/324452632/HLDI%20
Research/Bulletins/hldi_bulletin_31_15.pdf

   Voluntary cooperation by automakers promotes the 
        proliferation of vehicle safety technologies into the U.S. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        fleet.

   Safety should not only be available to those who can afford 
        it. Right now, many ADAS features are part of more expensive 
        packages, and the used car market exposes those consumers to a 
        higher risk just because they are choosing a used vehicle.

   We are many years away from actual fully automated cars 
        (Level 5).

   Continuous research is necessary to ensure the safety of 
        these systems.

   Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other 
        regulations should not be repealed until there is clear, 
        evidence based data that safety will not be compromised.

    The U.S. trails other industrialized countries in addressing 
highway deaths. We cannot afford to ignore the carnage on our highways 
any longer. It is a national epidemic.
    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 in a short amount of time, and will 
go a long way toward reaching the goal of eliminating preventable 
deaths in our lifetime.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                            Hon. Joel Szabat
    In 2017, there were 287 crashes attributed to illegal drug use in 
Kansas. Eighty-three people lost their lives in these crashes. Studies 
have found that marijuana use impairs a person's judgment, 
concentration and reaction time. Yet NHTSA found from 2007-2014 that 
there was a 48 percent increase in drivers testing positive for 
marijuana.
    Question 1. What recommendations would you provide to address this 
issue both at a Federal and local level?
    Answer. The Department is dedicated to raising awareness of the 
dangers of drug-impaired driving. We continue to support law 
enforcement training on drug-impaired driving, as well as training for 
prosecutors and judges and are conducting research on the topic of 
roadside testing and evaluating the accuracy of new oral fluid 
screening devices.
    In addition, we are proactive in identifying areas to target with 
specific campaigns for impaired driving. Recently, the following ads 
have been launched in select markets:

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different, Drive High Get a 
        DUI campaign (released August 2018).

   There is More Than One Way to be Under the Influence (for 
        prescription and over the counter drugs) (released 2019)

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different campaign (the 
        social norming version) (released 2019).

    Question 2. Is it critical for local law enforcement to have the 
equipment needed for reliable roadside drug tests?
   Follow up. I would appreciate any insight you can provide on 
        the development and availability of this technology to measure 
        marijuana inebriation, and how Congress can help prevent 
        further deaths from illegal drug use of drivers.
    Answer. The Department, and specifically NHTSA, received an 
additional $5M in FY 2018 and $7M in FY 2019 to address impaired 
driving. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 
received $2.3 million award to increase the number of law enforcement 
officers who are trained as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) and in 
Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). NHTSA also 
supports development and delivery of drug impaired driving education 
and technical assistance for prosecutors and judges.
    Recently, NHTSA released the Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Toolkit: A 
Guide to Assist Law Enforcement Agencies With Planning and Implementing 
a Phlebotomy Program. The report shares best practices from agencies 
that have implemented phlebotomy programs.
    In addition, the Department is investigating whether a behavioral 
or cognitive roadside test could indicate potential impairment use as 
well as studying the feasibility of a standardized protocol to assess 
the driving impairment risk of drugs. Research is also evaluating the 
accuracy of new oral fluid screening devices that could be used by law 
enforcement to screen drivers for drug use in a matter of minutes.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                            Hon. Joel Szabat
    Question 1. The Department of Transportation's AV 3.0 report 
recognized the intersection of privacy and automated vehicles. Some 
have argued that DOT should regulate privacy issues as it relates to 
automated vehicles. DO you believe that DOT is appropriately equipped 
to regulate privacy? Or Should DOT instead partner with other Federal 
entities, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to address any privacy 
concerns related to the automated vehicles?
    Answer. U.S. DOT takes consumer privacy seriously, diligently 
considers the privacy implications of our safety regulations and 
voluntary guidance, and works closely with the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC)--the primary Federal agency charged with protecting consumers' 
privacy and personal information--to support the protection of consumer 
information and provide resources relating to consumer privacy.

    Question 2. How does DOT plan on utilizing emerging 5G networks 
with respect to the intersection of fully autonomous vehicles and 
connected infrastructure?
    Answer. DOT will prepare for complementary technologies that 
enhance the benefits of AVs, such as communication technologies between 
vehicles and the surrounding environment, but will not assume universal 
implementation of any particular approach, including Dedicated Short 
Range Communications (DSRC), Connected Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X) or 
a future 5G technology.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                            Hon. Joel Szabat
    I'm concerned that if we bifurcate the regulatory environment for 
small and large vehicles we will delay these life-saving and life-
changing benefits AV technology can bring to all Americans.
    Question 1. Considering that truck-involved crashes tend to be 
serious and often involve other road users--do you see a reason why 
development of technologies such as advanced driver-assistance systems 
or AV should be limited to passenger vehicles?
    Answer. No, the Department does not intend to limit this technology 
to passenger vehicles. Advanced driver-assistance systems have the 
potential to save lives--and safety is always the Department's top 
priority. NHTSA has set FMVSS to regulate how vehicles, both passenger 
and motor carriers, equipment will perform when new and, in the case of 
more complicated safety systems (such as air bags and electronic 
stability control systems), require the systems to monitor their 
operating capability and warn drivers when there is a malfunction.
    In addition, all advanced driver-assistance systems require the 
full and undivided attention of the drivers to assure safety.

    Question 2. As we contemplate a legislative framework for 
autonomous vehicles, should vehicles above 10,000 pounds be included?
    Answer. Yes. Advanced driver-assistance systems can improve and 
enhance safety of all vehicles and should not be limited. In addition 
to NHTSA's authorities, FMCSA has every authority it requires to allow 
for the safe and regulated introduction of automated systems in 
commercial motor vehicles.
    According to data from the Indiana University Public Policy 
Institute, more Indiana drivers in deadly crashes tested positive for 
drugs than for being alcohol impaired.

    Question 3. What is DOT doing to address drug-inebriated driving 
and how can Congress help?
    Answer. The Department, and specifically NHTSA, received an 
additional $5M in FY 2018 and $7M in FY 2019 to address impaired 
driving. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 
received $2.3 million award to increase the number of law enforcement 
officers who are trained as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) and in 
Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). NHTSA also 
supports development and delivery of drug impaired driving education 
and technical assistance for prosecutors and judges.
    In addition, we are proactive in identifying areas to target with 
specific campaigns for impaired driving. Recently, the following ads 
have been launched in select markets:

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different, Drive High Get a 
        DUI campaign (released August 2018).

   There is More Than One Way to be Under the Influence (for 
        prescription and over the counter drugs) (released 2019)

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different campaign (the 
        social norming version) (released 2019).
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            Hon. Joel Szabat
    Question 1. While we need to prepare for the commercialization of 
highly automated vehicles, most new vehicles already have technologies 
that control braking, steering, and acceleration. Do you believe 
technologies like autonomous emergency braking and forward collision 
warning should be standard on all vehicles?
    Answer. The Department, and specifically NHTSA, supports the 
widespread adoption of proven and mature safety technologies. Our 
research and those of others has identified substantive safety benefits 
associated with various types of advanced driver assistance systems 
(ADAS) available to consumers today, such as automatic emergency 
braking (AEB) and forward collision warning (FCW).
    NHTSA continues to conduct a variety of activities related to AEB 
and FCW technologies. In November 2015, NHTSA added these technologies 
to its New Car Assessment Program, including testing for crash imminent 
braking and dynamic brake support system performance in vehicles 
beginning with model year 2018.
    In March 2016, 20 automakers made a historic voluntary commitment 
to NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to equip 
virtually all new passenger vehicles with low-speed AEB that includes 
FCW by September 1, 2022. During the reporting period, September 1, 
2018, through August 31, 2019, 12 manufacturers equipped more than 75 
percent of their new passenger vehicles with AEB and 20 manufacturers 
equipped more than 9.5 million new passenger vehicles with AEB. 
Manufacturers have made great strides in providing advanced safety to 
consumers compared to just 2 years ago, when only 30 percent of their 
new vehicles were equipped with AEB.
    Additionally, NHTSA continues to perform research on other ADAS 
that help drivers avoid crashes.

    Question 2. How is DOT approaching the human-machine interface 
between operators--whether that be drivers, pilots, or locomotive 
engineers--and the increasingly complex automated systems they are 
operating? What is DOT doing to ensure appropriate operator engagement, 
particularly in passenger vehicles, with automated technologies that 
perform part or all of the operating function?
    Answer. No matter the mode of transportation, safety is 
fundamentally a human responsibility. There are open human factors 
questions around potential misuse, disuse, and abuse of ADAS 
technologies, and whether design approaches can help mitigate 
foreseeable safety concerns. NHTSA is very active in researching 
effective strategies around managing driving vigilance in the context 
of automated driving, and has published guidance on human-machine-
interface design for SAE L2 and L3 systems.
    While we need to prepare for the commercialization of highly 
automated vehicles, most new vehicles already have technologies that 
control braking, steering, and acceleration.

    Question 3. What did DOT and NHTSA know about Uber's autonomous 
technologies and its testing program before the fatal crash in Tempe, 
Arizona? What data are you collecting about all automated technology 
testing to properly analyze any potential risk to the public?
    Answer. The Department and NHTSA were aware of Uber's autonomous 
technologies and testing program in Tempe, Arizona. As the NTSB report 
identifies, there were multiple potential failure points at all levels 
that led to this outcome. We take to heart the need to learn from this 
horrific incident, and appreciate the ongoing investigatory work being 
done by NHTSA, and take very seriously the NTSB recommendations.
    NHTSA employs numerous research approaches to explore the safety 
performance assessment of new technologies. These include: controlled 
track testing at our applied research labs (Vehicle Research and Test 
Center), naturalistic driving experiments with highly-instrumented 
vehicles, larger scale naturalistic studies that leverage connectivity 
that are being built into modern vehicles, and modeling and simulation 
approaches that synthesize findings across various methods.
    NHTSA collects real-world crash data on ADAS technologies in both 
its crash record and investigation-based data systems. The collection 
is focused on two categories of data: vehicles that are equipped with 
ADAS (equipped) and vehicles that are both equipped with the ADAS and 
the ADAS is in use during the crash (usage). The investigation-based 
systems can collect specific detailed information on each technology 
for both equipped and use. The record-based data system relies on the 
information contained in the police crash reports. The police crash 
report data is typically collected based on the recommendation in the 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria.
    There are challenges in determining whether a vehicle involved in a 
crash is equipped with ADAS and whether the ADAS is in use during a 
crash event. These challenges impact the quality of the real-world 
crash data. NHTSA would benefit from ``build sheet data'' for 
determining whether the vehicle is equipped. The only method to 
definitively determine usage would be through direct evaluation of the 
data recorded in the vehicle. While at least one manufacturer provides 
usage information in the event data recorder output, NHTSA 
investigators primarily rely on physical evidence and interviews for 
determining usage. In high profile investigations, NHTSA has requested 
the data from the manufacturer.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                            Hon. Joel Szabat
    Question 1. How is the Department of Transportation currently 
working to ensure that individuals with disabilities are involved in 
the development process of autonomous vehicles in order to ensure that 
they will have access to this technology?
    Answer. In AV 3.0, DOT recognized the potential of automation 
technologies to enhance individual freedom by expanding access to safe 
and independent mobility to people with disabilities and older 
Americans. The Department has focused on ensuring these stakeholders 
are part of our development process and their feedback is critical to 
our success. Over the past three years, USDOT increased investment in 
accessibility-related research by approximately 50 percent. These new 
investments demonstrate the Department's continued commitment to 
innovations that enhance access and mobility for all.
    On October 29, 2019, DOT hosted the Access and Mobility for All 
Summit to raise awareness of DOT and announced nearly $50 million in 
new initiatives to expand access to transportation for people with 
disabilities, older adults, and individuals of low income. This 
includes a planned Inclusive Design Challenge, which will make up to $5 
million in cash prizes available to innovators who design solutions to 
enable accessible automated vehicles. DOT aims to increase availability 
and decrease cost of aftermarket modifiers that improve accessibility 
of vehicles today and spark development for future automated vehicles.
    Other initiatives include:

   A planned Complete Trip Deployment solicitation, which will 
        make up to $40 million available to enable communities to 
        showcase innovative business partnerships, technologies, and 
        practices that promote independent mobility for all. ``Complete 
        Trip'' means that a user can get from point A to point B 
        seamlessly, regardless of the number of modes, transfers, and 
        connections.

   A Notice of Funding Opportunity for FTA's FY 2020 Mobility 
        for All Pilot Program. The program seeks to improve mobility 
        options and access to community services for older adults, 
        individuals with disabilities, and people with low incomes. The 
        $3.5 million initiative will fund projects that enhance 
        transportation connections to jobs, education, and health 
        services.

   A strategic plan for the Coordinating Council on Access and 
        Mobility (CCAM), an interagency partnership to coordinate the 
        efforts of Federal agencies funding transportation services for 
        targeted populations. The strategic plan will help provide 
        better transportation outcomes through the coordination of more 
        than 130 government-wide programs.

    Updates on these initiatives will be posted at 
www.transportation.gov/accessibility when available.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Question 1. Dr. Owens, as I mentioned before, NHTSA has taken 
several actions to encourage the safe deployment of AVs, including a 
rulemaking proceeding to update crash avoidance safety standards for 
areas where they are currently incompatible with AVs. When does the 
agency expect this rulemaking to be finalized?
    Answer. NHTSA is currently evaluating the public comments and 
additional available information to determine next steps. NHTSA expects 
to announce the next steps for this rulemaking in the 2020 Spring 
Unified Agenda for Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

    Question 2. Does NHTSA plan to issue rulemaking proceedings in the 
future to address additional series of safety standards, such as 
crashworthiness?
    Answer. Yes.
    Dr. Owens, you mentioned in your testimony that research will be a 
critical component of NHTSA and the Department's efforts to develop a 
regulatory framework for AVs.

    Question 3. Can you speak to some of the research currently being 
conducted by the agency, and describe how you believe it will inform 
future motor vehicle safety standards?
    Answer. NHTSA is conducting research into various aspects of 
Automated Driving Systems (ADSs), including:

   Challenges existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
        may pose for vehicles with ADSs that have innovative interior 
        and/or exterior designs, and whether translations or 
        alternative test protocols can demonstrate compliance with 
        existing standards;

   Methods and metrics for assessing safety performance of ADS-
        equipped vehicles, including track testing, simulation testing, 
        and potential on-road testing components;

   Methods to assess critical subcomponents of ADS, such as 
        Perception and Prediction;

   New tools and methods to assess crashworthiness of ADS-
        equipped vehicles that may offer novel seating configurations 
        and occupant postures;

    Collectively, NHTSA's research will help build a safety resume 
around the testing and validation of ADSs while allowing innovation for 
the developers.
    NHTSA presented more details of its research in these topic areas 
at its Public Research Meetings held on November 19-20, 2019. The 
slides can be found in docket NHTSA-2019-0083, and recordings of 
sessions have been made available to the public at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/event/research-public-meeting-2019.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Nebraska is seeing an increase in the number of drug-related 
crashes. In Grand Island, Nebraska, police report that the percentage 
of DUIs involving drugs like marijuana has risen from 16 percent four 
years ago to 39 percent now. Law enforcement is doing the best it can, 
but there is still not a reliable roadside breathalyzer test for 
marijuana-use, or a uniform standard to measure marijuana-use.
    Question 1. Aside from NHTSA's work on public awareness, what 
efforts is the agency taking to address drugged driving?
    Answer. NHTSA continues to support law enforcement training on 
drug-impaired driving, as well as training for prosecutors and judges, 
including:

   Expanding Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement 
        (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training to law 
        enforcement and other criminal justice professionals;

   Providing a Transportation Safety Institute course to 
        improve courtroom preparation and communication between 
        prosecutors and toxicologists;

   Supporting the development and delivery of drug-impaired 
        driving education and technical assistance for prosecutors and 
        judges; and

   Supporting DWI courts--criminal justice programs that 
        incorporate drug and alcohol treatment with the goal of 
        reducing recidivism in high-risk DWI offenders.

    NHTSA also released Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Toolkit: A Guide to 
Assist Law Enforcement Agencies With Planning and Implementing a 
Phlebotomy Program. This report shares best practices from agencies 
that have implemented phlebotomy programs.
    In addition to these ongoing program efforts, NHTSA has many 
innovative research projects underway to advance the science on this 
important issue. For example, NHTSA is investigating whether a 
behavioral or cognitive roadside test could indicate potential 
impairment use as well as studying the feasibility of a standardized 
protocol to assess the driving impairment risk of drugs. NHTSA is also 
evaluating the accuracy of new on-site oral fluid screening devices 
that could be used by law enforcement to screen drivers for drug use in 
a matter of minutes.

    Question 2. Additionally, are there actions Congress should take 
that would help address drugged driving?
    Answer. NHTSA appreciates Congress' support of our efforts to 
combat drugged driving, and we would be pleased to work with the 
Committee and provide technical assistance in this area.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Question 1. Many stakeholders have requested that AVs meet safety 
standards such as a ``vision test'' to assure that driverless vehicles 
are able to effectively identify and navigate other types of roadway 
users like motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists. What is your 
agency's position on prescribing such standards?
    Answer. NHTSA's portfolio includes research into potential 
assessment methods for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) subsystems, such 
as Perception systems for object detection and object classification. 
Perception testing is an emerging area that crosscuts various 
disciplines of engineering, and is considered one of the most 
challenging functions to test and validate. Research results will guide 
whether an objective and practical Perception test can be viable for 
the variety of ADS concepts under development.

    Follow up. Would third party verification of such standards be an 
approach that you would recommend?
    Answer. NHTSA is involved in researching safety performance methods 
and metrics, regardless of who conducts such testing. When methods are 
objective, repeatable, and reproducible, it does not matter who 
performs the tests. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 created a self-certification regime, and manufacturers are free 
to use whatever method they choose to certify their vehicles to 
existing standards--including third party verification--but are legally 
required to exercise reasonable care in doing so.

    Question 2. As AV technology and testing continues to increase, 
does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) support 
transparent reporting by manufacturers of test results so that members 
of the public can review the data?
    Answer. NHTSA is encouraged by the release of data and scenarios by 
some of the Automated Driving Systems (ADS) developers. This 
information, along with Voluntary Safety Self Assessments, contributes 
to the public transparency around safety of ADSs.

    Follow up. Specifically, would searchable data about how these new 
products interact with non-AV roadway users like motorcyclists, 
pedestrians and cyclists be an important tool for the public?
    Answer. Searchable data could contribute to public transparency. 
However, a searchable database may be difficult to implement in a 
commonly formatted manner, and to maintain as products evolve 
continuously.

    Question 3. Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) initiated rulemaking on an AV Pilot Program, 
which would use existing DOT authority to create a pathway to 
deployment. However, there has been no movement on this program since 
the comments were due in 2018. What is holding up progress on this 
program moving forward?
    Answer. NHTSA is reviewing comments and identifying potential next 
steps.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    In 2017, there were 287 crashes attributed to illegal drug use in 
Kansas. Eighty-three people lost their lives in these crashes. Studies 
have found that marijuana use impairs a person's judgment, 
concentration and reaction time. Yet NHTSA found from 2007-2014 that 
there was a 48 percent increase in drivers testing positive for 
marijuana.
    Question 1. What recommendations would you provide to address this 
issue both at a Federal and local level?
    Answer. NHTSA is dedicated to raising awareness of the dangers of 
drug-impaired driving.
    We are proactive in identifying areas to target with specific 
campaigns for impaired driving.
    Recently, NHTSA launched the following advertisements in select 
markets:

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different, Drive High Get a 
        DUI campaign (released August 2018);

   There is More Than One Way to be Under the Influence (for 
        prescription and over the counter drugs) (released 2019); and

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different campaign (the 
        social norming version) (released 2019).

    NHTSA continues to support local law enforcement training on drug-
impaired driving, as well as training for prosecutors and judges, 
including:

   Expanding Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement 
        (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training to law 
        enforcement and other criminal justice professionals;

   Providing a Transportation Safety Institute course to 
        improve courtroom preparation and communication between 
        prosecutors and toxicologists;

   Supporting the development and delivery of drug-impaired 
        driving education and technical assistance for prosecutors and 
        judges; and

   Supporting DWI courts--criminal justice programs that 
        incorporate drug and alcohol treatment with the goal of 
        reducing recidivism in high-risk DWI offenders.

    NHTSA also released Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Toolkit: A Guide to 
Assist Law Enforcement Agencies With Planning and Implementing a 
Phlebotomy Program. This report shares best practices from agencies 
that have implemented phlebotomy programs.
    In addition to these ongoing program efforts, NHTSA has many 
innovative research projects underway to advance the science on this 
important issue. For example, NHTSA is investigating whether a 
behavioral or cognitive roadside test could indicate potential 
impairment use and studying the feasibility of a standardized protocol 
to assess the driving impairment risk of drugs. NHTSA is also 
evaluating the accuracy of new on-site oral fluid screening devices 
that could be used by law enforcement to screen drivers for drug use in 
a matter of minutes.

    Question 2. Is it critical for local law enforcement to have the 
equipment needed for reliable roadside drug tests?
    Answer. The detection of driver drug impairment typically takes 
place as a result of a law enforcement officer observing inappropriate 
driving behavior. The officer will form a suspicion of impairment based 
on observations, such as the appearance of the driver (e.g., face 
flushed, speech slurred, odor of alcoholic beverages on breath), 
behavior of the driver, and any statements the driver has made about 
alcohol or drug use. The officer's observations and subsequent evidence 
collection are sufficient to support an impaired driving prosecution.
    Recently, on-site oral fluid drug screening devices have been 
commercially developed and marketed to law enforcement agencies, with 
manufacturers claiming that they provide a relatively quick and easy 
indication of a driver's drug use. Devices typically screen for the 
presence of five to seven different drug categories.
    Availability of real-time information on a driver's drug use could 
increase the likelihood that law enforcement officers apprehend and 
prosecutors charge drug-impaired drivers. However, the accuracy and 
reliability of these on-site screening test devices compared to 
laboratory-based confirmatory tests have not been clearly established. 
NHTSA is currently conducting research designed to provide preliminary 
information on the accuracy, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity 
of some of these devices.

    Follow up. Can you provide any insight on the development and 
availability of this technology to measure marijuana inebriation, and 
how Congress can help prevent further deaths from illegal drug use of 
drivers?
    Answer. While this technology has the potential to identify the 
presence of marijuana, quantitative analyses of marijuana levels in the 
human body do not correlate well to level of impairment. One of the 
difficulties is that the marijuana level in blood (or oral fluid) does 
not appear to be an accurate and reliable predictor of impairment from 
marijuana. Also, the drug data for fatal crashes has limitations, 
including lack of consistent policies and procedures across States, 
across jurisdictions within States, and even across testing labs within 
the same jurisdiction. More research is needed into the relationship 
between marijuana levels at the time of the crash, the degree of 
driving impairment, and the associated risk of a fatal crash before 
producing an accurate estimate.
    NHTSA is investigating whether a behavioral or cognitive roadside 
test could indicate potential impairment as well as studying the 
feasibility of a standardized protocol to assess the driving impairment 
risk of drugs. The agency is also evaluating the accuracy of new on-
site oral fluid screening devices that could be used by law enforcement 
to screen drivers for drug use in a matter of minutes.
    While research is ongoing, NHTSA has developed tools for use by law 
enforcement in detecting and prosecuting drivers impaired by marijuana:

   NHTSA manages of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program 
        with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 
        supported development of the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving 
        Enforcement training (ARIDE).

   Recently, NHTSA released the Law Enforcement Phlebotomy 
        Toolkit: A Guide to Assist Law Enforcement Agencies With 
        Planning and Implementing a Phlebotomy Program. The report 
        shares best practices from agencies that have implemented 
        phlebotomy programs.

    NHTSA appreciates Congress' support of our efforts on drugged 
driving, and we would be pleased to work with the Committee and provide 
technical assistance in this area.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    I'm concerned that if we bifurcate the regulatory environment for 
small and large vehicles we will delay these life-saving and life-
changing benefits AV technology can bring to all Americans.
    Question 1. Considering that truck-involved crashes tend to be 
serious and often involve other road users--do you see a reason why 
development of technologies such as advanced driver-assistance systems 
or AV should be limited to passenger vehicles?
    Answer. No. NHTSA encourages safe development and deployment of 
life saving technologies on all vehicle platforms.

    Follow up. As we contemplate a legislative framework for autonomous 
vehicles, should vehicles above 10,000 pounds be included?
    Answer. Yes. NHTSA's research to date in Automated Driving Systems 
(ADS) has been agnostic to vehicle class. To date, we have not 
identified any reason to separately consider ADS in passenger vehicles 
and large trucks.
    According to data from the Indiana University Public Policy 
Institute, more Indiana drivers in deadly crashes tested positive for 
drugs than for being alcohol impaired.

    Question 2. What is NHTSA doing to address drug-inebriated driving 
and what progress have you made?
    Answer. NHTSA is dedicated to raising awareness of the dangers of 
drug-impaired driving.
    We are proactive in identifying areas to target with specific 
campaigns for impaired driving.
    Recently, NHTSA launched the following advertisements in select 
markets:

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different, Drive High Get a 
        DUI campaign (released August 2018);

   There is More Than One Way to be Under the Influence (for 
        prescription and over the counter drugs) (released 2019); and

   If You Feel Different, You Drive Different campaign (the 
        social norming version) (released 2019).

    NHTSA continues to support law enforcement training on drug-
impaired driving, as well as training for prosecutors and judges, 
including:

   Expanding Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement 
        (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training to law 
        enforcement and other criminal justice professionals;

   Providing a Transportation Safety Institute course to 
        improve courtroom preparation and communication between 
        prosecutors and toxicologists;

   Supporting the development and delivery of drug-impaired 
        driving education and technical assistance for prosecutors and 
        judges; and

   Supporting DWI courts--criminal justice programs that 
        incorporate drug and alcohol treatment with the goal of 
        reducing recidivism in high-risk DWI offenders.

    NHTSA also released Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Toolkit: A Guide to 
Assist Law Enforcement Agencies With Planning and Implementing a 
Phlebotomy Program. This report shares best practices from agencies 
that have implemented phlebotomy programs.
    In addition to these ongoing program efforts, NHTSA has many 
innovative research projects underway to advance the science on this 
important issue. For example, NHTSA is investigating whether a 
behavioral or cognitive roadside test could indicate potential 
impairment use as well as studying the feasibility of a standardized 
protocol to assess the driving impairment risk of drugs. NHTSA is also 
evaluating the accuracy of new on-site oral fluid screening devices 
that could be used by law enforcement to screen drivers for drug use in 
a matter of minutes.

    Follow up. How can Congress help?
    Answer. NHTSA appreciates Congress' support of our efforts on 
drugged driving, and we would be pleased to work with the Committee and 
provide technical assistance in this area.

    Question 3. Can you confirm that Uber has submitted its Voluntary 
Safety Self-Assessment disclosure?
    Answer. According to our records, Uber published its Voluntary 
Safety Self-Assessment on November 2, 2018. It is indexed at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/automated-drivingsystems/voluntary-safety-self-
assessment.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Question 1. While we need to prepare for the commercialization of 
highly automated vehicles, most new vehicles already have technologies 
that control braking, steering, and acceleration. Do you believe 
technologies like autonomous emergency braking and forward collision 
warning should be standard on all vehicles?
    Answer. NHTSA supports the widespread adoption of proven and mature 
safety technologies. Our research and those of others identified 
substantive safety benefits associated with various types of advanced 
driver assistance systems (ADAS) available to consumers today, such as 
automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning (FCW).
    NHTSA continues to conduct a variety of activities related to AEB 
and FCW technologies. In November 2015, NHTSA added these technologies 
to its New Car Assessment Program that included testing for crash 
imminent braking and dynamic brake support system performance in 
vehicles beginning with model year 2018.
    In March 2016, 20 automakers made a historic voluntary commitment 
to NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to equip 
virtually all new passenger vehicles with low-speed AEB that includes 
forward collision warning by September 1, 2022. During the reporting 
period, September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019, 12 manufacturers 
equipped more than 75 percent of their new passenger vehicles with AEB 
and 20 manufacturers equipped more than 9.5 million new passenger 
vehicles with AEB. Manufacturers have made great strides in providing 
advanced safety to consumers compared to just 2 years ago, when only 30 
percent of their new vehicles were equipped with AEB.
    Additionally, NHTSA continues to perform research on ADAS that help 
the drivers avoid crashes.

    Question 2. What is NHTSA doing to ensure level 1 and level 2 
technologies which require driver engagement, are operated in a safe 
way?
    Answer. NHTSA has been performing human factors research across the 
full spectrum of driving automation systems as well as advanced driver 
assistance systems. The agency published two guidance documents on 
human factors design principles for driver-vehicle interfaces,\1\ and 
for level 2 and level 3 automated driving concepts.\2\ We continue to 
perform research on novel human machine interface concepts that are 
being introduced in the market, as well as effectiveness of attention 
management approaches employed by manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812360_humanfactorsdesigngui
dance.pdf
    \2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
13494_812555_l2l3automation
hfguidance.pdf

    Question 3. What data does NHTSA currently collect regarding the 
performance of level 1 and level 2 technologies, and what additional 
data is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these 
technologies?
    Answer. NHTSA employs numerous research approaches to explore the 
safety performance assessment of new technologies. These include 
controlled track testing at our applied research labs (Vehicle Research 
and Test Center), naturalistic driving experiments with highly 
instrumented vehicles, larger scale naturalistic studies that leverage 
connectivity that are being built into modern vehicles, and modeling 
and simulation approaches that synthesize findings across various 
methods.
    NHTSA collects real-world crash data on advanced driver assistance 
systems (ADAS) technologies in both its crash record and investigation-
based data systems. The collection is focused on two categories of 
data: vehicles that are equipped with ADAS (equipped) and vehicles that 
are both equipped with the ADAS and the ADAS is in use during the crash 
(usage). The investigation-based systems can collect specific detailed 
information on each technology for both equipped and use. The record-
based data system relies on the information contained in the police 
crash reports. The police crash report data is typically collected 
based on the recommendation in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 
(MMUCC).
    There are challenges in determining whether a vehicle involved in a 
crash is equipped with ADAS and whether the ADAS is in use during a 
crash event. These challenges impact the quality of the real-world 
crash data. NHTSA would benefit from ``build sheet data'' for 
determining whether the vehicle is equipped. The only method to 
definitively determine usage would be through direct evaluation of the 
data recorded in the vehicle. While at least one manufacturer provides 
usage information in the event data recorder output, NHTSA 
investigators primarily rely on physical evidence and interviews for 
determining usage. In high profile investigations, NHTSA has requested 
the data from the manufacturer.

    Question 4. What did DOT and NHTSA know about Uber's autonomous 
technologies and its testing program before the fatal crash in Tempe, 
Arizona? What data are you collecting about all automated technology 
testing to properly analyze any potential risk to the public?
    Answer. NHTSA regulates and oversees the safety of motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not regulate the testing of 
advanced technologies, but rather provides recommendations to State 
partners who may take such action. Automated Driving Systems (ADS) 2.0 
provided such guidance and recommendations to States. Further, NHTSA 
encourages industry to develop best practices guidance for safe on-road 
testing of prototype systems. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
J3018 was established and revised to provide testing safety guidance to 
developers including on the selection, training, and monitoring of 
safety drivers.

    Question 5. The School of Engineering at the University of 
Washington demonstrated in 2015 that hackers were able to remotely take 
control of a car. There have been several other incidents that 
demonstrate that cybersecurity weaknesses can be exploited and pose 
dangers to the driving public. How does NHTSA identify and respond to 
potential cyber vulnerabilities? Why hasn't NHTSA updated its 
cybersecurity best practices yet and when will that be completed? What 
specific expertise does NHTSA currently possess to evaluate potential 
cyber vulnerabilities in all vehicles?
    Answer. NHTSA has been very active in researching vehicle 
cybersecurity topics, helping and encouraging the industry to 
continually improve the cybersecurity posture of their vehicle 
platforms and also their preparedness to respond to incidents. We have 
encouraged and supported the establishment of the Automotive-
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC), published best 
practices guidance, convened annual meetings in partnership with SAE 
International bringing together different groups to discuss hard 
cybersecurity challenges in the automotive world, and led by example in 
participating in well-established large scale cyber exercises, along 
with industry such as the biannual Cyberstorm exercises organized by 
the Department of Homeland Security. Internally, we have established 
working groups and incident response processes to ensure risks are 
appropriately and expeditiously assessed and appropriate actions are 
taken for the responsible parties to address potential safety risks. To 
support this activity, we have established an applied cybersecurity lab 
at Vehicle Research and Test Center to be able to independently assess 
the validity and risks of identified issues.
    Additionally, NHTSA is working on updates to its current 
cybersecurity best practices.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Vehicle Recall. As vehicles become increasingly connected through 
automation and mobile applications, transportation safety remains a 
priority for me. Recent reports have found that one in six vehicles 
used to transport Uber and Lyft passengers have at least one open 
recall and that neither app alerts passengers in these situations. In 
September, I led a letter to NHTSA with Senators Cantwell, Blumenthal, 
and Markey asking how NHTSA can work with rideshare companies to notify 
consumers about vehicles with open recalls.
    Question 1. In your view, does NHTSA have adequate data regarding 
the use of Uber and Lyft vehicles with recalls nationwide to ensure 
passenger safety?
    Answer. NHTSA currently does not have data regarding the use of 
Uber and Lyft vehicles with recalls.

    Question 2. What can NHTSA do to work with ridesharing companies to 
ensure that consumers are aware if the cars they are riding in have 
open recalls?
    Answer. While NHTSA has authority to enforce Federal laws requiring 
manufacturers to provide timely notice of and a free remedy for any 
motor vehicle defect that affects motor vehicle safety, there is no 
Federal law requiring vehicle owners (including rideshare vehicle 
owners) to complete open recall repairs or inform passengers of open 
recalls. NHTSA's efforts in this area to date have been focused on 
encouraging the ridesharing companies to work with the independent 
drivers who own the vehicles used to provide the services to have open 
recalls addressed. NHTSA recently met with Lyft and Uber executives and 
technical representatives to encourage these companies to incentivize 
drivers to check their vehicles for open recalls and to complete remedy 
work. Separately, NHTSA works closely with vehicle manufacturers to 
deliver effective recall notices and utilize other means of 
communication that increase recall completion rates.
    In addition to our meetings with ridesharing companies, NHTSA is 
planning a pilot outreach program to provide on-the-spot safety recall 
checks for rideshare drivers and their vehicles at the U.S. Department 
of Transportation headquarters and other locations here in Washington, 
D.C. We anticipate this program will provide NHTSA with some 
preliminary data and understanding of how best to communicate the 
urgency of the issue and to motivate both ridesharing companies and 
vehicle owners to have open recalls completed in a timely manner. If 
successful, this program could be expanded to additional geographic 
areas and targeted at locations with high concentrations of rideshare 
vehicles.
    These existing tools and efforts provide ridesharing companies with 
the means to set their own policies regarding the use of a vehicle 
subject to an open recall and to notify customers of the existence of 
an open recall on the vehicle being used to provide the ridesharing 
services.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. According to a recent report by 
the AAA foundation, automatic emergency braking systems failed 60 
percent of the time to stop a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour 
before hitting a pedestrian. When tested with child mannequins, these 
systems failed 89 percent of the time.
    This rate of failure is unacceptable, especially when we are facing 
a national safety crisis on our streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. 
According to years of NHTSA data, pedestrian and bicyclist fatality 
rates are on the rise. In fact, NHTSA recently reported that more 
pedestrians and cyclists were killed in 2018 than in any year since 
1990.
    Question 1. How will NHTSA ensure that autonomous vehicle 
technology can detect, identify and respond to pedestrians, bicyclists 
and all other users of the road?
    Answer. NHTSA has a comprehensive research program in pedestrian 
safety that can help facilitate the advancement of pedestrian 
detection. Many trim levels of modern vehicles available to consumers 
offer advanced driver assistance systems, including Pedestrian 
Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB) systems. NHTSA has recently 
published its work on potential test methods and performance metrics 
that could help assess PAEB system performance. NHTSA plans to expand 
this work in 2020 to include pedalcyclists.
    Vehicles that may feature higher levels of driving automation 
(often referred to as Automated Driving Systems or ADS, SAE levels 3-5) 
are still under testing and development. If ADS-equipped vehicles are 
to operate in environments (operational domains) that include 
pedestrians and bicyclists, NHTSA expects that manufacturers would 
include object detection and response capabilities for those scenarios 
and that those scenarios would be validated and verified. Our active 
research in advanced driver assistance systems and ADS subsystems 
research underway consider these safety assurance needs.

    Question 2. Are you currently testing autonomous vehicle technology 
with pedestrians?
    Answer. NHTSA has been developing Pedestrian Automatic Emergency 
Braking (PAEB) test procedures and conducting tests with current model 
year vehicles that have advanced driver assistance systems.

    Question 3. Are you currently testing autonomous vehicle technology 
with bicyclists?
    Answer. NHTSA plans to initiate pedalcyclist crash avoidance 
testing in 2020.

    Question 4. Are you currently testing autonomous vehicle technology 
with people in wheelchairs?
    Answer. NHTSA is not currently performing advanced driver 
assistance technology testing for their ability to detect and respond 
to persons in wheelchairs. However, we are actively monitoring crash 
risk trends.

    Question 5. Are you currently testing autonomous vehicle technology 
with People on scooters or using other mobility devices?
    Answer. NHTSA is not currently conducting testing involving people 
on scooters or other mobility devices. NHTSA continues to monitor the 
safety issues surrounding scooters and other personal conveyance 
devices relative to the capabilities of current and emerging vehicle 
technologies.

    Question 6. The United States Global Change Research Program issued 
a Climate Science Special Report as part of the Fourth National Climate 
Assessment, developed in conjunction with the Department of 
Transportation and 12 other Federal agencies. This report concluded 
that ``human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are 
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th 
century.'' \3\ Do you agree with this finding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National 
Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, 
D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change 
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. NHTSA is considering the information in the Climate Science 
Special Report along with a wide array of other studies and data as it 
prepares the Final Environmental Impact Statement for its Safer 
Affordable Fuel Efficient vehicles rule.

    Question 7. The Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) for 
the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 
2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks includes divergent estimates 
of how much more expensive new vehicles will be under the current fuel 
economy standards compared to the proposed alternative of freezing 
standards at 2020 levels. On page 1340, the PRIA states that the 
``results of this analysis project that vehicle prices will be nearly 
$1,900 higher under the augural CAFE standards compared to the 
preferred alternative that would hold stringency at MY 2020 levels in 
MYs 2021-2026,'' while on page 100, it states that, ``the analysis 
suggests that, compared to the proposed standards today, the 
previously-issued standards would increase average vehicle prices by 
about $2,100.'' Can you provide a mathematical explanation for the 
discrepancy between these figures?
    Answer. NHTSA and EPA are reviewing and carefully considering all 
comments to the 2018 SAFE proposal as we develop the upcoming final 
rule.

    Question 8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff have raised 
concerns over NHTSA's air quality modeling in the PRIA, writing, ``It 
seems peculiar that some increase while others decrease; it's 
especially counter-intuitive that toxics go down while VOC goes up.'' 
\4\ How does NHTSA justify this conclusion, which EPA analysts have 
called into question?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ E-mail 5--E-mail from William Charmley to Chandana Achanta--
June 18, 2018 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283], https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283-0453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. NHTSA and EPA are reviewing and carefully considering all 
comments to the 2018 SAFE proposal as we develop the upcoming final 
rule.

    Question 9. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the SAFE 
Vehicles Rule states that freezing the standards at MY 2020 levels will 
result in 12,700 avoided deaths over the lifetime of the program, 
compared to the current standards. An EPA-revised analysis found that 
not only would the rollback not result in avoided deaths, it would 
actually cause an additional 17 fatalities per year from 2036-2045--a 
major, alarming difference from the published estimate.\5\ In the 
published NPRM, it does not appear that EPA's suggested changes to 
NHTSA's model were included nor that the technical concerns were 
remedied. Why did NHTSA not accept EPA's edits to the model?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ E-mail 5--E-mail from William Charmley to Chandana Achanta--
June 18, 2018 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283], https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283-0453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. NHTSA and EPA are reviewing and carefully considering all 
comments to the 2018 SAFE proposal as we develop the upcoming final 
rule.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                           Dr. James C. Owens
    Question. How specifically is the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration working to address the challenges of integrating 
autonomous vehicles in rural areas?
    Answer. NHTSA is focused on methods, metrics, and approaches that 
can assess the safety performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment, including automated driving functions. While we do not 
particularly focus on rural or urban applications, we are cognizant 
that safety risks and scenarios that could be encountered by Automated 
Driving Systems could vary based on operational design domains. If 
through research there are specific safety hazards and risks identified 
that could be unique to rollout of ADS in rural settings, we would seek 
methods that would take that into account.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                       Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III
    In 2017, there were 287 crashes attributed to illegal drug use in 
Kansas. Eighty-three people lost their lives in these crashes. Studies 
have found that marijuana use impairs a person's judgment, 
concentration and reaction time. Yet NHTSA found from 2007-2014 that 
there was a 48 percent increase in drivers testing positive for 
marijuana.
    Question 1. What recommendations would you provide to address this 
issue both at a Federal and local level?
    Answer. The NTSB has a long history of investigating accidents 
across all modes of transportation that involved misuse of alcohol and 
other drugs, and impairment remains a leading cause of crashes on our 
Nation's roadways. Drivers who are impaired by drugs other than alcohol 
present unique challenges, as well as significant opportunities to 
effectively address this important topic, such as improving and 
updating data on drugged driving, strengthening and standardizing 
toxicology procedures, and applying demonstrated law enforcement drug-
detection techniques. The NTSB has several key recommendations in these 
areas.
    As you point out, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA's) National Roadside Survey (NRS) found a 48-
percent increase in drivers testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol 
(THC) from 2007 to 2014.\1\ Unfortunately, the NRS has not been 
conducted since 2014, and updated data are critical to understanding 
the scope of impaired driving, developing efficacious policy, and 
effectively distributing resources. The Federal government can play a 
critical role in addressing impaired driving by facilitating the 
collection of drugged driving data through the NRS, as well as by 
promoting the toxicology best practices described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration. ``Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside 
Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers.'' Washington, DC: NHTSA; 
2015. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812118-
roadside_survey_
2014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike for alcohol, no standardized drug-testing procedure exists, 
and there is no established limit or threshold to determine drug 
impairment. This results in inconsistent drug-testing practices 
across--and within--states. As a result of our investigations, and to 
address this known problem, we have recommended that Federal regulators 
develop a common standard of practice for drug toxicology testing, 
including the circumstances under which tests should be conducted, a 
minimum set of drugs for which to test, and cutoff values for reporting 
the results.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
12-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have recommended that states include in their highway safety 
plans provisions for high-visibility enforcement of impaired driving 
laws using passive alcohol-sensing technology during law enforcement 
contacts, such as routine traffic stops, saturation patrols, sobriety 
checkpoints, and accident scene responses.\3\ Law enforcement efforts 
specific to detecting drugs are also critical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
13-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional related safety recommendations are attached.
    It is critical for local law enforcement to have the equipment 
needed for reliable roadside drug tests.

    Question 2. I would appreciate any insight you can provide on the 
development and availability of this technology to measure marijuana 
inebriation, and how Congress can help prevent further deaths from 
illegal drug use of drivers.
    Answer. Detecting drugs in drivers is critical to both enforcement 
and deterrence. Currently, when a driver is stopped by law enforcement, 
it is up to the officer to determine if the individual is impaired. 
Evaluating the impact of drugs on a driver's performance is challenging 
because many drugs impair individuals differently than alcohol, and 
there are hundreds of different drugs--illicit and legal--available to 
users. As a result, unlike alcohol where a toxicology parameter (such 
as blood alcohol level) may be used to infer a driver's impairment, 
testing positive for other drugs does not necessarily mean an 
individual was actively impaired by that drug at the time of driving. 
Thus, effectively identifying drug-impaired driving requires 
demonstrating drug use through roadside and laboratory toxicology 
testing that documents driver substance use and law enforcement 
observations that indicate actual driver impairment.
    Roadside oral fluid drug-testing devices may be an important early 
investigative step in detecting drug presence in drivers. As opposed to 
waiting lengthy periods of time for laboratory testing, roadside oral 
fluid devices can provide quick, qualitative (above or below certain 
drug threshold) results for a number of common drugs. The accuracy of 
this technology is rapidly improving and is supported by emerging 
research. After examining available roadside testing equipment, we 
concluded that oral fluid drug-screening devices can improve law 
enforcement officers' ability to detect drug-impaired drivers. Several 
oral fluid drug-screening devices are now available; however, their 
overall performance varies based on the type of device and drug classes 
for which they test. We have recommended that NHTSA develop and 
disseminate best practices, identify model specifications, and create a 
conforming products list for oral fluid drug-screening devices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
18-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roadside oral fluid and laboratory drug testing may provide 
critical information about a driver's history of drug use, but not 
direct evidence of impairment; therefore, it should be supplemented 
with officer documentation and impairment evaluations. Although 
standardized field sobriety tests were designed to detect alcohol 
impairment, additional law enforcement training, such as Advanced 
Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training and the Drug 
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program, is specifically designed 
to help officers recognize impairment by drugs other than alcohol. Law 
enforcement officers trained in the DEC Program as drug recognition 
experts can administer a standardized, postarrest procedure to 
determine if a suspect is impaired by one or more categories of drugs. 
Both ARIDE training and the DEC Program, when used in conjunction with 
roadside oral fluid testing and a standard of practice for drug 
toxicology testing, are critical to detecting drug-impaired drivers.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                       Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III
    Question 1. As AV technology and testing continues to increase, 
does the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) support 
transparent reporting by manufacturers of test results so that members 
of the public can review the data?
    Answer. The NTSB believes that additional data needs to be 
collected and reported to ensure safe automated vehicle (AV) 
development and deployment. Based on our investigation of a crash 
involving a vehicle operating in semiautonomous mode in Williston, 
Florida, we have called on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
and its agencies to define recorded AV data parameters and to require 
manufacturers to report AV crash data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
17-37, H-17-39, and H-17-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the building blocks of AVs--collision avoidance 
technologies, such as forward collision warning and automatic emergency 
braking systems--are available to improve safety today; however, 
consumers need to be informed about their availability and their 
capabilities. Accordingly, we have recommended that vehicle 
manufacturers install these systems as standard equipment in all new 
vehicles, and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) incorporate them into its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) 
rating system.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
15-6, H-15-7, H-15-8, and H-15-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We believe the NCAP is an excellent way to convey test results, 
specifically regarding collision avoidance system performance, to the 
public. Unfortunately, the current NCAP only reports on the presence of 
these systems, not their performance.

    Question 2. Specifically, would searchable data about how these new 
products interact with non-AV roadway users like motorcyclists, 
pedestrians and cyclists be an important tool for the public?
    Answer. To address the increase in the number of vulnerable road 
user fatalities across the nation, the NTSB recently published two 
special investigation reports: one pertaining to pedestrian safety and 
the other examining bicyclist safety. We recommended that NHTSA develop 
performance tests to evaluate automatic pedestrian safety systems and a 
car's ability to avoid crashes with bicycles, and to incorporate such 
systems into the NCAP. Again, we believe consumers need to be more 
aware of the availability of these systems and their performance 
capabilities and limitations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
18-42, H-18-43, and H-19-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                       Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III
    I'm concerned that if we bifurcate the regulatory environment for 
small and large vehicles we will delay these life-saving and life-
changing benefits AV technology can bring to all Americans.
    Question 1. Considering that truck-involved crashes tend to be 
serious and often involve other road users--do you see a reason why 
development of technologies such as advanced driver-assistance systems 
or AV should be limited to passenger vehicles?
    Answer. Automate vehicles (AVs) and the building blocks that go 
into them, such as driver-assistance systems, have great potential to 
improve safety for all road users. Many of the initial recommendations 
we issued regarding collision avoidance systems focused on their use in 
commercial vehicles. Nearly 20 years ago, we published a special 
investigation report, Vehicle-and Infrastructure-Based Technology for 
the Prevention of Rear-End Collisions, in which we recommended that the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complete a 
rulemaking on adaptive cruise control and collision warning system 
performance standards for new commercial vehicles.\8\ In 2015, due to 
NHTSA's inaction, we closed this recommendation unacceptably. We have 
since recommended that NHTSA develop performance standards and 
protocols to assess forward collision avoidance systems in commercial 
vehicles.\9\ This recommendation is currently open, but NHTSA has 
conducted research and, thus far, provided an acceptable response. In 
2018, as a result of several school bus crash investigations, we issued 
a similar recommendation that all new school buses be equipped with 
collision avoidance systems and automatic emergency braking 
technologies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
01-6.
    \9\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
15-5.
    \10\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
18-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although we have recommended and advocated for these advanced 
systems on both passenger and commercial vehicles, and despite the 
technologies having been proven viable, progress toward fleetwide 
implementation of these systems has been disappointingly slow.

    Question 2. As we contemplate a legislative framework for 
autonomous vehicles, should vehicles above 10,000 pounds be included?
    Answer. Yes. We have investigated many crashes in which a 
commercial vehicle struck the rear vehicle in a queue of suddenly 
slowed or stopped traffic. This is a tragically common crash scenario 
that, because of the striking vehicle's weight and average highway 
speed, is nearly always fatal. We continue to recommend and advocate 
for advanced technologies that can avoid or mitigate crashes. Safety 
systems that can avoid a crash in the last moments are critical, 
regardless of if they are employed on a passenger or commercial 
vehicle, or a vehicle driven by a human or an automated system.
    According to data from the Indiana University Public Policy 
Institute, more Indiana drivers in deadly crashes tested positive for 
drugs than for being alcohol impaired.

    Question 3. What is NTSB doing to address drug-inebriated driving 
and how can Congress help?
    Answer. The NTSB has a long history of investigating accidents 
across all modes of transportation that involved misuse of alcohol and 
other drugs, and impairment remains a leading cause of crashes on our 
Nation's roadways. Drivers who are impaired by drugs other than alcohol 
present unique challenges, as well as significant opportunities to 
effectively address this important topic, such as improving and 
updating data on drugged driving, strengthening and standardizing 
toxicology procedures, and applying demonstrated law enforcement drug-
detection techniques. The NTSB has several key recommendations in these 
areas.
    NHTSA's National Roadside Survey (NRS) found a 48-percent increase 
in drivers testing positive for tetrahydrocannabinol from 2007 to 
2014.\11\ Unfortunately, the NRS has not been conducted since 2014, and 
updated data are critical to understanding the scope of impaired 
driving, developing efficacious policy, and effectively distributing 
resources. The Federal government can play a critical role in 
addressing impaired driving by facilitating the collection of drugged 
driving data through the NRS, as well as by promoting the toxicology 
best practices described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration. ``Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside 
Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers.'' Washington, DC: NHTSA; 
2015. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812118-roadside_
survey_2014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike for alcohol, no standardized drug-testing procedure exists, 
and there is no established limit or threshold to determine drug 
impairment. This results in inconsistent drug-testing practices 
across--and within--states. As a result of our investigations, and to 
address this known problem, we have recommended that Federal regulators 
develop a common standard of practice for drug toxicology testing, 
including the circumstances under which tests should be conducted, a 
minimum set of drugs for which to test, and cutoff values for reporting 
the results.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation H-
12-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                       Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III
    Question. The National Transportation Safety Board has done a lot 
of work on human factors. What are the most important issues that 
Congress and the Department of Transportation should focus on to safely 
deploy automated technologies?
    Answer. Automation technologies have the potential to improve 
transportation safety; yet, history has shown that introducing 
automation can lead to new safety challenges. Many automated systems 
rely on human operators to remain vigilant and monitor system 
performance; however, human factors research has shown that humans are 
susceptible to error when performing tasks that require sustained 
vigilance, especially when responding to an unexpected situation. 
Recent high-profile events in highway and aviation have brought these 
issues to light, and the NTSB has responded with specific 
recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its 
modal administrations to foster the safe development and deployment of 
automated technologies in transportation.
    In 2017, we issued a report on the first fatal crash involving a 
car operating in automated mode.\1\ We found that factors such as 
driver overreliance on vehicle automation and vehicle design permitted 
prolonged disengagement from the driving task. Our recommendations to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the DOT, 
and auto manufacturers focused on incorporating system safeguards that 
limit the use of automated vehicles (AVs) to the conditions for which 
they were designed. We also called on NHTSA and the DOT to define 
recorded AV data parameters and to require manufacturers to report AV 
crash data.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2017. Collision Between a 
Car Operating With Automated Vehicle Control Systems and a Tractor-
Semitrailer Truck Near Williston, Florida, May 7, 2016. NTSB/HAR-17/02.
    \2\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
17-37, H-17-38, H-17-39, and H-17-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our most recent recommendations stem from our investigation of a 
collision between a car controlled by a developmental automated driving 
system and a pedestrian.\3\ Contributing to that crash was ineffective 
oversight of the vehicle's operators and of the AV testing, as well as 
a lack of adequate mechanisms to address operators' automation 
complacency. We recommended that NHTSA require those who wish to test 
automated driving systems to submit a safety self-assessment report and 
to establish a process to evaluate such reports to determine if they 
include appropriate safeguards, such as vehicle operator engagement 
monitoring.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2019. Collison Between 
Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated Driving System and 
Pedestrian. NTSB/HAR-19/03.
    \4\ National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations H-
19-47 and H-19-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                       Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III
    Question. This week, NTSB released a report showing that distracted 
driving played a role in the fatal crash of an autonomous test vehicle 
that struck and killed a pedestrian last year. In your view, what 
should both regulators and industry be doing in an effort to prevent 
more of these types of tragic accidents?
    Answer. The final report of our investigation of the Tempe, 
Arizona, crash was published on December 11, 2019. Based on this 
investigation, we recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) require and evaluate the submission of the 
currently voluntary safety self-assessment report. We also recommended 
that states establish an application process for autonomous vehicle 
testing, and that industry implement safety management systems.\5\ 
Ultimately, operators and regulators need to ensure sufficient risk 
management and establish countermeasures to prevent crashes and 
operator inattentiveness within the approved testing parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
19-47, H-19-48, H-19-49, H-19-50, H-19-51, and H-19-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While many efforts focus on higher levels of automation, we believe 
that partial automated systems, or SAE Level 2 systems, give us key 
information; therefore, we recommended that NHTSA, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (DOT), and auto manufacturers incorporate system 
safeguards that limit the use of AVs to the conditions for which they 
were designed. We also called on NHTSA and the DOT to define recorded 
AV data parameters and to require manufacturers to report AV crash 
data.\6\ Implementing these recommendations will reduce the risk of 
these crashes while automated systems continue to be developed and 
tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations H-
17-37, H-17-38, H-17-39, and H-17-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
      National Transportation Safety Board--Rcommendation Subjects

             Overall Status: All Open      Addressee: NHTSA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Recommendation                       Date
       #           Overall Status    Closed            Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-00-001                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise the
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standards to
                                              require that all
                                              motorcoaches be equipped
                                              with emergency lighting
                                              fixtures that are
                                              outfitted with a self-
                                              contained independent
                                              power source.
H-00-002                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise the
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety standards to
                                              require the use of
                                              interior luminescent or
                                              exterior retroreflective
                                              material or both to mark
                                              all emergency exits in all
                                              motorcoaches.
H-00-028                      OUA            TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Modify the Federal Motor
                                              Vehicle Safety Standards
                                              to prohibit protruding
                                              door handles or latching
                                              mechanisms on emergency
                                              exit doors.
H-01-040                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and incorporate into the
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standards
                                              performance standards for
                                              school buses that address
                                              passenger protection for
                                              sidewalls, sidewall
                                              components, and seat
                                              frames.
H-01-041                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate
                                              the feasibility of
                                              incorporating automatic
                                              crash notification systems
                                              on school buses and, if
                                              feasible, proceed with
                                              system development.
H-09-022                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              all new motor vehicles
                                              weighing over 10,000
                                              pounds to be equipped with
                                              direct tire pressure
                                              monitoring systems to
                                              inform drivers of the
                                              actual tire pressures on
                                              their vehicles
H-10-001                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              new commercial motor
                                              vehicles with a gross
                                              vehicle weight rating
                                              above 10,000 pounds to be
                                              equipped with lane
                                              departure warning systems.
H-10-003                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: In your
                                              rulemaking to improve
                                              motorcoach roof strength,
                                              occupant protection, and
                                              window glazing standards,
                                              include all buses with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating above 10,000
                                              pounds, other than school
                                              buses.
H-10-004                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              all newly manufactured
                                              buses with a gross vehicle
                                              weight rating above 10,000
                                              pounds to require that
                                              overhead luggage racks are
                                              constructed and installed
                                              to prevent head and neck
                                              injuries and remain
                                              anchored during an
                                              accident sequence. (This
                                              recommendation supersedes
                                              Safety Recommendations H-
                                              09-23 and -24.)
H-10-012                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: To improve
                                              highway vehicle crash
                                              compatibility, develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              front underride protection
                                              systems for trucks with
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds. [This
                                              recommendation supersedes
                                              Safety Recommendation H-06-
                                              16]
H-10-013                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: After
                                              establishing performance
                                              standards for front
                                              underride protection
                                              systems for trucks with
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds, require that all
                                              such newly manufactured
                                              trucks be equipped with
                                              front underride protection
                                              systems meeting the
                                              performance standards.
H-10-014                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and implement minimum
                                              performance standards for
                                              event data recorders for
                                              trucks with gross vehicle
                                              weight ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds that address, at a
                                              minimum, the following
                                              elements: data parameters
                                              to be recorded; data
                                              sampling rates; duration
                                              of recorded event;
                                              standardized or universal
                                              data imaging interface;
                                              data storage format; and
                                              device and data
                                              survivability for crush,
                                              impact, fluid exposure and
                                              immersion, and thermal
                                              exposure. The standards
                                              should also require that
                                              the event data recorder be
                                              capable of capturing and
                                              preserving data in the
                                              case of a power
                                              interruption or loss, and
                                              of accommodating future
                                              requirements and
                                              technological advances,
                                              such as flashable and/or
                                              reprogrammable operating
                                              system software and/or
                                              firmware updates.
H-10-015                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: After
                                              establishing performance
                                              standards for event data
                                              recorders for trucks with
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds, require that all
                                              such vehicles be equipped
                                              with event data recorders
                                              meeting the standards.
H-11-007                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              stability control system
                                              performance standards for
                                              all commercial motor
                                              vehicles and buses with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating greater than 10,000
                                              pounds, regardless of
                                              whether the vehicles are
                                              equipped with a hydraulic
                                              or a pneumatic brake
                                              system. This
                                              recommendation supersedes
                                              Safety Recommendation H-10-
                                              5.
H-11-008                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards in
                                              Safety Recommendation H-11-
                                              7 have been developed,
                                              require the installation
                                              of stability control
                                              systems on all newly
                                              manufactured commercial
                                              vehicles with a gross
                                              vehicle weight rating
                                              greater than 10,000
                                              pounds. This
                                              recommendation supersedes
                                              Safety Recommendation H-10-
                                              6.
H-11-009                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Establish
                                              comprehensive minimum
                                              rollover performance
                                              standards, based on the
                                              least stable condition
                                              operated, for all newly
                                              manufactured cargo tank
                                              motor vehicles with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating greater than 10,000
                                              pounds.
H-11-010                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards in
                                              Safety Recommendation H-11-
                                              9 have been developed,
                                              require that all newly
                                              manufactured cargo tank
                                              motor vehicles with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating greater than 10,000
                                              pounds comply with the
                                              performance standards.
H-11-011                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate
                                              the effect of emergency
                                              maneuvers on the sloshing
                                              and surging of bulk
                                              liquids that have various
                                              densities over a range of
                                              partially filled levels in
                                              a U.S. Department of
                                              Transportation
                                              specification cargo tank.
H-11-012                                     If the results of Safety
                                              Recommendation H-11-11
                                              warrant action, establish
                                              and implement performance
                                              standards for mitigating
                                              the sloshing and surging
                                              of bulk liquids in all
                                              newly manufactured cargo
                                              tank motor vehicles with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating greater than 10,000
                                              pounds.
H-11-036                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Modify
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 217 to
                                              require that all emergency
                                              exits on school buses be
                                              easily opened and remain
                                              open during an emergency
                                              evacuation.
H-11-037                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Modify
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 217 or the
                                              corresponding laboratory
                                              test procedure to
                                              eliminate the potential
                                              for objects such as latch
                                              plates to protrude into
                                              the emergency exit window
                                              opening space even when
                                              that protrusion still
                                              allows the exit window to
                                              meet the opening size
                                              requirements.
H-11-038                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: To cover
                                              the interim period until
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 217 is
                                              modified as specified in
                                              Safety Recommendations H-
                                              11-36 and 37, provide the
                                              states with guidance on
                                              how to minimize potential
                                              evacuation delays that
                                              could be caused by
                                              protruding latch
                                              mechanisms on emergency
                                              exit windows and by exit
                                              windows that require
                                              additional manual
                                              assistance to remain open
                                              during egress.
H-12-020                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              advanced speed-limiting
                                              technology, such as
                                              variable speed limiters
                                              and intelligent speed
                                              adaptation devices, for
                                              heavy vehicles, including
                                              trucks, buses, and
                                              motorcoaches.
H-12-021                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: After
                                              establishing performance
                                              standards for advanced
                                              speed-limiting technology
                                              for heavy commercial
                                              vehicles, require that all
                                              newly manufactured heavy
                                              vehicles be equipped with
                                              such devices.
H-12-022                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate
                                              the effects of seat
                                              spacing and armrests as
                                              factors for potential
                                              occupant injury, and if
                                              safer spacing or armrest
                                              configurations are
                                              identified, develop and
                                              implement appropriate
                                              guidelines.
H-12-032                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and disseminate to the 50
                                              states, the Commonwealth
                                              of Puerto Rico, and the
                                              District of Columbia blood
                                              alcohol concentration
                                              testing and reporting
                                              guidelines based on the
                                              2012 report State Blood
                                              Alcohol Concentration
                                              Testing and Reporting for
                                              Drivers Involved in Fatal
                                              Crashes: Current
                                              Practices, Results, and
                                              Strategies, 1997-2009.
1H-12-033                     OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and disseminate to
                                              appropriate state
                                              officials a common
                                              standard of practice for
                                              drug toxicology testing,
                                              including (1) the
                                              circumstances under which
                                              tests should be conducted,
                                              (2) a minimum set of drugs
                                              for which to test, and (3)
                                              cutoff values for
                                              reporting the results.
H-12-043                                     Work with the Automotive
                                              Coalition for Traffic
                                              Safety, Inc., to
                                              accelerate widespread
                                              implementation of Driver
                                              Alcohol Detection System
                                              for Safety (DADSS)
                                              technology by (1) defining
                                              usability testing that
                                              will guide driver
                                              interface design and (2)
                                              implementing a
                                              communication program that
                                              will direct driver
                                              education and promote
                                              public acceptance.
H-12-058                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              minimum performance
                                              standards for onboard
                                              brake stroke monitoring
                                              systems for all air-braked
                                              commercial vehicles.
H-12-059                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards in
                                              Safety Recommendation H-12-
                                              58 have been developed,
                                              require that all newly
                                              manufactured air-braked
                                              commercial vehicles be
                                              equipped with onboard
                                              brake stroke monitoring
                                              systems.
H-13-001                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Seek
                                              legislative authority to
                                              award incentive grants for
                                              states to establish a per
                                              se blood alcohol
                                              concentration (BAC) limit
                                              of 0.05 or lower for all
                                              drivers who are not
                                              already required to adhere
                                              to lower BAC limits.
H-13-011                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              visibility enhancement
                                              systems to compensate for
                                              blind spots in order to
                                              improve the ability of
                                              drivers of single-unit
                                              trucks with gross vehicle
                                              weight ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds to detect
                                              vulnerable road users,
                                              including pedestrians and
                                              cyclists, in their travel
                                              paths.
H-13-012                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards
                                              requested in H-13-11have
                                              been developed, require
                                              newly manufactured single-
                                              unit trucks with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 10,000 pounds to be
                                              equipped with visibility
                                              enhancement systems
                                              meeting the performance
                                              standards.
H-13-013                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              side underride protection
                                              systems for single-unit
                                              trucks with gross vehicle
                                              weight ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds.
H-13-014                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards
                                              requested in H-13-13 have
                                              been developed, require
                                              newly manufactured single-
                                              unit trucks with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 10,000 pounds to be
                                              equipped with side
                                              underride protection
                                              systems meeting the
                                              performance standards.
H-13-015                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance standards for
                                              rear underride protection
                                              systems for single-unit
                                              trucks with gross vehicle
                                              weight ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds.
H-13-016                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              performance standards
                                              requested in H-13-15 have
                                              been developed, require
                                              newly manufactured single-
                                              unit trucks with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 10,000 pounds to be
                                              equipped with rear
                                              underride protection
                                              systems meeting the
                                              performance standards.
H-13-017                                     Require conspicuity
                                              treatments on the sides
                                              and rears of newly
                                              manufactured single-unit
                                              trucks with gross vehicle
                                              weight ratings over 10,000
                                              pounds consistent with the
                                              requirements for such
                                              treatments on truck-
                                              tractors and trailers
                                              specified in 49 CFR Part
                                              571.108 (Federal Motor
                                              Vehicle Safety Standards:
                                              Lamps, Reflective Devices,
                                              and Associated Equipment).
H-13-018                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and implement a plan for
                                              using vehicle
                                              identification numbers and
                                              other variables, such as
                                              cargo type or trailers, to
                                              improve the coding and
                                              classification of large
                                              commercial vehicles in the
                                              Fatality Analysis
                                              Reporting System and the
                                              National Automotive
                                              Sampling System.
H-13-030                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              minimum performance
                                              standards for connected
                                              vehicle technology for all
                                              highway vehicles.
H-13-031                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once
                                              minimum performance
                                              standards for connected
                                              vehicle technology are
                                              developed, require this
                                              technology to be installed
                                              on all newly manufactured
                                              highway vehicles.
H-14-001                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              that newly manufactured
                                              truck-tractors with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 26,000 pounds be
                                              equipped with visibility
                                              enhancement systems to
                                              improve the ability of
                                              drivers of tractor-
                                              trailers to detect
                                              passenger vehicles and
                                              vulnerable road users,
                                              including pedestrians,
                                              cyclists, and
                                              motorcyclists.
H-14-002                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              that newly manufactured
                                              trailers with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 10,000 pounds be
                                              equipped with side
                                              underride protection
                                              systems that will reduce
                                              underride and injuries to
                                              passenger vehicle
                                              occupants.
H-14-003                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              that newly manufactured
                                              truck-tractors with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 26,000 pounds be
                                              equipped with side
                                              underride protection
                                              systems that will reduce
                                              underride and injuries to
                                              passenger vehicle
                                              occupants.
H-14-004                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise
                                              requirements for rear
                                              underride protection
                                              systems for newly
                                              manufactured trailers with
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              ratings over 10,000 pounds
                                              to ensure that they
                                              provide adequate
                                              protection of passenger
                                              vehicle occupants from
                                              fatalities and serious
                                              injuries resulting from
                                              fullwidth and offset
                                              trailer rear impacts.
H-14-005                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Add
                                              trailer vehicle
                                              identification number and
                                              trailer model year to the
                                              Fatality Analysis
                                              Reporting System database
                                              for trailers with gross
                                              vehicle weight ratings
                                              over 10,000 pounds.
H-14-006                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Model Minimum Uniform
                                              Crash Criteria expert
                                              panel to modify the data
                                              element titled ``Motor
                                              Vehicle License Number''
                                              to include the trailer
                                              license plate number in
                                              the next edition of the
                                              Model Minimum Uniform
                                              Crash Criteria Guideline.
H-14-007                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Model Minimum Uniform
                                              Crash Criteria expert
                                              panel to modify the data
                                              element titled ``Vehicle
                                              Identification Number'' to
                                              include the trailer
                                              vehicle identification
                                              number in the next edition
                                              of the Model Minimum
                                              Uniform Crash Criteria
                                              Guideline.
H-15-004                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              and apply testing
                                              protocols to assess the
                                              performance of forward
                                              collision avoidance
                                              systems in passenger
                                              vehicles at various
                                              velocities, including high
                                              speed and high velocity-
                                              differential.
H-15-005                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Complete,
                                              as soon as possible, the
                                              development and
                                              application of performance
                                              standards and protocols
                                              for the assessment of
                                              forward collision
                                              avoidance systems in
                                              commercial vehicles.
                                              (Safety Recommendation H-
                                              15-005 supersedes Safety
                                              Recommendation H-01006)
H-15-006                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Expand the
                                              New Car Assessment Program
                                              5-star rating system to
                                              include a scale that rates
                                              the performance of forward
                                              collision avoidance
                                              systems.
H-15-007                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once the
                                              rating scale, described in
                                              Safety Recommendation H-15-
                                              6, is established, include
                                              the ratings of forward
                                              collision avoidance
                                              systems on the vehicle
                                              Monroney labels.
H-15-010                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              requirements addressing
                                              the minimum aisle width
                                              for safe evacuation from
                                              all buses, including those
                                              with moveable seats.
H-15-012                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard302 to
                                              adopt the more rigorous
                                              performance standards for
                                              interior flammability and
                                              smoke emissions
                                              characteristics already in
                                              use throughout the U.S.
                                              Department of
                                              Transportation for
                                              commercial aviation and
                                              rail passenger
                                              transportation.
H-15-013                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              new motorcoach and bus
                                              designs to include a
                                              secondary door for use as
                                              an additional emergency
                                              exit.
H-15-017                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              that modifications to limo
                                              van vehicles (1) retain a
                                              full-sized exit on at
                                              least one side of the
                                              vehicle's passenger
                                              compartment, and (2) have
                                              at least one other exit
                                              located on the front,
                                              back, or roof of the
                                              passenger compartment.
H-15-027                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Seek
                                              authority to require all
                                              tire dealers to register
                                              tires at the point of
                                              sale, and then require
                                              them to do so.
H-15-028                      OAA            Develop voluntary
                                              standards, in consultation
                                              with tire industry
                                              leaders, for a
                                              computerized method of
                                              capturing, storing, and
                                              uploading tire
                                              registration information
                                              at the point of sale.
H-15-029                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Include
                                              fields on the tire
                                              registration form for the
                                              purchaser's e-mail
                                              address, telephone number,
                                              and vehicle identification
                                              number to assist
                                              manufacturers in locating
                                              and notifying owners of
                                              recalled tires.
H-15-030                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              tire manufacturers to
                                              include the complete tire
                                              identification number on
                                              both the inboard and
                                              outboard sidewalls of a
                                              tire.
H-15-031                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              tire manufacturers to put
                                              the safety recall
                                              information for their
                                              tires on their websites in
                                              a format that is
                                              searchable by tire
                                              identification number as
                                              well as by brand and
                                              model; if necessary, seek
                                              legislative authority to
                                              implement this
                                              recommendation.
H-15-032                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Modify the
                                              tire recall search feature
                                              on your website to allow
                                              users to search for
                                              recalls by tire
                                              identification number as
                                              well as by brand and
                                              model.
H-15-033                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Determine
                                              the level of crash risk
                                              associated with tire aging
                                              since the implementation
                                              of Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard Nos. 138
                                              and 139; if, based on this
                                              determination, it appears
                                              that the aging-related
                                              risk should be mitigated,
                                              develop and implement a
                                              plan to promote the tire
                                              aging test protocol to
                                              reduce the risk.
H-15-034                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop a
                                              consensus document with
                                              input from the automotive
                                              industry, the tire
                                              industry, and safety
                                              advocacy groups that
                                              addresses tire aging and
                                              service life and that also
                                              includes best practices
                                              for those consumers whose
                                              tires are most at risk of
                                              experiencing an aging-
                                              related failure.
H-15-035                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop,
                                              in consultation with
                                              automotive and tire
                                              industry representatives,
                                              a tire safety action plan
                                              to reduce or mitigate tire-
                                              related crashes by
                                              promoting technological
                                              innovation and adapting
                                              regulations as necessary.
H-15-040                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop,
                                              and require compliance
                                              with, a side-impact
                                              protection standard for
                                              all newly manufactured
                                              medium-size buses,
                                              regardless of weight.
H-16-018                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Adopt the
                                              U.S. Coast Guard's assumed
                                              average weight per person
                                              and amend the
                                              certification regulation
                                              in 49 Code of Federal
                                              Regulations Part 567 to
                                              specify that the gross
                                              vehicle weight rating for
                                              an amphibious passenger
                                              vehicle ``shall not be
                                              less than the sum of the
                                              unloaded vehicle weight,
                                              the rated cargo load, and
                                              185 pounds times the
                                              vehicle's number of
                                              designated seating
                                              positions.''
H-16-019                      OUA            NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Classify all amphibious
                                              passenger vehicles (APV)
                                              as non-over-the-road buses
                                              and, under the authority
                                              of the National Traffic
                                              and Motor Vehicle Safety
                                              Act of 1966, make newly
                                              manufactured APVs subject
                                              to applicable Federal
                                              Motor Vehicle Safety
                                              Standards in effect at the
                                              time of manufacture.
H-17-019                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Identify
                                              speeding-related
                                              performance measures to be
                                              used by local law
                                              enforcement agencies,
                                              including ``but not
                                              limited to'' the numbers
                                              and locations of speeding-
                                              related crashes of
                                              different injury severity
                                              levels, speeding
                                              citations, and warnings,
                                              and establish a consistent
                                              method for evaluating data-
                                              driven, high-visibility
                                              enforcement programs to
                                              reduce speeding.
                                              Disseminate the
                                              performance measures and
                                              evaluation method to local
                                              law enforcement agencies.
H-17-020                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Identify
                                              best practices for
                                              communicating with law
                                              enforcement officers and
                                              the public about the
                                              effectiveness of data-
                                              driven, high-visibility
                                              enforcement programs to
                                              reduce speeding, and
                                              disseminate the best
                                              practices to local law
                                              enforcement agencies.
H-17-021                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Governors Highway
                                              Safety Association, the
                                              International Association
                                              of Chiefs of Police, and
                                              the National Sheriffs'
                                              Association to develop and
                                              implement a program to
                                              increase the adoption of
                                              speeding-related Model
                                              Minimum Uniform Crash
                                              Criteria Guideline data
                                              elements and improve
                                              consistency in law
                                              enforcement reporting of
                                              speeding-related crashes.
H-17-022                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Federal Highway
                                              Administration to update
                                              the Speed Enforcement
                                              Camera Systems Operational
                                              Guidelines to reflect the
                                              latest automated speed
                                              enforcement (ASE)
                                              technologies and operating
                                              practices, and promote the
                                              updated guidelines among
                                              ASE program
                                              administrators.
H-17-023                     OAAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Federal Highway
                                              Administration to assess
                                              the effectiveness of point-
                                              to-point speed enforcement
                                              in the United States and,
                                              based on the results of
                                              that assessment, update
                                              the Speed Enforcement
                                              Camera Systems Operational
                                              Guidelines, as
                                              appropriate.
H-17-024                     OAAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Incentivize passenger
                                              vehicle manufacturers and
                                              consumers to adopt
                                              intelligent speed
                                              adaptation (ISA) systems
                                              by, for example, including
                                              ISA in the New Car
                                              Assessment Program.
H-17-025                     OAAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Collaborate with other
                                              traffic safety
                                              stakeholders to develop
                                              and implement an ongoing
                                              program to increase public
                                              awareness of speeding as a
                                              national traffic safety
                                              issue. The program should
                                              include, but not be
                                              limited to, initiating an
                                              annual enforcement
                                              mobilization directed at
                                              speeding drivers.
H-17-026                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Establish
                                              a program to incentivize
                                              state and local speed
                                              management activities.
H-17-038                      OUA            Develop a method to verify
                                              that manufacturers of
                                              vehicles equipped with
                                              Level 2 vehicle automation
                                              systems incorporate system
                                              safeguards that limit the
                                              use of automated vehicle
                                              control systems to those
                                              conditions for which they
                                              were designed.
H-17-039                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Use the
                                              data parameters defined by
                                              the U.S. Department of
                                              Transportation in response
                                              to Safety Recommendation H-
                                              17-37 as a benchmark for
                                              new vehicles equipped with
                                              automated vehicle control
                                              systems so that they
                                              capture data that reflect
                                              the vehicle's control
                                              status and the frequency
                                              and duration of control
                                              actions needed to
                                              adequately characterize
                                              driver and vehicle
                                              performance before and
                                              during a crash; the
                                              captured data should be
                                              readily available to, at a
                                              minimum, National
                                              Transportation Safety
                                              Board investigators and
                                              National Highway Traffic
                                              Safety Administration
                                              regulators.
H-17-040                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Define a
                                              standard format for
                                              reporting automated
                                              vehicle control systems
                                              data, and require
                                              manufacturers of vehicles
                                              equipped with automated
                                              vehicle control systems to
                                              report incidents, crashes,
                                              and vehicle miles operated
                                              with such systems enabled.
H-17-062                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              SAE International and the
                                              Federal Motor Carrier
                                              Safety Administration to
                                              improve truck-tractor side-
                                              mounted fuel tank
                                              crashworthiness to prevent
                                              catastrophic tank ruptures
                                              and limit postcollision
                                              fuel spillage, and develop
                                              and promulgate an updated
                                              standard.
H-18-008                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              all new school buses to be
                                              equipped with collision
                                              avoidance systems and
                                              automatic emergency
                                              braking technologies.
H-18-029                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Incorporate motorcycles in
                                              the development of
                                              performance standards for
                                              passenger vehicle crash
                                              warning and prevention
                                              systems.
H-18-030                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Incorporate motorcycles in
                                              the development of
                                              performance standards for
                                              connected vehicle-to-
                                              vehicle systems.
H-18-031                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Federal Highway
                                              Administration to
                                              incorporate motorcycles in
                                              the development of
                                              performance standards for
                                              connected vehicle-to-
                                              infrastructure systems.
H-18-032                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              all new motorcycles
                                              manufactured for on-road
                                              use in the United States
                                              be equipped with antilock
                                              braking system technology.
H-18-033                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Conduct or
                                              sponsor research to
                                              evaluate the effectiveness
                                              of stability control
                                              systems for motorcycles.
H-18-034                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Based on
                                              the research recommended
                                              in Safety Recommendation H-
                                              1833, develop and publish
                                              performance standards for
                                              stability control systems
                                              on motorcycles, and
                                              require systems meeting
                                              those standards on all new
                                              motorcycles manufactured
                                              for on-road use in the
                                              United States.
H-18-035                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Examine
                                              the influence of alcohol
                                              and other drug use on
                                              motorcycle rider crash
                                              risk compared to that of
                                              passenger vehicle drivers,
                                              and develop guidelines to
                                              assist states in
                                              implementing evidence-
                                              based strategies and
                                              countermeasures to more
                                              effectively address
                                              substance-impaired
                                              motorcycle rider crashes.
H-18-036                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Evaluate
                                              the effectiveness of state
                                              motorcycle licensing
                                              procedures for reducing
                                              motorcycle crashes,
                                              injuries, and fatalities
                                              among novice and
                                              unlicensed riders; based
                                              on the results of that
                                              evaluation, update the
                                              Guidelines for Motorcycle
                                              Operator Licensing or
                                              other guidance as
                                              appropriate.
H-18-039                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTATION: Revise
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 108 to
                                              include performance-based
                                              standards for vehicle
                                              headlight systems
                                              correctly aimed on the
                                              road and tested on-vehicle
                                              to account for headlight
                                              height and lighting
                                              performance.
H-18-040                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 108 to
                                              allow adaptive headlight
                                              systems.
H-18-041                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              performance test criteria
                                              for vehicle designs that
                                              reduce injuries to
                                              pedestrians.
H-18-042                      OAA            TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Develop performance test
                                              criteria for manufacturers
                                              to use in evaluating the
                                              extent to which automated
                                              pedestrian safety systems
                                              in light vehicles will
                                              prevent or mitigate
                                              pedestrian injury.
H-18-043                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Incorporate pedestrian
                                              safety systems, including
                                              pedestrian collision
                                              avoidance systems and
                                              other more-passive safety
                                              systems, into the New Car
                                              Assessment Program.
H-18-044                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop a
                                              detailed pedestrian crash
                                              data set that represents
                                              the current, complete
                                              range of crash types and
                                              that can be used for local
                                              and state analysis and to
                                              model and simulate
                                              pedestrian collision
                                              avoidance systems.
H-18-045                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Work with
                                              the Centers for Disease
                                              Control and Prevention to
                                              develop and implement a
                                              plan for the states to
                                              combine highway crash data
                                              and injury health data,
                                              with the goal of producing
                                              a national database of
                                              pedestrian injuries and
                                              fatalities. (Supersedes H-
                                              13-026)
H-18-046                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Examine
                                              the past framework of the
                                              Crash Outcome Data
                                              Evaluation System and
                                              establish methods that
                                              states and metropolitan
                                              planning organizations can
                                              use to collect pedestrian
                                              event data, then define a
                                              common framework that will
                                              allow those data sources
                                              to be combined.
H-18-050                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Assess,
                                              and if necessary, update
                                              the guidelines on pupil
                                              transportation safety to
                                              specifically address
                                              pedestrian issues related
                                              to conspicuity and route
                                              selection.
H-18-056                      OAA            Develop and disseminate
                                              best practices, identify
                                              model specifications, and
                                              create a conforming
                                              products list for oral
                                              fluid drug screening
                                              devices.
H-18-057                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Evaluate best practices
                                              and countermeasures found
                                              to be the most effective
                                              in reducing fatalities,
                                              injuries, and crashes
                                              involving drug-impaired
                                              drivers and provide
                                              additional guidance to the
                                              states on drug-impaired
                                              driving in Countermeasures
                                              That Work: A Highway
                                              Safety Countermeasure
                                              Guide for State Highway
                                              Safety Offices.
H-18-058                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFICS
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Amend Federal Motor
                                              Vehicle Safety Standard
                                              210 to increase the
                                              minimum anchorage spacing
                                              for individual seat belt
                                              assemblies, taking into
                                              account the dynamic
                                              testing of seat belt
                                              designs, seat belt fit,
                                              and vehicle configuration.
H-18-059                      OAA            TO THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Amend Federal Motor
                                              Vehicle Safety Standard
                                              208 to require lap/
                                              shoulder belts for each
                                              passenger seating position
                                              on all new buses with a
                                              gross vehicle weight
                                              rating of more than 10,000
                                              pounds but not greater
                                              than 26,000 pounds.
H-19-004                      OAR            NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
                                              SAFETY ADMINISTRATION:
                                              Require all new school
                                              buses to be equipped with
                                              fire suppression systems
                                              that at a minimum address
                                              engine fires.
H-19-005                      OAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Develop
                                              standards for newly
                                              manufactured school buses,
                                              especially those with
                                              engines that extend beyond
                                              the firewall, to ensure
                                              that no hazardous quantity
                                              of gas or flame can pass
                                              through the firewall from
                                              the engine compartment to
                                              the passenger compartment.
H-19-014                      OAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              lap/shoulder belts for
                                              each passenger seating
                                              position on all new
                                              vehicles modified to be
                                              used as limousines.
H-19-015                      OAR            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Require
                                              that seating systems
                                              installed in new vehicles
                                              modified to be used as
                                              limousines meet minimum
                                              performance standards to
                                              ensure their integrity
                                              during a crash.
H-99-009                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Revise the
                                              Federal Motor Vehicle
                                              Safety Standard 217, ``Bus
                                              Window Retention and
                                              Release,'' to require that
                                              other than floor-level
                                              emergency exits can be
                                              easily opened and remain
                                              open during an emergency
                                              evacuation when a
                                              motorcoach is upright or
                                              at unusual attitudes.
H-99-049                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Expand
                                              your research on current
                                              advanced glazing to
                                              include its applicability
                                              to motorcoach occupant
                                              ejection prevention, and
                                              revise window glazing
                                              requirements for newly
                                              manufactured motorcoaches
                                              based on the results of
                                              this research.
H-99-050                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: In 2
                                              years, develop performance
                                              standards for motorcoach
                                              roof strength that provide
                                              maximum survival space for
                                              all seating positions and
                                              that take into account
                                              current typical motorcoach
                                              window dimensions.
H-99-051                      OUA            TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
                                              TRAFFIC SAFETY
                                              ADMINISTRATION: Once
                                              performance standards have
                                              been developed for
                                              motorcoach roof strength,
                                              require newly manufactured
                                              motorcoaches to meet those
                                              standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Number of Recommendations for Recommendation Subjects Report: 110
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 [all]