[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]