    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     THE ROAD AHEAD FOR AUTOMATED VEHICLES

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

                                    (117-39)

                                 REMOTE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 2, 2022

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-612 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair

    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
      Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                         KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                         MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                         NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                         TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

                      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair

    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              Georgia
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            GREG STANTON, Arizona, Vice Chair
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
      Puerto Rico                        ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)    NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                         STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
                                         PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
                                         Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................  viii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
      District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
      Transit, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
      Transit, opening statement.....................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, prepared statement.............................    99
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................   137

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX,
      and Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the
      National League of Cities, oral statement......................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, on
      behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
      Transportation Officials, oral statement.......................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
    John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers Union
      of America, AFL-CIO, oral statement............................    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
      Safety, oral statement.........................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora, oral statement......    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Doug Bloch, Political Director, Joint Council 7, International
      Brotherhood of Teamsters, oral statement.......................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    66
    Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism Next Center,
      University of Oregon, oral statement...........................    71
        Prepared statement...........................................    73
    Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
      Association, oral statement....................................    78
        Prepared statement...........................................    80

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tom Karol, General Counsel
      Federal, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies,
      Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois......     3
    ``Broadside'' Cartoon by Jeff Bacon, Included in a Letter From
      Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
      Safety, Published in the November 17, 2021, Committee on
      Transportation and Infrastructure Hearing Transcript Entitled,
      ``Industry and Labor Perspectives: A Further Look at North
      American Supply Chain Challenges,'' Submitted for the Record by
      Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford.................................    93
    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
        Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His
          Remarks to Hon. Mike Bost..................................   137
        Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His
          Remarks to Hon. Julia Brownley.............................   138
        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Garrick Francis, Vice
          President, Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive
          Innovation.................................................   139
        Statement of the American Association of Motor Vehicle
          Administrators.............................................   140
        Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance
          Association................................................   141
        Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers.........   144
        Statement of the American Traffic Safety Services Association   145
        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Bill Sullivan, Executive
          Vice President of Advocacy, American Trucking Associations.   147
        Letter of February 14, 2022, from Jimmy Christianson, Vice
          President, Government Affairs, Associated General
          Contractors of America.....................................   148
        Letter of February 17, 2022, from Michael Robbins, Executive
          Vice President of Advocacy, Association for Unmanned
          Vehicle Systems International..............................   150
        Letter of February 2, 2022, from Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi,
          Senior Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress   151
        Letter of February 17, 2022, from Consortium for Citizens
          with Disabilities Transportation Task Force Cochairs.......   153
        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Gary Shapiro, President and
          CEO, Consumer Technology Association.......................   155
        Statement of Kenneth W. Stuebing, BHSc, CCP(f), FO IV,
          President and Board Chair, International Association of
          Fire Chiefs................................................   156
        Statement of ITS America.....................................   158
        Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tara Lanigan, Head of
          Policy, May Mobility Inc...................................   161
        Letter of February 16, 2022, from Ben Siegrist, Director,
          Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy,
          National Association of Manufacturers......................   163
        Statement of the National Safety Council.....................   164
        Letter of February 1, 2022, and Autonomous Vehicles Policy
          Guide, from Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE, President, National
          Society of Professional Engineers..........................   168
        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Todd Spencer, President and
          CEO, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc...   170
        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Jordan Crenshaw, Vice
          President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S.
          Chamber of Commerce........................................   171
    Statement of the American Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights,
      Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri........   173
    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas:
        Article Entitled, ``Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in
          Kansas City Early Saturday, Police Say,'' by Kaitlyn
          Schwers, fox4kc.com, August 30, 2021.......................   174
        Article Entitled, ``Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies
          Underscore Need for Drivers to Slow Down, Move Over,'' by
          Ellen Edmonds, Manager, AAA Public Relations, AAA,
          September 29, 2021.........................................   175
        Article Entitled, ``Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a
          Major Upgrade Soon--and Here's Why,'' by Mark Phelan,
          Detroit Free Press, December 5, 2020.......................   176
        Article Entitled, ``Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in
          Hundreds of Fatalities Per Year,'' Insurance Institute for
          Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute, June 3, 2021..   178

                                    APPENDIX

    Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Martha
      Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX, and
      Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the
      National League of Cities......................................   181
    Questions to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
      Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
      Highway and Transportation Officials, from:
        Hon. Sharice Davids..........................................   181
        Hon. Sam Graves..............................................   182
        Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   183
    Questions to John Samuelsen, International President, Transport
      Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, from:
        Hon. Nikema Williams.........................................   185
        Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson...................................   185
        Hon. Rodney Davis............................................   186
    Questions to Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
      and Auto Safety, from:
        Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton...................................   186
        Hon. Sharice Davids..........................................   188
        Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   189
        Hon. Rodney Davis............................................   190
        Hon. Eric A. `` Rick'' Crawford..............................   190
        Hon. David Rouzer............................................   191
    Questions to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora, from:
        Hon. Rodney Davis............................................   192
        Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson...................................   193
        Hon. David Rouzer............................................   194
        Hon. Steve Cohen.............................................   194
    Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Doug Bloch, Political
      Director, Joint Council 7, International Brotherhood of
      Teamsters......................................................   196
    Questions to Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism
      Next Center, University of Oregon, from:
        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................   196
        Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr...........................   197
    Questions to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
      Vehicle Industry Association, from:
        Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson...................................   198
        Hon. Rodney Davis............................................   200
        Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford...............................   201

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                January 31, 2022

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for
    Automated Vehicles''

                                    PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
    Wednesday, February 2, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn
    House Office Building and virtually via Zoom to receive
    testimony related to the hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead for
    Automated Vehicles.'' The purpose of this hearing is for
    Members of the Subcommittee to explore the impact of automated
    vehicle deployment, including automated trucks and buses, on
    mobility, infrastructure, safety, workforce, and other economic
    and societal implications or benefits. The Subcommittee will
    hear from representatives of the National League of Cities,
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, University of
    Oregon, Transport Workers Union of America, Autonomous Vehicle
    Industry Association, Teamsters, and Aurora.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Automated vehicles (AVs), including automated trucks and
    buses, are vehicles in which the safety-critical control
    functions (e.g., steering, acceleration, or braking) can occur
    without direct driver input.\1\ There are at least 1,400
    automated vehicles, including automated trucks, currently in
    testing by more than 80 companies across 36 states, according
    to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
    Vehicles, https://one.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crash-Avoidance/Automated-
    Vehicles. Accessed January 18, 2022.
        \2\ Darrell Etherington, ``Over 1,400 self-driving vehicles are now
    in testing by 80+ companies across the US,'' Tech Crunch, June 11,
    2019, https://tcrn.ch/3fUunoP. Accessed January 18, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AV TECHNOLOGY

        The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies
    vehicle automation into six levels. The levels of automation
    are as follows: \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ SAE International, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related
    to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles
    (J3016_202104), Revised April 30, 2021, https://www.sae.org/standards/
    content/j3016_202104/. Accessed January 18, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Level 0: No Driving Automation
          Level 1: Driver Assistance
          Level 2: Partial Driving Automation
          Level 3: Conditional Driving Automation
          Level 4: High Driving Automation
          Level 5: Full Driving Automation

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (https://bit.ly/
                                    34dUqVI)

        Only vehicles equipped with levels 3, 4, or 5 automation
    are considered automated vehicles. The combination of hardware
    and software that automates control functions of AVs is called
    the automated driving system (ADS).\4\ Vehicles with levels 0-2
    automation are considered equipped with automated driver
    assistance systems (ADAS). Many vehicles available today are
    equipped with some automation (levels 1-2), which includes
    features such as automatic emergency braking and lane
    centering.\5\ Although vehicles equipped with level 3-5
    automation are not yet commercially available, many trucking
    companies have partnered with self-driving technology firms and
    are testing trucks with level 4 service and some jurisdictions
    are providing level 4 autonomous transit service.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
    Vehicles for Safety, https://bit.ly/33L01TA. Accessed January 18, 2022.
        \5\ SAE International, ``SAE Levels of Driving Automation \TM\
    Refined for Clarity and International Audience,'' May 3, 2021, https://
    www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update. Accessed January 18, 2022.
        \6\ https://bit.ly/3ofrC6m ; https://bit.ly/3IOhU2w ; https://
    bit.ly/3IVHAdL
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The conditions and scenarios under which an AV can safely
    operate is called an operational design domain (ODD).\7\ These
    conditions may include geographies, roadway types, speed range,
    weather, and time of day.\8\ AVs with more limited ODDs, such
    as automated long-haul trucks operating only on Interstate
    highways, may be closer to deployment. Conversely, AVs with
    more complex ODDs, such as automated passenger vehicles
    operating in dense urban areas, have a more complex path to
    deployment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Waymo, ``Waymo Safety Report,'' page 16, February 2021. https:/
    /bit.ly/33KBb6j. Accessed January 18, 2022.
        \8\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In place of a human driver, AVs ``see'' the road using a
    complex, complementary suite of technologies that work together
    to paint a picture of their environment.\9\ Examples of these
    technologies may include the following: \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Ibid, page 14.
        \10\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          LiDAR: uses light to detect objects and
    distances.
          Radar: uses electromagnetic waves to detect
    objects and movement.
          Vision systems: uses cameras to capture the
    surrounding environment and important objects, such as traffic
    lights, construction zones, school buses, and the lights of
    emergency vehicles.
          Computers: processes images captured by cameras
    to discern between objects.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Source: World Economic Forum (https://bit.ly/3rWYwcP)

        Similar to automated vehicles, connected vehicles (CVs)
    operate by transmitting radio signals that allow CVs to
    communicate with both other CVs and the surrounding
    environment.\11\ CVs utilize the 5.9 gigahertz radio frequency
    band to enable vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications
    through a technology called dedicated short-range
    communications (DSRC).\12\ Connected vehicle technology is
    largely different than automated vehicle technology, but the
    two technologies may eventually merge and complement one
    another. Connected vehicles are not yet broadly commercially
    available, and the technology is still in development. In 1999,
    the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reserved 75 MHz in
    the 5.9 GHz spectrum band for DSRC for use with Intelligent
    Transportation Systems (ITS) to develop and test technologies
    that increase roadway safety.\13\ In November 2020, the FCC
    authorized unlicensed Wi-Fi devices to share more than half of
    the 5.9 GHz band, reducing the amount of spectrum available for
    V2X devices to 30 MHz.\14\ This controversial action was
    criticized by members of the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure,\15\ State Departments of Transportation, and
    the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.\16\ At that
    time, DOT stated that the FCC's decision ``suffers from
    numerous deficiencies.'' \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. Department of Transportation, How Connected Vehicles
    Work, Updated February 27, 2020, https://www.transportation.gov/
    research-and-technology/how-connected-vehicles-work. Accessed January
    23, 2022.
        \12\ Ibid.
        \13\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Defining Safety of Life
    in 5.9 GHz,'' Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, June 8, 2016, available
    at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/06/08/defining-auto-
    safety-life-59-ghz. Accessed January 27, 2022.
        \14\ Federal Communications Commission, ``First Report and Order,
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed
    Modification in the Matter of the Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band,'' ET
    Docket No. 19-138. November 18, 2020. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-
    modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0. Accessed
    January 23, 2022.
        \15\ Letter to the DOT from the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure. 2020-01-22 Full TI Letter to FCC.pdf (house.gov).
    Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \16\ Traffic Technology Today Website, ``ITS America and AASHTO ask
    US Transportation Secretary to preserve 5.9 GHz spectrum for V2X''
    March 16, 2021. available at ITS America and AASHTO ask US
    Transportation Secretary to preserve 5.9 GHz spectrum for V2X--Traffic
    Technology Today. Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \17\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Comments in the Federal
    Register, ``First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification in the Matter of the Use
    of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band,'' ET Docket No. 19-138, November 6, 2020,
    page 1, https://bit.ly/344O0YL. Accessed January 23, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MOBILITY

        AV technology has the potential to revolutionize mobility
    and make the transport of goods and people easier, cheaper,
    more efficient, and more accessible.\18\ AVs could improve
    mobility for vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those
    with disabilities.\19\ Adoption of AVs may provide options to
    those facing transportation challenges, increasing their access
    to jobs and services and their ability to live
    independently.\20\ Expanding transportation options for
    underrepresented communities may address one of the major
    barriers to entry for enhanced equality and inclusion in
    society.\21\ In addition, AVs may also facilitate quicker and
    cheaper freight transportation.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ JTL Urban Mobility Lab at MIT, Autonomous Vehicles and Cities,
    available at https://mobility.mit.edu/av.
        \19\ National Highway Traffic Safety, Automated Vehicles for
    Safety, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/
    automated-vehicles-safety. Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \20\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
    Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 8, available
    at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-
    initiatives/automated-vehicles/360956/
    ensuringamericanleadershipav4.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2022.
        \21\ Automotive World, Automated vehicles: the opportunity to
    create an inclusive mobility system, March 27, 2019, available at
    https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/automated-
    vehicles-the-opportunity-to-create-an-inclusive-mobility-system/
    #::text=Automated%20
    vehicles%20are%20expected%20to%20improve%20mobility%20and,mobility%20tod
    ay%2C%20
    existing%20mobility%20issues%20may%20be%20amplified., Accessed January
    26, 2022.
        \22\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
    Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
    (transportation.gov) page 9, available at Driving Automation Systems in
    Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential
    Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 27, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INFRASTRUCTURE AND AVS

        Because AVs will ``see'' the road differently,
    transportation officials are beginning to evaluate the role of
    road infrastructure in the safe deployment of AVs.
        Stakeholders have noted that roadways and traffic control
    devices--which include signs and lane markings--will likely
    need to be in a state of good repair for safe AV operation.\23\
    For example, today's AV technology may be unable to accurately
    read, interpret, and take the proper action in the presence of
    potholes, unclear road signage, or faded lane markings.\24\
    Similarly, traffic control devices today are not uniform across
    all states and are designed for humans to interpret.\25\
    Different states and regions use different kinds of traffic
    control devices.\26\ It is unclear how AVs and their
    technologies--which vary between companies--may develop to
    interpret disparate signs and lane markings in the future.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Impacts Committee of the
    American Society of Civil Engineers, Comments in the Federal Register,
    ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-0049, March 5, page
    3, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-0049-0079. Accessed
    January 20, 2022.
        \24\ American Traffic Safety Services Association, Comments in the
    Federal Register, ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-
    0049, March 5, page 2. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-
    0049-0067. Accessed January 20, 2022.
        \25\ Ibid.
        \26\ Ibid.
        \27\ Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Impacts Committee of the
    American Society of Civil Engineers, Comments in the Federal Register,
    ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-0049, March 5, page
    4, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-0049-0079. Accessed
    January 20, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is in the early
    stages of evaluating the role of infrastructure in the
    deployment of AVs and what federal action may be necessary.
    This includes researching what data is needed for updating
    infrastructure, modeling how AVs may impact traffic operations,
    and awarding grants to allow states and localities to pursue
    their own research.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
    Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 21, https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
    LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2022; Federal Highway
    Administration, ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-
    0049, January 18, 2018, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2017-
    0049-0001. Accessed January 21, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FHWA is also in the process of updating the national Manual
    on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to account for AVs.
    The national MUTCD is a manual developed by FHWA that sets
    minimum standards and provides guidance for traffic control
    devices.\29\ In December 2020, FHWA published a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the MUTCD with, among other
    modifications, new guidance focused on accommodating AVs.\30\
    This rulemaking is currently underway, and the comment period
    closed on May 14, 2021.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic
    Control Devices, ``Overview,'' https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-
    overview.htm. Accessed January 21, 2022.
        \30\ Federal Highway Administration, ``National Standards for
    Traffic Control Devices: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
    Streets and Highways; Revision,'' Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001, December
    14, 2020, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-0001.
    Accessed January 21, 2022.
        \31\ Federal Highway Administration, ``National Standards for
    Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
    for Streets and Highways; Revision,'' Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001,
    February 2, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/02/
    2021-01440/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-
    on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for. Accessed January 27, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFETY AND FEDERAL ACTIONS

        Automated vehicles have the potential to drastically
    increase vehicle safety and reduce motor vehicle crashes and
    deaths. In 2020, there were 38,680 people killed in motor
    vehicle crashes on U.S. roadways.\32\ Despite an initial drop
    in the number of vehicle miles traveled, traffic fatalities
    have increased dramatically since the start of the COVID-19
    pandemic. Early estimates show that 20,160 people died in the
    first half (January-June) of 2021, an increase of 18.4 percent
    over the same time period in 2020.\33\ This represents the
    largest number of projected fatalities in the first half of the
    year since 2006 and the highest half-year percentage increase
    in the history of data recorded, according to the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    813199. Accessed January 30, 2022.
        \33\ Ibid.
        \34\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DOT's research has indicated that up to 94 percent of
    serious crashes involve human factors.\35\ However, the Chair
    of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recently
    criticized that statistic as ``misleading.'' \36\ AVs can
    mitigate or correct driver error, and level 5 AVs have the
    potential to remove the need for a human driver from the chain
    of events that can lead to a crash. Provided that AVs respond
    appropriately to avoid a crash, this heralds the potential to
    significantly increase safety for drivers, passengers, and
    other road users; and reduce the economic costs of crashes.\37\
    Trucking and technology firms are currently testing the
    technology to ensure that AVs can and will respond
    appropriately in complex traffic and varying roadway
    conditions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    812456. Accessed January 30, 2022.
        \36\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/ntsbs-homendy-calls-dots-
    serious-crash-stat-misleading.
        \37\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
    Vehicles for Safety, available at National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration, Automated Vehicles for Safety--NHTSA. Accessed on
    January 26, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because automated vehicles are still in development, AV
    regulatory regimes are still in their beginning stages.\38\ At
    the federal level, automated vehicle safety is overseen by
    NHTSA. Although there is no overarching federal framework for
    automated vehicles, DOT has taken preliminary steps to adapt
    its regulatory regime for AVs. Since 2016, DOT has released
    several iterations of voluntary guidance for AVs, the latest
    being the ``Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan'' and
    ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0.'' \39\ In December 2020,
    NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (ANPRM) seeking public comment on the potential development of
    a framework of principles to govern AV safety.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
    Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 7, https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
    LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \39\ Ibid.
        \40\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Framework
    for Automated Driving System Safety,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106,
    December 3, 2020, https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0106-
    0001. Accessed January 23, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because private companies are in the early stages of
    developing, testing, and piloting AVs and AV technologies,
    there is little publicly available data on collision rates and
    vehicle safety.\41\ NHTSA encourages automated vehicle
    manufacturers to submit Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments
    (VSSAs) demonstrating their approaches to safe testing and
    deployment of AVs.\42\ To date, 29 companies have submitted
    VSSAs to NHTSA.\43\ NHTSA also encourages AV companies to
    voluntarily disclose information, including location and type
    of vehicle, through the Automated Vehicle Transparency and
    Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) tracking tool.\44\ All of
    this information is publicly available. In June 2021, NHTSA
    issued a Standing General Order that requires AV manufacturers
    and operators to report crashes to the agency.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
    Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 7, https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
    LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \42\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Automated
    Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,'' September 2017, page 7,
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/13069a-
    ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \43\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Voluntary
    Safety Self-Assessment, https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-
    systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment. Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \44\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, AV TEST
    Initiative, https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
    Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \45\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Standing
    General Order on Crash Reporting for Levels of Driving Automation 2-5,
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-
    reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5. Accessed January 23, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
    establishes Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs),
    which set minimum safety standards for motor carriers and
    drivers.\46\ In May 2019, FMCSA released an ANPRM requesting
    comment on FMCSRs that may need to be updated, modified, or
    eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated
    commercial motor vehicles.\47\ Potentially affected FMCSRs
    included Licensing and Driver Qualifications, Hours of Service,
    and Safe Driving.\48\ The NPRM is currently under internal
    agency review.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``What Are
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Hazardous
    Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Where are They Published?'', The Motor
    Carrier Safety Planner, https://bit.ly/3nWFJwY.
        \47\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``Automated
    Driving Systems (ADS) for Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs); Request for
    Comments Concerning Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
    Which May Be a Barrier to the Safe Testing and Deployment of ADS-
    Equipped CMVs on Public Roads,'' Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037, March 26,
    2018, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2018-0037. Accessed
    January 23, 2022.
        \48\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``Automated
    Driving Systems (ADS) Policy Development for Commercial Vehicle
    Operations,'' March 10, 2021, page 5, https://bit.ly/3AAkMNx. Accessed
    January 23, 2022.
        \49\ Ibid, page 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS

        In lieu of a federal AV framework, 41 states and the
    District of Columbia have enacted legislation or issued
    executive orders related to AVs.\50\ Most of these state
    actions are intended to encourage AV development and
    testing.\51\ Some of these actions incorporate AVs into the
    state's broader regulatory framework, including operating
    authorities, safety standards, licensing and registration
    requirements, and liability laws.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ National Conference of State Legislatures, Autonomous Vehicles
    State Bill Tracking Database, Updated January 12, 2022, https://
    www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislative-
    database.aspx. Accessed January 23, 2022.
        \51\ Ibid.
        \52\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WORKFORCE IMPACTS

        While it is difficult to determine the exact impact AVs
    will have on the nation's workforce, automating the task of
    driving commercial motor vehicles could dramatically change
    professional driving careers in numerous ways. Impacts could
    include job displacement, changes in job responsibilities, and
    changes in wages and quality of life.\53\ According to DOT
    analysis, the primary economic motivation for adoption of
    advanced AV technology (e.g., level 5) is to remove the need
    for a human driver and thereby reduce operating costs.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
    Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
    Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 9, https://bit.ly/
    3AKXPHP. Accessed January 24, 2022.
        \54\ Ibid, page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to DOT estimates, the current size of the heavy
    truck and tractor-trailer driver workforce is approximately 2
    million drivers, making it one of the largest occupational
    sectors in the U.S.\55\ The American Trucking Associations
    estimates that the industry needs 80,000 more drivers today
    with those estimates expected to surpass 160,000 drivers by
    2030.\56\ Other segments of the industry cite driver retention
    as the workforce challenge most plaguing the industry,
    highlighting driver wages and working conditions as obstacles
    to attracting and retaining qualified drivers.\57\ These groups
    point to U.S. Department of Labor analysis of trucking industry
    turnover rates,\58\ as well as FMCSA estimates that over
    400,000 commercial driver's licenses are issued each year.\59\
    Some segments of the trucking industry view driving automation
    and the possible quality of life improvement as having the
    potential to help address the estimated demand for new truck
    drivers in the long-haul trucking segment.\60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \55\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
    Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
    Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 38, https://bit.ly/
    3AKXPHP. Accessed January 24, 2022.
        \56\ Transport Topics, ``Truck Driver Shortage Looms over 2022,''
    December 22, 2021, available at https://www.ttnews.com/articles/truck-
    driver-shortage-looms-over-2022. Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \57\ Todd Spencer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
    Testimony to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, June
    12, 2019, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20190612/109600/HHRG-
    116-PW12-Wstate-SpencerT-20190612.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \58\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Is the U.S. labor market for truck
    drivers broken?'', March 2019, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/
    article/is-the-us-labor-market-for-truck-drivers-broken.htm. Accessed
    January 26, 2022.
        \59\ FreightWaves, ``OOIDA urges Biden administration to bust
    driver shortage `myth','' August 2021, https://www.freightwaves.com/
    news/ooida-urges-biden-administration-to-bust-driver-shortage-myth.
    Accessed January 26, 2022.
        \60\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
    Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
    (transportation.gov) page 39; Three Major Benefits of Autonomous
    Trucking : Redwood Logistics. Accessed January 26, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The adoption of automation technologies has historically
    been associated with some level of job displacement. Potential
    trucking workforce job displacement is unknown at this point
    and may vary based on several factors. DOT analysis notes that
    displacement would be limited for business models in which a
    driver remains in the vehicle, regardless of their onboard
    duties.\61\ Increased adoption of low-level automation (e.g.,
    levels 1, 2, and 3) is unlikely to bring about driver job
    displacement but may lead to improvements in safety and
    operations and quality of life.\62\ In the long term, the
    adoption of Level 4 or 5 AVs may supplant certain driving tasks
    and reduce the need for human drivers, displacing workers and
    creating periods of transitional unemployment for some affected
    workers.\63\ Within the trucking sector, job displacement may
    be experienced first in the long-haul sector due to the long
    periods of uninterrupted highway driving (a less complex
    driving task to automate).\64\ Researchers have attempted to
    estimate the impact of AVs on trucking job displacement. Some
    studies show that job displacement estimates may vary from a
    low-end of 19 to 25 percent up to 60 to 65 percent of all heavy
    truck and tractor-trailer driver jobs; however, these estimates
    should be reexamined as they may be limited by the need for new
    and additional data.\65\ Other studies contradict the finding
    that automation will result in job losses.\66\ Additionally,
    certain portions of long haul trucking may be more vulnerable
    to displacement because of a less complex operating environment
    on highways.\67\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ Ibid, page 42.
        \62\ Ibid, page 38 and 45.
        \63\ Ibid.
        \64\ Ibid, page 63.
        \65\ Ibid.
        \66\ Harvard Business Review, Automation Isn't About to Make
    Truckers Obsolete, Maurey Gittleman and Kristen Monaco, September 18,
    2019, available at https://hbr.org/2019/09/automation-isnt-about-to-
    make-truckers-obsolete. Accessed January 29, 2022.
        \67\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
    Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
    (transportation.gov) page 63; And Three Major Benefits of Autonomous
    Trucking : Redwood Logistics. Accessed January 26, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, the more advanced driving automation systems may
    spur increased demand for complementary occupations and create
    new jobs separate from manual truck driving. For example,
    additional, highly skilled mechanics would be required to
    maintain and repair the increasingly complex technologies.\68\
    In addition, experienced drivers could be employed at trucking
    control centers that remotely pilot trucks.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Ibid, page 41.
        \69\ Ibid, page 44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the National Transit Database, there were
    approximately 102,000 transit bus drivers in the U.S. in
    2020.\70\ However, transit agencies across the nation are
    reporting bus driver shortages, which threaten the ability of
    transit agencies to resume pre-pandemic operations.\71\
    Agencies have had to cut transit service to cope, resulting in
    hardships for those that depend on bus transit to get to work,
    school, or shopping to access other services \72\ Fully
    automating transit operator jobs is likely to be difficult due
    to the complexity of the environments in which transit buses
    operate. At high levels of automation, transit agencies may
    elect to replace bus driver positions with service-oriented
    roles such as ``non-driving onboard attendants'' who would be
    responsible for tasks that are difficult to automate, such as
    collecting fares and securing wheelchairs.\73\ However, these
    positions may be lower-skilled and may receive lower pay and
    benefits since the driving component and Commercial Driver's
    License credential requirement would be eliminated.
    Alternatively, AVs may create new job opportunities for transit
    workers in the logistics arena, such as control center staff to
    provide remote supervision and dispatch services.\74\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ This information was provided to the Committee by the Federal
    Transit Administration via email on January 27, 2022.
        \71\ National Public Radio, ``A shortage of bus drivers is causing
    problems for those who use public transportation'' January 17, 2022.
    available at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1073661319/a-shortage-of-
    bus-drivers-is-causing-problems-for-those-who-use-public-transport;
    https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/transit-union-president-says-nfta-
    bus-driver-shortage-
    is-wage-not-pandemic-
    related#::text=Transit%20Union%20president%20says%20NFTA%20
    bus%20driver%20shortage,benefits%2C%20as%20well%20as%20pension%20and%20p
    ost-
    retirement%20benefits; https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/29/bay-area-
    transit-looks-to-woo-new-bus-operators-amid-national-driver-shortage/;
    https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/09/20/metro-transit-route-
    cancellations/; https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/trimet-to-
    limit-bus-service-amid-agencys-worst-ever-driver-shortage/; https://
    www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metry-bus-driver-shortage-route-
    delays/65-3b47fefb-a065-4a5a-9471-6d45864c388b; https://
    www.thecity.nyc/2021/5/24/22452250/mta-bus-driver-shortage-canceled-
    trips-and-waits; https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/09/20/metro-
    transit-route-cancellations/; Accessed January 25, 2022
        \72\ Ibid.
        \73\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
    Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
    (transportation.gov) page 58, available at Driving Automation Systems
    in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
    Potential Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 29,
    2022.
        \74\ Ibid, page 59.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ECONOMICS AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS AND BENEFITS

        Beyond increased mobility and safety, the broad adoption of
    AVs may bring numerous potential benefits to the American
    public. For example, the increase in safety could provide
    society with significant benefits in avoiding the deaths,
    injuries, and other human costs associated with truck and bus
    crashes.\75\ While many crash impacts are intangible, trucking
    firms and transit agencies could also realize direct cost
    savings from reduced repair and maintenance costs, insurance
    premiums, and vehicle downtime.\76\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
    Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
    Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 40, https://
    www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/
    Driving%20Automation%20Systems
    %20in%20Long%20Haul%20Trucking%20and%20Bus%20Transit%20Preliminary
    %20Analysis%20of%20Potential%20Workforce%20Impacts.pdf. Accessed
    January 26, 2022.
        \76\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reducing crashes and their resulting delays will increase
    the efficiency of bus and truck operations and increase the
    capacity and throughput on our roads.\77\ Traffic optimization,
    a potential benefit of AVs if they respond appropriately to
    traffic conditions, is likely to reduce commuting times.\78\ In
    addition, AVs have the potential to improve fleet utilization.
    For example, without a human driver, trucks could potentially
    run more continuously, without the need for human drivers to
    rest.\79\ Likewise, longitudinal control systems on buses can
    increase throughput in congested conditions.\80\ Precision
    docking can improve the customer experience, particularly for
    passengers with disabilities, while also reducing waiting
    times.\81\ AVs could also improve vehicle utilization, as a
    potential bidirectional design can eliminate end-of-run
    turnaround loops, and there would be no need for operator
    breaks.\82\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \77\ IEEE.org, Decision-Making Strategy on Highway for Autonomous
    Vehicles Using Deep Reinforcement Learning, Liao, Liu, Tang, September
    2020, available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9190040.
    Accessed January 29, 2022.
        \78\ Science Direct, Will autonomous vehicles change auto
    commuters' value of travel time?, Zhong, Li, Burris, available at
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
    article/abs/pii/
    S1361920919311010#::text=Autonomous%20vehicles%20could%20reduce%
    20commuters%E2%80%99%20value%20of%20travel,communters%2C%20followed%20by
    %20their
    %20urban%20and%20rural%20counterparts. Accessed January 29, 2022.
        \79\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
    Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
    (transportation.gov) page 44, available at Driving Automation Systems
    in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
    Potential Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 29,
    2022.
        \80\ Ibid, page 54.
        \81\ Ibid.
        \82\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fuel costs are the second highest cost category for the
    trucking industry.\83\ AVs may reduce the amount of fuel
    required, thereby significantly reducing fuel costs and
    benefitting the environment.\84\ Truck platooning, which uses
    automation to allow trucks to follow each other at a set
    distance between trucks, allows trucks to travel closer
    together and offers potential improvements in overall fuel
    economy.\85\ A study shows that platooning with automated
    trucks can reduce fuel consumption by 10 to 25 percent and
    reduce emissions.\86\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \83\ Ibid, page 39.
        \84\ Ibid, page 38 and 39.
        \85\ Ibid. page 13 and 86.
        \86\ Global Trade, ``Vehicle Automation and Carbon Emissions,''
    Peter Buxbaum, December 22, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Potential increases in productivity resulting from AVs may
    result in faster delivery and quicker commuting time.\87\
    Productivity increases together with operational savings may
    result in lower trucking freight rates that may be passed on to
    the consumer \88\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \87\ Benefits of Going Driverless with an Autonomous Vehicle--C&D
    Logistics (cdlogistics.ca). Accessed January 28, 2022.
        \88\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, page 64,
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-department-transportation-
    releases-preparing-future-transportation-automated; http://
    smarttransport.solutions/2018/05/29/freight-transpotation/
    #::text=Automated%20trucks%20
    have%20the%20potential%20to%20improve%20efficiency,consumption%2C%20and%
    20thus
    %20drives%20truck%20freight%20volume%20up. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond the potential direct benefits of AVs, researchers
    are beginning to investigate the broader societal implications
    of AVs. These include the effect of AVs on greenhouse gas
    emissions, congestion, urban design, and equity.\89\ Some
    research suggests that AVs may not uniformly alleviate
    congestion.\90\ Additionally, some studies suggest that AVs may
    increase greenhouse gas emissions because they provide easier
    access to travel and mobility.\91\ Further research is needed
    to conclusively identify the effects of AVs on congestion and
    greenhouse gas emissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \89\ University of Oregon Urbanism Next, Autonomous Vehicles,
    https://www.urbanismnext.org/technologies/autonomous-vehicles. Accessed
    January 24, 2022.
        \90\ Liam Cummins, et al., ``Simulating the effectiveness of wave
    dissipation by FollowerStopper Autonomous Vehicles,'' ResearchGate,
    February 2021, page 23. Available at https://
    www.researchgate.net/publication/
    349100553_Simulating_the_effectiveness_of_wave_
    dissipation_by_FollowerStopper_autonomous_vehicles/link/
    616e36e2039ba26844664ee2/
    download. Accessed January 29, 2022.
        \91\ Moneim Massar, et al., ``Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions--Positive or Negative?'', National Library of
    Medicine, May 23, 2021. Available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
    34071052/. Accessed January 29, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  WITNESS LIST

          The Honorable Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro
    Tem and Councilmember, District K (Houston, TX), on behalf of
    the National League of Cities
          Mr. Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
    Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
    Highway and Transportation Officials
          Mr. John Samuelsen, International President,
    Transport Workers Union of America
          Ms. Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for
    Highway and Auto Safety
          Mr. Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora
          Mr. Doug Bloch, Political Director, Teamsters
    Joint Council 7
          Mr. Nico Larco, Professor and Director of the
    Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon
          Mr. Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
    Vehicle Industry Association

                     THE ROAD AHEAD FOR AUTOMATED VEHICLES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2022

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m. in
    room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
    Eleanor Holmes Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present in person: Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
    Garamendi, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Newman, Mr. Rodney Davis of
    Illinois, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Bost, Mr.
    Westerman, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Nehls.
        Members present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson
    of Georgia, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Ms. Brownley,
    Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Stanton, Mr.
    Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Lamb, Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms.
    Strickland, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Carbajal, Ms.
    Davids of Kansas, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr.
    Cohen, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Massie, Dr. Babin, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr.
    Fitzpatrick, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr.
    Gimenez, and Mrs. Steel.
        Ms. Norton. Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee
    on Highways and Transit's hearing on the future of automated
    vehicles, known as AVs. I must say, I am particularly
    interested in this hearing, fascinated by it, because it gets
    us well beyond roads and bridges.
        Today we will examine the effects of the adoption and
    deployment of AVs on roadway safety, infrastructure, and the
    commercial driving workforce. We will also consider this
    committee's role and responsibility overseeing AV deployment to
    ensure that the highest possible safety standards are met, and
    that all Americans have access to high-quality, family-wage
    transportation jobs.
        Automated vehicles are on the cusp of transforming our
    transportation system. AVs, including commercial trucks and
    buses, are those in which at least some aspect of safety-
    critical control function occurs without direct driver input.
    Some can themselves perform all driving tasks and monitor the
    driving environment.
        This technology presents both opportunities and threats.
    Nationwide, we are experiencing a startling rise in fatalities
    among drivers and other road users. AVs have the potential to
    drastically reduce deaths on our roadways by reducing traffic
    crashes caused by human behavior. Still, safety benefits must
    be carefully weighed against risks, especially when deploying
    commercial and passenger-carrying AVs. We have seen disastrous
    consequences when automation technology is deployed
    haphazardly.
        To maximize the road safety impact of AVs, we must ensure
    that these technologies are held to the highest possible safety
    standards. Such standards must consider the safety of all road
    users who interact with AVs, including pedestrians and cyclists
    and those who scoot and use wheelchairs, which is especially
    critical in urban areas like my own District of Columbia.
        AVs must be integrated into our transportation system in a
    manner that respects America's commercial driving workforce.
    AVs could significantly improve working conditions for
    commercial drivers, and increase on-the-job safety. But
    eliminating the need for a human driver could also result in
    widespread job displacement if the needs of workers are not
    prioritized at the outset. Employer transparency, comprehensive
    regulations, and oversight of AV deployment will be required to
    create and preserve high-quality, family-wage jobs and good
    working conditions for Americans whose livelihoods depend on
    driving.
        Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here and
    offering your unique and much-needed insights for this
    subcommittee. I look forward to a lively discussion and hearing
    what our committee can do to maximize the benefits that AVs aim
    to deliver.
        [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
                              Highways and Transit
        Welcome to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit's hearing on
    the future of automated vehicles, known as AVs. Today, we will examine
    the effects of the adoption and deployment of AVs on roadway safety,
    infrastructure and the commercial driving workforce. We will also
    consider this committee's role and responsibility overseeing AV
    deployment to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are met
    and that all Americans have access to high-quality, family-wage
    transportation jobs.
        Automated vehicles are on the cusp of transforming our
    transportation system. AVs, including commercial trucks and buses, are
    those in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control
    function occurs without direct driver input. Some can themselves
    perform all driving tasks and monitor the driving environment. This
    technology presents both opportunities and threats.
        Nationwide, we are experiencing a startling rise in fatalities
    among drivers and other road users. AVs have the potential to
    drastically reduce deaths on our roadways by reducing traffic crashes
    caused by human behavior. Still, safety benefits must be carefully
    weighed against risk, especially when deploying commercial and
    passenger-carrying AVs. We have seen disastrous consequences when
    automation technology is deployed haphazardly. To maximize the road
    safety impact of AVs, we must ensure that these technologies are held
    to the highest possible safety standards. Such standards must consider
    the safety of all road users who interact with AVs, including
    pedestrians and cyclists and those who scoot and use wheelchairs, which
    is especially critical in urban areas like the District of Columbia.
        AVs must also be integrated into our transportation system in a
    manner that respects America's commercial driving workforce. AVs could
    significantly improve working conditions for commercial drivers and
    increase on-the-job safety. But eliminating the need for a human driver
    could also result in widespread job displacement if the needs of
    workers are not prioritized at the outset. Employer transparency,
    comprehensive regulations and oversight of AV deployment will be
    required to create and preserve high-quality, family-wage jobs and good
    working conditions for Americans whose livelihoods depend on driving.
        Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today and
    offering your unique insights. I look forward to a lively discussion
    and hearing what our committee can do to maximize the benefits that AVs
    aim to deliver.

        Ms. Norton. I ask unanimous consent that the chair be
    authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        Without objection.
        I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
    subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection.
        As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted, unless
    speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
    will request that the Member please mute the microphone.
        To insert a document into the record, please have your
    staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
        Now I am pleased to recognize my good friend, the ranking
    member, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chair Norton. And
    before I begin with my opening comments, can I ask unanimous
    consent to insert into the record comments from the National
    Association of Mutual Insurance Companies?
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

     Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tom Karol, General Counsel Federal,
     National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Submitted for the
                    Record by Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois
                                                      February 2, 2022.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    2136 Rayburn Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    2079 Rayburn House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Representatives,
        The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is
    pleased to offer comments to the House of Representatives Subcommittee
    on Highways and Transit Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for Automated
    Vehicles.''
        NAMIC membership includes more than 1,500 member companies. The
    association supports regional and local mutual insurance companies on
    main streets across America and many of the country's largest national
    insurers. NAMIC member companies write $323 billion in annual premiums.
    Our members account for 67 percent of homeowners, 55 percent of
    automobile, and 32 percent of the business insurance markets.
        According to the most recent projections from the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration, an estimated 31,720 people died in motor
    vehicle traffic crashes in the first nine months of 2021, up from
    28,325 during the same period in 2020, and 26,941 in 2019.\1\ The 2020
    number is especially staggering considering the sharp decline in
    vehicle miles traveled at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Property and casualty insurers have been at the forefront of safety on
    America's roadways for decades and to see these numbers increase at
    this rate is tragic and alarming.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ US Department of Transportation National Highway Safety
    Administration https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
    ViewPublication/813240
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 without 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 stakeholders. Innovation for the sake of
    innovation that is not demonstrably connected to enhanced safety merely
    serves as a convenient talking point.
        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 and reduces the frequency of crashes caused by sleeping,
    intoxication, distraction, or speeding.
        The potential for technology to move the proverbial needle on crash
    statistics is extraordinary. However, there will still be crashes,
    especially in an environment where automated 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.
        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 since 2017 have averaged approximately 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.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 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.
         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.
        For a long time to come, vehicles equipped with ADS will share the
    road with vehicles with no automation and these vehicles will
    inevitably be involved in crashes. Furthermore, the increased removal
    of human driver error through automation introduces new risk factors
    that could cause crashes such as sensor, camera, and software errors.
    Because of this, determining liability following a crash will
    increasingly rely on the data that the vehicle generates prior to and
    during a crash. Making a liability determination and addressing claims
    will require a more complete understanding of what the vehicle was
    designed to do and not do, what the human driver was required to do and
    not do, and under what conditions, as well as the proper upkeep of the
    vehicle and all relevant traffic and weather conditions. Recent high-
    profile examples of fatal automobile crashes where it is in dispute
    whether the vehicle was in ``autopilot'' mode tragically highlight the
    need to ensure that incident and maintenance data is available to third
    parties, especially insurers.
        The types of objective and verifiable data that will be required to
    provide insurance for ADS--data on crash frequency, crash 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
    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 numerous 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 responsibly. Similarly, insurance
    companies have deep experience in data security and the wide scope of
    data privacy requirements when it comes to both their own products and
    the protection of policyholder information.
        It would be in the best interests of proponents of safe ADS to
    coordinate and consider new and improved alternative means to
    communicate on ADS technology and performance. Somewhere between the
    extreme poles of ``just trust us'' and reams of federal and state
    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 subsequent public acceptance can
    be greatly enhanced by a measurable gauge of ADS safety/risks through
    recognized analysis of the most relevant data. Insurers, with their
    direct and ongoing contact with drivers and owners, are a most
    effective way to enhance that communication.
    The Challenge: Defining What Dual Control Automated/Driver Vehicles Can
                                Do and Cannot Do
        Today, and possibly for a long time to come, the full driving
    task--SAE Levels 4 and 5--is too complex an activity to be fully
    formalized as a sensing-acting robotics system that can be explicitly
    solved through model-based and learning-based approaches to achieve
    full unconstrained vehicle autonomy.\3\ Car companies--or original
    equipment manufacturers, as they are known--are building and offering
    cars today in which the dynamic driving tasks of the vehicle can be
    controlled at times by the vehicle and at times by the occupant. These
    conditional automation/dual-control cars can be as relatively simple as
    the widely used automatic braking. Advanced driving assistance features
    today specify that they do not substitute for the driver's
    responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe manner; that the driver
    should remain attentive to traffic, surroundings, and road conditions
    always; and that visibility, weather, and road conditions may affect
    feature performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Citing MIT Advanced Vehicle Technology Study: Large-Scale
    Naturalistic Driving Study of Driver Behavior and Interaction with
    Automation, available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.06976.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to understand the designed capabilities and
    limitations of the dual control vehicle and how and when driving
    operations were engaged or disengaged leading up to the crash. Robert
    Sumwalt, former Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board
    (NTSB) has stated, ``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.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Testimony of The Honorable Robert L. Sumwalt, III, chairman,
    National Transportation Safety Board, before the Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation, United States Senate hearing ``Highly
    Automated Vehicles: Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety
    Technology,'' page 9 at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/
    B8EF39B5-DE24-48AA-A870-B6CF8E0D5033.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the biggest impediments today is public wariness of
    automated vehicles, with public confidence in ``self-driving'' cars
    rated as low in recent studies.\5\ Providing more specific information
    about what each model is designed to do will enable consumers to better
    understand and accept their responsibilities in these vehicles.
    Increasing confidence in the technology through access to more and
    better information of the specific capabilities and limitations of a
    vehicle could enhance the safe operation and prepare consumers for
    higher levels of automation in the future. This same information can
    greatly assist the further development and implementation for clear
    federal and state regulations for the deployment of these vehicles. By
    making this information widely available without prescriptive
    government regulations, OEMs can provide regulators with the assurances
    they need but retain the flexibility to modify disclosures to address
    upgrades and revisions. False or misleading information will remain
    subject to existing civil and criminal sanctions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ A survey sponsored by Partners for Automated Vehicle Education
    reported that nearly three in four Americans say AV technology is ``not
    ready for primetime.'' 48% of Americans said they ``would never get in
    a taxi or ride-share vehicle that was being driven autonomously.'' 58%
    think safe AVs will be available in ten years, and 20% believe they
    will never be safe. Only 34% of Americans thought ``the advantages of
    AVs outweigh any potential disadvantages'' and only 18% of Americans
    agree with the statement ``if there was a website to get on a waiting
    list for the first AV, I'd put my name down.'' https://
    pavecampaign.org/pave-poll-americans-wary-of-avs-but-say-education-and-
    experience-with-technology-can-build-trust/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Insurance Companies Have the Expertise to Help Assessment of the Safety
                         Testing of 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 long 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 embrace and support safety enhancements as this
    new frontier of automotive products and services evolves. A JD Power
    survey found that consumers have the highest levels of confidence in
    insurance companies when it comes to dealing with ADS.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Automated Vehicles and Insurance Pulse Survey, https://
    www.namic.org/pdf/18memberadvisory/
    181008_Automated_Vehicles_JD_Power_NAMIC_Questionnaire.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The business of insurance demands the application of hard data and
    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 together with
    regulators at all levels of government, 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.
                                   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 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, starting 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
    \7\, 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ A 2019 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 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-selfdriving-poll/americans-
    still-dont-trust-self-driving-cars-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-
    idUSKCN1RD2QS AAA reported 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, better, and timely data on the proposed and adopted
    design and operation of ADS, as well as a framework for the access and
    analysis of accident information for purposes of establishing
    liability. 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 are committed to working with auto manufacturers
    and safety advocates to develop and implement commercial standards that
    can save lives.
        As an industry that has extensive experience with automobile
    technology and safety, we look forward to working with the subcommittee
    on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration and we would
    welcome the opportunity to discuss further.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Tom Karol,
     General Counsel Federal, National Association of Mutual Insurance
                                                             Companies.

        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you. And we will email
    it too, follow those instructions.
        I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing, along with
    Chair Norton, on automated vehicles.
        AVs offer the opportunity to not only transform the
    automotive, trucking, and transit industries, but they will
    also transform our Nation as a whole, and solve many of the
    challenges that we face.
        As you know, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over large
    trucks and buses. Employing automated technologies on trucks
    and buses will have economic and societal implications that we
    believe will benefit every American.
        Most importantly, incorporating this new technology will
    save lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    estimates that 38,680 people died in motor vehicle accidents in
    2020 and expects fatalities to increase in 2021. According to
    the Department of Transportation, 94 percent of serious crashes
    are due to driver error. Because AVs are expected to anticipate
    dangers and mitigate or remove human error from the chain of
    events that lead to a crash, AV technology would increase
    safety and save lives.
        In addition, AVs could revolutionize mobility and make the
    transport of goods and people safer, easier, cheaper, more
    efficient, and more accessible. AV technology could improve
    mobility for vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those
    with disabilities, connecting them with jobs and services and
    allowing them to live independently. In addition, the resulting
    freight transportation efficiencies could reduce the cost of
    goods for consumers, and in the longer term, provide solutions
    to some of the supply chain bottlenecks that America is
    currently experiencing today.
        While these benefits are compelling, we must recognize the
    potential impacts of AV technology and what they could have on
    our workforce, and we need to implement pro-worker policies.
    Because AV deployment may lead to fewer professional driving
    jobs, we need to incorporate employee development and training
    programs to upskill our workforce so that they can take
    advantage of new jobs that AVs will create.
        Today, transit agencies and trucking companies are
    partnering with technology firms to test AVs. Our future
    depends on what we do now. We need to have a clear regulatory
    structure in place to be able to continue to support AV
    innovations and its eventual deployment. We need to take the
    steps necessary to ensure that America cements its leadership
    in the AV space.
        And with that, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
    today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
        [Mr. Davis's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                              Highways and Transit
        AVs offer the opportunity to not only transform the automotive,
    trucking, and transit industries, but it will also transform our Nation
    as a whole and solve many of the challenges we face.
        As you know, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over large trucks
    and buses. Employing automated technologies on trucks and buses will
    have economic and societal implications which will benefit every
    American.
        Most importantly, incorporating this new technology will save
    lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates
    that 38,680 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2020 and expects
    fatalities to increase in 2021. According to the Department of
    Transportation, 94 percent of serious crashes are due to driver error.
    Because AVs are expected to anticipate dangers and mitigate or remove
    human error from the chain of events that lead to a crash, AV
    technology would increase safety and save lives.
        In addition, AVs could revolutionize mobility and make the
    transport of goods and people easier, cheaper, more efficient, and more
    accessible. AV technology could improve mobility for vulnerable groups,
    including the elderly and those with disabilities, connecting them with
    jobs and services and allowing them to live independently. In addition,
    the resulting freight transportation efficiencies could reduce the cost
    of goods for consumers, and in the longer term, provide solutions to
    some of the supply chain bottlenecks we are experiencing today.
        While these benefits are compelling, we must recognize the
    potential impacts AVs could have on our workforce and implement pro-
    worker policies. Because AV deployment may lead to fewer professional
    driving jobs, we need to incorporate employee development and training
    programs to upskill our workforce so they can take advantage of new
    jobs that AVs will create.
        Today, transit agencies and trucking companies are partnering with
    technology firms to test AVs. Our future depends on what we do now. We
    need to have a clear regulatory structure in place to continue to
    support AV innovations and deployment. We need to take the steps
    necessary to ensure that America cements its leadership in the AV
    space.
        With that, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and
    I look forward to hearing their testimony.

        Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. And I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I am now pleased to yield
    to the chair of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, for any
    opening statement he may have.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for holding
    this very important hearing, and thanks to all the witnesses.
    Since there are so many witnesses, and there is a lot to learn,
    I will be very brief.
        But the challenges that are proposed--obviously, there is
    tremendous promise with AVs; already a number of aspects of
    those promises have been mentioned by the two preceding
    speakers. I won't repeat those.
        But it is also a tremendous challenge to regulators to
    regulate a rapidly evolving technology. To be certain that all
    public interests are included in the development, deployment,
    and operation of these vehicles is going to be an extraordinary
    challenge for the Federal regulators. It shouldn't be done
    State by State. We need some reasonable guidelines, federally,
    and we have got to get it right.
        You know, unregulated--we saw what happened with Boeing and
    the MAX, and we don't want that to happen with AVs. I just read
    a report today, and I think it was the Washington Post, that
    there were 34 unexpected and unnecessary severe braking
    incidents in Teslas last month. It didn't lead to any major
    accidents yet, but it certainly could. So, there are potential
    downsides to this technology, as it is being deployed and
    developed, and we have to stay on top of that.
        It also presents a challenge to our infrastructure that
    these AVs use different ways of, basically, centering
    themselves on the road. If you don't have good striping, if you
    don't have fog lines, and if you don't have regular signage, it
    is going to be much more problematic of deployment and rollout,
    ultimately.
        So, we have got to get it right. We have got to realize the
    promise. We can mitigate congestion, certainly mitigate deaths,
    and be a more efficient Nation in terms of fuel consumption.
    There is a whole host of benefits just waiting out there. We've
    just got to get it right as we move toward them.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing on
    automated vehicles.
        To some, AVs are a new, far-fetched technology. To a degree, this
    is true. But in more and more cases, AVs are already here. A company
    called TuSimple reported that they just completed the first automated
    truck run on public roads without a human in the vehicle and without
    human intervention. Waymo has been operating a robotaxi service in
    Phoenix since October 2020. According to DOT, there are over 1,400
    automated vehicles currently in testing by more than 80 companies
    across 36 states. I had the privilege to ride in an automated Waymo
    vehicle in California a few years ago.
        AVs have the potential to bring significant benefits to the
    traveling public and reduce deaths on our roadways.
        In 2019, an astounding 36,096 people were killed in motor vehicle
    traffic crashes on U.S. roadways. And traffic deaths have risen even
    higher during the pandemic. According to the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA), 20,160 people died in traffic crashes
    during the first half of 2021--that's the highest number of fatalities
    in that time period since 2006. Bicyclist and pedestrian deaths have
    increased by 50 percent since 2009. So not only are our roads
    dangerous, but they are getting worse for our most vulnerable road
    users.
        In order to reap the safety benefits of AVs, regulators must do
    their part to hold industry accountable in this process and ensure that
    AVs deliver on their promise of safer roads. We know what can happen
    when regulators let industry go unchecked. The 737 MAX tragedy was the
    result of Boeing's corporate greed and a lax safety culture within the
    FAA.
        We cannot make the same mistakes with automated vehicles. Safety--
    for all road users--should be our number one priority. We cannot cut
    corners in the name of expediency or convenience.
        The deployment of AVs also stands to have tremendous impacts on the
    surface transportation workforce. As we begin to craft AV policy, labor
    must have a seat at the table to ensure that transportation workers can
    do their jobs safely, particularly as truck drivers and transit
    operators share the road with AVs.
        As regulators work to hold automated trucks and buses to the
    highest safety standards, they must rely on the expertise of the men
    and women who operate these vehicles today. Professional commercial
    drivers have a deep well of knowledge on operating conditions on our
    roads, and must be part of the safe transition to advanced
    technologies.
        The workforce implications to commercial drivers is another reason
    Congress should give special consideration to commercial AV policy,
    separate from ongoing work on passenger AVs.
        I have fought for years to enact policy changes that make the job
    of a commercial truck driver safer and more sustainable. As automated
    commercial truck and bus deployment becomes closer to reality, Congress
    needs to consider policies to support these hard-working men and women
    and ensure that trucking remains a good career option.
        Too often, American workers have been left behind when technologies
    evolve and corporate interests are left in charge of the way forward.
    Regulators and innovators need to work together to make safe automated
    vehicles and a stable, well-paid transportation workforce a reality in
    the future.
        I thank each of the witnesses assembled here today, and I look
    forward to this important discussion.

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. I would like to
    now welcome today's witnesses on our panel: The Honorable
    Martha Castex-Tatum, vice mayor pro tem and city councilmember
    for Houston, Texas, testifying on behalf of the National League
    of Cities; Mr. Scott Marler, director, Iowa Department of
    Transportation, testifying on behalf of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Mr.
    John Samuelsen, international president, Transport Workers
    Union of America; Ms. Catherine Chase, president, Advocates for
    Highway and Auto Safety; Mr. Nat Beuse, vice president of
    safety, Aurora; Mr. Doug Bloch, political director, Teamsters
    Joint Council 7; Mr. Nico Larco, director and professor of
    Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon; and Mr. Ariel Wolf,
    general counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.
        Thank you for being here today, I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record.
        Since your testimony has been made a part of the record,
    the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral testimony to
    5 minutes.
        First, Ms. Castex-Tatum, you may proceed.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. MARTHA CASTEX-TATUM, VICE MAYOR PRO TEMPORE,
      HOUSTON, TX, AND COUNCILMEMBER, DISTRICT K, HOUSTON, TX, ON
        BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; SCOTT MARLER,
     DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
       AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
     OFFICIALS; JOHN SAMUELSEN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT
    WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT,
        ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; NAT BEUSE, VICE
     PRESIDENT OF SAFETY, AURORA; DOUG BLOCH, POLITICAL DIRECTOR,
     JOINT COUNCIL 7, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; NICO
       LARCO, AIA, DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR, URBANISM NEXT CENTER,
     UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; AND ARIEL WOLF, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL,
                AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair
    DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Davis, and
    members of the subcommittee. I am Houston's vice mayor pro tem,
    representing District K, on the southwest side of Houston. I am
    here today on behalf of the National League of Cities to
    discuss our experiences with piloting autonomous vehicles.
        Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on America's
    roads. Today we are losing far too many of our residents to
    dangerous roads in Houston and across this country, and efforts
    to reduce fatalities must include every possible strategy,
    including autonomous vehicles.
        Cities handle most aspects of public transportation, and
    that experience and authority equips us to see both the
    opportunities and challenges to these new types of
    transportation. We are aiming to create the right environment
    of shared, safe, connected AV transportation options that will
    better serve our residents and meet our goals as a city.
        In Houston, piloting the testing of AV started with our
    METRO transit agency and their self-driving shuttle at Texas
    Southern University on their Tiger Walk across campus. They are
    now expanding their pilots to on-road options between two
    universities, AV buses, and researching better paratransit
    options.
        My district was one of the first three areas in Houston
    where Nuro launched zero-occupant AVs for commercial service
    delivery using lower speeds and smaller, lightweight vehicles.
    These AVs pull right up to your home and deliver groceries,
    prescriptions, or hot food from Kroger, Domino's, CVS, and the
    Houston Food Bank, which has been extremely helpful during
    COVID, when we needed to social distance, but also needed our
    daily necessities.
        When Nuro first came to District K, we made arrangements
    with our local police officers to allow them to see the
    vehicle, understand how to access it in an emergency, and to
    ask questions. As with all AVs, these vehicles must be designed
    to operate on the roads, as they exist today, and to interact
    in the real-world situations.
        Today the National League of Cities is providing three
    recommendations for Federal action.
        Number one, invest in piloting with local governments.
    Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation can support
    a Federal pilot for local AV testing, in partnership with
    communities, and with strong safety guidelines. The scaling and
    spread of piloting to different areas of the country and
    different climates can encourage the data exchange that will
    allow for Federal safety regulators to move the entire
    autonomous industry forward.
        Number two, invest in ensuring a skilled, trained
    workforce. In Houston, we want to ensure residents have access
    to quality jobs that have even higher earning potential. We are
    encouraged by companies like Nuro starting new upskilling
    training programs with community colleges. But investments in
    our Nation's workforce need to happen at scale. We know we need
    workers for infrastructure rebuilding and for growing
    technology industries like AVs. If we do not invest in worker
    training now, NLC's latest study shows the U.S. will struggle
    to fill at least 4.5 million jobs. Any moving legislation, like
    the Build Back Better Act, must invest in workforce training.
        Number three, raise planning and technology sharing in
    regions. Anticipating, adapting, and accommodating for changes
    is the basis for good transportation planning. New technology
    is changing transportation, and investment and planning for the
    future will serve us in more sustainable and practical ways.
        In closing, we firmly believe Congress and America's
    cities, towns, and villages are crucial to the safe adoption of
    AVs into our existing transportation networks. I am proud of
    the work that we have done in Houston, and we look forward to
    working with each of you as we advance our shared goals in
    transportation safely together.
        Thank you.
        [Ms. Castex-Tatum's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore,
     Houston, TX, and Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of
                         the National League of Cities
        Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Members Graves
    and Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee:
        I am Vice Mayor Pro Tempore Martha Castex-Tatum from Houston,
    Texas, and the council member of District K, a growing area on the
    southwest side of Houston. There is a unique level of responsibility
    when you are the council member representing your mom and dad, your
    ninth-grade science teacher, eighth grade basketball coach, and so many
    others in the community where you were raised. I am honored to serve
    and impact city government which in turn impacts the quality of life of
    our shared constituencies. Houston must be a safe and thriving city for
    them to live, work and play.
        I am here today on behalf of the National League of Cities (NLC)--
    the nation's oldest and largest network of cities, towns and villages
    across America. I would like to share with you our city's experience
    with piloting autonomous vehicles (AVs) and to share the collective
    wisdom of our city leaders who are both leading the way for AV testing
    programs and calling for safer streets, sidewalks, and vehicles. Today
    we are losing far too many of our residents to dangerous roads,
    driving, and vehicles.
        Last week, NLC applauded the USDOT releasing their National Roadway
    Safety Strategy, a roadmap for addressing the national crisis in
    roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and we thank Congress for
    including a new local Safer Streets and Roads for All program in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We must change the current
    transportation status quo which is no longer serving us well. Houston
    has set the goal of zero fatalities on our roads. We have lost over 200
    lives on Houston's roads plus more than 1,000 serious injuries every
    year since 2014. Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on
    America's roads. We want you to know that city leaders are committed to
    eliminating these fatalities and serious injuries by 2030, through our
    city efforts like Houston's Vision Zero program as well as our
    collective efforts at the NLC like the ``Safety First Challenge for
    Safer Streets'' and through participation in the Road to Zero
    coalition. We look forward to being able to access the safety funds and
    other programs in the bipartisan infrastructure law new programs once
    Congress has passed their annual budget which is overdue. Some of the
    benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure law are being unnecessarily
    delayed due to Congress' failure to pass the fiscal year 2022
    appropriations legislation--this includes programs like the new
    competitive bridge program even while we saw the horrific photos of a
    bridge failure last week. At the local level, we are willing to make
    every effort to reduce fatalities using every possible strategy,
    including AVs, but we need Congress to complete their fundamental
    duties here in Washington so we can move the benefits of the bipartisan
    infrastructure bill forward.
        Cities are proud of our reputation as leaders in transportation and
    innovation. We know we are the ideal laboratories where new mobility
    models are gravitating to pilot today as many more companies move from
    test tracks to real streets. From transportation network companies, to
    bus rapid transit, to micromobility, to shared cars and AV shuttles and
    buses, the transportation of the future is shared and connected--and it
    is here today.
        Solutions like shared AV rides are important because we cannot just
    replace a regular gasoline car with an autonomous one. Congestion today
    demands that we leverage as many shared and connected options as
    possible. Cities are aiming to create the right environment of shared,
    safe, connected, and autonomous transportation options that will better
    serve our residents and meet our goals. While these are significant
    ambitions, local governments orchestrate most aspects of public
    transportation in their areas, and our experience and authority equips
    us to understand both the opportunities and challenges of new entrants
    to city streets including AVs which we're here to focus on today.
                              Houston's AV Pilots
        Piloting and testing of AVs is happening today on our streets in
    Houston, across Texas, and in many other states where they are actively
    passing legislation. As our industry is being shaped, Congress remains
    a critical leader to:
        1)  ensure safe operations,
        2)  prepare our workforce for the great jobs ahead, and
        3)  invest in foundational transportation planning and technology
    that will serve us in more sustainable and practical ways.
                            Autonomous Transit Pilot
        Houston METRO, our transit agency, was the first entity in our city
    to start piloting a self-driving shuttle at Texas Southern University
    in 2019. It operated on Tiger Walk and served students moving around
    campus. The Operational Plan laid out some of the infrastructure
    preparations made to ensure a safe pilot for a new technology,
    including:
          An emergency operator was on board;
          Emergency procedures were created with TSU's Department
    of Safety;
          Post-Accident Testing Decision Maker and Notification
    Testing Form was developed;
          Signage for pedestrians (not for AVs to read) was
    implemented on the Walk;
          Guests and METRO personnel were required to complete a
    consent form before boarding the shuttle; and
          Surveys were conducted at the end of rides.

        While the METRO EasyMile shuttle pilot has ended, METRO is starting
    Phase II to provide first and last mile service between Texas Southern
    University and the University of Houston in 2022-2024. This ``Shuttle
    of the Future'' will be an electric shuttle with Level 4 autonomous
    self-driving and leverage the Federal Transit Administration's
    Accelerating Innovative Mobility Grant as an Autonomous Vehicle Proving
    Ground. METRO will continue its involvement in the Automated Bus
    Consortium, a national collection of transit agencies and departments
    of transportation to facilitate development of a full-size electric
    automated bus. Transit continues to be where so much of the value of
    automation can be realized.
                       Autonomous Zero-Occupant Delivery
        Houston is also one of the first cities to see AVs conducting
    commercial delivery service, with the deployment of Nuro's zero-
    occupant, electric AVs, and I am glad that my own District K was one of
    the first three zip codes where service launched. These vehicles are
    offering our residents more zero-emission options with lower speeds and
    smaller, lightweight vehicles. Since 2019, Nuro has delivered
    groceries, prescriptions, and hot food in partnership with Kroger's,
    Domino's, CVS, and the Houston Food Bank, which has been helpful during
    a time when we needed to social distance but also required necessities
    such as groceries and medicine. They also just completed a year-long
    research pilot with Houston METRO, exploring the benefits of autonomous
    delivery service for paratransit customers.
        When Nuro first came to District K, we made arrangements with our
    local police officers to allow them to see the vehicle, understand how
    to access it in an emergency, and ask questions. Nuro's Law Enforcement
    Interaction Plan provides the procedures, instructions, and vehicle
    information necessary to support first responders in the event of an
    emergency or other issue. They also validated the technical
    capabilities of their software through perception testing with the
    Houston Police Department to ensure their AVs detect and respond to
    emergency vehicles. Prior to testing, and throughout deployment, we saw
    outreach to our local communities and regular engagement with first
    responders and city staff to ensure Nuro's vehicles are safely moving
    into our neighborhoods.
        As a mother raising an infant, the promise of an autonomous vehicle
    delivery dropping off necessities would have been a welcome option from
    having to pack a diaper bag, then a child into a car seat and go
    through the motions of parking, unloading, sanitizing the cart, check
    out, reloading, arriving, unloading my child and the bags, and finally
    getting settled in, back at home. The time saved, anxiety and
    elimination of a potential incident on the road are clear reasons to
    see these opportunities and change it for the better. Sometimes we do
    not realize the hurdles we create because of the inherited design and
    land use previous generations made that impact our daily lives.
                            AV Infrastructure Needs
        As autonomous vehicle companies have said before in front of
    Congress, these vehicles are designed to operate on the roads as they
    exist today. While most have to extensively map, learn, and grow their
    testing areas, AVs do not require any new infrastructure improvements
    specific to autonomous vehicles. However, they do benefit from roads in
    good shape like any car or driver. If we had to redesign the roads or
    chip every asset as some suggested to allow AVs on our roads, the cost
    for local governments who own and maintain the majority of the nation's
    roads, streets and sidewalks would be untenable. Design of our roads is
    a critical issue for cities like Houston, and we welcome the
    opportunity to work with Congress to ensure that guides, like the
    Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, evolve into the modern and
    technology-forward tools we need that reflect the budgets we must be
    realistic about.
        The nation's city leaders see that AV technology is here so it
    cannot be ignored or left in a regulatory limbo while it operates on
    our streets. In my role as a Councilmember, my job is to ensure that if
    the technology is here, then we must prepare to use it well and be
    willing to speak up when challenges exceed our local reach. Today, NLC
    is providing three recommendations for federal action that will promote
    safe AV testing if done correctly and also grow job opportunities in
    the U.S. as well as urge you to pass the fiscal year 2022
    appropriations legislation so the America's infrastructure work is not
    further delayed.
    1. Invest in Piloting With Local Governments
        America's cities are open to piloting more technology safely that
    can make our residents' lives better, and Congress and the U.S.
    Department of Transportation can support localized piloting in a new
    effort with strong federal safety guidelines. We need to move forward
    on piloting this technology, particularly for shared uses and in areas
    of the country that feel left behind, and USDOT has the authority to
    act on this today. While large hub cities naturally have technology
    partners interested in testing, thousands more cities and rural towns
    are interested in what an AV shuttle, like METRO's, or even just one
    delivery AV, like Nuro, could mean for their community. NLC believes
    that we can see clearly from our current landscape that simply allowing
    exemptions and opening up wide areas for testing alone is not going to
    meet the transportation needs of our country especially in rural and
    suburban communities. The intentional scaling and spread of piloting to
    different areas and climates, data exchange, and transportation
    planning can fundamentally impact our transportation rides as a country
    and allow for federal safety regulators to have the necessary data to
    move the whole autonomous industry forward out of its current limbo and
    exemptions process. A national pilot under USDOT's careful safety watch
    could also:
          ensure the type of local safety preparations that we used
    in Houston are followed as standard practices;
          support clear standardization of necessary connectivity
    infrastructure;
          ensure cybersecurity practices;
          share operations data that planners need to assess
    operations in context and NHTSA needs in order to adapt car safety
    standards to AVs;
          support shared ride practices with equity in mind in
    urban, suburban and rural markets as well as places with snow and
    climate challenges; and
          bring piloting forward without setting safety aside.
    2. Invest in Ensuring a Skilled, Trained Workforce
        Investment in workforce needs to happen at scale and today. In
    cities, towns, and villages across America, we know that we cannot
    carry out today's road, bridge, water and broadband projects funded
    through the bipartisan infrastructure law without trained, skilled
    workers--to say nothing of the future demand for new skills sparked by
    new technologies such as autonomous vehicles.
        In Houston, we want to ensure that we are building up high quality
    jobs that have even higher earning potential. Locally in Houston, to
    fill the jobs of the near future at Nuro requires a new focus on
    upscaling our technical training. Nuro employs 120 people in Houston
    and continues to actively hire more. These are full-time jobs with full
    benefits across skill levels ranging from high school graduates to
    PhDs. There are several dire and rosy estimates on the impact of AV
    jobs, but we must consider the quality of jobs in the discussion and
    recognize that a delivery job may not pay the rent, but a technician
    position might. That job leap is made possible with workforce training.
        In 2021, Nuro launched a first-of-its-kind National Upskilling
    Initiative that establishes partnerships with community colleges in
    their operating areas to create education and training opportunities
    for workers looking to transition to jobs working on autonomous,
    electric vehicles. Nuro is working with San Jacinto College to
    establish a certificate program for a variety of roles, many of which
    do not require four-year degrees, including Fleet Technicians, Junior
    Fleet Technicians, and Fleet Technician Supervisors. Students qualify
    for paid internships or part-time work opportunities at Nuro while
    completing the pathway. They also have preference in applying to full-
    time positions at the company after completing the initial coursework.
    New programs will build on learnings from Nuro's current partnership
    with De Anza College in California, which also includes a tuition-free
    option.
        We also know municipal governments and transit agencies like METRO
    are equally in need of the right skills to work on more electric and
    computer-driven vehicles. How Hard-to-Fill Infrastructure Jobs Impact
    Building Our Future, a recent report on infrastructure jobs by the
    National League of Cities, found that the median infrastructure job
    takes 20% more time to fill than a non-infrastructure job. To put that
    in perspective, if we do nothing to improve labor market outcomes for
    infrastructure-related jobs, we can anticipate that we will struggle to
    fill at least 4.5 million jobs nationally, which would close the door
    to opportunity and economic well-being for too many families,
    businesses and communities.
        To meet our own workforce needs, Houston has focused on STEM
    careers, particularly for youth. The City's Hire Houston Youth program
    has helped connect more than 30,000 Houston youth to careers, including
    those in new technologies. In addition, to ensure well-paying
    infrastructure job opportunities extend to all, we have established
    Houston's first reengagement center, so that Opportunity Youth ages 16
    to 24 can finish school and progress into training. We are glad to be
    working with NLC and other leading cities on increasing tech-driven
    workforce opportunities for youth.
        Even with our investments as a city, the worker gaps are widely
    seen and acknowledged by businesses and workers alike as a problem. As
    Congress moves forward with consideration of the Build Back Better Act,
    ensuring that we act quickly on workforce funding is paramount to
    making the most of our federal investment in infrastructure as well as
    bringing new workers into key sectors to meet employer demand. Without
    this investment, projects will take longer, cost more and slow our
    ability to meet employer needs.
    3. Raise Planning and Technology Sharing in Regions
        America's transportation foundations shifted underneath our feet
    during COVID--including travel patterns, land use, freight movement,
    and more. While some changes are temporary like a pandemic travel
    reduction, the shifts from technology in transportation such as
    transportation network companies changes long-term dynamics.
    Additionally, larger external business trends like e-commerce remain
    steadily growing. Anticipating, adapting, and accommodating
    transportation for these trends is the basis of good transportation
    planning from our metropolitan planning organizations remains
    underappreciated in federal programming. Investing in foundational
    transportation planning, logistics, and technology at the metropolitan
    and regional levels will serve us in more sustainable and practical
    ways. Whether it was the arrival of scooters or the coming take-off of
    advanced aviation, the planning of America's transportation is an
    investment in the future.
                 Safe AV Testing Takes All Levels of Government
        In conclusion, we firmly believe local governments are crucial to
    the safe adoption of AVs into our existing transportation networks with
    other transportation modes and users. Ultimately, implementation of a
    successful AV policy requires finding the appropriate balance between
    cooperating and delineating the respective state, local and federal
    responsibilities and ensuring that appropriate funding and incentives
    are in place for the desired outcomes. We must approach these issues in
    a systematic and pragmatic manner to ensure that safety on our nation's
    roadways and streets is paramount. America's cities, towns and villages
    look forward to working with each of you to advance our shared goals in
    transportation.
        Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Thank you.
        And now we would move to Mr. Scott Marler, director, Iowa
    Department of Transportation.
        Mr. Marler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Marler. Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member
    Davis, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the subcommittee,
    good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today
    and speak to the important topic of automated transportation.
    It is my honor to testify on behalf of the American Association
    of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Iowa
    Department of Transportation.
        My main message is to share the critical importance that
    connected and automated vehicles, or CAVs, will have on
    improving the safety, equity, and sustainability of the
    Nation's transportation system. State DOTs are preparing for a
    future with CAVs, and are absolutely dedicated to supporting
    the safe deployment of a connected, automated, and cooperative
    vehicle roadway ecosystem, where benefits extend across modes
    and throughout all States.
        One of the key reasons State DOTs are so interested in CAVs
    is to improve roadway safety. We have learned that the first 9
    months of 2021 were deadly on our Nation's roads, where more
    than 31,700 people died in traffic crashes. In Iowa alone, we
    lost 354 people to traffic crashes last year. This is entirely
    unacceptable, as each life lost is one too many.
        USDOT recently announced the National Roadway Safety
    Strategy, which includes actions for safer roads and safer
    vehicles. CAVs hold tremendous potential to reduce crashes and
    save lives, and I believe that CAV technologies must be an
    integral part of these strategies in order to fully realize the
    safety promise they hold.
        In Iowa, our vision for deploying automated transportation
    has taken a two-pronged approach, focused on the drivers of
    today and the CAVs of tomorrow. We have several strategies that
    promote readiness for a more connected and automated
    transportation future, including the following: defining our
    vision and plan, extensive stakeholder engagement through our
    Automated Transportation Council, new policies and legislation
    that now enable and support driverless vehicles, and
    infrastructure improvements that work for human drivers today
    and the CAVs of tomorrow.
        Iowa's experience is not unique among the State DOTs. In
    October 2021, AASHTO adopted 10 CAV policy principles we
    believe are fundamental to the safe and effective deployment of
    CAVs across our States and Nation. I would like to quickly
    highlight two for you now.
        First, to fully realize the benefits of automated
    transportation, AASHTO member States believe that vehicles must
    be more than automated; they must also be connected. Connected
    vehicle technology is key to ensuring automated vehicles have
    the enhanced safety features in place to fully advance our
    goals of a safe, mobile, equitable, and efficient
    transportation system. This is a key reason why we continue to
    strongly support the preservation of the 5.9 gigahertz
    spectrum.
        Second, AASHTO believes there is an urgent need for a
    coordinated national strategy, which includes a vision and
    roadmap for CAV readiness and deployment. The vision and
    strategy must be developed collaboratively, with active input
    from infrastructure owner-operators, industry, communities, and
    all levels of Government. Because the safety and mobility
    benefits are potentially enormous, fully realizing them
    requires clear strategic direction to focus and align our
    programs and tactics.
        These are only two of our CAV policy principles at AASHTO,
    and I encourage you to review all 10 in more detail.
        I would like to conclude my remarks this morning by
    bringing emphasis to three critical actions that we believe
    will lead to the successful deployment of CAV technologies.
        Number one, develop a national strategy and vision.
    Congress can foster progress by calling on USDOT and the
    transportation community at large to articulate a clear vision
    and national strategy for automated transportation.
        Number two, continue to foster collaboration and
    partnerships. USDOT needs to continue fostering partnerships
    and cross-sector dialogue, because collaboration is our
    competitive advantage.
        Number three, preserve the needed communication spectrum.
    Congress can provide much-needed certainty by working within
    their authority to reserve the safety spectrum for
    transportation.
        Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify
    today on behalf of AASHTO and the Iowa DOT. I will be happy to
    answer any followup questions. Thank you.
        [Mr. Marler's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
    Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway
                          and Transportation Officials
                                  Introduction
        Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and speak
    to the important topic of automated transportation and what lies ahead
    with these critical technologies.
        My name is Scott Marler, and I serve as the Director of the Iowa
    Department of Transportation, chair of the AASHTO Committee on
    Transportation System Operations, and tri-chair of the Cooperative
    Automated Transportation (CAT) Coalition, a partnership between the
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    (AASHTO), Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America),
    Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA). Today, it is my honor to testify on behalf of
    the State of Iowa and AASHTO, which represents the state departments of
    transportation (DOTs) of all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto
    Rico.
        I firmly believe, as do the other state DOTs, that the deployment
    of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) will greatly improve the
    safety, equity, and sustainability of the nation's transportation
    system. CAVs represent an important part of a multimodal transportation
    ecosystem, which we broadly refer to as cooperative automated
    transportation, with a focus on integrating connected and automated
    vehicle technologies for all existing and emerging modes of surface
    transportation. AASHTO considers the best safety and mobility benefits
    are achieved when automated vehicles are integrated with key
    transportation infrastructure assets that state DOTs own and operate.
        Iowa, like all state DOTs, are infrastructure owners and operators
    (IOOs) \1\ that play a fundamental role in advancing, operating, and
    maintaining the physical and digital infrastructure necessary to
    support intelligent transportation systems. The state DOTs have been
    focused on preparing for a more automated future, a term we call
    `readiness', by focusing on interoperable, reliable, and consistent
    infrastructure (both physical and digital), a cohesive vision,
    collaborative partnerships, funding, and clear policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Infrastructure Owners and Operators (IOO) are defined as the
    entity responsible for day-to-day operation and maintenance of the
    transportation assets and the long-term planning and investment
    required to manage the transportation system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the key reasons state DOTs are so interested in CAVs is
    because of safety. An estimated 38,680 people died in motor vehicle
    crashes in 2020. In the first half of 2021, an estimated 20,160 people
    died, up 18.4 percent compared to the first six months of 2020 \2\.
    This is entirely unacceptable, as each life lost is one too many. The
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that
    safety applications enabled by CAV technologies could eliminate or
    mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non-impaired crashes,
    including crashes at intersections or while changing lanes \3\. Iowa
    DOT and every other transportation departments at the state and local
    levels are committed to improving the safety of the transportation
    system, with CAV technologies being another vital tool in our toolbox.
    Given the harsh realities on our nation's roads, we need to actively
    develop, test, and deploy these technologies for all users as quickly
    and safely as we can.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Department of Transportation. National Roadway Safety
    Strategy. January 2022. Available at https://www.transportation.gov/
    NRSS. Accessed January 28, 2022.
        \3\ https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/
    ci.nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_
    12132016.print. Accessed January 28, 2022. More information available
    here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-
    safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the potential benefits CAV technologies may provide, there
    have been challenges in broadly deploying these technologies. The
    pathway and timeline to deployment remains unclear. Higher levels of
    vehicle automation, such as Levels 4 and 5 \4\, appear costly to
    develop and it may be years before those vehicles are commercially
    available. Also, state DOTs are uncertain of the physical and digital
    infrastructure needed to support higher levels of automation. It is
    reported that the public remains unfamiliar and skeptical of the
    technologies and the potential for shared ownership models. There has
    also been much uncertainty surrounding the 5.9 Gigahertz (GHz) safety
    spectrum for transportation. And the CAV industry continues to evolve,
    consolidate, and change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Level 4 and 5 refer to the SAE Levels of Driving Automation.
    More information is available here: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-
    update. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With challenge also comes opportunity. In Iowa, my vision for
    deploying automated transportation technologies has taken a two-pronged
    approach focused on the drivers of today and the automated vehicles of
    tomorrow. In supporting the drivers of conventional vehicles including
    those with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in production
    today, and the more fully automated driving systems of tomorrow, Iowa
    has several strategies to promote readiness for automated
    transportation and the deployment and integration of connected and
    automated vehicles and devices. These include:
        1.  Planning & Visioning--We have developed a common vision and
    plan to guide, support, and inform the Iowa DOT and our partners as
    emerging technologies are being developed and deployed on Iowa's public
    roads \5\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://iowadrivingav.org/pdf/ATC-Vision.pdf. Accessed January
    28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2.  Stakeholder Engagement--We created the Iowa Advisory Council on
    Automated Transportation (AT Council) \6\ to engage a broad cross
    section of Iowa stakeholders on the development and deployment of
    emerging technologies. Iowa's AT Council works to keep stakeholders
    informed, capture recommendations, and align initiatives for automated
    transportation in our state.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://iowadrivingav.org/. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3.  Policy & Legislation--Iowa has enacted state laws that support
    the adoption of CAV technologies such as a vehicle title and
    registration framework, an automated driving systems framework,
    personal delivery devices, and enabling statutes for automated truck
    platooning \7\. It is currently legal in Iowa for ``driverless''
    vehicles to operate on Iowa's roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/
    BillBook?ga=88&ba=HF%20387. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4.  Research, Development, and Testing--In Iowa, research is a
    critically important element of our success, which is why we foster
    strong collaboration with our academic partners at the Iowa State
    University (ISU), Institute for Transportation (Intrans) and the
    University of Iowa (UI), National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS).

        Iowa's experience is not unique among the state DOTs. In October
    2021, AASHTO adopted ten CAV Policy Principles \8\ we believe are
    fundamental to the safe and effective deployment of connected,
    automated, and cooperative \9\ vehicle technologies across our states
    and nation. Today, I would like to focus my testimony on five of these
    ten principles which are under the purview of this subcommittee:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Offices (AASHTO). AASHTO Connected and Automated Vehicle Policy
    Principles. October 2021. Available at https://cav.transportation.org/
    wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2021/11/CAV-Policy-Principles-v4-press.pdf.
    Accessed January 28, 2022.
        \9\ There is no consistent and agreed to definition of connected,
    automated, and cooperative vehicle technologies. AASHTO uses the
    following as general definitions:
          Connected Vehicle (CV)--Technologies that enable two or
    more vehicles and/or roadway infrastructure elements to communicate
    with each other.
          Automated Vehicle (AV)--Vehicle-based technologies that
    enable automation of traditional drive operational functions to occur
    as defined by SAE J3016 Levels of Driving Automation.
          Cooperative Vehicle--The integration of CV, AV, and other
    technologies that enable users of the transportation system (vehicles,
    pedestrian, bicyclists, etc.) to cooperatively operate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1.  A national strategy and vision are needed.
        2.  Advance equity, access, and quality of life for everyone.
        3.  The future is connected and automated.
        4.  Leadership is crucial to foster industry collaboration and
    community engagement.
        5.  Promote innovative Federal infrastructure investment.
                  1. A National Strategy and Vision Are Needed
        AASHTO believes there is an urgent need for a coordinated national
    strategy which includes a vision and roadmap for CAV deployment and
    integration into our nation's roadways. The vision and strategy must be
    developed collaboratively, with active input from Federal agencies,
    IOOs, industry, communities, local governments, and other
    transportation stakeholders, representing the populations their
    respective transportation systems serve.
        Connected and automated vehicles technologies will be disruptive to
    our society and surface transportation system, and it is accelerating.
    Because the safety and mobility benefits are potentially enormous,
    realizing those benefits requires clear strategic direction, sustained
    programs, ongoing cross-sector dialogue, and focused activities. In
    Iowa, this begins with visioning and planning to assess needs, make
    informed decisions, and focus investments while considering broad
    perspectives from key stakeholders and the public.
        For example, the Iowa DOT has developed the Iowa AT Vision \10\ and
    the Iowa DOT Cooperative Automated Transportation plan \11\ which
    includes a variety of tactical activities such as the following:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://iowadrivingav.org/pdf/ATC-Vision.pdf. Accessed January
    28, 2022.
        \11\ https://iowadot.gov/tsmo/service-layer-plans. Accessed January
    28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1.  Preparing our communities and infrastructure by making pavement
    markings wider and brighter to improve visibility for humans and
    automated systems.
        2.  Working with local agencies to develop planning guidance for
    CAV technology in comprehensive plans and zoning guidelines, as well as
    working to address environmental justice concerns by ensuring equitable
    access to transportation services.
        3.  Monitoring industry trends and advancements to identify how
    they might impact CAV usage on public roads, including the growing
    automation of farm equipment.
        4.  Engaging with economic and education leaders to assess how the
    future labor market may need to adjust in response to greater
    automation in vehicles for both passenger and freight movements.
        5.  Working with law enforcement, first responders, driver/vehicle
    licensing staff and other roadway safety community leaders to learn
    more about the impacts of the technologies on existing systems and
    processes such as our crash reporting procedures.

        In similar fashion to the Iowa AT Vision and IOWA DOT CAT Plan, it
    is imperative that we develop a vision and strategy at the national
    level so that the entire transportation community knows what we are all
    striving for. Domestic and international models have shown how
    independent, collaborative non-governmental organizations can help lead
    these efforts. In addition, AASHTO and the state DOTs remain committed
    to working with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
    and others in this area to help frame the enabling policies and
    regulatory environment necessary for CAV technologies to integrate
    seamlessly across jurisdictions and modes.
          2. Advance Equity, Access, and Quality of Life for Everyone
        CAV technologies have the potential to improve mobility, access,
    and equity and help engage disadvantaged and marginalized communities.
    IOOs and their partners recognize the role transportation plays broadly
    in society, its ability to connect communities, as well as the historic
    inequities from the 20th century when building out the nation's
    transportation system.
        In the United States, CAV technologies need to benefit all users of
    the transportation system regardless of their income levels or
    geographic location. We are addressing this head-on in Iowa where our
    research partners at the University of Iowa National Advanced Driving
    Simulator were awarded one of the eight Automated Driving System (ADS)
    demonstration grants from USDOT \12\. While 19 percent of Americans
    live in rural areas, 68 percent of our nation's total lane miles are in
    rural areas, and 45 percent of all traffic related fatalities occur on
    rural roadways \13\. Iowa's population is aging, and it remains
    paramount that older individuals have the ability to get to the
    important services they need, such as healthcare which is being
    regionalized. The ADS for Rural America project is a demonstration
    project that involves a highly automated shuttle bus with advanced
    sensors. This automated vehicle is now being driven on all types of
    rural roads in Iowa including gravel roads and paved unmarked roadways.
    The goal is to understand the unique challenges that rural roadways
    present for automated vehicles as well as identifying opportunities for
    advancing automation so that it improves safety and mobility for
    everyone, especially the mobility challenged populations in rural
    America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://www.transportation.gov/av/grants. Accessed January 28,
    2022.
        \13\ https://www.bts.gov/rural. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although we are learning a lot, this project is one example of
    where further research and understanding is needed. Future projects
    need to focus on supporting equitable investments, policies, and
    engagement strategies such that CAV technology investments advance
    community-driven needs and increase access to desirable mobility
    options. It is my hope that projects such as this one in rural Iowa,
    and others like it throughout the United States, will lead to the
    promotion of best practices and approaches for the deployment of CAVs
    that are equitable, with the benefits widely available to all members
    of our society.
                    3. The Future Is Connected and Automated
        To fully realize the benefits of automated transportation, AASHTO
    member states believe that vehicles must be more than automated, they
    must also be connected. Connected vehicle technology is key to ensuring
    automated vehicles have the redundant safety measures in place to
    advance AASHTO's goals of a safe, mobile, equitable and efficient
    transportation system. AASHTO continues to strongly support the
    preservation of the 5.9 GHz spectrum to advance safety and realize the
    benefits of connected vehicle technologies. From our interactions with
    other nations across the globe, we are aware that others have set aside
    bandwidth in the 5.9 GHz spectrum. We are also aware that some nations
    appear to be further along with respect to readiness and integration of
    advanced technologies into the roadway environment. These developments
    have the potential to put the United States at a competitive
    disadvantage, a harsh reality that can be remedied with bold action.
        In Iowa we strongly support strategies that connect vehicles to the
    infrastructure and one another. While the industry as a whole addresses
    the technical and engineering aspects of making connected vehicle
    technology a reality, we are focused on two key areas that will enable
    a connected vehicle future:
        1.  Digital Infrastructure and Data--Iowa DOT continues to deploy
    fiber optic cable and wireless communications with our partners at the
    Iowa Communications Network and the private sector, and extend our
    communications network to inform the travelling public through
    connected infrastructure. We are also working with Iowa State
    University to study advanced wireless communications that hold the
    potential to take Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communications to the
    next level. We are also data centric and are implementing new data
    streams, like connected vehicle hard braking and hard acceleration
    data, that reveal real-time operations and flag potential safety
    issues. We are carefully evaluating our approach towards the design and
    operation of Iowa's transportation system to accommodate human mistakes
    and injury tolerances to avoid fatal and serious injuries.
        2.  Work Zones & Maintenance Operations--The management and
    maintenance of our surface transportation system is constant, and work
    zones and maintenance operations are occurring nearly 24/7 in our
    state. These operations can be a challenge not only for human operators
    but especially for vehicle systems that support drivers or those that
    are automated. In response to this, we are focused on improving our
    work zones through improved data, awareness, motorists' feedback, and
    performance analytics. In fact, we are providing more information to
    connected vehicles through adoption of the USDOT work zone data
    exchange and through data feeds that private companies (e.g., Waze) are
    using to produce visual and audible warnings like ``work zone ahead''
    or ``snowplow ahead''. Standardized data streams like the work zone
    data exchange are anticipated to help commercial drivers avoid
    bottlenecks and improve operations, while assisting passenger vehicles
    with real time information about the driving environment ahead.

        While vehicle connectivity is ideal, vehicle-to-infrastructure
    (V2I) and V2X technology poses challenges. AASHTO has recognized these
    challenges and has served as a leader to address them and bring the
    industry to consensus. It is critical that we continue to develop the
    needed connected vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure
    because I believe, as well as many of the other state DOTs, that we
    cannot fully realize the benefits of automated vehicle technologies
    without vehicles being connected and cooperating with each other.
    4. Leadership Is Crucial To Foster Industry Collaboration and Community
                                   Engagement
        Strong Federal leadership is critical to convening industry, the
    public sector (including IOOs, local governments, and planning
    organizations), and other stakeholders and partners to ensure strong
    coordination and collaboration and ensure the public and private
    sectors work together to safely deploy technologies that meet community
    needs. We need to engage across government, industry, academia,
    regions, and communities to ensure our efforts are interoperable and
    aligned. It is critical that we build off previous national dialogues,
    continue to collaborate, convene, and share information among IOOs,
    local governments, industry, researchers, communities, planning
    organizations and other stakeholders. We must inform and engage
    communities to build trust and awareness of CAVs.
        Leadership is critical at all levels of government and in both the
    public and private sectors. At the state level, Iowa is taking a
    leadership role to collaborate with other states and the federal
    government in national and regional efforts to prepare for and support
    the deployment of CAV technology. The Iowa DOT is one of several state
    DOTs that is also responsible for driver licensing, driver education
    and vehicle title and registration. We have been active with the
    American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to work
    across state lines on matters of driver education, vehicle
    registration, and law enforcement. Iowa is one of the first states in
    the nation to update our title and registration system to identify the
    ADS capabilities of a vehicle and tie that to the official vehicle
    record.
        At the regional level, I co-sponsor an effort for the Mid-America
    Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO), which includes
    10 states of the upper Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) which has
    developed a ten-year regional strategy for CAV deployment and
    integration. The CAV Committee for this group works to support the
    regional strategy and has focused their tactical approaches on
    organizational readiness, data sharing, planning, coordination, and
    policy issues. Regionally, midwestern states are interested in leading
    the nation with advanced transportation technologies to help move our
    products to market faster and cheaper while ensuring our travelers are
    safe.
        Finally, at the national level, I am a tri-chair of the Cooperative
    Automated Transportation Coalition, a partnership between AASHTO, ITS
    America, ITE, and FHWA. The CAT Coalition brings together the private
    sector, IOOs, and government agencies (federal/state/local) with the
    aim of coordinating our efforts to safely and efficiently deploy
    connected and automated transportation technologies \14\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ More information about these efforts are document at the CAT
    Coalition website: https://transportationops.org/CATCoalition. Accessed
    January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is vitally important that the federal government and
    specifically the USDOT continue to join in supporting these national,
    regional, state, and local efforts. The federal government and the
    USDOT are uniquely positioned to facilitate and sustain a technically
    informed and objective collaboration effort. Federal leadership can
    ensure national consistency in systems engineering and architecture to
    guarantee interoperability and standardized levels of safety across
    state lines. We value the participation of the USDOT agencies and will
    move forward as needed within states and local communities, because the
    technology continues to move ahead.
            5. Promote Innovative Federal Infrastructure Investment
        AASHTO supports more flexible and dedicated funding to advance CAV
    technologies. We need to fund both the digital and physical
    infrastructure that enhances safety while also supporting technologies
    that advance CAVs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
    provides a significant investment in the deployment of broadband
    technologies which could be used to support a CAV ecosystem throughout
    the United States. And, other parts of the law enable state DOTs to
    spend federal funding on CAV technologies. However, as states begin or
    continue to pursue connected infrastructure initiatives, it is
    important that federal infrastructure and transportation funding
    continue to give states the flexibility to invest in planning and
    improvements to support CAV deployment, whether through the new
    provisions in the IIJA or through traditional federal transportation
    programs.
        Federal funding for advanced transportation technologies are
    frequently dispensed through discretionary grants. As the technologies
    become more widespread and as all states seek to invest in their
    physical and digital infrastructure, the federal funding mechanisms
    will need to be reexamined. The national focus on electric vehicles and
    the needed vehicle charging infrastructure in the IIJA is
    representative of the level and focus of investment necessary to
    advance CAV technologies. Smart, efficient investment in these
    technologies will help save lives and will have a dramatic effect on
    the economic prosperity of our communities and our nation.
                                   Conclusion
        In conclusion, I want to emphasize some key messages that are the
    foundation of my testimony. First, state DOTs are preparing for a
    future with connected and automated vehicles, but there is a lot of
    uncertainty of what the future will ultimately be. The path and
    timeline to deployment is unclear for many different reasons with the
    CAV industry continuing to evolve, consolidate, and change on an almost
    daily basis. Steadfast to these uncertainties is the fact that state
    DOTs, as critical surface transportation IOOs, are absolutely dedicated
    to supporting the safe deployment of a connected, automated, and
    cooperative vehicle ecosystem where benefits are seen across all of the
    states and throughout the population.
        Second, safety is absolutely paramount. CAV technologies must be
    deployed so that they improve the safety of our roadway system and the
    users of it. On January 27, 2022 USDOT announced the National Roadway
    Safety Strategy which outlines the Department's comprehensive approach
    to significantly reducing serious injuries and deaths on our Nation's
    highways \15\. Two important aspects to achieving success of the
    strategy are Safer Roads and Safer Vehicles. I believe that CAV
    technologies must be an integral part of this effort and can be another
    tool for our industry to achieve success in improving the safety of our
    transportation system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
    USDOT_National_Roadway_
    Safety_Strategy_0.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, numerous challenges remain that range from technological to
    economic to political. These are significant challenges, but ones that
    we can overcome as an industry if we all work together. Thus, we need
    the federal government as an integral partner. We need the technology
    developers, vehicle manufacturers, and IOOs collaborating with each
    other to get the safety technology deployed. We need the IOOs at the
    state and local level to ensure equity in how the technology get used.
    Finally, we need to work together to determine how deployment will be
    funded.
        Finally, I want to end my testimony with three actions the federal
    government can initiate today to uniquely assist all state DOTs and
    other IOOs in the successful deployment of connected and automated
    vehicle technologies:
        1.  Continue to Foster Collaboration and Partnerships--The federal
    government plays a crucial role to ensuring the safe and efficient
    deployment of these technologies. AASHTO, ITE and ITS America are right
    now actively examining how a coalition organized around automation and
    emerging technologies could function. It is critical that USDOT
    continues to support such an effort.
        2.  Develop a National Strategy and Vision--Engage the public,
    private, and academic sectors to develop a vision for CAV and a
    national strategy for achieving that vision. Congress can foster
    progress by calling/directing USDOT to facilitate activities which lead
    to this vision and strategy, and fund programs to support these
    purposes, including gap closing research, development, and technology.
    AASHTO's CAV Policy Principles include recommendations on this topic
    and we stand ready to work with this committee to achieve this action.
        3.  Preserve the Needed Communication Spectrum--AASHTO continues to
    advocate for reserving the entirety of the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum for
    transportation use. Congress could provide much needed certainty by
    working within their authority to continue to reserve the safety
    spectrum to ensure the deployment of life-saving connected vehicle
    technologies. Reserving this spectrum for consistent use would put our
    country on par with what is happening in Europe and Asia so that we can
    continue to lead in this critical space.

        In Iowa we will continue to grow our leadership in this space and
    continue our strong collaborations around the United States and the
    world so that we will have the safest vehicles and roads for all
    transportation users. Nationally, AASHTO will continue to engage key
    public and private stakeholders towards development of a vision for CAV
    and a national strategy for realizing such a vision.
        Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today on
    behalf of AASHTO and the Iowa DOT, and I am happy to answer any
    questions.

        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, Mr. Marler.
        We would now move to John Samuelsen, international
    president, Transport Workers Union of America.
        John, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
    Davis, Chair DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, for providing
    us this opportunity to present our views on autonomous vehicle
    technology.
        As president of the Transport Workers Union of America, I
    am here representing more than 150,000 working people who are
    on the front lines of our passenger and freight transportation
    systems. These members include schoolbus workers, transit
    operators, mechanics, and other workers serving communities
    across the country. Our members are the ones most at risk of
    job loss and displacement if automated vehicles are deployed
    without a clear Federal framework, or in ways that undermine
    workers and jobs.
        This committee's leadership in crafting AV legislation is
    absolutely essential for the House to advance an AV proposal
    centered on the safety and economic security of all road users.
    Ensuring safety, protecting transport workers' jobs and rights,
    and prioritizing investment in our transportation network are
    all core to this committee's work.
        Let me be clear: the TWU fully supports pro-worker, pro-
    safety technology, innovation, and policy. We frequently spend
    our own capital at the bargaining table to force our employees
    to install automatic braking, blind spot detection, and other
    safety and driver assist innovations. We would strongly endorse
    legislation that regulates AV technology, holds new
    technologies to our existing safety standards, and ensures that
    this industry creates and sustains good union jobs in America.
        Innovation and automation are not new to our union or our
    members. The New York City subway ran a fully automated train
    across Manhattan from 1962 to 1964, a train maintained and
    overseen by the Transport Workers Union. This system and others
    like it gave rise to Federal transit worker protections.
    Standards like these ensure that workers are treated fairly,
    have access to necessary training, and can transition as jobs
    change due to technology. And they have made our transportation
    sector a major hub for the solid, blue-collar jobs that power
    strong communities and our economy.
        While the specific features or equipment may be different
    in 2022 than in 1964, this approach has empowered workers for
    generations, and should not change. The same is true of our
    safety policies. The DOT has successfully integrated tens of
    thousands of new pieces of equipment, vehicles, and processes
    into our transportation systems across every mode. TWU members
    have worked with regulators to transition from rotor blades to
    jet engines, to Positive Train Control, and most recently,
    toward zero-emission buses.
        As a country, we have always fought to ensure that these
    innovations not only meet, but exceed our existing safety
    standards. AVs must be held to this same level of
    accountability. AV operators and manufacturers must demonstrate
    their ability to improve safety, and our regulations must hold
    them accountable to any promised safety improvements.
        As automated technology has been integrated into other
    modes, focus has been centered on safety requirements around
    qualified, licensed, trained professionals to operate
    commercial vehicles. Airline pilots, railroad engineers, and
    ship captains already work with automation, and regularly
    assume control as the situation demands. Bus, subway, and truck
    operators play an equivalent role in surface transportation,
    and our Federal AV policy must declare these onboard workers as
    the essential element for safe roads and transit operations. No
    level of vehicle automation should ever replace them.
        My written testimony provides specific recommendations on
    several issues that AV legislation should address, including
    elevating workers' voices in developing and implementing new
    technologies, ensuring any transition to AVs creates and
    sustains good union jobs across the entire spectrum, and
    reforming DOT to create a unified approach to regulating
    automation across all of its modal agencies to ensure workers
    are supported as new technologies arrive.
        TWU members and all transportation workers are counting on
    our elected leaders to fight for our jobs and our safety. This
    committee has an opportunity now to lead the way as we
    integrate the next generation of transportation technology.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address these
    issues here today, and we look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Samuelsen's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of John Samuelsen, International President,
                  Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
        Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair DeFazio, and
    Ranking Member Graves for providing us this opportunity to present our
    views on the future of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology. The
    Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) represents more than 150,000
    working people who are on the frontlines of our passenger and freight
    transportation systems. These members include bus operators, mechanics,
    and other transit workers serving both large and small urban areas
    across the country. In New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
    Houston, Miami, Columbus, Ann Arbor and many other areas, our members
    are the ones most at risk of job loss and displacement if automated
    vehicles are deployed haphazardly or in ways that undermine workers'
    interests. As this committee considers legislation that addresses how
    and if AVs are integrated into our transportation system, the decisions
    you make will have profound effects on the frontline employees,
    passengers and motorists, and on the future of mobility across America.
        At the start, let me be clear: the TWU fully supports pro-
    worker,\1\ pro-safety \2\ technology. We frequently spend our own
    capital in bargaining to force our employers to install automatic
    braking, blind-spot monitoring, and other key technologies that empower
    workers to perform their jobs safely and efficiently. We would strongly
    endorse legislation that regulates the AV industry, holds new
    technologies to our existing or higher safety standards, and ensures
    that this industry creates and sustains good, union jobs in the United
    States. We look forward to working with this committee and others to
    advance new technology that improves the quality of life for
    transportation workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-
    for-autonomous-vehicle-legislation/
        \2\ TWU has endorsed the Autonomous Vehicle Tenets, Advocates for
    Highway and Auto Safety, November 30, 2020, a comprehensive AV safety
    blueprint: https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AV-Tenets-
    11-24-20-1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To that end, we must acknowledge that today's transportation sector
    is at a critical moment as new technologies, including automation
    features, mature and prepare for wide scale deployment. This
    development necessitates active involvement and oversight from the
    DOT--a shift from the Department's recent laissez faire approach to
    emerging technologies.\3\ Just as with past transportation
    technological advancements, building coherent, consistent regulations
    now will ensure that AVs are deployed safely and integrated into our
    system in a way that preserves workers' rights and creates good, union
    jobs. Without a strong regulatory structure, in contrast, this
    technology poses an immediate threat to the safety and stability of
    transit and freight systems across the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See TWU comments regarding Ensuring America's Leadership in
    Automated Vehicles Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0. DOT-OST-2019-
    0179-0028; https://downloads.regulations.
    gov/DOT-OST-2019-0179-0028/attachment_1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Innovation and automation are not new to our union or our members.
    The New York City subway system ran a fully-automated train across
    Manhattan from 1962-1964, a train maintained and overseen by TWU
    members. Our mechanics are, right now, transitioning to electric
    buses--a completely different system than we've used for the past
    century. We have experienced thousands of technological changes, big
    and small, and have always provided the experience necessary to keep
    our systems safe and operating at maximum capacity. We've done this
    through representation, collective bargaining, and government action to
    develop our workforce, require the highest safety standards, insist on
    equity and inclusion, and demand a just transition to the next
    generation transportation technologies. 21st-century technologies,
    including AVs, should be no different. The DOT and all of our
    transportation systems have a set of standards and practices that work
    for these transitionary moments and do not come at the expense of
    transportation safety, affordable and accessible public transit, or
    good, union jobs. We should adapt and apply this system to regulate AVs
    on our roads and in our transit systems.
        This sincere belief--that we can build and maintain a pro-worker
    innovation policy as a country--leads us to reject several arguments
    that have been made by some tech advocates and others. First among
    these is the ``with us or against us'' mentality that seeks to force a
    conflict between innovation and workers. Our members work with
    technology every day--they rely on it to do their jobs and to keep them
    safe. Any and all technologies that facilitate their work is, by
    definition, pro-worker and our members fight, on a daily basis, to
    deploy more of this kind of technology into our systems. However, new
    ideas are not synonymous with good ideas. AV technologies that haven't
    been properly evaluated and scrutinized by independent federal safety
    regulators, technologies that attempt to cut corners to address their
    own limitations, and technologies that are intentionally designed to
    displace workers should all be suspect. Moreover, we have serious
    concerns that, without strong federal regulation, we face a
    transportation future that is strictly at odds with the hundreds of
    billions of federal dollars that this committee has invested into
    safety, congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, and equitable
    access to safe and reliable public transit through the surface
    transportation program.
        Our future transportation systems should be built for the users--
    whether they be in vehicles or sharing the road with them--and
    frontline transportation workers, not companies.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ John Samuelsen, The Future of Transit Should Be Determined by
    the People, Not Big Tech, September 2, 2020, Morning Consult: https://
    morningconsult.com/opinions/the-future-of-transit-should-be-determined-
    by-the-people-not-big-tech/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The TWU also rejects arguments of those who claim that any
    limitation on innovation somehow creates a global competitive
    disadvantage for our nation. We know that auto manufacturers,
    technology companies, and startups, buoyed by significant federal
    investments, are pouring billions into autonomous vehicles. General
    Motors and Ford alone have said they'll spend a combined $65 billion on
    autonomous and electric vehicles through 2025. These and other
    investments by large companies such as Google AV spinoff Waymo have led
    to significant advancements that are already on our roads and highways.
    Clearly, we are in no danger of falling behind on idea generation. We
    are at risk, however, of losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing
    and frontline transportation jobs if Congress fails to act decisively
    and the AV industry is left completely unregulated. The public interest
    in AVs is in the number of good, union jobs the industry creates in
    America and the safety benefits the technology ultimately delivers.
    Tellingly, we have seen no plan from the most vocal proponents of AV
    deployment that would condition federal support or non-intervention on
    requirements to produce jobs or meet promises on safety.
        As Congress considers AV legislation, we will be advocating,
    together with the other transportation unions and our allies, for a
    robust title from this committee. This title must establish clear
    benchmarks for safety regulation, retention and creation of good jobs,
    data collection and transparency, and ensure that a strong worker voice
    is present--early and throughout the innovation process--as AV's are
    developed and implemented.
        With this backdrop, the TWU offers the following recommendations
    for a federal response to the future of AV deployment.
        A Worker- and Safety-Centric Transportation and Infrastructure
           Committee Title Must be a Part of any House AV Legislation
        The TWU and other unions have actively made the case that AV
    legislation must uphold and boost safety standards and create good,
    union jobs. Neither of these goals are possible without a comprehensive
    title written by this committee.
        Already our transportation network is dotted with AV experiments
    that have placed numerous, unproven autonomous passenger and freight
    vehicles of various sizes and configurations on our roads. It is
    critical that this committee meet the moment as we see a deluge of
    accidents from these vehicles while suffering through a significant
    lack of transparency and available data for proper analysis. AV
    operations need federal regulation and oversight. There are 9.1 self-
    driving car accidents per million miles driven versus 4.1 per million
    miles among regular vehicles.\5\ These are not just statistics to be
    analyzed and debated; they are a warning sign to lawmakers and
    regulators that rigorous, enforceable regulations are needed before we
    unleash millions of AVs onto our roads and into our transit systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The Dangers of Driverless Cars, May 5, 2021, The National Law
    Review: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     DOT's Transportation Innovation Principles Provide a Strong Foundation
        Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has recently unveiled a
    new set of principles around transportation innovation.\6\ These
    principles serve as a powerful backdrop for how the federal government
    can use its authority and resources to ensure shared prosperity and a
    ``seat at the table'' for frontline workers as new transportation
    innovations, including AV applications, are developed and implemented.
    We believe this vision represents a necessary turning of the page by
    the DOT from the previous Administration's ill-advised, hands-off
    approach to AV oversight by putting workers and job creation at the
    center of the innovation development process. Core elements of these
    principles include:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ US DOT Innovation Principles, as released in January 2022:
    https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/innovation/us-dot-innovation-
    principles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Creating high quality jobs and increasing opportunity for
    all Americans.
          ``Empowering workers'' by expanding access to skills,
    training and the ``choice of a union'' as well as giving workers a
    ``seat at the table in shaping innovation.''
          Allowing for experimentation but requiring open data and
    transparency to ensure we learn from both successful and failed
    deployments.
          Forging partnerships with the private sector while
    protecting the ``interests of the public, workers, and communities''
    and remaining ``technology neutral.''

        The TWU has publicly praised this approach \7\ and believes a
    government-wide philosophy that mirrors these principles will begin to
    change the trajectory of emerging technology and how it affects workers
    and jobs. In particular, the DOT's new principles are consistent with
    the objective and values that our union has emphasized as we continue
    to make the case for worker-centered AV policies. We urge this
    committee to embrace the Administration's new principles as you craft
    AV legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ TWU President John Samuelsen statement in response to the US
    DOT innovation principles: https://www.twu.org/twu-president-samuelsen-
    dot-innovation-principles-will-ensure-transportation-workers-have-a-
    seat-at-the-table/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      A Qualified Human Operator Must Be On-Board All Passenger Buses and
        Other Commercial Use Vehicles Regardless of Level of Automation
        Our nation's public transit sector is a centerpiece of Americans'
    mobility needs. These services have always been about providing access
    and opportunity for everyone. They connect people to their jobs,
    communities, and our national economy. Without these services, millions
    of Americans will suffer severe social and economic consequences. At
    the core of these services are the essential workers who safely operate
    our vehicles, provide customer service, report issues to law
    enforcement, enable accessibility features, and otherwise aid riders in
    the journeys. These workers perform all of these duties simultaneously
    and professionally; they manage the unexpected and the dangerous
    operations in large and small ways under often difficult circumstances.
    Just as in aviation and rail, these workers serve a critical safety
    role that cannot be replaced by automation.
        The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has already noted
    the perils of overreliance on automation in its report on the Boeing
    737-MAX crashes. The report highlights that the malfunctioning system
    which caused these crashes overruled commands from the pilots that
    would have saved hundreds of lives. Other pilots who faced the
    identical malfunction ultimately survived by simply turning off the
    failing system.\8\ Automated systems must have this human oversight in
    order to truly be safe.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
    2020.09.15%20FINAL%20737%20MAX
    %20Report%20for%20Public%20Release.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Just a few miles from the Capitol building, 9 people, including the
    train operator, were killed 52 injured in 2009 due to WMATA's
    overreliance on automation. The National Transportation Safety Board
    (NTSB) found that ``the Metrorail automatic train control system
    stopped detecting the presence of [a stopped train] . . . and allowed
    speed commands to be issued to [the following train which struck the
    back of the stopped train].'' The record of the investigation shows
    that the operator of the striking train saw the stuck train ahead of
    her and attempted to stop her train but was overruled by the automated
    systems.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ NTSB/RAR-10/02; https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
    AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1002.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Already, we are seeing certain interests use terms like ``monitor''
    to describe the workers who remain on-board during AV pilots. Our
    members and all transit workers are not monitors; they are safety
    professionals and sometimes first-responders who keep riders safe.
    While a bus or van may one day achieve Level 4 or 5 automation, that
    technological capability does not eliminate the need for a qualified
    operator on-board every vehicle, any more than the autopilot features
    in commercial aircraft at 35,000 feet should ever replace two skilled
    pilots in the cockpit.
                      Transportation Labor's AV Principles
        TWU has joined 34 other unions to develop the ``Labor Principles
    for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation.'' \10\ This is an important
    resource for the committee as you write AV legislation as it provides
    specific recommendations. These principles provide a sensible approach
    to AV's focused on:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, TWU and other
    affiliated unions, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
    Labor Principles for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation: https://ttd.org/
    policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-for-autonomous-vehicle-
    legislation/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ensuring Congress and the DOT establish and enforce
    vigorous safety standards;
          treating commercial applications of AV's differently to
    reflect the safety-sensitive work performed by commercial operators of
    buses, trucks and smaller vehicles such as vans, delivery bots and
    other alternative design vehicles;
          ensuring there is a workforce plan that advances together
    with any AV bill;
          explicitly protecting consumer rights, equity and
    accessibility,
          and committing to clear policies that ensure the AV
    manufacturing sector creates US union jobs across the entire supply
    chain through strong Buy American policies and incentives to buy
    American- and union-made vehicles.
         AV Technology Requires Clear Safety Standards and Transparency
        TWU is deeply concerned that, in the absence of federal leadership
    and regulation, there will be too many companies that believe they are
    free to test or even implement their ``driverless'' technology whether
    or not it is safe to do so. We have witnessed the ongoing, public
    dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
    Tesla over the company's testing of ``full self-driving'' systems in
    its cars.\11\ Let us be clear: the use of the term testing implies
    there are laboratory conditions. Actually, the laboratory is our roads
    and the NTSB is calling out Tesla for failing to respond to the
    agency's recommendations about ``design shortcomings'' in the wake of
    crashes involving Tesla automated features. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
    spoke clearly about this concern \12\:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ NTSB Chair criticizes Tesla over vehicle self-driving feature
    testing, Reuters, October 25, 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/
    autos-transportation/tesla-submits-partial-response-us-auto-safety-
    probe-memo-2021-10-25/.
        \12\ NSTB Chair interview regarding Tesla's improper testing of
    ``full self-driving'' technology, CNBC, October 26, 2021: https://
    www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/ntsb-head-criticizes-teslas-self-driving-
    features-calls-them-misleading.html.

            It's clear that if you're marketing something as full self-
            driving and it is not full self-driving, and people are
            misusing the vehicles and the technology, you have a design
            flaw and you have to prevent that misuse . . . And part of that
            is how you talk about your technology. It is not full self-
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            driving . . . It's misleading.''

        This dispute should alarm the country and regulators. It
    underscores why Congress and the Biden Administration must act and gain
    control over the way this industry rolls out driverless technologies.
    There must be clear policy:
          Requiring any company to be held accountable for how it
    markets and tests AV technology;
          Mandates transparency and open data collection and
    reporting;
          Ensures crash and safety incident data are available in
    real-time and that the NTSB has the authority it needs to act
    forcefully;
          Scrutinizes how driverless technologies are sold and
    marketed to transit agencies, and
          Ensures the DOT regulates how transit agencies test these
    technologies given the safety implications for passengers \13\ that
    participate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Self-driving shuttle company ordered to stop carrying
    passengers after injury, The Verge, February 26, 2020: https://
    www.theverge.com/2020/2/26/21154532/easymile-columbus-ohio-nhtsa-
    suspension-injury.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Workers Must Have a Seat at Every Table as New Technologies Emerge
        Workers must have, as Secretary Buttigieg has said repeatedly, a
    ``seat at the table'' throughout the innovation process. This means
    requiring, for example, transit agencies to work and negotiate with
    their unions in the decisions around testing and implementing new
    technology-enabled innovations, including AV vehicles.
        Congress recognized the centrality of this issue as part of the
    recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.\14\ As a
    condition of federal aid for electric buses, transit agencies must
    conduct a review of their worker training needs and build a workforce
    training plan to ensure that mechanics, drivers, and others are
    learning to use new equipment rather than face displacement. The bill
    also allocates 5% of each federal grant for electric bus procurement
    towards implementing these plans. This Committee passed a version of
    this plan which would have also applied to AVs and other new
    technologies in transit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ P.L. 117-58 Section 30018
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the policies and investments we advance are to create public
    good, they must center workers at every stage of the innovation
    process. Wherever AV's and other technologies are being developed and
    considered for adoption, the frontline people who will be directly
    affected should be at the table with a strong voice. Unions should be
    involved, as a matter of explicit policy, upstream in federal research
    and development programs. TWU has offered a set of common sense reforms
    that mainstream worker voice in the agency's R&D programs.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Transport Workers Union, comments to the Department of
    Transportation regarding the agency's R&D programs, January 31, 2022.
    DOT-OST-2021-0160-001
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These principles can be achieved if they are anchored in strong
    policies and in the longstanding collective bargaining mechanisms that
    have been a cornerstone of how America prepares its workforce for
    advancements in transportation innovation. Transportation Secretary
    Pete Buttigieg shares our views, as reflected in an opinion article he
    wrote recently about the agency's newly released innovation principles
    \16\:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, in TechCrunch,
    Steering innovation toward the public good, January 6, 2022: https://
    techcrunch.com/2022/01/06/steering-innovation-toward-the-public-good/
    ?utm_medium=TCnewsletter&tpcc=TCtransportationnewsletter.

            Our innovation strategy must support workers, knowing that our
            choices will help to define whether any given technological
            development meets its potential to create economic benefits for
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            all.

        Experience teaches us that collective bargaining provides a proven
    platform for considering new technologies, addressing job threats and
    workforce transition and preparedness issues, and developing
    appropriate safety and training protocols. None of this will occur
    unless Congress advances sensible legislation and the Administration
    issues clear regulations that live up to the values of a truly worker-
    centered approach to AV development and adaptation.
     Unified Oversight and Coordinating Mechanism Needed Inside the US DOT
        While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
    has been the most active modal agency working on AVs recently, its
    mandate is limited and the technology is already being applied to
    larger, commercial vehicles outside of NHTSA's purview. AVs in transit,
    trucking, and elsewhere (as well as aviation drones, autonomous
    maritime shipping, and other modes) require oversight and regulation by
    the department. It is essential that the Department not only act
    immediately to regulate the entire scope of the industry, but that the
    actions taken by each of the DOT's constituent agencies are coordinated
    to support a unified approach to scrutinizing how or if these
    technologies are implemented.
        The newly authorized Nontraditional and Emerging Transportation
    Technology (NETT) Council \17\ would serve well as the body responsible
    for this kind of work. The Council consists of the Administrators of
    the relevant agencies, as well as the Secretary's office. It is
    specifically charged with ``coordinat[ing] the response of the
    Department of Transportation to nontraditional and emerging
    technologies.'' With some clear direction from Congress and additional
    authority specific to AVs, this group would be well suited to ensuring
    each of the modal agencies can move in tandem to preserve the public
    interest as autonomous technology increases its presence in our
    transportation systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ P.L. 117-58 Section 25008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Conclusion
        The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has set the
    standards for our transportation systems since the very first Congress.
    Your leadership--which directed the development of clipper ships,
    railroads, diesel engines, and hyperloops--is urgently needed as the
    DOT addresses emergent AV technologies. It is imperative that AV
    legislation is comprehensive, addresses gaping holes in our safety and
    cybersecurity regulations, directs the DOT and its modal agencies to
    close those holes, places limits on the use of waivers and exemptions
    from federal vehicle safety requirements, requires a qualified operator
    on-board in any commercial operations, mandates workforce involvement
    in development, testing and eventual deployment of AV's, normalizes
    transparency for planning and data collection and reporting, and
    ensures that the AV industry is an American industry employing US
    workers across the entire supply chain.
        Thank you for giving the Transport Workers Union an opportunity to
    express our views and concerns regarding the future of AV technology
    deployment. We look forward to working with the committee to ensure the
    federal government steps up to this moment with a robust policy plan to
    properly regulate this emerging industry and protect the workers who
    are on the frontlines of our transportation system.

        Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuelsen.
        I would like to recognize Ms. Chase. Ms. Chase is president
    of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
        Ms. Chase, you are recognized.
        Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio,
    Ranking Member Davis, and subcommittee members. I am Cathy
    Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
    known as Advocates.
        Thank you for holding today's hearing at a critical time,
    with motor vehicle crash fatalities skyrocketing to historic
    highs, despite a drop in vehicle-miles traveled since the onset
    of the pandemic. Fatal truck crashes also have been on the
    rise, increasing by 45 percent since 2009.
        Automated, or driverless technology, including cars,
    trucks, and buses, is being offered as a potential way to
    reduce this mounting death and injury toll. However, it has yet
    to be fully developed, and its safety and numerous other
    impacts are currently unknown. In the short term, many safety
    solutions are available.
        Since our inception in 1989, Advocates has strongly
    supported proven lifesaving technologies as standard equipment
    in all vehicles. These include airbags, seatbelts, electronic
    stability control to prevent rollovers, and rearview cameras.
    Advocates is deeply concerned about the rush to deploy
    undertested, unproven, and unsafe automated or autonomous
    vehicles, AVs, including trucks and buses, while overlooking
    the need to advance current lifesaving solutions now.
        The public also shares this concern about AVs. We
    commissioned a national public opinion poll last week. It
    revealed that 80 percent are concerned about sharing the roads
    with driverless cars.
        [Slide shown.] \\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \\ The slides shown during Ms. Chase's oral testimony are
    retained in committee files and are available online at https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-117-PW12-Wstate-
    ChaseC-20220202-SD001.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This distress is evenly expressed throughout the country.
        An even greater concern of 85 percent was found for
    driverless trucks, and again, throughout the country.
        [Slide shown.] \\
        Yet, when asked if their concerns about driverless cars
    would be addressed if required to meet minimum Government
    standards, 60 percent responded yes.
        [Slide shown.] \\
        Since Congress held its first hearing on AVs nearly a
    decade ago, we have been urging adoption of standards. If the
    auto, truck, and tech industries can figure out how to build
    AVs, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or DOT, can figure
    out how to develop standards. Last month, DOT Secretary
    Buttigieg responded to a question on AVs during an interview,
    stating ``We need to make sure that people who are weighing how
    to navigate a world of automated vehicles know that there is
    some baseline of safety that's been established by
    regulation.'' We share that view.
        Without regulations, Government oversight, consumer
    information, and industry accountability, the safety of all
    road users is in peril. These inadequacies are contributing to
    a great deal of confusion about the capabilities of driverless
    vehicles versus cars with convenience features like adaptive
    cruise control with lane-keep assist. In turn, this has led to
    drivers misusing and over-relying on some technologies, which
    have resulted in fatalities and injuries.
        Also, yesterday Tesla recalled 54,000 cars which were
    programmed to roll through stop signs.
        The DOT clearly needs to step in and step up its oversight
    and regulatory responsibilities. This includes NHTSA
    immediately releasing the information it has been collecting
    since last June from automakers about cars with advanced
    technologies involved in crashes.
        Advocates commends this subcommittee and the full committee
    for their Invest in America bill, which included numerous
    safety advances, some of which were included in the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA. Two critical
    truck safety measures are the mandated rule on automatic
    emergency braking, AEB, for large trucks within 2 years, and a
    mandated upgraded standard within 1 year for rear guards to
    prevent horrific truck underride crashes. These and other
    directives must be a floor, not ceiling, by DOT.
        The issuance of minimum standards for verified advanced
    driver assistance systems like AEB for all new vehicles must
    occur with expediency. These systems significantly reduce or
    mitigate crashes caused by many factors, including impaired,
    distracted, or drowsy driving. Moreover, they are the building
    blocks for the possibility of future driverless cars and
    trucks.
        Upgrading infrastructure is also critical to advancing
    safety. The tragic bridge collapse in Pittsburgh last week is a
    stark example of this need. Adoption of a safe system approach,
    which includes infrastructure improvements and vehicle safety
    advances, was included in the IIJA, and quick implementation
    throughout the Nation is vital.
        Additionally, research and data on the impacts of AVs on
    accessibility, workforce, transit, the environment, and other
    issues in this study directed by the IIJA must be completed to
    inform future policies.
        In closing, we support rigorous testing, Government
    oversight, and industry accountability with the future goal of
    safe deployment of AVs, including autonomous trucks and buses.
        In 2020, Advocates was joined by 60 groups representing
    labor, disability rights, emergency responders, law
    enforcement, bicyclists, pedestrians, smart growth, and others
    in developing the AV tenets. We urge the subcommittee to
    continue its safety leadership role by advancing these and
    other needed protections to improve the safety of all road
    users and our Nation's infrastructure. Thank you.
        [Ms. Chase's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
                                and Auto Safety
                             Overview of Testimony
          Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)
    believes automated technology has the potential to be transformative in
    reducing our nation's mounting roadway death and injury toll. However,
    we are deeply concerned about the future of automated, or autonomous,
    vehicles (AVs) including trucks and buses. The lack of comprehensive
    federal performance standards, strong government oversight, adequate
    consumer information, and effective industry accountability imperils
    all road users who are currently unknowing and unwitting participants
    in the testing of experimental autonomous technology on public
    roadways.
          These inadequacies also have led to a great deal of
    confusion about AVs, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and
    partial automation convenience features. In turn, the confusion has led
    to misuse and over-reliance on some technologies which have resulted in
    preventable fatalities and injuries. NHTSA issued Standing General
    Order 2021-01 to collect information from automakers about what is
    happening now with cars with ADAS and automated driving systems (ADS).
    It is incumbent upon NHTSA to release all this information to the
    public immediately.
          The issuance of minimum performance standards for
    verified ADAS technologies must occur with expediency. These systems
    have been proven to significantly reduce or mitigate crashes caused by
    many factors including impaired, distracted and drowsy driving. We
    cannot and must not wait for the future of AVs to reduce crashes,
    deaths and injuries.
          Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full
    Committee for including safety advances in the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) including issuance of a final rule for
    automatic emergency braking (AEB) for large trucks within two years and
    a final rule for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) rear guards to prevent
    underride within two years. These and other directives must be a floor,
    not a ceiling, for what the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
    issues.
          The tragic bridge collapse in Pittsburgh last week is the
    most immediate example of why our infrastructure must be maintained,
    improved and upgraded. Adoption of a Safe System Approach, which
    includes road safety infrastructure upgrades, reducing speeds, post-
    crash management, and vehicle safety advances, was included in the IIJA
    and must be implemented throughout the nation.
          To ensure the safe development and deployment of AVs,
    including autonomous CMVs (ACMVs), commonsense protections and
    regulations must be put in place, including Advocates' AV Tenets.
    Additional safeguards are needed for ACMVs (starting on p. 13). We urge
    this Subcommittee to continue its safety leadership role by considering
    and advancing these recommendations to improve the safety of all road
    users and the integrity of our nation's surface infrastructure.
                                  Introduction
        Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
    public health, safety, law enforcement 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. We are deeply concerned about the future of
    automated, or autonomous, vehicles (AVs). Currently there are no
    federal performance standards for AVs, advanced driver assistance
    systems (ADAS), or partial automation convenience features.
    Understandably, there is a great deal of confusion among the public
    about these different categories. In an actual AV, the car is taking
    over the entire driving task, unlike ADAS and convenience features
    where a driver always must be engaged in the driving task. There are no
    AVs available to consumers at this time. ADAS include safety features
    presently offered in some vehicles such as automatic emergency braking
    (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD). The
    highly respected Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has
    found real-world significant crash rate reductions in vehicles with
    these technologies. Conversely, partial automation convenience
    features, such as adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane centering used
    together, have not been proven to improve vehicle safety. According to
    IIHS President David Harkey, ``[T]here is no evidence that [partial
    automation systems] make driving safer . . . In fact, the opposite may
    be the case if systems lack adequate safeguards.'' \1\ Misuse of and
    overreliance on some technologies already have led to numerous fatal
    crashes.\2\ The lack of strong government oversight, effective
    regulations, and industry accountability must change. Automated
    technology has the potential to be transformative in reducing our
    nation's mounting highway death and injury toll. This Subcommittee and
    Congress can lead the way to accomplish this goal with targeted
    legislative directives requiring regulatory and industry actions to
    address identified problems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
    (Jan. 20, 2022).
        \2\ Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated
    Driving System and Pedestrian Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018, Accident
    Report NTSB/HAR-19/03 (Nov. 19, 2019); NHTSA Office of Defects
    Investigation Preliminary Evaluation PE21-020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Public Health Crisis which Demand Immediate
                                     Action
        According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA), 38,680 people were killed in 2020 \3\ and an estimated 2.74
    million more were injured in traffic crashes in 2019.\4\ Recent data
    shows a deadly upward trend in traffic fatalities with projected
    increases in 2020 and the first half of 2021, despite a decrease in
    vehicle miles traveled during that period.\5\ It is anticipated that
    figures for the rest of 2021, which the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (DOT) is expected to release soon, will show additional
    increases.\6\ NHTSA currently values each life lost in a crash at $11.6
    million.\7\ Crashes, injuries, and fatalities occurring each year
    impose a financial burden of $1 trillion in total costs to society in
    2021 when adjusted for inflation--$292 billion of which are direct
    economic costs.\8\ This amounts to a ``crash tax'' on every person
    living in the U.S. of nearly $900.\9\ In 2018, crashes alone cost
    employers $72.2 billion.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, May). Early
    estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2020 (Crash Stats Brief
    Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 115). National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration.
        \4\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, August).
    Traffic safety facts 2019: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data
    (Report No. DOT HS 813 141). National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration.
        \5\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
    Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First half (January-June) of 2021,
    NHTSA, Oct. 2021, DOT HS 813 199.
        \6\ U.S. DOT, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
    Announces Comprehensive National Roadway Safety Strategy (Jan. 27,
    2022).
        \7\ John Putnam, US DOT Deputy General Counsel, Guidance on the
    Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S.
    Department of Transportation Analyses--2021 Update.
        \8\ Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal
    and court costs, emergency service costs, insurance administration
    costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
        \9\ As of January 2021, when costs are adjusted for inflation only
    and population estimates are brought current. See: ``The Economic and
    Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010,'' NHTSA (2015).
        \10\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of
    Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fatal truck crashes contribute to this preventable toll and occur
    at an alarmingly high rate. In 2020, nearly 5,000 people were killed in
    crashes involving a large truck.\11\ Since 2009, the number of
    fatalities in large truck crashes has increased by 45 percent.\12\
    Additionally, 159,000 people were injured in crashes involving a large
    truck in 2019, and injuries of large truck occupants increased by 18
    percent since 2018.\13\ The cost to society from crashes involving
    commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be $143 billion in
    2018, the latest year for which data is available.\14\ When adjusted
    solely for inflation, this figure amounts to over $150 billion.\15\
    According to the U.S. Department of Labor, truck driving is one of the
    most dangerous occupations in the United States.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
    Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020,
    NHTSA, Jun. 2021, DOT HS 813 118.
        \12\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2018: A Compilations of Motor
    Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Nov. 2020, DOT HS 812 981. Note, the 45
    percent figure represents the overall change in the number of
    fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2020. However,
    between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT
    that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of
    fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21 percent and
    between 2016 to 2020, it increased by 5 percent.
        \13\ Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note; Overview of Motor Vehicle
    Crashes in 2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2020, DOT HS 813 060.
        \14\ 2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
    Oct. 2020, RRA-20-004.
        \15\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
    www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
        \16\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National
    Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020, USDL-21-2145 (Dec. 16,
    2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     On the Potential Path to AVs, Proven Vehicle Safety Technologies Save
                                     Lives
        Before the pandemic, the motor vehicle crash death and injury toll
    already was extremely high, averaging 36,739 fatalities and 2.7 million
    injuries over the five-year span of 2015 to 2019.\17\ The recent uptick
    has brought a renewed national focus on these preventable tragedies.
    Fortunately, inexpensive and lifesaving solutions are readily
    available. What is lacking is implementation. This includes the U.S.
    DOT issuing minimum performance standards for proven and available
    safety technologies with urgency. The NHTSA has estimated that between
    1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives were saved by motor vehicle safety
    technologies.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, August).
    Traffic safety facts 2019: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data
    (Report No. DOT HS 813 141). National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration.
        \18\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
    (NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
    endnote 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates always has championed proven vehicle safety technologies
    to save lives. Advocates led the coalition that supported enactment of
    the bipartisan Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
    of 1991 \19\ which included a mandate for front seat airbags as
    standard equipment. As a result, by 1997, every new car sold in the
    United States was equipped with this technology and the lives saved
    have been significant. Airbags have saved an estimated 50,457 lives
    from 1987 to 2017, according to NHTSA.\20\ Advocates continued to
    support proven lifesaving technologies as standard equipment in new
    vehicles in other federal legislation and regulatory proposals. These
    efforts include: tire pressure monitoring systems; \21\ rear outboard
    3-point safety belts; \22\ electronic stability control; \23\ rear
    safety belt reminder systems; \24\ brake transmission interlocks; \25\
    safety belts on motorcoaches; \26\ rear-view cameras; \27\ ADAS; \28\
    impaired driving prevention technology; \29\ enhanced vehicle hood and
    bumpers to better protect vulnerable road users; \30\ and, advanced
    head lamps.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
        \20\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018, A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
    Crash Data, DOT HS 812 981, NHTSA (Nov. 2020).
        \21\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
    Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
        \22\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
        \23\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
    Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
        \24\ Id.
        \25\ Id.
        \26\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act,
    Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
        \27\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
    Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
        \28\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov.
    15, 2021).
        \29\ Id.
        \30\ Id.
        \31\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Advocates has relentlessly championed technology to
    improve CMV safety and address persistent problems such as truck driver
    fatigue, a well-known and well-documented problem in the motor carrier
    industry. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
    repeatedly has cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck
    crashes.\32\ Advocates sought the installation of electronic logging
    devices (ELDs) to record drivers' hours of service (HOS) to increase
    compliance and thereby reduce driver fatigue and fatigue related
    crashes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ National Transportation Safety Board, 2016 Most Wanted List,
    accessed at ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Documents/MWL2016_Brochure_web.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Immediate Actions Must be Undertaken to Prevent Crashes and Save Lives
        It is a transformational time in surface transportation innovation
    with the availability of new safety technologies, known as ADAS, to
    prevent or mitigate crashes caused by numerous factors including
    distracted, impaired and drowsy driving, and protect drivers, vehicle
    occupants and other road users. These safety systems, such as AEB and
    LDW, stand in stark contrast to some partial automation driver
    convenience features, such as adaptative cruise control and lane
    centering used together which allow operators to remove their hands
    from the steering wheel or other dangerous actions. While AV technology
    continues to be developed, ADAS are available to immediately improve
    public safety. As NHTSA has stated, ``[t]he prevalence of automotive
    crashes in the United States underscores the urgency to develop and
    deploy lifesaving technologies that can dramatically decrease the
    number of fatalities and injuries on our Nation's roadways.'' \33\ The
    NTSB has included increasing implementation of collision avoidance
    technologies in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety
    Improvements since 2016.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ 85 FR 39976 (Jul. 2, 2020).
        \34\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
    Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 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 involving lane changes by
    23 percent;
          Rear AEB can reduce backing crashes by 78 percent when
    combined with rearview camera and parking sensors;
          Rear cross-traffic alert can reduce backing crashes by 22
    percent; and,\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ IIHS, Real world benefits of crash avoidance technologies,
    available at: https://www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-
    3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/ADVANCED%20DRIVER
    %20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Equipping large trucks with forward collision warning and
    AEB could eliminate more than two out of five crashes in which a large
    truck rear-ends another vehicle.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
    trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
    front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too

        However, the widespread use of these technologies and realizing
    their significant lifesaving benefits are hampered by their limited
    availability to consumers. Often AEB is sold as part of an additional,
    expensive trim package along with other non-safety features, or
    included as standard equipment in high end models or vehicles. This
    practice hinders mass dissemination and safety equity by providing
    access only to those who can afford an upcharge of thousands of
    dollars. Additionally, segments of the trucking industry have opposed
    requiring AEB in small to medium-sized trucks.
        Moreover, there are currently no minimum safety standards to ensure
    the technologies perform as expected and needed. When consumers walk
    into auto showrooms to purchase a vehicle, a major expenditure for most
    families, they expect the assurances of minimum safety standards to
    protect them, as has been the case since the first federal vehicle
    safety regulation issued in 1966.\37\ Also, consumers are keeping cars
    longer. In 2021, the average of age of vehicles operated on roads in
    the U.S. was 12 years.\38\ As such, without federal regulations
    requiring ADAS as standard equipment, it will take far longer for these
    safety systems to be prevalent on our roadways. The current void of
    regulations for ADAS renders all road users vulnerable to needless
    dangers, including bicyclists, pedestrians and others.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L.
    89-563 (Sep. 1966).
        \38\ Robert Ferris, Cars on American roads keep getting older, CNBC
    (Sep. 28, 2021).
        \39\ Note some ADAS may not be appropriate for certain CMV
    operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure for including numerous provisions in
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law last
    November, that will improve safety and strengthen our nation's
    infrastructure. The law requires the U.S. DOT to issue a final rule
    within two years for AEB in large CMVs and the issuance of a Federal
    Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to require drivers use AEB.\40\
    We urge the U.S. DOT to meet the statutory deadline for this standard
    and not delay regulatory action. However, this directive must be
    expanded to include all CMVs. Based on new truck sales data, limiting
    the installation of AEB to Class 7 and 8 trucks will potentially
    exclude over half a million Class 3-6 trucks every year. These vehicles
    travel on local streets and through neighborhoods everyday making
    millions of deliveries. Equipping these trucks with AEB will make
    neighborhood streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, children, older
    adults, people in wheelchairs and other vulnerable road users.
    Advocates also has consistently supported the use of speed limiting
    devices for CMVs because high speed crashes involving large trucks have
    the potential to be far deadlier than those that occur at lower
    speeds.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
        \41\ Docket: FMCSA-2014-0083, Comment ID: FMCSA-2014-0083-4459.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also commend the Subcommittee and full Committee for the
    inclusion of upgrading the performance standard for rear underride
    guards.\42\ This is long overdue as testing by IIHS has found that the
    largest trailer manufacturers far exceed the current federal
    standard.\43\ Moreover technology is currently available that can
    prevent a passenger vehicle from traveling underneath the rear or side
    of a trailer and significantly increase the chances of survival. The
    NTSB has recommended rear, side, and front underride protection.\44\ In
    2017, IIHS performed its first tests of a side underride guard designed
    for an automobile.\45\ The device bent but did not allow the car to go
    underneath the trailer, enabling the car's airbags and safety belt to
    properly restrain the test dummy in the driver seat. As such, U.S. DOT
    should require the installation of comprehensive underride protection
    (side and front) for the entire CMV.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Pub.L. 117-58 (2021). A list of all such provisions is
    attached as Appendix A.
        \43\ IIHS, Topics. Large Trucks, Underride.
        \44\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-10-12, H-10-13, H-14-03, H-14-
    02, H-14-04.
        \45\ IIHS, Side guard on semitrailer prevents underride in 40 mph
    test (Aug. 29, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, the legislation provides funding opportunities for
    states and localities to implement a Safe System Approach that seeks to
    prevent traffic fatalities by minimizing roadway conflicts and reducing
    crash forces when they do occur. This is accomplished through measures
    such as reducing speeds, road safety infrastructure improvements and
    better post-crash management. Additional provisions in the IIJA that
    will improve public safety include requiring the establishment of a
    safe routes to school program for children, research focusing on
    vulnerable road users (VRUs), and measures to address multiple
    substance-impaired driving. Lastly, the IIJA includes directives to the
    U.S. DOT to conduct research on the impacts of automated, connected and
    platooned vehicles on infrastructure including wear on roadway
    pavements as well as a report to Congress on the existing and future
    impacts of AVs to transportation infrastructure, mobility, the
    environment, and safety. This information will be critical in
    determining future policies for this developmental technology.
        In the short term, there are immediate surface infrastructure
    vulnerabilities which demand immediate attention. Just last week, at
    least ten people were injured when a well-travelled 52-year-old bridge
    collapsed in Pittsburgh. The most recent inspection report for the
    bridge noted that it was in ``poor'' condition.\46\ This was not the
    first time a major artery has failed in a major city in the U.S. In
    2007, a bridge in Minneapolis collapsed killing 13 and injuring 145
    travelers after the span had been deemed ``structurally deficient.''
    \47\ Overweight trucks disproportionately damage America's crumbling
    infrastructure and threaten public safety. Yet, certain special
    interests continue to advocate for weakening federal limits on the
    weight and size of CMVs. Often these provisions are tucked into must
    pass spending bills evading public debate and the jurisdiction of this
    committee. Federal weight and size limits are essential to protecting
    truck drivers, the traveling public, and our nation's roads and
    bridges. According to the 2021 Infrastructure Report Card from the
    American Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of
    ``D'' and our bridges were given a ``C.'' \48\ Nearly 40 percent of our
    615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older,
    and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Campbell Robertson and Amanda Holpuch, Pittsburgh Bridge
    Collapses Hours Before Biden Infrastructure Visit, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28,
    2022).
        \47\ David Schaper, 10 Years After Bridge Collapse, America Is
    Still Crumbling, National Public Radio (Aug. 1, 2017).
        \48\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
    Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
        \49\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We urge the U.S. DOT to move swiftly to implement the IIJA,
    including issuing the mandated standards immediately, and to view the
    safety requirements as a ``floor'' rather than a ``ceiling'' for what
    must be achieved. Critical to the success of the National Roadway
    Safety Strategy (NRSS), released by the U.S. DOT last week, will be
    swift implementation of Congressional mandates and other identified
    solutions which have been proven to prevent crashes and save lives.
              Experimental Autonomous Technology Remains Unproven
        While the benefits of ADAS, like AEB, are clear, the same is not so
    for several partial automation technologies for both cars and trucks
    which are lacking independent supportive evidence or data. Moreover,
    several fatal crashes involving cars equipped with automated driving
    systems (ADS) or varying levels of driving automation have been subject
    to investigation by the NTSB and NHTSA.\50\ These investigations have
    and will continue to identify safety deficiencies, determine
    contributing causes, and recommend government and industry actions to
    prevent future deadly incidents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ The list of crashes and failures involving vehicles equipped
    with autonomous driving systems identified by Advocates is attached as
    Appendix B.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates urges this Subcommittee to consider critical information
    from our nation's preeminent crash investigators to inform any policies
    related to AVs. Further, since January 2018, NHTSA's Office of Defects
    Investigation has identified at least eleven crashes in which a Tesla
    vehicle operating under its ``Autopilot System'' or Traffic Aware
    Cruise Control collided with vehicles at crash scenes where first
    responder vehicles lights and other control measures such as flares and
    cones were in place. This investigation must be a priority for NHTSA
    because of the serious safety implications associated with these
    troubling and recurring incidents. Findings from all these
    investigations should be publicly released and incorporated as
    applicable into any future legislation or regulation pertaining to AVs.
        It is encouraging that NHTSA has recently taken several essential
    steps to address the substantial safety concerns associated with
    vehicles equipped with ADAS and ADS. Advocates supports NHTSA obtaining
    invaluable data involving vehicles equipped with Level 2 ADAS and ADS
    through Standing General Order 2021-01 (General Order) and the agency's
    recent announcement that it intends to expand the General Order to
    include additional crashes including those involving VRUs.\51\ The
    agency indicates that it believes the frequency of crashes equipped
    with these systems will increase.\52\ The General Order will assist
    NHTSA in properly assessing the on-road performance and safety of these
    technologies. This unique information can help the agency identify
    common problems or systematic issues with certain vehicles and/or
    equipment.\53\ Moreover, the reporting requirements of the General
    Order are properly tailored so that the agency can collect the
    appropriate data necessary as they are limited to crashes involving
    fatalities, injuries requiring transportation to a hospital,
    substantial damage to the vehicle, airbag deployment or an incident
    involving a vulnerable road user. The agency recently indicated that it
    has received four months of data from manufacturers.\54\ During his
    nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
    and Transportation in December 2021, Dr. Steven Cliff, nominee for
    NHTSA Administrator, affirmed the agency's intent to make the data
    public in the very near future.\55\ We urge NHTSA to release all the
    data obtained from the General Order to the public in an understandable
    format as soon as possible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ 86 FR 54287, 54288; 87 FR 4099 (Jan. 26, 2022).
        \52\ Id.
        \53\ Id.
        \54\ Jessica Wehrman, Highway safety nominee faces grilling over
    driverless vehicles, Roll Call (Dec. 16, 2021).
        \55\ Nominations Hearing, Before U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation, 117 Cong (Dec. 16, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The IIHS also has performed invaluable research on the Level 2 ADAS
    marketed as a convenience feature intended for highway driving for
    passenger motor vehicles. They have determined that if a manufacturer
    does place partial automation convenience systems in a vehicle, it
    should have essential safeguards to help prevent misuse that can result
    in dangerous situations such as failure to pay attention to the driving
    task.\56\ These include driver monitoring systems to help ensure driver
    engagement with alerts to the driver that rapidly escalate in urgency
    and timing. In addition, emergency interventions such as slowing or
    stopping the vehicle are needed when driver disengagement with the
    driving task is detected, and the driver fails to respond
    appropriately. Additional safety protocols prohibiting a driver from
    using the system while unbuckled or when crash avoidance systems are
    disabled are critical. Consumer Reports (CR) has announced it will be
    awarding points for partially automated driving systems, but only if
    they have adequate driver monitoring systems.\57\ This year IIHS
    expects to be issuing ratings on the performance of the safeguards that
    partial automation employs to help drivers stay focused on the roads
    including escalating alerts and appropriate emergency procedures.\58\
    CR plans to factor in the IIHS ratings once available.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
    (Jan. 20, 2022).
        \57\ Keith Barry, Driver Monitoring Systems by Ford and GM Are Only
    Ones to Earn Points in CR's Tests, Consumer Reports (Jan. 20, 2022).
        \58\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
    (Jan. 20, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Ensuring the Safe Development of Autonomous Technology
        Development of AVs must be undertaken without jeopardizing public
    safety. The following commonsense safeguards are necessary to ensure
    those in and around AVs are protected. This also will help bolster
    consumer confidence in the technology.
    Adoption of Basic AV Tenets Will Guarantee Safety and Public Acceptance
        Advocates spearheaded the compilation of the ``AV Tenets,'' policy
    positions which should be a foundational part of any AV policy.\59\
    This comprehensive approach is based on expert analysis, real world
    experience, and public opinion and is supported by 60 stakeholders
    representing safety, consumer, public health, labor, bicyclists,
    pedestrians, individuals with disabilities, smart growth, and others.
    It has four main, commonsense categories including: 1) prioritizing
    safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing accessibility and equity for
    all individuals including those with disabilities; 3) preserving
    consumer and worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control and
    sustainable transportation. Many promises have been touted about AVs
    bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths and
    injuries, lowering traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, expanding
    mobility and accessibility, improving efficiency, and creating more
    equitable transportation options and opportunities. As Secretary
    Buttigieg recently acknowledged, these outcomes are far from
    certain.\60\ The AV Tenets will be necessary to help realize these
    goals as well as mitigate potential negative consequences. Among the
    numerous recommendations in the AV Tenets, requiring that AVs meet
    minimum standards, including for cybersecurity, and that operations are
    subject to adequate oversight, including a comprehensive database
    accessible by vehicle identification number (VIN) with basic safety
    information, will be critical to putting safety first with regards to
    this burgeoning technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ A summary of the AV Tenets is attached as Appendix C.
        \60\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
    Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vigilant Oversight of Autonomous Commercial Motor Vehicles (ACMVs) is
            Essential
        The emergence of experimental ACMVs and their interactions with
    conventional motor vehicles, trucks and buses and all road users for
    the foreseeable future demand an enhanced level of federal and state
    oversight to ensure public safety. It is imperative that CMVs,
    including those with ADS, be regulated by U.S. DOT with enforceable
    safety standards and subject to adequate oversight. The potential for
    an 80,000 pound truck equipped with unregulated and inadequately tested
    technology on public roads is a very real and dangerous scenario if
    these vehicles are only subject to voluntary guidelines. In addition,
    automated passenger carrying CMVs which have the potential to carry as
    many as 53 passengers will need additional comprehensive federal rules
    specific to this mode of travel.
        At a minimum, ACMVs must be subject to the following essential
    provisions:
          In the near term, rulemakings must be promulgated for
    elements of ACMVs that require performance standards including but not
    limited to the ADS, human machine interface, sensors, privacy, software
    and cybersecurity. ACMVs must also be subject to a ``vision test'' to
    guarantee they properly detect and respond to other vehicles, all
    people and objects in the operating environment. Also, a standard to
    ensure ACMVs do not go outside of their operational design domain (ODD)
    should be issued. Standards for ACMVs must be required to be issued by
    specific deadlines, with a compliance date, set by Congress before
    deployment.
          Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional
    endorsement or equivalent certification on their commercial driver's
    license (CDL) to ensure they have been properly trained to monitor and
    understand the ODD of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV.
    This training must include a minimum number of hours of behind-the-
    wheel training.
          Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a
    safety assessment report that details the safety performance of
    automated driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers must be
    required to promptly report to NHTSA all crashes involving ACMVs
    causing fatalities, injuries and property damage.
          ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards (FMVSS) must not be introduced into commerce nor be
    subject to large-scale exemptions from such.
          Any safety defect involving the ACMV must be remedied
    before the ACMV is permitted to return to operation. The potential for
    defects to infect an entire fleet of vehicles is heightened because of
    the connected nature of AV technology. Therefore, manufacturers must be
    required to promptly determine if a defect affects an entire fleet.
    Those defects which are fleet-wide must result in notice to all such
    owners and an immediate suspension of operation of the entire fleet
    until the defect is remedied.
          The U.S. DOT Secretary must be required to establish a
    database for ACMVs that includes such information as the vehicle's
    identification number; manufacturer, make, model and trim information;
    the level of automation of each automated driving system with which the
    vehicle is equipped; the ODD of each automated driving system; and the
    FMVSS, if any, from which the vehicle has been exempted.
          For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
    automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid CDL in the vehicle
    at all times. Drivers will need to be alert to oversee not only the
    standard operations of the truck but also the ADS. Therefore, the
    Secretary must issue a mandatory safety standard for driver engagement.
    In addition, critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as
    those that apply to driver HOS, licensing requirements, entry level
    training and medical qualifications must not be weakened.
          Motor carriers using ACMVs must be required to apply for
    additional operating authority.
          FMCSA must consider the additional measures that will be
    needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and local law enforcement
    authorities and requirements, and what measures must be taken to
    properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside inspections. In particular,
    the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of several large ACMVs
    platooning on bridges, roads and highways must be assessed.
          NHTSA must be given imminent hazard authority to protect
    against potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs, and
    criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not willfully and
    knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
          NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources,
    funding and personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the
    agency due to the advent of AV technology.

        Without these necessary safety protections, mandated by Congress to
    assure they are adopted with prescribed deadlines, commercial drivers
    and those with whom they share the road are at risk. Allowing
    technology to be deployed without rigorous testing, vigilant oversight,
    and comprehensive safety standards is a direct and unacceptable threat
    to the motoring public which is exacerbated by the sheer size and
    weights of large CMVs.
    ACMVs Will Impact our Nation's Infrastructure
        The Need for Improved Roadway Design: The design of our roads--from
    the asphalt, to the signage, to the lighting, to the speed limit--is
    largely based on the history of human performance behind the wheel and
    the capability of the vehicles. The introduction of AVs including ACMVs
    stands to essentially require a re-write of many of these guidelines
    for road design and use in the future. However, in the near term, there
    will need to be an evaluation of how standards for design can be
    enhanced to accommodate both human and machine ``drivers.'' Both human
    and machine ``drivers'' would benefit from improved lane marking as
    well as establishing standards for pavement resurfacing to ensure that
    repair seams and color differences do not confuse AV systems.
    Establishing uniform standards for signage color, lighting, contrast,
    letter size, and other roadway features will likely benefit the
    performance of AVs and will also reap similar advantages for human
    drivers in the interim. Many of the current manuals' guidelines and
    recommendations are almost always open to engineering interpretation.
    With the advent of ACMVs, more emphasis must be placed on consistency,
    and consideration must be given to the effects variations can have on
    autonomous driving technology. While a human driver can see a unique
    situation and interpret those circumstances fairly well, an ACMV may
    not be able to do the same. Research has already shown that minor
    distortion of a sign can cause havoc for AVs, causing stop signs to be
    interpreted as speed limit signs, a confusion which can have serious,
    and potentially fatal, results.\61\ Clearly, new rules are required if
    ACMVs are allowed on our roadways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ Evtimov, Ivan & Eykholt, Kevin & Fernandes, Earlence & Kohno,
    Tadayoshi & Li, Bo & Prakash, Atul & Rahmati, Amir & Song, Dawn.
    (2017). Robust Physical-World Attacks on Machine Learning Models.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Roadway deterioration and delayed repair, which are common
    occurrences on existing infrastructure, will have a negative impact on
    AV operation. In addition, how ACMVs utilize and navigate weigh
    stations, roadside inspections and truck stops must be considered.
    Every driver has experienced road signs or markings that have been
    damaged, intentionally altered or blocked by objects. This could lead
    to misinterpretation of roadway and highway cues and result in stopped
    or misdirected ACMVs that will present additional hazards. These
    findings and similar research illustrate that not only standards for
    roadway design can be critical to performance, but also that road
    design improvements alone may not suffice to ensure the safe operation
    of AVs. Combining standards for design with infrastructure improvements
    like vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technology, backed by standards
    for such, would provide additional awareness for human drivers and
    unambiguous inputs for machine ``drivers.''
        Industry Hype v. Reality: The AV industry often has claimed that
    the introduction of these vehicles will reduce congestion, improve
    environmental quality, and advance transportation efficiency.\62\
    However, many of these claims may amount to nothing more than
    aspirational goals. Instead, AVs may bring about so-called ``hyper-
    commuters'' who work from their vehicles on long commutes to enable
    living further from offices and/or city centers. Significant
    consideration must be given to how AV driving could change wear
    patterns on roadways. Heavy trucks already are accelerating the damage
    on our roads and highways. The lower variance of an AV's, including
    ACMVs, position within a lane could lead to accelerated wear in lanes,
    and condensed convoys of automated trucks, commonly known as
    platooning, could place further strain on roads and bridges. All these
    concerns must be evaluated to consider operational constraints for AVs
    before further damage is inflicted upon our nation's roads and bridges
    which are already weakened and in dire need of fortification and
    updating, as mentioned above. For example, the spacing between ACMVs in
    a platoon could have wide-ranging implications. If these large vehicles
    travel too closely together, their combined weight load could place
    severe stress on a bridge. In addition, lengthy platoons which consist
    of many ACMVs could be difficult to pass and affect merging and exiting
    from roadways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Self-Driving Coalition For Safe Streets, FAQs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Taking into consideration the long-term ramifications, the
    budgetary constraints, and the necessary coordination among a diverse
    group of stakeholders when it comes to planning and implementing
    infrastructure projects at any level, research is needed now more than
    ever on the impact of AVs on our roads. In addition, further research
    is also required to examine the differing infrastructure upgrades that
    will be required for urban, suburban and rural regions. More analysis
    and deliberation must be given to this complex issue before AVs,
    particularly ACMVs, can be deployed.
    Voluntary Agreements are Inadequate, Ineffective and Impossible to
            Enforce
        To date, the approach of pursuing voluntary industry agreements,
    sometimes with government agency involvement, consistently has been
    demonstrated to be insufficient to ensure public safety. For example,
    the first edition of the AV Guidelines issued by U.S. DOT in 2016
    encouraged the submission of voluntary safety self-assessment (VSSA)
    reports and the subsequent three editions have not altered this
    process.\63\ Despite the fact that approximately 80 entities are
    testing AV technology,\64\ just under 30 reports have been filed with
    U.S. DOT since the first voluntary guidelines were released in
    2016.\65\ Thus far, the U.S. DOT has failed to implement standard
    requirements for the information to be provided in the VSSA.
    Consequently, manufacturers are submitting incomplete, uninformative
    and sometimes outdated glossy, marketing-style brochures with little,
    if any, substantive or relevant information from which to ascertain
    critical and reliable information about safety and performance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ U.S. DOT, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (Sept. 2016);
    Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for Safety 2.0 (Sep. 12, 2017);
    Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0
    (Oct. 4, 2018); Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
    Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0 (Jan. 8, 2020).
        \64\ Brookings Institution, Autonomous cars: Science, technology,
    and policy (Jul. 25, 2019).
        \65\ NHTSA, Safety Self-Assessments, available at: https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-
    assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In September 2020, the U.S. DOT announced a new voluntary plan, the
    Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV
    TEST) Initiative.\66\ It also focuses on the voluntary submission of
    information from AV manufacturers and operators, as well as state and
    local authorities. Similar to the VSSAs, the lack of a mandate and
    standard for submissions provides little if any value to assist in
    seriously evaluating or comparing the AV testing taking place across
    the country.\67\ This initiative is an oversight mirage leaving all
    road consumers uninformed and at risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \66\ 85 FR 39975 (Jul. 2, 2020).
        \67\ Docket No.: NHTSA-2020-0070, Comment: NHTSA-2020-0070-0016
    (Aug. 31, 2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another example of the ineffectiveness and failures of voluntary
    agreements is the March 2016 agreement among 20 automakers to install
    AEB in most new light vehicles as standard equipment by 2023. As of
    December 2021, two manufacturers, which account for nearly a third of
    the U.S. auto market, demonstrate this lackluster response to the
    detriment of public safety. Only 58 percent of General Motors vehicles
    and 43 percent of Fiat Chrysler vehicles were sold with AEB between
    September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. Moreover, the performance
    requirements in the agreement are exceptionally weak and consequently
    can result in these systems not performing as needed. This underscores
    the urgency for the U.S. DOT to issue a minimum performance standard
    for AEB in all new vehicles, and it undermines the public confidence in
    the potential of these promising safety systems to prevent death and
    injury on the highway.
        The latest example of ineffectual voluntary agreements is the
    September 2019 announcement by the auto industry to equip cars with
    inadequate technology to prevent hot car deaths of children by 2025.
    Once again, this type of a pact unnecessarily prolongs the timeline to
    get equipment into new cars and fails to ensure the system meets a
    minimum performance standard.\68\ In fact, General Motors announced it
    would equip its new cars with technology that ``can detect motion as
    subtle as the breathing of an infant sleeping in a rear-facing child
    safety seat'' in 2001 with the intent to begin rollout in 2004.\69\
    Yet, this technology was never installed. Meanwhile, children continue
    to needlessly die or tragically sustain serious injuries in hot cars.
    The IIJA took a step forward by directing the U.S. DOT to issue a rule
    on reminder technology within two years, but it is imperative that the
    final rule require the system detect the presence of an occupant in the
    entire passenger compartment. If not, ineffective systems, which are
    currently on the market, will give a false promise of preventing child
    deaths, but in reality not solve this tragic problem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Members of Congress, Safety Advocates and Grieving Parents
    Call for Technology Solutions to End Hot Car Tragedies as Fatalities
    Continue, Jul. 28, 2020, available at https://conta.cc/30Sdt2w.
        \69\ General Motors News Release, ``General Motors Announces
    Important New Technology to Help Save Children Trapped in Hot Cars,''
    (April 26, 2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The common thread among all these voluntary initiatives is that at
    any time, any or all automakers can decide to no longer comply with the
    agreement or partially comply in whatever capacity they desire without
    any ramifications, underscoring the importance and benefit of
    regulatory action by U.S. DOT. They also allow auto manufacturers to
    continue upcharging, sometimes far in excess of the cost to the auto
    manufacturers who benefit financially from keeping systems voluntary
    rather than mandatory.
    Dispelling Misleading Claims about AVs
        Some proponents of ACMVs claim that they will relieve supply chain
    issues by addressing the so called ``driver shortage'' within the
    trucking industry by eliminating the need for human drivers and
    allowing for the more efficient movement of goods through the constant
    operation of trucks. However, harsh and unsafe working conditions for
    interstate truck drivers have created a retention crisis, not a driver
    shortage. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that
    ``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as the labor
    markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper look [at the
    truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a secular
    shortage.'' \70\ According to industry data, driver turnover at some
    carriers is near 90 percent.\71\ In addition, states issue more than
    450,000 new CDLs each year, demonstrating that there are candidates to
    fill vacancies.\72\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
        \71\ American Trucking Associations, Fourth Quarter Truck Driver
    Turnover Rate Shows Muddled Picture (Mar. 12, 2021).
        \72\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?,
    National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The supply chain issues currently facing the nation are complex and
    will not be solved by the introduction of ACMVs, which will not be
    ready for prime time in the near future. This technology still faces
    significant operational challenges such as responding to all
    participants in the transportation ecosystem including traffic control
    officers and vulnerable road users as well as differing weather
    conditions. In fact, much of the testing of AVs is taking place in warm
    areas of the country that do not experience varied weather conditions
    including those that occur during treacherous winters. Moreover, the
    constant operation of trucks raises serious questions as to the ability
    to properly service vehicles continuously in use. Even without this
    potential new regime, 21 percent of CMVs were placed out of service in
    2021 for maintenance issues.\73\ In addition, many of the issues with
    the physical condition of the truck that would be identified by a human
    driver during a pre- or post-trip inspection as well problems during a
    trip such as the shift of a load or other emergencies noted by a human
    driver may not be identified or corrected under this type of use.
    Furthermore, adding an autonomous driving system into passenger
    carrying vehicles such as buses does not negate the need for a driver.
    Human interaction remains essential. Beyond the operational task, these
    professional drivers have a myriad of other responsibilities including
    assisting individuals with disabilities on and off the bus safely,
    managing emergency situations and the delivery of medical care, and
    coordinating safe transportation for all people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
    data snapshot as of 12/31/2021. Available at: https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
    SafetyProgram/RoadsideInspections.aspx
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Supporters of ACMVs also contend that placing autonomous systems in
    a CMV is not as daunting a task as with passenger vehicles because CMVs
    operate largely on highways, an easier environment for the technology
    to master. Operating a CMV on a congested highway at a high rate of
    speed is a complicated task in a dangerous environment as evidenced by
    the fact that a quarter of fatal crashes involving CMVs occur on
    highways.\74\ Lastly, supporters of ACMVs also claim that the
    technology will eliminate most crashes citing a statistic accredited to
    NHTSA which indicates that 94 percent of crashes are due to human error
    or the fault of the driver.\75\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \74\ U.S. DOT, Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2019, Table 5,
    Report FMCSA-RRA-20-055 (Oct. 2021).
        \75\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
    investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
    (Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
    Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, the agency has noted in the same report which includes
    this data point that ``[t]he critical reason is the immediate reason
    for the critical pre-crash event and is often the last failure in the
    causal chain of events leading up to the crash. Although the critical
    reason is an important part of the description of events leading up to
    the crash, it is not intended to be interpreted as the cause of the
    crash nor as the assignment of the fault to the driver, vehicle, or
    environment'' (emphasis added).\76\ This statistic was recently rebuked
    by NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy who stated, ``At the same time it
    relieves everybody else of responsibility they have for improving
    safety, including DOT . . . You can't simultaneously say we're focused
    on a `safe system' approach--making sure everybody who shares
    responsibility for road safety is taking action to eliminate fatalities
    and serious injuries . . .--and have a 94% number out there, which is
    not accurate.'' \77\ There are often multiple causes of a crash and
    replacing human error in the operation of a vehicle, when it does
    occur, with unproven technology is not a sensible solution to reducing
    the death toll on our nation's roads. The fact remains that there is
    scant independently verifiable data that ACMVs can operate safely on
    any road or help to address any of the nation's longstanding supply
    chain issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \76\ Id.
        \77\ Hope Yen and Tom Krisher, NTSB chief to fed agency: Stop using
    misleading statistics, Associated Press (Jan. 18, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some proponents of advancing the deployment of AVs contend the U.S.
    is at risk of falling behind other nations unless it takes steps to
    merely promote rather than regulate ACMVs. However, this fear-inducing
    claim is inaccurate In fact, the United States is ranked fourth in the
    KPMG 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index while Japan is ranked
    11th, Germany is 14th and China is 20th.\78\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \78\ KPMG, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other countries in fact are taking a more calculated, careful and
    cautious approach.
          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.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \79\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In the United Kingdom, testing has largely been limited
    to a handful of cities, and the government has proposed and published a
    detailed code of practice for testing AVs.\80\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Canada, several provinces prohibit certain types of
    AVs from being sold to the public.\81\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \81\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          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.\82\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \82\ Kyodo, JiJi, Cabinet paves way for self-driving vehicles on
    Japan's roads next year with new rules, The Japan Times (Sep. 20,
    2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In China, all AV operations remain experimental.\83\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \83\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.

        In sum, no country is selling fully automated vehicles to the
    public and by many accounts, none will be for a significant time in the
    future.\84\ The U.S. is not behind other countries in allowing them to
    go to market, but we are behind in establishing and enforcing
    comprehensive safeguards to ensure that this process happens without
    jeopardizing or diminishing public safety. Congress can change this
    predicament by directing the U.S. DOT to issue minimum performance
    standards and exercise sufficient oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \84\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless,
    N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019); Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'',
    says VW-Ford AV boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Conclusion
        Since our founding in 1989, Advocates has supported and worked to
    advance in federal legislation and government rulemaking the safe and
    equitable development and requirements for proven technologies to
    reduce crashes and save lives on our nation's roads. AVs may, in the
    distant future, as many renown industry and public officials have
    explained, bring about meaningful societal benefits and improvements to
    public safety but it will require implementing and enforcing mandatory
    comprehensive safeguards to ensure AV technology is developed without
    putting the public at risk. Until the time that is demonstrated and
    supported by minimum government standards to ensure ongoing safe
    performance and reliability, adequate consumer information, and
    deterrents to industry transgressions, public officials should focus on
    requiring the installation of available, advanced safety technologies
    in all new vehicles and improving our compromised infrastructure to
    successfully mitigate and reduce the ongoing crisis of fatalities and
    injuries on our roads.

                                                             Appendix A
    Vehicle Safety Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
                        (Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684)
                                 november 2021
          Crash Avoidance Technology
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (DOT) to issue final rules on minimum performance
    standards and requirements for proven crash avoidance technologies
    including forward collision warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking
    (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), and lane keeping assist (LKA) for
    all new passenger motor vehicles. Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a final
    rule within two years for AEB in new large trucks and requires the
    issuance of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to
    require drivers use AEB. Requires research two years after enactment on
    equipping medium sized commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) with the
    technology.
             Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
    for crash avoidance technology for passenger vehicles. No compliance
    date for AEB requirement on large trucks. Fails to ensure crash
    avoidance technology will respond to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
    vulnerable road users. Omits Class 3-6 trucks from AEB requirement
    despite the fact that some trucks are already equipped with them.

          Impaired Driving Prevention Technology
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
    final rule within three years requiring passenger motor vehicles be
    equipped with impaired driving prevention technology, further provides
    for three years from issuance of the final rule for compliance and a
    potential three additional years at the discretion of the Secretary.
             Safety Stalled: Opens the door to potential delay in
    rulemaking by allowing a report to Congress if a final rule isn't
    issued within ten years of enactment. The systems must be set at .08
    percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as opposed to state legal
    limits which may be lower.

          Vehicular Heatstroke (Hot Cars) Prevention Technology
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
    final rule within two years requiring all new passenger motor vehicles
    weighing less than 10,000 pounds to be equipped with a system to alert
    the operator to check rear-designated seating positions after the
    vehicle engine or motor is deactivated by the operator. Provides an
    additional two years for compliance.
             Safety Stalled: Fails to require hot cars prevention
    technology that detects the presence of unattended children who may
    have entered independently or been left intentionally or
    unintentionally. The alert system is limited only to the rear seat
    although children have died or been injured in the front seat area.

          Distracted Driving
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to conduct
    research on driver monitoring systems within three years and report to
    Congress. The Secretary then must determine if one or more rulemakings
    is required. Adds new grant opportunity for states that ban distracted
    viewing. Improves transparency in grant determination process.
             Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
    for distracted driving prevention systems.

          Seat Back Standard
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue an
    Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on whether to improve
    the seat back safety standard within two years of enactment. If the
    Secretary decides to issue a final rule, requires compliance within two
    years of issuance of the rule.
             Safety Stalled: The Secretary has complete discretion for
    action. If s/he determines an update is needed, only requires an ANPRM,
    not a final rule. Therefore, there is no actual requirement that the
    seat back standard be updated.

          Headlamps
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
    final rule updating the headlamp standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standard (FMVSS) 108) and permitting adaptive headlamps within two
    years.
             Safety Stalled: No compliance date for improvements to
    headlamps.

          Hood and Bumper Standards
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
    notice for review and comment as well as a report on potential updates
    to hood and bumper standards within two years of enactment.
             Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
    for hood and bumper updates.

          Keyless Ignitions
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
    final rule within two years to mandate an automatic shutoff for
    vehicles with keyless ignition and combustion engines within a period
    as determined by the Secretary which, absent good cause to delay
    implementation, takes effect one year after final rule. The U.S. DOT is
    further directed to conduct a study on vehicle rollaways.
             Safety Stalled: Does not adequately address risks associated
    with keyless ignitions by failing to require a rulemaking on rollaway.

          U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to complete the
    update of NCAP that was initiated in 2015 as well as publish a notice
    for public comment on consumer information on advanced crash avoidance
    technologies and vulnerable road user safety within one year. Requires
    U.S. DOT to issue a ``roadmap'' every four years on plans to update
    U.S. NCAP to keep pace with vehicle technology, subject to public
    comment and annual stakeholder engagement.
             Safety Stalled: Fails to ensure U.S. NCAP is comprehensively
    updated and addresses the safety of vulnerable road users.

          Consumer Protections
             Steps Forward for Safety: Establishes a grant program for
    states to inform consumers of vehicle safety recalls within two years
    of enactment. Requires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to
    report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on
    recall completion rates as well as directs the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct studies related to recalls
    within two years of enactment. Requires U.S. DOT to conduct a study
    within 18 months to evaluate Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data and
    identify any improvements to enhance safety and report to Congress
    describing results including any recommendations for regulatory or
    legislative action.
             Safety Stalled: Fails to include deadline for U.S. DOT action
    to update EWR data.

          Underride Protection
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to update the
    rear guard standard to meet the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
    (IIHS) crash protocols and be subject to annual inspection, as well as
    research side underride guards. Establishes an advisory committee on
    underride protection.
             Safety Stalled: Does not require side and front underride
    guards.

          Limousine Safety
             Steps Forward for Safety: Requires limousines to be equipped
    with safety belts and be subject to standards for seat strength and
    integrity. Directs the U.S. DOT to conduct research on FMVSS for side
    impact protection, roof crush resistance, and air bag systems within
    four years of enactment, followed by rulemaking within two years of
    completion of the research. Requires U.S. DOT to conduct research on
    evacuation, followed by rulemaking within two years of completion of
    the research. Requires consumer information on most recent inspection
    to be prominently disclosed including on the website of the operator.

          School Bus Safety
             Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to review laws,
    safety measures, and technologies relating to school buses.
             Safety Stalled: Does not require vital improvements to school
    bus safety including requirements for seat belts, automatic emergency
    braking, fire suppression, and to curb school bus driver fatigue.

          Funding Provisions
             Steps Forward for Safety: Includes several provisions to
    enhance public roadway safety such as an incentive grant for a Safe
    System approach to roadway design and building to minimize conflicts
    between road users, especially between vehicles and vulnerable road
    users, to prevent fatalities. Allows federal funding to be used for
    automated enforcement systems in work and school zones. Improves
    transparency in determinations for the highway safety grant program
    awards to states to help combat dangerous behaviors such as impaired
    and distracted driving.
             Safety Stalled: Other changes to highway safety grant program
    requirements for distracted driving may weaken incentivization for
    state action to upgrade their traffic safety law.
    Steps Backward for Safety--
          Teen Truck Drivers: Permits teen and young drivers under
    age 21 to drive in interstate commerce through a three-year pilot
    apprentice program that permits 3,000 participants at a time--amounting
    to potentially more than 25,000 per year. Requires U.S. DOT to report
    to Congress on data collected during the pilot program and conduct a
    driver compensation study.
          Hours of Service (HOS) for Truck Drivers: Provides HOS
    exemption for livestock haulers within 150 air miles of the destination
    (current law already allows for such exemption within 150 air miles of
    the source). Requires U.S. DOT to analyze cost and effectiveness of
    electronic logging devices (ELDs) which have already been shown to
    reduce driver violations of HOS rules, as well as report on processes
    used by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to
    review logs and allow carriers to challenge violations relating to an
    ELD.
          Truck Size and Weight: Permits overweight trucks, which
    disproportionately damage infrastructure and threaten public safety, to
    operate on certain roadways in Kentucky, North Carolina and Oklahoma.
    Allows these states to retain operational laws that exceed federal
    weight limits after these roads become part of Interstate System.

                                                             Appendix B
       Crashes and Failures Involving Vehicles Equipped with Autonomous
         Driving Systems: Public Roads Serving as Proving Grounds and
                           Endangering All Road Users
        August 28, 2021, Orlando, FL, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla crashed into a
    parked police car and a Mercedes SUV. The patrol car's emergency lights
    were flashing, and the Tesla driver told police that ``autopilot'' was
    engaged at the time of the crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) is investigating the crash.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Photo Source: Florida Highway Patrol

        May 15, 2021, Lake Stevens, WA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran into a
    Sheriff's patrol SUV that was parked on the side of a road with
    emergency lights flashing responding to previous crash. ``Autopilot''
    was reportedly engaged at the time of the crash.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Photo Source: Snohomish County Sheriff's Office

        May 5, 2021, Fontana CA, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla struck a previously
    overturned truck which was blocking two lanes on the highway. According
    to the California Highway Patrol, ``Autopilot'' was engaged at the time
    of the crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) is investigating the crash.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Photo Source: New York Daily News

        April 17, 2021, The Woodlands, TX, Tesla Model S: A Tesla
    travelling at a ``high rate of speed'' around a curve went off the road
    about 100 feet and hit a tree. NHTSA and the National Transportation
    Safety Board (NTSB) are investigating the crash.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                             Photo Source: Reuters

        March 17, 2021, Eaton County, MI, Tesla Model Y: A Tesla ran into a
    state patrol car parked on the side of the highway. The patrol car had
    emergency lights activated at the time. Michigan State Police said the
    driver was using ``Autopilot'' at the time of the crash. NHTSA is
    investigating.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Photo Source: Michigan State Police

        August 26, 2020, Zebulon, NC, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran into a
    police cruiser parked on the side of the highway, causing the cruiser
    to collide with a state trooper's vehicle. According to media reports,
    police said the driver was watching a movie on his phone and that
    ``Autopilot'' was engaged when the crash happened.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             Photo Source: WRAL-TV

        December 29, 2019, Cloverdale, IN, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla collided
    with a firetruck killing the passenger in the Tesla. The use of
    ``Autopilot'' has not been determined. NHTSA is investigating.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Photo Source: Indiana State Police

        December 29, 2019, Gardena, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran a red
    light and struck another vehicle killing the two occupants in the other
    vehicle. The use of ``Autopilot'' has not been determined. NHTSA is
    investigating.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             Photo Source: Loudlabs

        December 7, 2019, Norwalk, CT, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla slammed into
    a parked police cruiser and another vehicle. Media reports that the
    ``Autopilot'' was engaged at the time of the crash. NHTSA is
    investigating.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Photo Source: Connecticut State Police

        March 1, 2019, Delray Beach, FL, Tesla Model 3: The driver was
    killed when his vehicle, operating on ``Autopilot,'' crashed into the
    side of a truck tractor combination, traveling underneath the trailer.
    (NTSB Investigation HWY19FH008, brief completed)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Photo Source: NTSB

        May 29, 2018, Laguna Beach, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla reportedly
    on ``Autopilot'' crashed into a parked Laguna Beach Police Department
    Vehicle. The driver suffered minor injuries.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             Photo Source: LA Times

        March 23, 2018, Mountain View, CA, Tesla Model X: While on
    ``Autopilot'', a Tesla struck a safety barrier, causing the death of
    the driver. (NTSB Investigation HWY18FH011, report completed)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Photo Source: Forbes

        March 18, 2018, Tempe, AZ, Uber Self-Driving Test Vehicle: The Uber
    vehicle, which was operating on ``self-driving mode,'' struck and
    killed a pedestrian walking a bicycle. (NTSB Investigation HWY18MH010,
    report completed)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             Photo Source: NBC News

        January 22, 2018, Culver City, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla,
    reportedly on ``Autopilot,'' was traveling at 65mph when it crashed
    into the back of a parked firetruck that was responding to the scene of
    a separate crash. (NTSB Investigation HWY18FH004, brief issued)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Photo Source: Culver City Firefighters

        November 8, 2017, Las Vegas, NV, Driverless Shuttle Bus: A
    driverless shuttle was involved in a crash during its first day of
    service. There were no deaths or injuries. (NTSB Investigation
    HWY18FH001, brief issued)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            Photo Source: Fox5 Vegas

        May 7, 2016, Williston, FL, Tesla Model S: The driver was killed
    when his vehicle, operating on ``Autopilot,'' crashed into the side of
    a truck tractor combination, traveling underneath the trailer. (NTSB
    Investigation HWY16FH018, report completed)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Photo Source: NTSB

                                                             Appendix C
                 Introduction to Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
                    By Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
                               november 30, 2020
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In 2019, more than 36,000 people were killed and millions more were
    injured in motor vehicle crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) currently values each life lost in a crash at
    $9.6 million. Annually 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.
    Additionally, crashes cost employers $47.4 billion in direct crash-
    related expenses annually, based on 2013 data (Network of Employers for
    Traffic Safety (NETS)).
        Many promises have been made about autonomous vehicles (AVs)
    bringing meaningful and lasting reductions in motor vehicle crashes and
    resulting deaths and injuries, traffic congestion and vehicle
    emissions. Additionally, claims have been made that AVs will expand
    mobility and accessibility, improve efficiency, and create more
    equitable transportation options and opportunities. However, these
    potentials remain far from a near-term certainty or reality. Without
    commonsense safeguards the possibilities are imperiled at best and
    could be doomed at worst. Additionally, the absence of protections
    could result in adverse effects including safety risks for all people
    and vehicles on and around the roads, job displacement, degradation of
    current mobility options, infrastructure and environmental problems,
    marginalization of certain users, and others. Requiring that AVs meet
    minimum standards and that operations are subject to adequate oversight
    throughout development and deployment will save lives as well as costs
    for both the consumer and the manufacturer.
        Moreover, on the path to AVs, proven solutions are currently
    available that can prevent or mitigate the exorbitant death and injury
    toll now while laying the foundation for AVs in the future. Available
    vehicle technologies, also known as advanced driver assistance systems
    (ADAS), should be standard equipment with minimum performance
    standards. Research performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway
    Safety (IIHS) has found that these systems can help to prevent and
    lessen the severity of crashes. For example, IIHS has determined that
    automatic emergency braking (AEB) can decrease front-to-rear crashes
    with injuries by 56 percent. In addition, 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.
        It is a transformational time in transportation history. Yet,
    Benjamin Franklin's infamous quote from 1736, ``An ounce of prevention
    is worth a pound of cure,'' aptly applies. We urge our Nation's leaders
    to use this document as the ``GPS,'' the way to ``guarantee public
    safety,'' as AV development and deployment moves forward.
          Summary of Tenets of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Legislation \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These tenets are limited to vehicles with a gross vehicle
    weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less unless otherwise noted;
    however, it is imperative that automated delivery vehicles (including
    those used on sidewalks and other non-roadways) and commercial motor
    vehicles be subject to comprehensive regulations, including rules
    regarding the presence of a licensed, qualified driver behind the
    wheel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     prioritizing safety of all road users
    Safety Rulemakings: All levels of automated vehicles \2\ must be
    subject to comprehensive and strong federal standards ensuring they are
    safe and save lives. The rulemakings must address known and foreseeable
    safety issues, many of which have been identified by the National
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and others, including:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Partially automated vehicles (SAE International Level 2) and
    conditional/highly automated vehicles (SAE International Levels 3, 4,
    5).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Revising Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Any
    actions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,
    Agency) to revise or repeal existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards (FMVSS) must be through a public rulemaking. Any revision
    must meet the safety need provided by current standards.
          Collision Avoidance Systems: Certain advanced safety
    technologies, which may be foundational technologies for AVs, already
    have proven to be effective at preventing and mitigating crashes across
    all on-road modes of transportation and must be standard equipment with
    federal minimum performance requirements. These include automatic
    emergency braking with pedestrian and cyclist detection, lane departure
    warning, and blind spot warning, among others.
          ``Vision Test'' for AVs: AVs must be subject to a
    ``vision test'' to guarantee it will operate on all roads and weather
    conditions as well as properly detect and respond to all vehicles,
    people and objects in the operating environment.
          Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement: AVs
    must provide adequate alerts to capture the attention of the human
    driver with sufficient time to respond and assume the dynamic driving
    task for any level of vehicle automation that may require human
    intervention.
          Cybersecurity Standard: Vehicles must be subject to
    cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure mitigation
    and remediation of cybersecurity events.
          Electronics and Software Safety Standard: Vehicles must
    be subject to minimum performance requirements for the vehicle
    electronics and software that power and operate vehicle safety and
    driving automation systems individually and as interdependent
    components.
          Operational Design Domain (ODD): The NHTSA must issue
    federal standards to ensure safeguards for driving automation systems
    to limit their operation to the ODD in which they are capable of
    functioning safely.
          Functional Safety Standard: Requires a manufacturer to
    ensure the design, development, verification and validation of safety-
    related electronics or software demonstrates to NHTSA that an AV will
    perform reliably and safely under the conditions the vehicle is
    designed to encounter.
          Safe Fallback: Every driving automation system must be
    able to detect a malfunction, degraded state, or operation outside of
    ODD and safely transition to a condition which reduces the risk of a
    crash or physical injury.
          Crash Procedures Standard: Requires manufacturers to have
    procedures in place for when an AV is involved in a crash to ensure the
    safety of all occupants of the AV, other road users and emergency
    responders.
          Standard for Over-the-Air (OTA) Updates: Requires
    consumers be given timely and appropriate information on the details of
    the OTA update and ensures any needed training or tutorials are
    provided.

    Safety and Performance Data: With the increasing number of vehicles
    with different automated technologies being tested and some being sold
    to the public, standardized data elements, recording, and access to
    safety event data are necessary for the proper oversight and analysis
    of the performance of the driving automation systems. Safety and
    performance data should be made available to relevant stakeholders with
    appropriate privacy protections.

    Manufacturer Submissions to NHTSA: Any submission to NHTSA by AV
    manufacturers or developers must be mandatory, publicly available and
    include thorough and adequate data and documentation. Additionally,
    NHTSA must be directed to review and evaluate all submissions to assess
    whether an approach to automated driving system (ADS) development and
    testing includes appropriate safeguards for operation on public roads.

    Proper Oversight of Testing: AV testing is already underway in many
    localities. Fundamental and commonsense safeguards must be instituted
    for testing on public roads including the establishment of independent
    institutional review boards (IRBs) to certify the safety of the
    protocols and procedures for testing of AVs on public roads.

    Additional Resources and Enforcement Authorities for NHTSA: 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 testing
    and deployment of self-driving technologies.
                       guaranteeing accessibility for all
    Access for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Adults: Autonomous
    driving technology has the potential to increase access and mobility
    for everyone including older adults and individuals with disabilities,
    including those with sensory, cognitive, and physical disabilities,
    wheelchair users, and people with neurological conditions, who have
    varying needs as well as traditionally underserved communities. This
    goal must be realized with appropriate federal action.

    Access for Underbanked Populations: Access to on-demand transport
    services is often predicated on the ability to make digital payments.
    AV-based transport services must consider a variety of ways in which
    payment for service can be made to ensure that this technology supports
    equitable access and the inclusion of all.

    Equity: As new modes of transportation continue to grow and evolve,
    investment and development must include a process where all people can
    safely participate.

    Accessibility, Passenger Safety, and Transportation Services: There
    must be clear plans to ensure the safe transportation for all people,
    in particular for those who currently require assistance to do so or
    are part of marginalized communities, in the implementation of these
    transportation services.
                     preserving consumer and worker rights
    Consumer Information: Consumer information regarding AVs should be
    available at the point of sale, in the owner's manual, and in any OTA
    updates. The vehicle identification number (VIN) should be updated to
    reflect whether certain features were built into the vehicle, either as
    standard or optional equipment. NHTSA must establish a website
    accessible by VIN with basic safety information about the AV level,
    safety exemptions, and limitations and capabilities of the AV.

    Privacy: All manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles, including AVs,
    should be required to comply with robust data privacy safeguards and
    policies. The ability of NHTSA, the NTSB, and local law enforcement to
    access critical safety performance data, while preserving the integrity
    of personal, private or identifying data, in a timely manner for
    research, crash investigation and other governmental purposes must be
    preserved.

    Workforce Protections: Absent strong leadership, AV technology risks
    worsening severe inequalities already inherent in our society,
    predominantly for blue collar workers. Existing and foreseeable issues
    which stand to be greatly exacerbated by this technology must be
    addressed before this technology is broadly deployed on our roads.
    Similarly, unforeseeable issues throughout deployment will need to be
    resolved with input from stakeholders.

    Whistleblower Protections: Employees or contractors who want to report
    safety defects to NHTSA should not be prevented from doing so as the
    result of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

    Consumer and Worker Rights \3\: The well-established rights of
    consumers to seek accountability in a court of law for injuries
    suffered as a result of AVs must be preserved. Moreover, exploitative
    independent contractor relationships that shield AV companies from
    liability and deny workers basic workplace rights should be explicitly
    prevented.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not take a position
    on this issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ensuring local control and sustainable transportation
    Local, State and Federal Regulatory Roles: In keeping with existing law
    and practice, the federal government should prescribe regulations for
    the performance of these vehicles, leaving regulation of the operation
    of these vehicles to the states.

    In-Depth Study of AV Impacts on Transportation Systems and Environment:
    DOT must undertake a comprehensive study to inform policymakers and the
    public about how these vehicles will impact our existing transportation
    systems and ensure effective mitigation of problems identified.

        NOTE: The AV Tenets outlined in this document do not constitute the
    entirety of each supporting organization's policy priorities related to
    AVs.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Chase.
        Before our next witness provides testimony, I would like to
    recognize Representative Lamb to say a few words of
    introduction about the next witness.
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am excited to introduce
    my constituent, Nat Beuse, who lives here, in the 17th
    Congressional District of Pennsylvania, and works for Aurora.
        One sentence about Aurora: They are an incredible, far-
    seeing company that is going to be with us for a long time,
    coming from executives and innovators out of Uber and Tesla and
    Waymo. They have partnered with companies like Toyota and Volvo
    to really take the lead in self-driving and automation
    technology, both for cars and trucking. You can see their cars
    on the road in the city of Pittsburgh almost any time, and they
    really have been an honor to have in our community as one of
    their main headquarters.
        Nat is the vice president of safety, 1 of 900 Aurora
    employees that we have in western Pennsylvania. He leads the
    development of their approach to safety every single day. He
    works with groups on industry standards and regulatory bodies
    to offer guidance about how we are going to make rules for this
    industry of the future. He was with Uber before Aurora, but,
    probably most relevant for us, before working in the private
    sector, Nat oversaw the entire Nation's motor vehicle safety
    research program, including automated vehicles, as the
    Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research at NHTSA.
    He also serves on the board of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
        So, this is somebody coming to us today who not only has
    significant industry experience and can help us understand the
    day-to-day, but has worked on behalf of the entire public
    before, and still continues some of that work in the----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Beuse, you are recognized.
        Mr. Beuse. Good morning, Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton,
    Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Nat Beuse, and I am the vice president
    of safety at Aurora. Thank you for the invitation to testify
    before you today on the subject of autonomous vehicle
    technology, and thank you to Representative Lamb for the very
    kind introduction.
        Aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self-driving
    technology safely, quickly, and broadly. We are building the
    Aurora Driver: the hardware, software, and data services that
    can be used to power any vehicle to move people or goods
    safely. Aurora was founded in 2017 by experts in the AV field:
    Chris Urmson, Sterling Anderson, and Drew Bagnell. And the
    company has grown to over 1,600 employees across 8 offices in 7
    States, including Pennsylvania, California, Montana, Texas,
    Washington, Colorado, and Michigan.
        I lead the team responsible for developing and implementing
    Aurora's holistic approach to safety. Our programs cover all
    aspects of our operations, organization, and the engineering of
    our product. We also work with industry standards groups,
    regulatory bodies to develop best practices and safety
    standards, and to share our safety approach because
    transparency is critical for the success of this technology.
        My entire professional career has been focused on making
    our roads safer. It is a deeply personal connection for me and
    for so many Americans. It is not acceptable that we lose 40,000
    Americans every year, and that millions are injured in crashes.
        The unbelievable part is this trend has been going on in
    the wrong direction for far too long. NHTSA released new data
    yesterday showing that traffic fatalities continue to rise at a
    record pace. I believe deeply in the work that we do at Aurora
    every day, and that it is going to be a part of the solution to
    improve safety on our roads.
        First, it is important to note for this subcommittee that
    Aurora is a regulated company at all levels of Government. Our
    technology is subject to NHTSA's motor vehicle safety
    requirements, and our motor carrier operations are subject to
    FMCSA's safety regulations.
        In addition, each State in which we operate has its own
    approach to permitting and regulating our AV operations. While
    USDOT's jurisdictions over AV is clear and in full force, there
    are several open rulemakings about the safe deployment of AVs
    that we would like to see move forward as we continue to build
    our internal safety programs in parallel.
        So, where does my role as VP of safety at Aurora fit into
    this regulatory system?
        There is one thing we know from decades of learning across
    safety-critical industries: failures in safety are rarely
    caused by a single person, but instead by organizations that
    fail to prevent multiple mistakes from turning into a disaster.
    At Aurora, we are building on these lessons.
        Two of our strategies for our approach are as follows: one,
    all of our employees are empowered to request halting of
    operations if they believe there is a safety concern, and this
    is part of our larger approach for managing safety risks. Teams
    across Aurora are held responsible for completing our safety
    case framework, providing evidence that our AVs are acceptably
    safe to operate on public roads.
        How we develop the Aurora Driver and prepare for public
    road operations also matters. An incredible amount of work goes
    into mapping a route, collecting real-world data for our
    virtual testing suite, and strategically using on-road testing
    to validate our simulations. With our virtual testing suite,
    Aurora runs millions of simulations every day. This allows us
    to train and evaluate the Aurora Driver software across a vast
    range of scenarios well before that software is loaded onto
    vehicles or onto public roads.
        We do not build technology for its own sake, or as a silver
    bullet. We are building the Aurora Driver to improve safety and
    support our partners. A key example is our pilot with FedEx. We
    are running commercial loads today for FedEx on I-45 between
    Dallas and Houston while in autonomy. This pilot is critical
    for us to learn, while testing safely on public roads.
        In my remaining time, I will highlight two ways Aurora
    believes Congress and USDOT can support the safe development of
    AVs.
        First, we ask Congress and the administration to ensure
    that laws and regulations for AVs are technology and business-
    model neutral.
        Second, we ask Congress to ensure that any commissioned
    research about the job-related impacts of AVs be driven by
    actual industry experience with the technology, and that job
    quality be central to any policy and industry conversation.
        Aurora is committed to continuing to tackle these important
    issues together with Congress, USDOT, our State regulators,
    cities, law enforcement, safety advocates, labor, and many
    other stakeholders to support safety, innovation, and jobs here
    in the United States.
        I want to thank Ms. Tatum and Mr. Marler for their
    leadership on AV issues in their communities and their
    testimony today.
        Chairman DeFazio, thank you for your work on AV trucking
    issues this past Congress. The process you led demonstrates how
    impactful leadership from Congress can be.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Beuse's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora
        Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
    Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Thank
    you for the invitation to provide testimony for the hearing ``The Road
    Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
        My name is Nat Beuse and I am the Vice President of Safety at
    Aurora. 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 brings together software, hardware, and data
    services, to autonomously operate any vehicle without the need for a
    human operator in the vehicle. Aurora has offices across 8 cities in 7
    states, including our headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
    employs 1,600 employees ranging from hardware and software engineers to
    commercial drivers and operations specialists.
        At Aurora, I lead the team developing and implementing Aurora's
    rigorous and comprehensive approach to safety. We oversee operational,
    organizational, and product engineering safety, and work with industry
    standards groups and regulatory bodies to offer guidance and to define
    and support the development of best practices and safety standards.
    Prior to Aurora, I led the safety team at Uber Advanced Technologies
    Group (ATG) where I further developed their approach to safety. Before
    working in the private sector, I spent nearly twenty years serving the
    American public in several capacities including leading the New Car
    Assessment Program, serving as Director for the Office of Crash
    Avoidance Standards, and finally as Associate Administrator for the
    Office of Vehicle Safety Research at the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA). In that last role, I oversaw the
    nation's motor vehicle safety research program, including automated
    vehicles and cybersecurity. Today, I also serve on the board of two
    roadway safety advocacy non-profit organizations, Mothers Against Drunk
    Driving and Lifesavers, and live in Pittsburgh with my family.
                                  About Aurora
        Aurora is delivering the benefits of self-driving technology
    safely, quickly, and broadly. Founded in 2017 by experts in the
    autonomous vehicle (AV) industry, Chris Urmson, Sterling Anderson, and
    Drew Bagnell, Aurora is revolutionizing transportation--making it
    safer, increasingly accessible, and more reliable and efficient than
    ever before. Our flagship product, the Aurora Driver, is a platform
    that brings together software, hardware, and data services, to
    autonomously operate passenger vehicles, light commercial vehicles, and
    heavy-duty trucks. Aurora is partnered with industry leaders across the
    transportation ecosystem including Toyota, Uber, Volvo Trucks, FedEx,
    and PACCAR. Aurora tests its vehicles in the Bay Area, Pittsburgh, and
    Texas, and has offices in those areas as well as in Bozeman, Montana;
    Seattle, Washington; Louisville, Colorado; and Wixom, Michigan.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We have a diverse and talented team with a multitude of backgrounds
    and perspectives, focused on creating a transformative business for the
    long-term and realizing our mission. We also leverage expertise from
    external groups including our Industry Advisory Council \1\ and Safety
    Advisory Board \2\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Aurora, ``Introducing the Aurora Industry Advisory Council,''
    https://aurora.tech/blog/introducing-the-aurora-industry-advisory-
    council.
        \2\ Aurora, ``Our Updated Safety Report and First-Ever Safety
    Advisory Board,'' https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-shares-safety-report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our goal at Aurora is to transform transportation--to make it more
    democratic, more productive, more dependable, and--crucially--much
    safer than it is today. The teams we create, the work that we do, and
    the partnerships we build all serve this mission: To deliver the
    benefits of self-driving technology safely, quickly, and broadly.
        We see incredible opportunities for the Aurora Driver to positively
    impact transportation. We can save lives while also increasing safety
    and efficiency on our roads. We can make the movement of people and
    goods both less expensive and more accessible. We can serve communities
    and industries in mutually beneficial and transformative ways.
        However, unlike other types of vehicle technologies, delivering the
    full potential of all these opportunities depends on one concept:
    trust. Our technology needs to be trustworthy. Our company and our
    engineering work need to be trustworthy. And so our task is to build
    trust, one step at a time, by making safety the foundation of
    everything we do from the beginning.
                           Building Safety for Scale
        Safety is at the core of everything we do at Aurora. It shapes who
    we hire, how we work, and how we develop our products. Everyone at
    Aurora is empowered to speak up and say something when they see
    something. We've also built layers of redundancies into every part of
    the Aurora Driver. We collaborate regularly with the industry to
    develop industry best practices and voluntary standards, and we openly
    share our progress in the communities where we are operating. We hold
    ourselves to rigorous internal safety standards that cover our
    engineering, operations, and organization.
        It is worth noting how far the industry has come in the last decade
    in the development of standards for AVs. In 2017, USDOT published AV
    2.0, which lists exactly 3 standards (SAE J3016, ISO 26262, and MIL-
    STD-882E) that should be considered by automated driving system (ADS)
    developers. Fast forward to 2021, and USDOT's comprehensive plan lists
    20 different standards that ADS developers should consider. And based
    on Aurora's involvement in industry standards development, we know
    there are over a dozen more standards and best practices currently
    under development across the various standards organizations.
        I am pleased to share just a few examples of where we have
    developed industry leading approaches to safety that have been openly
    shared with our fellow industry partners, the public, regulators, and
    other safety stakeholders.
    Managing Safety Risks
        As we like to say at Aurora, ``Safety is a team sport.'' We take a
    holistic view of safety, focusing on creating a strong safety culture
    that permeates every part of our company, including how we do business.
    A key part of that approach to safety is implementing our own Safety
    Management System, commonly referred to as SMS. This is an
    organizational approach--employed by safety-critical industries like
    aviation, maritime shipping, and rail--that standardizes how safety is
    managed at a company. SMS is a rigorous, internationally accepted
    framework that is mandated for other modes of transportation and
    provides a reproducible and auditable record of safety management
    within a company. SMS starts at the top, with our CEO being our
    Accountable Executive for the safety of operations, instilling safety
    into every aspect of the company.
        A SMS ensures that safety information is presented to the right
    person, at the right time, and that there is accountability and
    transparency for every safety action taken across the company. This
    approach ensures that safety is prioritized as we make decisions, with
    features such as a Safety Review Board for safety risk management
    decisions and a clear and easy-to-use Safety Concern Reporting process
    for all employees. It also enables us to measure our safety performance
    over time to work for constant improvement in our policies, processes,
    systems, and controls.
        At Aurora, we are building our SMS on four key components--a
    detailed Safety Risk Management structure, a robust Safety Assurance
    program, disciplined Safety Policy documentation, and an engaging
    Safety Culture that includes safety education and events. Our SMS helps
    us proactively identify safety issues, resolve them as early as
    possible, and institutionalize the learning for future application. It
    also ensures our entire company values safety, understands our safety
    procedures, uses a common language to talk about risk, and is
    appropriately empowered to take action on safety.
    Safety Advisory Board
        Building a team with depth and breadth of safety expertise is a key
    part of our safety approach. Inside Aurora, we have multi-disciplinary
    experts with decades of experience in autonomous and automotive safety.
    And to ensure we're always testing our assumptions and raising our
    safety standards, we also leverage the expertise of safety leaders
    outside of Aurora. We created the Safety Advisory Board to gain
    hundreds of years' collective experience in safety, offering the
    company an external perspective on Aurora's overall approach to safety,
    as well as other broader industry topics, like how we engage with
    regulators and the public. The Board also offers feedback on
    systematically managing, controlling, and mitigating safety risks.
        This Board is made of experts from fields including aviation
    safety, insurance, emergency/trauma medicine, automotive safety, and
    academia:
          Shailen Bhatt, Senior Vice President for Global
    Transportation Innovation, AECOM
          Dave Carbaugh, Former Chief Pilot Flight Operations, The
    Boeing Company
          Dr. Adrian Lund, Managing Member of HITCH42, LLC and
    former President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
          Dr. Victoria Chibuogu Nneji, Lead Engineer & Innovation
    Strategist at Edge Case Research
          Karen Rasmussen, Executive Director of the Independent
    Carrier Safety Association (ICSA) \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Aurora Welcomes Trucking and Freight Expert to Company's
    Safety Advisory Board,'' Business Wire, https://www.businesswire.com/
    news/home/20211015005433/en/Aurora-Welcomes-Trucking-and-Freight-
    Expert-to-Company%E2%80%99s-Safety-Advisory-Board.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Dr. Jeff Runge, President of Biologue, Inc. and former
    Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
          George Snyder, President and CEO of GHS Aviation Group
    Safety Case Framework
        How do we know if an AV is safe enough to drive on public roads?
    It's a question that has been asked since society first started talking
    about the potential for AVs to grace our roads. At Aurora, we are using
    a safety case-based approach, a defined way to evaluate when our
    vehicles are acceptably safe to operate on public roads and to assess
    that they are not creating an unreasonable risk to roadway safety.
        In August 2021, we publicly released Aurora's Safety Case
    Framework--the first AV Safety Case Framework that applies to both
    autonomous trucks and passenger vehicles. We believe that a Safety Case
    Framework is the most effective and efficient path to safely removing
    the vehicle operator and it is an imperative component for any company
    looking to operate without a vehicle operator and safely deliver
    commercial-ready AVs at scale. The Aurora Safety Case Framework
    assesses the entire development lifecycle of our vehicles, allowing us
    to accelerate our path to deployment and determine when AVs are
    acceptably safe for public roads. We are the only AV company currently
    operating in our industry to publicly share its Safety Case Framework.
        We believe the only viable way to validate that an AV is safe
    enough to drive on the road is to develop a structured argument, using
    a framework of claims and the evidence to support those claims.
    Building a Safety Case Framework allows us to demonstrate exactly how
    we are approaching safety and the many factors we are taking into
    consideration--a stark contrast to simply reporting on miles driven or
    disengagements, which do not necessarily provide support for the fact
    that a vehicle is safe for any specific context or environment. This
    structured approach is the only way Aurora believes we can safely
    commercialize our AVs.
        No single piece of evidence captures the totality of safety. There
    are complex interactions and relationships between the many elements
    that go into an AV. Ultimately, evidence without a claim is simply
    trivia and, conversely, a claim without evidence is baseless. A safety
    case-based approach brings these two essential concepts together in a
    logical manner to effectively show the work that we are doing to
    determine our vehicles are safe to operate on public roads. Along with
    delivering a safe product, being transparent with our approach is an
    important part of developing autonomous technology.
        Our top-level claim, that the Aurora Driver is acceptably safe to
    operate on public roads, is broken down into the following five safety
    principles:
          Proficient
          Fail-safe
          Continuously improving
          Resilient
          Trustworthy

        1.  Proficient--An AV cannot be considered safe to operate on
    public roads unless it is suitably proficient. Proficiency includes the
    design, engineering, and testing necessary to develop a product. This
    safety principle contains the engineering requirements for nominal
    operations and performance.
        2.  Fail-Safe--The fail-safe principle addresses how the AV behaves
    in the presence of faults and failures. No system is ever 100% perfect;
    components will wear out or have premature failures from time to time.
    The Aurora Driver is designed to detect and safely mitigate these
    failures. This safety principle contains the fault detection,
    mitigation, and notifications built into the vehicle to ensure that in
    the event of a fault or failure, the Aurora Driver will behave in an
    acceptably safe manner.
        3.  Continuously Improving--The continuously improving principle
    outlines how we are enshrining the concept of continual improvement
    into the development of our system. An AV is equipped with sensors, and
    a fleet of AVs captures significant amounts of data from just a single
    day's operations. We are able to harness the power of this data to
    enable continuous improvement. This field data feeds a comprehensive
    data analysis effort that calculates safety performance indicators and
    also considers data collected during design and development. This
    approach to systematically collect and analyze data allows us to spot
    trends, regressions from the mean, and emergent behaviors. Aurora also
    takes a proactive approach to continuous improvement, using risk
    identification techniques to proactively identify and manage risks.
        4.  Resilient--AVs are designed to safely operate on public roads,
    but this does not isolate them from malicious actors or unavoidable
    events. The resilient principle showcases how the Aurora Driver is
    capable of withstanding adverse events and intentional misuse and
    abuse.
        5.  Trustworthy--Aurora's AV may be Proficient, Fail-Safe,
    Continuously Improving, and Resilient, but without the trust of the
    public and governmental regulators, we cannot fully realize our top
    level claim. The trustworthy safety principle addresses how Aurora
    plans to gain trust through public, government, and stakeholder
    engagement, safety transparency, safety culture, as well as external
    review and advisory activities.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        The Aurora Driver & Partnerships
        In 2021 alone, we partnered with one of the largest transportation
    and logistics companies in the world with FedEx, the number one ride
    hailing platform on the planet with Uber, the number one global vehicle
    OEM with Toyota, and two of the top three North American OEM's in
    trucking with Volvo and PACCAR.
        We showed how the Aurora Driver can be seamlessly integrated into
    freight operations via an industry-first collaboration with FedEx and
    PACCAR. Through this pilot, Aurora-powered PACCAR trucks are regularly
    and autonomously hauling FedEx loads in Texas between Dallas and
    Houston--a 500-mile round trip, currently with a trained vehicle
    operator and co-pilot in the cab gathering data on the Aurora Driver's
    performance.\4\ We believe this collaboration demonstrates the value of
    autonomous technology as the economy faces a supply chain crisis,
    making the need for dynamic logistics solutions more important than
    ever.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See ``Aurora Illuminated: Aurora Driver Hyperlapse on Texas
    Roads,'' Sept. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttvEppD3Pjk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After partnering with Volvo last March, we developed the trucking
    leader's first-ever prototype truck for autonomous commercial, hub-to-
    hub freight operations in North America--the Aurora-powered Volvo VNL.
    As Volvo's flagship long-haul model, and the first vehicle in Volvo's
    fleet to be designed from the ground up to operate with the Aurora
    Driver, this represents a significant step toward building and
    deploying autonomous commercial Level 4 Class 8 trucks at scale for
    Volvo Autonomous Solutions customers in North America.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Federal Policies to Support the Development of Safe AVs
        Aurora takes safety to heart--it is not just a principle for us. It
    is how we are building a safety culture and process for a future where
    our families can travel safer in and around vehicles powered by the
    Aurora Driver. It is unacceptable that we lose over 40,000 people in
    the United States each year in vehicle crashes, and yet, we are on
    track for one of the worst years for roadway safety in decades. We are
    committed to being part of the solution.
        There are tremendous opportunities for the whole federal government
    to continue supporting the development of AV technology here in the
    United States to provide certainty that companies, including Aurora,
    need to continue investing and building here.\5\ Creating a level
    playing field where the rules are clear and conducive to realizing the
    benefits for safety, mobility, and efficiency for AV technology is a
    necessary role of government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See ``Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-out Position in
    Autonomous Mobile Systems,'' Sept. 2021, https://ridc.org/news/
    autonomy-study/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        First, Aurora supports the work of Members of this Committee,
    Congress, and USDOT to ensure that laws and regulations for AVs are
    performance-based and technology and business-model neutral.
        Second, federal leadership supporting the development of AV
    technology here in the United States is critical. The work that started
    many years ago at USDOT under Secretary Foxx, continued under Secretary
    Chao, and carries through today under Secretary Buttigieg. USDOT's
    guidance, research and rulemakings that have been initiated specific to
    AVs, along with the Department's use of its convening authority to
    bring stakeholders together, has laid the foundation for the future. We
    would like to thank Secretary Buttigieg for raising important safety
    issues in his six guiding principles for transportation innovation and
    in the ``Comprehensive National Roadway Strategy.'' We also believe
    USDOT should be considering the full suite of potential solutions,
    including AVs, to address the rise in highway fatalities.
        We support NHTSA's efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards (FMVSS) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration's (FMCSA) efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to encourage the development of new and
    innovative AV technologies.
        As you know, the FMVSS and FMCSR were not created with autonomous
    technology in mind. As such, neither currently contemplate the
    integration of autonomous technology, like the Aurora Driver, into
    vehicles, and should be updated to account for this new technology as
    appropriate to improve the efficiency of the technology's deployment.
    There are important open rulemakings at NHTSA and FMCSA that need to
    continue to expeditiously move forward.\6\ In preparation for other
    future regulatory actions, the agencies should continue providing
    guidance, conducting research, and fostering collaboration among
    stakeholders to support AV development. Additionally, the existing
    exemptions process at NHTSA should be used as a bridge to get real-
    world data to USDOT about innovative vehicle technologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See, e.g., NHTSA, Framework for Automated Driving Systems
    Safety, RIN 2127-AM15; NHTSA, Occupant Protection for Automated Driving
    Systems, RIN 2127-AM06; and FMCSA, Safe Integration of Automated
    Driving Systems-Equipped Motor Vehicles, RIN 2126-AC17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, we believe Congress should pass legislation confirming the
    federal government maintains its regulatory authority over the design,
    construction, and performance of AVs. Every vehicle that is on public
    roads, including AVs, is subject to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which
    provides NHTSA with broad authority over the safety of motor vehicles
    and motor vehicle equipment and to issue and update regulations as
    necessary for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes. States can, and
    should, continue to regulate the testing and deployment of AVs on their
    roads in areas such as on-road operations, titling, licensing, test
    driver training, and the like. Many states have proactively passed
    legislation on these issues, which support the development of AVs.
    Still, there is tremendous value in leadership from the federal
    government supporting the AV industry and the safety, economic, and
    mobility benefits of this technology.
        As an example, we believe the federal government has the
    opportunity to provide leadership encouraging uniformity of existing
    state rules of the road. For example, in some jurisdictions it is
    required by law to use a bike lane to make a right-hand turn while in
    others it is prohibited. We do not have a position on what is the
    safest option, but we do believe that uniformity across states would be
    beneficial for all road users, including the Aurora Driver. Similarly,
    we see vastly different autonomous operational permitting requirements
    across state jurisdictions, with some states allowing operations with
    few permitting requirements and others instituting significant testing
    parameters or even outright prohibiting autonomous testing or
    operation. Such differences in programs slow down the nationwide
    rollout of this technology. While autonomous operations permitting and
    traffic law are clearly within state jurisdiction, Congress could
    provide valuable guidance to states and NHTSA on tackling this
    patchwork of laws that affects all drivers, regardless of whether they
    are human or autonomous.
        Fourth, Aurora supports maintaining the self-certification process
    for vehicles in the United States and believes a Safety Case-based
    argument supported by evidence is the way for companies to make safety
    determinations as discussed above.
        Fifth, we ask Congress to ensure that commissioned research about
    the job-related impacts of AVs be driven by actual industry experience,
    and that job quality should be central to any policy and industry
    conversation. It is encouraging that a USDOT report from last year
    indicated that potential reductions in long-haul trucking jobs related
    to AVs are likely to be offset by natural occupational turnover instead
    of layoffs.\7\ Testing and deploying AV technology is a key component
    of ensuring there are real world models to ground these important
    conversations as we continue to learn more about new and transitioning
    jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-
    Haul Trucking,'' Jan. 28, 2021, FWHA-JPO-21-847, https://
    rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, transparency is key to building trust with all
    stakeholders. I am here before the Subcommittee to introduce Aurora and
    to explain what we are building and how we have safety integrated into
    every part of the organization. We would like to thank this Committee,
    and Chairman DeFazio in particular, for his work with industry and
    labor on the provisions regarding AV trucks in his infrastructure bill
    considered earlier this Congress. The process demonstrated how
    leadership from Congress can drive positive outcomes.
        We will continue to encourage NHTSA to reach out to industry as it
    is developing AV-related policies and guidance. When appropriate, we
    will take the opportunity to comment on the record and suggest concrete
    improvements to those policies. For example, the difference between
    driver assistance systems and the autonomous system we are building is
    critical for the public to understand. The language and definitions
    NHTSA uses in regulations, orders, and guidance will drive the public
    discourse and needs to be clear for all stakeholders. We will continue
    investing in an elevated public discourse on these topics. For example,
    Aurora is a founding member of PAVE, the Partnership for Automated
    Vehicle Education, because of how important we believe engagement and
    education is for all stakeholders.
                                   Conclusion
        Transparency and collaboration are key to our progress and future
    at Aurora. We are committed to continuing to work with the Subcommittee
    as it addresses these important issues and supports safety, innovation,
    and jobs across the United States. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide this testimony and answer the Subcommittee's questions.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Beuse.
        We go next to Mr. Bloch, who is the political director of
    the Teamsters Joint Council 7.
        Mr. Bloch. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
    Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify before you today.
        My name is Doug Bloch, and I am the political director for
    Teamsters Joint Council 7, and I am proudly representing over
    100,000 Teamsters in northern California and Nevada.
        A future that includes partial and fully autonomous
    vehicles will change the nature of work in nearly every part of
    the transportation industry. Congress will play a key role in
    determining whether these changes will be for the better or
    worse. And in this case, I am afraid that, if we let large
    corporations write the rules themselves, then it will surely be
    the latter.
        Our union is not afraid of new technologies. The Teamsters
    logo displays a team of horses, and in our early days there
    were skeptics who thought that horses would never be replaced
    with motorized transportation. But the technology evolved, and
    so did we. We can do it again, but we need your help.
        The impact that AVs will have on workers is still unknown.
    Congress has an opportunity to mitigate these impacts before
    they happen, and possibly shape better outcomes. Our experience
    makes me skeptical about claims that we will train our way out
    of any job losses. We once had roughly 100,000 members working
    in California canneries, and, thanks mostly to automation, we
    are down to about 15,000 now.
        When the Campbell Soup Company shut their Sacramento
    cannery and 700 Teamsters lost their jobs, Government swooped
    in to provide job training assistance. Later, the paper
    reported on a second-generation Teamster from Campbell. Her mom
    worked there for 40 years. As a single mom herself, she made
    $23 an hour, plus benefits. After the closure, it took her 3
    years to learn to become an ultrasound technician and find a
    job.
        This is a place where Government can step in. This
    committee was right to include the Surface Transportation
    Workforce Retraining Grant Program in the Invest in America
    Act. The act also mandated that transit agencies receiving
    grants to deploy AVs must require workforce development plans
    from applicants.
        We are trying to get ahead of the curve here. How do we
    capture the jobs being created by automation and make sure they
    are good union jobs?
        What can our elected officials do to help?
        We are meeting with manufacturers and Government to see how
    to do that. In San Francisco, we represent nearly 1,500 workers
    in parking garages. AV fleets need a place to park, get
    charged, be maintained. This is work the Teamsters already do
    in parking garages and for rental car agencies. There is no
    reason why municipal garages cannot be retooled to serve AV
    fleets, and Teamsters should be doing that work.
        However, every time there is a hearing like this, companies
    call us up. And while we have many good conversations, so far
    it hasn't resulted in many new union jobs. That is why it is
    critical that Government does not cede the ability to regulate
    these new technologies and industries.
        It is also important to ask, what is the problem we are
    trying to solve here?
        One problem we hear a lot about recently is the so-called
    truckdriver shortage. Before deregulation in the 1980s, driving
    a truck was a good middle-class job. But in very little time,
    trucking devolved to one where misclassified independent
    contractor drivers work an average of over 60 hours a week, in
    many cases making less than minimum wage.
        Automation is industry's answer to a driver retention
    problem that industry itself created. The solution is not to do
    away with humans, but to better enforce our labor laws and
    bring back good jobs.
        Finally, the issues facing commercial vehicles are
    different and potentially more dangerous than personal. They
    warrant their own separate and careful consideration. Every day
    our members see both the benefits of new technologies and the
    malfunctions that occur. Human drivers are a much-needed safety
    net for those scenarios and more.
        The commercial use of vehicles at 10,000 pounds or less
    presents an agency jurisdictional issue which should be
    addressed. For example, Waymo recently teamed up with our
    employer, UPS in Arizona, to use self-driving vans. And Nuro
    received California's first AV deployment permit. These are
    under 10,000 pounds, but they are clearly operating as
    commercial vehicles.
        The committee included the Operation of Small Commercial
    Vehicles Study in the Invest Act. We urge you to continue to
    explore this segment of the package delivery industry for
    appropriate regulation.
        In closing, in all aspects of automation, but especially
    when we are considering commercial motor vehicles, it is
    important to get it done correctly, rather than just done
    quickly. We applaud you for having this hearing with the
    Teamsters voice at the table. Thank you, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [Mr. Bloch's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Doug Bloch, Political Director, Joint Council 7,
                     International Brotherhood of Teamsters
        Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio and Members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today on ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles'' a subject that is of
    vital importance to America's transportation workers and the traveling
    public.
                                  Introduction
        My name is Doug Bloch. I am the Political Coordinator for Teamsters
    Joint Council 7 in San Francisco. The Joint Council represents over
    100,000 Teamster members in Northern California, the Central Valley and
    Nevada. The Teamsters Union is the nation's largest transportation
    union, representing workers in almost every transportation industry.
    Teamster members could be delivering anything from bakery goods to
    ready mix concrete, palletized material to your latest online-ordered
    package--or getting you to work on time and safely transporting your
    kids to school.
        While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key in a
    truck to start their workday, the issues we will be discussing today
    don't just impact those who drive vehicles for a living. A future that
    includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could also change the
    nature of work for those in nearly every part of the transportation
    industry in our country. Congress will play a key role in determining
    whether these changes will be viewed by millions of Americans as
    something that is occurring for the better, or for the worse. In the
    case of self-driving vehicles, I'm afraid that if we let large
    corporations write the rules themselves, unchecked, then it will surely
    be the latter.
        Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into our
    members' daily lives is not new to me or to my Union. Our Teamsters
    Union logo to this day proudly displays a team of horses, which was how
    our membership delivered goods in the early 1900's. Back then there
    were skeptics who thought that horses would never be replaced with
    motorized transportation, but the technology evolved, the workforce
    evolved, and the union adjusted to that change, just as we will with
    automated vehicles. But we will need your help to do so. It is the
    Federal government's responsibility to set the regulatory floor for
    AVs, but state and local government should not be preempted from
    adopting more stringent regulations. And, state and local entities must
    have the authority to revoke operational authority in response to
    accidents or incidents with malfunctioning technology that put the
    public in danger.
        Congress must ensure that workers are trained for the new jobs that
    AV technology will bring and that highway and vehicle safety standards
    are maintained as automated vehicles are developed, tested, and
    deployed on our highways. Extensive data collection and reporting must
    be a mandate, as should the opportunity for human intervention in
    commercial AV use. And manufacturers must be required to cooperate with
    investigating agencies in the event of crashes and/or fatalities. These
    are all part of the Labor Principals for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation
    \1\ that the Teamsters Union and the 34 unions comprising the
    Transportation Trades Department (AFL-CIO) have developed to address
    the issues that self-driving technology will introduce on our roads and
    in the workplace.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-
    for-autonomous-vehicle-legislation/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Data Collection and Reporting
        Truck drivers, bus drivers and thousands of other frontline
    transportation workers will be sharing the road with AVs for years to
    come. In California, testing for truck platooning is already permitted
    with a driver in the vehicle. Testing for passenger cars, smaller
    package delivery vehicles, and delivery bots are authorized, automated
    shuttles are being tested and are coming to airports and other
    locations.
        The performance of AVs will be of paramount importance to the
    safety of our members, not only for those who operate on the roads, but
    for those who work directly with those vehicles in other roles, such as
    performing maintenance or loading and unloading the vehicle. All
    workers deserve to know that an autonomous vehicle or bot traveling
    next to them is safe enough to share the same road or worksite. To that
    end, it is imperative that transparency exists in the development and
    testing of AVs. Extensive data collection and reporting by
    manufacturers is key to driving good policy and eventual promulgation
    of regulations in this AV space and must be required. Manufacturers and
    operators need to collect and report crash, injury and fatality data,
    much of what is required now under various state and federal laws, but
    also data relating to malfunctions, disengagements and interventions
    will better inform both regulators and the public about the safe
    operation of these vehicles. The more regulators know about human
    interface with technology in testing and development the better they
    will be equipped to ensure the safe operation of AVs.
        Analysis of crash data is often essential in preventing further
    accidents from occurring. We've all seen the value of the black box in
    the airline industry in helping determine crash causation. Automated
    vehicles should be no different than any other transportation system
    user. Investigating agencies must be able to obtain a recorder or
    recorded information relating to an accident involving an AV.
    Therefore, it is incumbent on this committee to ensure that agencies
    like the NTSB and NHTSA have the clear authority to compel companies to
    provide post-accident information. AVs cannot be an exception.
        The Teamsters Union strongly supports the Tenets of Autonomous
    Vehicle (AV) Legislation \2\ developed by the Advocates for Highway and
    Auto Safety and endorsed currently by over sixty stakeholders. While
    these tenets apply to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
    (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, much of the framework that Congress is
    developing for vehicles 10,000 lbs. and under will inform the work that
    this committee does in developing the regulatory framework for
    Automated Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) greater than 10,000 pounds.
    Current voluntary initiatives for AVs must be replaced by DOT
    rulemaking on safety standards with time limits for issuance of final
    rules and compliance dates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AV-Tenets-11-
    24-20-1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Workforce Protections
        The United Parcel Service (UPS) is the Teamsters largest employer.
    It's the single largest collective bargaining agreement in the country,
    covering over 250,000 workers. Amazon is UPS' largest customer. Amazon
    has patented a highway network that controls self-driving trucks and
    cars and is developing an app to match them with shipments from their
    distribution centers. They are also testing drones for deliveries and
    automating their warehouses. The impact that AVs will have on workers
    is not yet fully known. But attempting to tackle these issues after the
    fact is not acceptable. Congress has a unique opportunity to mitigate
    these impacts before they happen.
        The Teamsters once had roughly 100,000 members working in the
    California canneries. For generations of families, especially Latino
    families, these jobs were the path to the middle class. Thanks mostly
    to automation, we now represent just 15,000 members in canneries. In
    2012, when Campbell's Soup shut their Sacramento plant and 700
    Teamsters lost their jobs, the government swooped in to provide job
    training assistance. In 2016, the Sacramento Bee reported on a second-
    generation Teamster from Campbell's. Her mom worked there for 40 years.
    As a single mom herself with two kids she made $23 an hour plus
    benefits. After the closure, she received job training assistance. It
    took her three years to learn to become an ultrasound technician and
    find a job. She was forced to move her family in with her mom and
    struggled to cover costs when she had health issues. In the meantime,
    Campbell Soup's owner, who is a member of the 17th wealthiest family in
    the country, gave up his US Citizenship and moved to Ireland to avoid
    US taxes. This is where government comes in. We can't trust the
    companies to write the rules. We need commitments from them to retain
    and retrain incumbent workers. We need them to work with us to create
    strong programs for workers to learn the new skills and jobs--and those
    programs need to be directly linked to employment. And we need to make
    sure these are quality jobs. That is where the real innovation can
    happen. We can use technology to augment jobs and make them safer
    instead of just automating them. We can ensure that workers profit from
    technology, not just the companies that are developing it or purchasing
    it.
        This committee took a step in the right direction when it included
    the Surface Transportation Workforce Retraining Grant Program (Section
    5305) in the Invest in America Act. This provision establishes a
    workforce retraining grant program for surface transportation workers
    whose jobs have been or will be affected by automation. The program
    would award grants to eligible entities to test new roles for existing
    jobs, to develop degree or certification-granting programs, and for
    direct worker training or train-the-trainer programs. Grants to transit
    agencies that deploy AVs providing public transportation (Section 2603
    of the IAA) must require workforce development plans. This program and
    this requirement should serve as a model for mitigating job losses,
    wage degradation and allocating retraining funds for displaced workers.
        It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that as the AV industry
    grows in this country that it be made in America by American workers.
                         Automated Commercial Vehicles
        The issues facing autonomous commercial vehicles are fundamentally
    different, and potentially more dangerous than those facing passenger
    cars, and warrant their own careful consideration. The consequences for
    getting this wrong could be deadly both for workers and other drivers
    on the roads. The public discussion in Congress on autonomous vehicles
    has tended to focus on the impact of small personal cars on our daily
    lives--increasing mobility for the disabled, providing transportation
    access to the underserved, and alleviating congestion in our cities.
    These are all important topics. But taking a cookie cutter approach in
    dealing with those issues and applying it to large heavy vehicles could
    be very dangerous.
        Regardless of the technology, automated heavy trucks will still
    have maneuverability issues including longer stopping distances, and
    their crash impact on smaller vehicles, occupants and pedestrians will
    still be devastating. Human intervention must remain as a necessary
    safety component to take over control of commercial AVs when technology
    fails. Alertness and reaction times are different for one who is
    actively performing a driving task than for a driver who may be
    disengaged from driving during autonomous operation of a commercial AV.
    So, the proper alerts must be incorporated to give the driver the time
    to react, re-engage and take control of the vehicle in the event of
    technology malfunction. In the case of an automated commercial vehicle,
    a human driver/operator should be in the vehicle regardless of the
    level of automation. And a level of training for the driver, perhaps
    with a specific AV endorsement for the CDL, should be mandated, so that
    only those trained on the AV technology can assume control of the
    vehicle when that technology fails to operate properly. This committee
    will have to give thought to how hours-of-service for drivers will
    affect the ability of automated commercial vehicles to operate over
    long stretches of time. Airline pilots who rely on auto-pilot
    technology are subject to hours-of-service in the cockpit, as are
    locomotive engineers who rely on positive train control. It should be
    no different for 18-wheel truck drivers in the cab and other drivers of
    automated commercial vehicles. This committee conducted extensive
    hearings on the failed automation of the Boeing 737-MAX and the
    consequences of relying exclusively on technology. Human oversight and
    intervention, when necessary, will ensure the safe deployment of
    autonomous vehicles. If commercial AVs are monitored remotely, it will
    be important to establish a remote monitor/operator to vehicle ratio
    that ensures that a monitor can react quickly to technology
    malfunctions/failures, mitigate the situation and position the AV in a
    safety zone. That ratio should be 1:1 for large commercial vehicles.
        It is interesting to note that most testing of self-driving trucks
    is occurring in states like Arizona, California, and Texas, where
    weather conditions are mild for the most part. And it's no coincidence
    that Texas passed a law in 2018 that essentially gave autonomous
    vehicles the same status as conventional vehicles. Inclement weather,
    including blinding rain and snow, dense fog, and hazardous road
    conditions can present challenges to sensors, cameras, and radars that
    AVs rely on to operate safely. Advocates' Tenets calls for a ``Vision
    Test'' for driverless cars which should also be a requirement for
    commercial automated vehicles. They must be proven to be able to
    operate on all roads and in all weather conditions, detecting all
    vehicles, people and objects in their path. While our members have
    experienced the benefits of technology that some motor carriers have
    implemented, like lane departure warnings and collision avoidance
    systems, we know firsthand that malfunctions have occurred. For
    example, our Teamster members have experienced problems with automatic
    emergency braking systems in snowy conditions. Drivers are a much-
    needed safety net for these unknown factors.
        The Committee has been forward-thinking about automated commercial
    vehicles and initiated several provisions in its Invest in America Act
    that the Teamsters Union supports and are worth noting. Unfortunately,
    some were ultimately absent from the Senate version enacted into law.
    One such provision, Section 5308 of the INVEST Act, would require
    entities operating automated CMVs in interstate commerce to report data
    to a repository, including the type of vehicle, level of automation,
    DOT number, where operation of the vehicle occurs and miles traveled,
    in addition to documenting training of drivers, fatigue management
    plans, law enforcement interaction plans and proof of insurance. While
    the public has access to the repository, identity of the specific
    entity reporting the data to DOT is shielded. The committee should
    revisit this restriction when it considers commercial AV legislation.
        The current commercial use of vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
    or less presents a agency jurisdictional issue which should also be
    addressed. Waymo recently teamed up with UPS in Arizona to use Waymo
    self-driving Chrysler Pacifica vans to pick up packages at UPS Stores
    and deliver them to a sorting center in Phoenix. And Nuro, which built
    a small self-driving package delivery vehicle, received California's
    first autonomous vehicle deployment permit in 2020. These are under
    10,000 lb. AVs, but they are clearly operating as commercial vehicles.
    The Committee included Section 4104, Operation of Small Commercial
    Vehicles Study, in the INVEST Act, which would examine the safe
    operation of this class of vehicle. We would suggest that small
    commercial AVs fit within the parameters of this study, and the
    Committee should continue to explore this segment of the package
    delivery industry for appropriate regulation of these vehicles,
    including delivery bots.
                     Driver Retention and Misclassification
        It's important to ask what the problem is that we are trying to
    solve with AV technology? We hear about the benefits of lower
    emissions, cost savings, and supposedly safer highways. The other big
    problem we have heard a lot about in recent months is the so-called
    shortage of available drivers. The Teamsters know why it is difficult
    to attract and retain drivers in non-union truck driving jobs. Prior to
    the deregulation of trucking by the federal government in the 80s,
    driving a truck was a good middle-class job. After deregulation, a new
    model emerged of hiring truck drivers as independent contractors
    instead of employees. The independent contractor model allows trucking
    companies and their customers to outsource almost all the costs and
    risks of trucking onto the backs of the workers. Independent
    contractors are treated as small businesses under the law and as such
    they have no legal right to organize a union. In very little time,
    trucking went from a good job to one where drivers work an average of
    over 60 hours a week, much of it unpaid and away from home, and in many
    cases making less than minimum wage. Workers have no health insurance,
    unemployment, worker's comp, or social security.
        This situation has only been exacerbated by recent supply chain
    congestion. Misclassified drivers can wait for hours on end for a
    single haul with no compensation for their time in queue. A 2019 Bureau
    of Labor Statistics report found a 94% turnover rate in large Truckload
    Carriers and nearly 80% in smaller Truckload Carriers, using data
    collected by the American Trucking Association. The ATA even estimates
    an annualized turnover rate for truckload drivers at large motor
    carriers at 92 percent in the fourth quarter of 2020. Such
    astronomically high turnover rates point to a problem with working
    conditions. Intentional misclassification is the cause of those poor
    working conditions. It is also one of the factors contributing to the
    congestion crisis at the ports. The problem is not a lack of drivers
    willing to do the job, but rather a system plagued by structural
    inefficiencies. To rationalize this system, we must first rein in
    misclassification with all the policy tools at our disposal, starting
    with vigorous enforcement. Automation is industry's answer to a driver
    retention problem that industry itself created. The solution to the
    harmful consequences and negative impact of intentional
    misclassification and the subsequent degradation of good middle-class
    jobs is not to just do away with the workers.
        For all the discussion here about the potential benefits that may
    accompany this AV technology, I urge you to consider these
    possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you hear
    manufacturers tell you that a list of strong safety metrics will
    translate into effortless deployment on the roads, this will not happen
    without proper Congressional oversight, regulatory guidelines, and a
    good amount of transparency by the companies as they test and deploy
    these vehicles on our roadways.
        Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the
    transportation industry as we know it. That can be for the better or
    for the worse depending on the actions that this committee, workers,
    and others take in guiding their implementation onto our roads. It is
    incumbent upon the members of this committee to help ensure that
    workers are not left behind in this process, and it is essential that
    American workers are not exposed to unproven technologies that could
    put their lives at risk. The Teamsters have strived to balance the
    incorporation of countless pieces of new technology into the workplace
    while ensuring that workers are guaranteed a right to avoid harassment
    and to always feel safe on the job. New technologies can co-exist in an
    environment where workers are given the opportunity to up-skill and
    fill those jobs of the future. In the trucking space where margins are
    consistently tight and competition is fierce, the fear of many
    transportation workers is that absent strong action and guidance from
    this committee and others, a new generation of autonomous vehicles will
    provide limitless opportunity for disruption and displacement of the
    transportation workforce. Could workers see their jobs reclassified and
    their paychecks reduced because half of their job has now been
    automated away and their employer thinks that it can get away with no
    longer paying them the full wage they once did?
        There are so many impacts for this committee to consider as you
    move forward with legislation. Issues such as worker harassment and
    tracking would be intertwined with existing collective bargaining
    agreements and workplace policies, along with whistleblower
    protections. Cybersecurity standards should prevent a truck driver from
    having to think about his rig being hacked and used as the next weapon
    in a terrorist attack.
        We applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters' voice at
    the table. We look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that
    the priorities and concerns of working families remain at the center of
    this debate. In all aspects of automation, but especially when we are
    considering commercial motor vehicles, it is more important to get it
    done correctly rather than just done quickly.
        Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may
    have.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Bloch, for your testimony.
        I would like to recognize now the chair, Mr. DeFazio, for
    his introduction of the next witness.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to
    introduce the next witness, Professor Nico Larco at the
    University of Oregon School of Architecture and Environment.
        Professor Larco is the director of the Urbanism Next
    Center, which focuses on how technological advancements such as
    AVs, new mobility, e-commerce, and the sharing economy are
    changing our cities. He is also the cofounder and codirector of
    the Sustainable Cities Institute, a nationally and
    internationally awarded multidisciplinary organization that
    focuses on sustainability issues as they relate to the built
    environment. Professor Larco has worked directly with many
    cities and States to examine the impacts, or potential impacts,
    of emerging technologies, and help them to begin to plan for
    the future.
        I am pleased he could join us today, and I am looking
    forward very much to hearing his testimony.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Professor Larco, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Larco. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, for that
    introduction.
        Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and subcommittee
    members, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
    future of AVs, and the impacts they could have on communities.
        I also want to give particular thanks to Chairman DeFazio
    for all you do for the country, and for the State of Oregon. I
    very much appreciate it.
        My name is Nico Larco, and I am a professor of architecture
    and design, as well as the director of the Urbanism Next Center
    at the University of Oregon.
        Urbanism Next, as was mentioned, is a cross-disciplinary
    center focused on understanding the impacts that emerging
    technologies such as AVs, new mobility, and e-commerce are
    having and will continue to have on communities. Our focus is
    not on the mechanics of the technologies, but rather on their
    impacts on land use, urban design, building design,
    transportation, and real estate, and why these impacts matter
    for equity, health, safety, the environment, and the economy.
    We work extensively on these topics with cities and States
    throughout the country, private-sector partners who are
    developing or deploying emerging technologies, professional
    organizations, other research organizations, and foundations.
        Our country is at the earliest stages of developing AV
    technologies and real-world AV testing. What we don't know
    about AVs at this moment far outweighs what we do know about
    them and how they will impact our communities.
        That said, one thing that is clear is that AVs are not just
    another vehicle, in the same way that, over a century ago, cars
    were just not a different horse. Our research indicates that
    AVs could have widespread cascading impacts on communities. And
    because of this, we need to be sure to shape AV deployment to
    serve community goals.
        Research points to AVs having both positive and negative
    transportation impacts. For instance, we suspect that AVs will
    cause increases in congestion in local streets, similar to the
    hours of delay we are already seeing caused by rideshare
    companies. On the positive side, they could lead to large
    drops--up to 80 or 90 percent--in the demand for parking, and
    if they are used in transit vehicles, potential improvements in
    transit frequency and coverage. Those transit service
    improvements, as you have heard, might, however, also come with
    large impacts on labor, and AVs could actually pull riders away
    from transit. Similarly, AV trips may simply cost so much that
    AV travel could become a transportation choice for the wealthy,
    but with their implications shouldered by everyone.
        But AVs are not only a transportation issue. This is an
    important point that I want to make. AVs will have cascading
    impacts on communities beyond transportation impacts. For
    instance, AVs have the potential to exacerbate sprawl, allowing
    people to drive further distances on freeways in less time.
    This would lead to increasing land consumption, and would
    impact infrastructure, the environment, and equity.
        Another example, reduced parking demand would open up
    existing parking lots for cities for other forms of
    development. We could fill parking lots with housing, offices,
    shops, and services, increasing accessibility. Not needing to
    build parking would allow us to actually put more development
    on any one parcel, and would bring down the cost of
    development, increasing affordability.
        At the same time, the shift in parking demand would
    increase the supply of land available for development in a
    community. If supply increases and demand stays the same, this
    could negatively impact land prices. This is true for urban and
    suburban areas, with areas that currently have the largest
    amounts of parking the most affected by these changes.
        Regarding Government revenues, AVs could significantly
    impact the revenues of governments that use fuel tax, vehicle
    registration, licensing, parking fees, and traffic citations to
    fund transportation infrastructure and operations. A study
    conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oregon found
    that revenue losses could be between 3 and 51 percent, with the
    direst predictions being for cities that heavily depend on fuel
    taxes and parking fees to fund transportation.
        AVs could also have substantial impacts on equity. In work
    we have done with the Knight Foundation and Cityfi, and with
    AARP and the RAND Corporation, we found large areas of concern
    regarding who has access to AVs. Older adults and lower income
    individuals are most at risk of falling by the wayside if these
    accessibility issues are not directly addressed.
        With these points in mind, we suggest the following
    recommendations.
        First, fund pilots specifically focused on the cascading
    impacts of AVs. Don't only focus on AV technology, efficiency,
    and safety, which are very important, but also expand that to
    address cascading impacts of AVs. And pilots should not only
    focus on large cities, but also mid-sized, small, and rural
    communities. If we don't, we won't understand the cascading
    impacts in these areas, and these communities will be ill-
    prepared and likely suffer adverse effects from future AV
    deployment.
        Second, support research on the cascading impacts of AVs.
    Similar to the points regarding pilots, we also need research
    that goes beyond the focus on the technology, safety, or
    deployment, and expands to understand cascading impacts. The
    Center of Excellence for Automated Vehicles and New Mobility in
    the IIJA is a promising step forward, and we are very thankful
    to Representative Blumenauer, who first presented the PLACE Act
    language that was the basis for the center. We need more
    programs such as this.
        Third, assist local governments and States with regulatory
    preparedness. This encompasses not only enabling regulations,
    such as permitting infrastructure, insurance, and emergency
    response policy, but also understanding governmental roles in
    how best to steer deployment towards community goals, how to
    use tools and levers, and how to incorporate community
    engagement.
        Fourth, organize and lead a national dialogue on AV impacts
    and community needs. We hear consistent desire from both public
    and private sector for forums to organize and share research
    and best practices on the many aspects of AV deployment.
        In closing, I want to say that our AV future is not
    preordained. It is ours to shape. But we can only adequately
    shape the future if we understand not only the technical
    requirements of AVs or the regulations enabling deployment, but
    also the cascading impacts AVs will have on our communities,
    and the regulations, tools, and leverage that we can use to
    shape deployment to support community goals.
        Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [Mr. Larco's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism
                       Next Center, University of Oregon
        Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Subcommittee Members, thank
    you for this opportunity to testify on the future of automated vehicles
    and the impacts they could have on communities throughout the country.
        My name is Nico Larco and I am a Professor of Architecture and
    Urban Design as well as the Director of the Urbanism Next Center at the
    University of Oregon. Urbanism Next is a cross-disciplinary center
    focused on understanding the impacts that emerging technologies such as
    automated vehicles (AVs), new mobility, and e-commerce are having and
    will continue to have on communities. Our focus is not on the mechanics
    of the technologies, but rather on their impacts on land use, urban
    design, building design, transportation, and real estate, and why these
    impacts matter for equity, health, safety, the environment, and the
    economy. We work extensively on these topics with cities and states
    throughout the country, as well as with private sector partners who are
    developing or deploying emerging technologies, professional
    organizations, other research organizations, and foundations. We have
    found a tremendous interest, across all these organizations, in
    understanding AVs' impacts and how to shape the deployment of emerging
    technologies to help achieve equity, sustainability, and economic
    goals.
        Our country is at the earliest stages of developing AV technology
    and testing its performance in real world situations. What we don't
    know about AVs at this moment far outweighs what we do know about them
    and how they will impact our communities. One thing that is certain is
    the need to pay attention to AVs' transportation impacts as well as the
    cascading impacts they will have on communities. This includes issues
    such as safety, accessibility, congestion, equity, environmental, and
    land development impacts.
        AVs are not just another vehicle--in the same way that over a
    century ago cars proved to be not just a different horse. I will
    describe how AVs might create cascading impacts beyond moving people
    and goods, and how they have the potential to substantially reshape our
    communities. The current degree of unknowns around this innovation, and
    the potential scale of impacts, suggests caution in the speed of AV
    deployment, a need for substantial pilots and research focused on
    cascading impacts, a need for federal, state, and local governments to
    work together on AV regulatory preparedness, and information sharing
    between all levels of government, the private sector, researchers, and
    concerned stakeholders.
                             Transportation Impacts
        AVs have a strong potential to impact travel behavior, mode choice,
    and freight movement which would have a profound effect on congestion,
    parking, transit, and travel costs.
        Congestion--While it is difficult to know the exact future impacts
    AVs will have on congestion, we do have insights that can guide us. We
    can think of ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft as proxies for
    future AV deployment. Both follow a similar model of calling a vehicle,
    having it pick-up a passenger, driving them to their destination, and
    then leaving to serve another trip. Studies on ridesharing's impact on
    congestion have shown that it leads to sizable inefficiencies as cars
    travel substantial distances without passengers onboard as they travel
    to pick up passengers and then reposition themselves after a drop-
    off.\i\ With ridesharing, these `empty vehicle miles' or `zombie miles'
    are approximately 40% of total vehicle miles travelled (VMT).\ii\ A
    study in San Francisco found that between 2010 (when ridesharing
    companies were introduced) and 2016, ridesharing contributed to a 62%
    increase in hours of delay.\iii\ We suspect shared AVs will follow
    these same patterns and that owners of private AVs could have similar
    `empty vehicle mile' impacts as they send cars to run errands, pick up
    other family members, or simply have a car drive around the block while
    they complete a task. AVs could potentially reduce some of this impact
    on congestion if they are able to increase travel flow by reducing
    stop-and-start behavior. However, an AV future that does not have
    controls in place could exacerbate the congestion trends we are seeing
    with rideshare, putting increased strain on our transportation
    system.\iv\ This would impact infrastructure costs, the environment,
    and economic output.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ Bruce Schaller, ``The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber, and the
    Future of American Cities'' (Schaller Consulting, July 25, 2018),
    http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.htm.
        \ii\ Melissa Balding et al., ``Estimated TNC Share of VMT in Six US
    Metropolitan Regions (Revision 1)'' (Fehr and Peers, August 6, 2019),
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FIUskVkj9lsAnWJQ6kLhAhNoVLjfFdx3/view.
        \iii\ Erhardt Gregory D. et al., ``Do Transportation Network
    Companies Decrease or Increase Congestion?,'' Science Advances 5, no. 5
    (n.d.): eaau2670, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2670.
        \iv\ Tom Cohen and Clemence Cavoli, ``Automated Vehicles: Exploring
    Possible Consequences of Government (Non)Intervention for Congestion
    and Accessibility,'' Transport Reviews 39, no. 1 (January 2, 2019):
    129-51, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1524401.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Parking--AVs could reduce the demand for parking as vehicles drop
    off passengers and move on to their next trip instead of needing to be
    parked. Shared AVs in particular are predicted to reduce parking demand
    by as much as 90%.\v\ Considering rideshare as a proxy for AVs, we are
    already seeing a 19.7% reduction in parking per passenger at airports
    due to high rates of ridesharing use.\vi\ Changes in parking demand can
    have significant impacts on cities as parking is currently the largest
    single land use in urban areas as measured by surface area.\vii\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \v\ Wenwen Zhang and Subhrajit Guhathakurta, ``Parking Spaces in
    the Age of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: How Much Parking Will We Need
    and Where?,'' Transportation Research Record 2651, no. 1 (2017): 80-91.
        \vi\ Transportation Research Board and Engineering National
    Academies of Sciences and Medicine, Rethinking Airport Parking
    Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues
    (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2021), https://doi.org/
    10.17226/26091.
        \vii\ Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Revised edition
    (Planners Press, 2011).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Transit--AVs have the potential to complement transit and/or
    compete with it, as we are finding with rideshare. On the one hand, AVs
    could be a boon to transit if the technology is applied to transit
    vehicles, adding technology costs, but reducing operating costs due to
    the reduced need for drivers. Labor currently represents up to 60% of
    transit agency expenditures.\viii\ Eliminating the need for drivers
    would have serious labor consequences but could also potentially create
    savings that increase frequency of service and service area expansion.
    On the other hand, riders who can afford it may use personal or
    rideshare AVs in place of transit, reducing overall transit ridership
    and leading to a reduction of service frequency and coverage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \viii\ MacPherson Hughes-Cromwick and Matthew Dickens, ``2019
    Public Transportation Fact Book'' (Washington D.C.: American Public
    Transportation Association, April 2019), http://apta.com/wp-content/
    uploads/APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Travel Costs--Travel costs could change substantially with AVs.
    Increased technology and maintenance needs will potentially increase
    travel costs, while insurance, parking, and fuel cost savings could
    bring costs down. The overall scale or final direction of impacts are
    yet unknown but estimates for future AV travel ranges from $0.60-$1.00
    per vehicle mile for privately owned AVs, and $0.50 to $1.00 per
    vehicle-mile for shared AVs. While this is considerably less than
    current rideshare or taxi vehicle-mile costs, it is substantially more
    than personal vehicle costs or public transit fares ($0.20-$0.60 per
    passenger-mile).\ix\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \ix\ Todd Litman, ``Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions:
    Implications for Transport Planning'' (Victoria Transport Policy
    Institute, December 17, 2021), https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf; Ashley
    Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez, ``Autonomous Taxis & Public Health:
    High Cost or High Opportunity Cost?,'' Transportation Research Part A:
    Policy and Practice 138 (August 1, 2020): 28-36, https://doi.org/
    10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.011; Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Per-Mile Costs
    of Owning and Operating an Automobile (Current Dollars)--Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics,'' 2020, https://www.bts.dot.gov/content/
    mile-costs-owning-and-operating-automobile; Junia Compostella et al.,
    ``Near- (2020) and Long-Term (2030-2035) Costs of Automated,
    Electrified, and Shared Mobility in the United States,'' Transport
    Policy 85 (January 1, 2020): 54-66, https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.tranpol.2019.10.001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Cascading Impacts
        AVs are not only a transportation issue as their transportation
    impacts will have cascading impacts across communities. The attached
    Urbanism Next Framework describes some of these impacts across a range
    of domains and we further elaborate on these topics in our Multilevel
    Impacts of Emerging Technology on City Form and Development Report
    (based on Urbanism Next's NSF Smart and Sustainable Communities
    Grant).\x\ Below we highlight cascading impacts on sprawl, government
    revenue, the environment, land and development opportunities, and
    equity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \x\ Amanda Howell et al., ``Multilevel Impacts of Emerging
    Technologies on City Form and Development'' (Portland, OR: Urbanism
    Next Center, January 2020), https://www.urbanismnext.org/resources/
    multilevel-impacts-of-emerging-technologies-on-city-form-and-
    development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sprawl--A large question with widespread AV deployment is how it
    might impact metropolitan footprints and sprawl. The average commute in
    the US is approximately 27 minutes in each direction.\xi\ AVs promise
    to reduce the friction of travel as they will purportedly move faster
    along freeways and arterials, while at the same time giving occupants
    the ability to do more while they commute as they do not need to drive
    themselves. With this, individuals might be willing to move farther out
    in search of less expensive housing, opening exurban areas to
    development, and increasing pressures on sprawl. This, of course,
    accelerates the conversion of agricultural lands, natural resource
    lands, and habitat areas into housing and urban development, impacting
    the environment, infrastructure costs, and equity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xi\ Charlynn Burd, Michael Burrows, and Brian McKenzie, ``Travel
    Time to Work in the United States: 2019,'' American Community Survey
    Reports, United States Census Bureau 2 (2021): 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Government Revenue--Not only might AVs cost riders more, they could
    also significantly impact the revenues of governments that use fuel
    tax, vehicle registration, licensing, parking fees, and traffic
    citations to fund transportation infrastructure and operations.\xii\ A
    study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oregon found that
    revenue losses could be between 3 and 51% with the direst predictions
    being for cities that heavily depend on fuel taxes and parking fees to
    fund transportation.\xiii\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xii\ Benjamin Clark, Nico Larco, and Roberta F. Mann, ``The
    Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles and E-Commerce on Local Government
    Budgeting and Finance'' (University of Oregon, August 2017).
        \xiii\ Rebecca Lewis and Benjamin Y. Clark, ``Retooling Local
    Transportation Financing in a New Mobility Future,'' Transportation
    Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 10 (June 1, 2021): 100388,
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100388.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Environment--AVs could create both benefits and challenges for the
    environment. For instance, as previously mentioned, expanded sprawl
    could significantly increase land consumed by urban development,
    destroying existing habitat, disrupting natural water systems, and
    putting more people at risk of wildfire in the wildland urban
    interface. Regarding energy, AVs have the potential to reduce energy
    consumption by accelerating the shift to vehicle electrification, and
    increasing opportunities for platooning, route efficiency, and the
    elimination of stop-and-go driving behavior.\xiv\ Increases in the
    number of trips taken and the total amount of vehicle miles travelled,
    however, could dampen these impacts. Depending on the overall scale and
    direction of energy use, AVs could shift greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
    and particulate pollution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xiv\ Pantelis Kopelias et al., ``Connected & Autonomous Vehicles--
    Environmental Impacts--A Review,'' Science of The Total Environment 712
    (April 10, 2020): 135237, https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.scitotenv.2019.135237.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Land Value and Development Opportunities--Reduced parking demand
    could lead to existing parking areas becoming available for
    development. Parking requirements often limit how much housing
    developers can put on a given parcel. More and more communities across
    the US are choosing to prioritize space for people instead of cars
    through the reduction or elimination of those requirements. AVs could
    provide an attractive option for getting around without a personal
    vehicle, opening up these parcels to development.
        AVs could also lead to an increase in the density of development
    possible on a given parcel as parking provision would no longer limit
    how many units of housing could be built. Reducing the need to build
    parking can also reduce the cost of development, increasing the
    affordability of housing, for instance, and increasing the number of
    projects that are economically viable. This might impact both urban and
    suburban areas, with greater impact in areas with the greatest amount
    of existing parking. The ability to redevelop land currently dedicated
    to parking could radically increase the land available for development,
    reducing the cost for that land.
        Equity Impacts--AVs have the potential to increase road safety, an
    important equity concern as traffic crashes disproportionately impact
    low-income Americans \xv\ and carry a heavier burden in terms of the
    costs of recovery from crashes. AVs impacts on accessibility, however,
    is not yet certain. Accessibility will be determined by issues such as
    the cost of trips and vehicles, if vehicles serve all areas of a
    region, if they physically accommodate users who are disabled, if users
    are sufficiently tech enabled, and in the model of shared vehicles, if
    users are banked and have access to digital banking. Research we
    conducted with the RAND Corporation for the American Association of
    Retired Persons (AARP) specifically pointed to these types of issues
    creating substantial barriers to AV use by older adults.\xvi\ These
    barriers are not insurmountable, and many researchers and leading AV
    and rideshare companies are working on solutions to them, but firm
    solutions are by no means clear at this point.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xv\ Robert B. Noland, Nicholas J. Klein, and Nicholas K. Tulach,
    ``Do Lower Income Areas Have More Pedestrian Casualties?,'' Accident
    Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 1, 2013): 337-45, https://doi.org/
    10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.009; Sam Harper, Thomas J. Charters, and Erin C.
    Strumpf, ``Trends in Socioeconomic Inequalities in Motor Vehicle
    Accident Deaths in the United States, 1995-2010,'' American Journal of
    Epidemiology 182, no. 7 (October 1, 2015): 606-14, https://doi.org/
    10.1093/aje/kwv099.
        \xvi\ Laura Fraade-Blanar et al., ``Older Adults, New Mobility, and
    Automated Vehicles'' (Portland, OR: Urbanism Next Center, RAND
    Corporation, and AARP, February 2021), https://www.urbanismnext.org/
    resources/older-adults-new-mobility-and-automated-vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Recommendations
        To address the issues and challenges described above, we suggest
    the following recommendations to help shape AV deployment in ways that
    can support community needs:
        1.  Fund Pilots Specifically Focused on the Cascading Impacts of
    AVs--Pilots are an effective way of learning about the impacts of
    deployment and both the benefits and unintended consequences they might
    have. It is critical that pilots not only focus on technological
    developments, efficiency, and safety, but also focus on the operational
    impacts and the cascading impacts autonomous vehicles will have on
    communities. These pilots should also not only focus on large cities,
    or predominantly on the wealthy areas of these cities, but instead
    should also include mid-sized, small, and rural communities. These
    pilots should specifically include low-income areas, areas with poor
    transit access, and areas with a high number of older adults. If these
    communities are not included in the testing and piloting of these
    technologies now and we are not able to understand the impacts AVs will
    have on them, these communities will be ill prepared and will likely
    suffer adverse impacts from AV deployment in the future.
              For example, in pilots funded by the Knight Foundation, the
    Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon, along with Cityfi, is
    working with cities across the country to understand how AV deployment
    might impact communities and how to best engage vulnerable communities
    in these conversations. These types of pilots, that go beyond the
    technical aspects of AV deployment, provide needed insights about what
    it will take to ensure that the benefits of the technology are felt by
    all. Additionally, these pilots allow government agencies to learn more
    about the technology before adopting potentially far-reaching
    legislation without a nuanced understanding of both the opportunities
    and challenges.
              The inclusion of the Strengthening Mobility and
    Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Grants Program in the IIJA is an
    excellent start, but this program is focused primarily on
    transportation efficiency and safety and not on the range of unresolved
    cascading impacts I have described earlier. We would encourage the
    expansion of the program, or the development of a new program of pilots
    that focus on the cascading impacts of autonomous vehicles. Pilots
    should be sure to include a range of AV vehicle types including
    passenger cars, SUVs, vans, busses, shuttles, and delivery vehicles
    including trucks, delivery vans, and drones.
        2.  Support Research on the Cascading Impacts of AVs--While AVs are
    in an early stage of deployment, we are in an even earlier state of
    properly understanding the impacts of AV deployment. Much research has
    been done on AV technology and on the transportation impacts, but what
    is largely missing and much needed is an understanding of AVs' impacts
    on land use, urban design, building design, and real estate--and an
    understanding of the implications this will have on equity, health, the
    environment, and the economy.
              The `Center of Excellence for Automated Vehicles and New
    Mobility' in the IIJA is a promising step forward and we are thankful
    to Rep. Blumenauer who first presented the PLACE Act language that was
    the basis for this Center. We are also heartened with the launch of
    programs such as the Inclusive Design Challenge by USDOT. We encourage
    an expansion of these types of programs to give us the knowledge we
    need to make informed decisions that can maximize the benefits of AVs
    while eliminating or minimizing potential negative impacts.
        3.  Assist Local Governments and States with AV Regulatory
    Preparedness--Local governments and states are just beginning to
    understand the need to manage AV deployment in a way that can serve
    community goals. This encompasses not only enabling regulations (such
    as permitting, infrastructure, insurance, and emergency response
    policy), but also understanding governmental roles in how to best steer
    deployment. This includes understanding how best to conduct public
    education and engagement, how to leverage governmental roles in the
    shaping of the AV market, how best to develop relationships with
    private sector AV service providers, how to mitigate externalities such
    as potential congestion on roads and at the curb, and how to establish
    a healthy AV ecosystem.
              Local governments and states also need guidance on how to
    create tools and incentives to support equitable deployment through
    mechanisms such as vehicle accessibility requirements, service coverage
    requirements, and ride reservation and payment options. Cities and
    states are also interested in how best to utilize fees, taxes, vehicle
    occupancy requirements, and vehicle miles traveled maximums to achieve
    community goals. Additionally, cities and states need assistance with
    setting data standards and data sharing protocols, addressing curbside
    management, and understanding what infrastructure investments are most
    beneficial to their communities. (See the attached `Summary of Tools
    and Levers for Shaping AV Outcomes' table. This table is adapted from
    Urbanism Next's report with Cityfi, funded by the Knight Foundation,
    which includes a more expansive discussion of regulatory issues around
    AV deployment).\xvii\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xvii\ Becky Steckler et al., ``A Framework for Shaping the
    Deployment of Autonomous Vehicles and Advancing Equity Outcomes''
    (Portland, OR: Urbanism Next Center, January 2021), https://
    www.urbanismnext.org/resources/a-framework-for-shaping-the-deployment-
    of-autonomous-vehicles-and-advancing-equity-outcomes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4.  Organize and Lead a National Dialogue on AV Impacts and
    Community Needs--In our work with federal, state, and municipal
    governments, private sector companies, and research, professional, and
    advocacy groups, we hear a consistent desire for forums to organize and
    share research and best practices on the many aspects of AV deployment.
    There is a general understanding that the successful deployment of AVs,
    in both a societal sense and a business sense, will require the
    cooperation of the public, private, advocacy, and academic/research
    sectors. The federal government and particularly the USDOT, HUD, EPA,
    and DOL are all well positioned to partner with national organizations
    to lead this type of effort.
              As an example of helping create a national dialogue, Urbanism
    Next has held an annual conference since 2018 focused on the cascading
    impacts of technologies such as AVs. We have done this in partnership
    with the American Planning Association (APA), the Urban Land Institute
    (ULI), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Oregon Chapter
    of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), and numerous
    other private and public sector partners. This last year--with support
    from NUMO and in partnership with POLIS and TNO, the conference
    expanded to Europe. There is widespread interest in better
    understanding the impacts of AV deployment.
              Urbanism Next, also with funding from NUMO, has also
    developed the NEXUS (https://www.urbanismnext.org/the-nexus)--a one-
    stop resource for communities, elected officials, private sector
    companies, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in learning
    about the cascading impacts of AV deployment. As an example of the
    interest in these topics, the site has been visited over 100,000 times
    in the last year alone.
              Contrary to what may have been the landscape a few years ago,
    many private sector companies are interested in engaging in these
    topics and see developing alignment between their goals and community
    goals as a benefit to their business models. We need to help develop
    these conversations and build trust so that the best aspects of
    emerging AV technologies are the outcomes we ultimately attain in our
    communities.

        In closing, we believe we stand at this moment in a situation not
    dissimilar to where our country stood when the first automobiles were
    rolling onto our streets over a century ago. Imagine if, at that
    moment, we had the foresight to consider how automobiles would be used
    throughout the country, the benefits they could deliver, and also the
    problems they might create. Imagine if we could shape early deployment
    and the eventual design of our cities and streets to help reduce
    congestion, increase accessibility, limit sprawl, and increase equity.
        Our AV future is not preordained, it is ours to shape. But we can
    only adequately shape the future if we understand not only the
    technical requirements of AVs or the regulations enabling deployment,
    but also the cascading impacts AVs will have on our communities, and
    the regulations, tools, and levers we can use to shape deployment to
    support community goals.

                                   __________
    This testimony was prepared by Nico Larco, Becky Steckler, and Amanda
    Howell of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon.

    Urbanism Next Center--http://urbanismnext.org/
                                  attachments
    Urbanism Next Framework--[Editor's note: The document is retained in
    committee files and is available online at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-117-PW12-Wstate-LarcoN-20220202-
    SD002.pdf]

    Summary of Tools and Levers for Shaping AV Outcomes table--[Editor's
    note: The document is retained in committee files and is available
    online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-
    117-PW12-Wstate-LarcoN-20220202-SD001.pdf]

        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Professor Larco.
        We will hear next from Mr. Ariel Wolf, general counsel,
    Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.
        Mr. Wolf. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair
    DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, members of the subcommittee,
    good morning. My name is Ariel Wolf, and I serve as general
    counsel to the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, on
    whose behalf I appear today. I also serve as a partner at the
    law firm Venable, where I chair the autonomous and connected
    mobility practice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
    testify at this important hearing.
        The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association was founded as
    the unified voice of the AV industry. We are committed to
    bringing the tremendous safety, mobility, and economic benefits
    of AVs--otherwise known as SAE Level 4- and 5-capable
    vehicles--to consumers in a safe, responsible, and timely
    manner.
        For a dozen years, AV technology has been tested on our
    roads, over tens of millions of miles, and maintains a
    remarkable safety record. At the same time, roadway fatalities
    in this country involving vehicles with human drivers have
    increased dramatically. As members of the subcommittee already
    know, just yesterday the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration reported that 31,720 Americans died on the roads
    in the first 9 months of 2021. Those 31,720 deaths represent
    the highest number of fatalities in the first 9 months of any
    year in the past 15 years.
        The 2021 fatality numbers are part of a pattern of
    increasingly unsafe driving that is occurring across the
    country. Last week, in its new National Roadway Safety
    Strategy, the U.S. Department of Transportation reaffirmed what
    we have known for many years: human behavior is a contributing
    factor to the overwhelming majority of crashes, including
    drunk, impaired, distracted, and reckless driving.
        The AV industry was established to confront the monumental
    and ongoing tragedy on our roads. While AV technology continues
    to develop and advance, the simple fact is that AVs do not
    drive drunk, they do not drive while texting, they do not fall
    asleep at the wheel, and they do not recklessly speed. The
    record is clear: autonomous vehicles are being developed
    safely, and they will make our roads safer.
        To reduce fatalities and injuries, Americans need a
    comprehensive approach to roadway safety that includes a full
    suite of solutions, from safer road design to driver impairment
    prevention systems to updated traffic guidance. But the
    approach must also include the deployment of autonomous
    vehicles.
        AV technology will also transform our transportation system
    by making it more accessible, efficient, and sustainable. Just
    last week, I visited several AV Industry Association members to
    see firsthand how this transformation is taking shape. I rode
    on AVs that are safely navigating the streets of cities like
    San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, and Pittsburgh. I
    climbed into autonomous trucks that are hauling freight in
    States like Texas and New Mexico to boost our supply chains. I
    saw how zero-occupant electric delivery vehicles are expanding
    access to fresh food and reducing emissions.
        To experience AV technology and to see its capabilities is
    to understand the opportunities for this industry to change our
    lives for the better.
        On a personal note, I think about safer streets for my four
    daughters as they grow up, expanded independence for my
    grandmother in Florida and for my parents and in-laws as they
    get older, and opportunities to expand equitable transportation
    and delivery options in my neighborhood here in DC. I see this
    happening, all while growing the economy and creating new,
    well-paying jobs.
        The AV industry is creating jobs and providing
    opportunities for workers with a wide array of expertise and
    educational backgrounds, including many jobs that do not
    require a college degree. In locations across the country, AV
    developers and manufacturers are hiring auto technicians, fleet
    managers, safety operations specialists, and many others to
    support the testing and deployment of AV technology.
        One study found that the AV industry has created 6,500 new
    jobs in the Pittsburgh region alone. A recent U.S. Department
    of Transportation study also indicated that adoption of AV
    trucking will increase total U.S. employment by as many as
    35,000 jobs per year, on average, and raise annual earnings for
    all U.S. workers.
        Given the phased timeline for AV truck deployment,
    autonomous trucking is not expected to displace jobs in the
    trucking industry, but rather serve as one tool to reduce
    strains on the supply chain caused in part by the longstanding
    truckdriver shortage.
        AVs offer great opportunities. But without a national
    framework that maximizes the deployment of the technology, it
    will be harder to achieve those benefits.
        I want to thank the subcommittee for its leadership on
    these important issues. The Autonomous Vehicle Industry
    Association looks forward to serving as a resource concerning
    both technical and policy questions in this area, and working
    with you to make autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans
    nationwide. We are eager to engage with Congress, the
    Department of Transportation, and all stakeholders on the right
    policies to accomplish our shared goals: safer streets,
    expanded mobility, and new jobs and economic growth.
        And I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [Mr. Wolf's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
                          Vehicle Industry Association
        Chair Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Members of the
    Subcommittee, good morning, my name is Ariel Wolf, and I serve as
    General Counsel to the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, on
    whose behalf I appear today. I also serve as a partner at the law firm
    Venable LLP, where I head the Autonomous and Connected Mobility
    practice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony
    for this hearing today.
        The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (``Association'') was
    founded in April 2016 by Ford Motor Company, Waymo, Lyft, Volvo Cars,
    and Uber to be the voice of the nascent autonomous vehicle (``AV'')
    industry. Since then, we are proud to have tripled in size, adding many
    of the world's leading technology, trucking, ridesharing, and
    automotive companies as members of the Association.\1\ This cross-
    section of companies demonstrates the widespread interest in developing
    AV technology across different sectors. As the unified voice of the AV
    industry, we are committed to bringing the tremendous safety and
    mobility benefits of AVs to consumers in a safe, responsible, and
    expeditious manner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AV Industry Association members include Argo AI, Aurora,
    Cruise, Embark, Ford, Kodiak, Lyft, Motional, Navya, Nuro, TuSimple,
    Uber, Volvo Cars, Waymo and Zoox.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our mission is to realize the benefits of AVs--otherwise known as
    SAE Levels 4- and 5-capable vehicles--and support the safe and timely
    deployment of this technology. For a dozen years, AV technology has
    been tested on our roads for tens of millions of miles and maintains a
    remarkable safety record. At the same time, as I will discuss, roadway
    fatalities in this country involving vehicles with human drivers have
    gone up dramatically. So let me be clear at the outset of this
    discussion: autonomous vehicles will save lives, which is why the AV
    industry is so committed to developing this technology and to deploying
    it in a timely manner.
        AV technology not only will make our roads safer, but also can
    transform our transportation system by making it more accessible,
    efficient, and sustainable. Just last week I visited several AV
    Industry Association members to see firsthand how this transformation
    is taking shape. I rode in AVs that are being used to safely navigate
    the streets of San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, Pittsburgh and
    other cities across the country. I climbed into autonomous trucks that
    are hauling freight in Texas, New Mexico, and beyond, and that are
    helping to solve our supply chain crisis and reduce costs to consumers.
    I saw how zero-occupant electric delivery vehicles are expanding access
    to fresh food and reducing emissions. To experience AV technology and
    see its capabilities is to understand the potential for this industry
    to change our lives for the better. On a personal note, I think about
    safer streets for my four daughters as they grow up; expanded
    independence for my grandmother in Florida and for my parents as they
    soon enter retirement; opportunities to expand equitable transportation
    options to all communities here in DC where I live. And I see this
    happening all while we can grow the economy and expand job creation.
       I. AVs Offer Significant Benefits to Consumers, Workers, and the
                                    Economy
        AVs have the potential to: (a) improve road safety; (b) improve
    transportation equity; and (c) create jobs and broadly benefit the
    American economy.
    A. AVs Will Improve Road Safety
        As members of the Subcommittee may know, the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') reported that 20,160
    Americans died on the road in the first six months of 2021--an increase
    of 18.4 percent over 2020 and more fatalities than in any first half-
    year over the past 15 years.\2\ In fact, in 2020, despite fewer
    vehicles on the road and fewer vehicle miles traveled compared to the
    previous year, the number of deaths on the road was the highest it had
    been since 2007.\3\ As terrible a tragedy as these numbers reflect, the
    toll cannot be measured in fatalities alone. Since 2016, the number of
    motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury has averaged nearly 2 million
    per year.\4\ According to the National Safety Council, the estimated
    cost of motor-vehicle deaths, injuries, and property damage in the
    first half of 2021 was $241.9 billion.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
    HS 813 199, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the
    First Half (January-June) of 2021 1 (2021), https://
    crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813199 [hereinafter
    NHTSA Jan.-June 2021 Fatality Estimates].
        \3\ NHTSA Jan.-June 2021 Fatality Estimates.
        \4\ National Statistics, Nat'l Ctr. for Stat. and Analysis, https:/
    /cdan.nhtsa.gov/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2022). According to the
    National Safety Council, the number of ``medically consulted injuries''
    from crashes is 4.5 million. See Introduction, Nat'l Safety Council:
    Motor Vehicle Injury Facts Overview, https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-
    vehicle/overview/introduction/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2022).
        \5\ Preliminary Semiannual Estimates, Nat'l Safety Council, https:/
    /injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-estimates/
    (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2021 fatality numbers are part of a pattern of increasingly
    unsafe driving that is occurring across the country. According to the
    U.S. Department of Transportation (``USDOT''), human behavior is a
    contributing factor to the overwhelming majority of serious and fatal
    crashes; \6\ NHTSA attributes an increasing share of roadway fatalities
    to distracted driving and other risky driving behaviors. While AV
    technology continues to develop and advance, the simple fact is that
    AVs do not drive drunk, they do not text while driving, they do not
    fall asleep at the wheel, and they do not recklessly speed. And unlike
    human drivers, AVs do not present a risk of misusing driver assistance
    systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, U.S. Dept. of Transp. 14
    (Jan. 2022), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-
    01/USDOT_National_Roadway_Safety_
    Strategy_0.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The AV industry was created to confront the monumental and ongoing
    tragedy on our roads--over the last ten years, there have been 374,432
    reported deaths and nearly 16 million crashes with injuries on our
    roads due to human-operated vehicles. The remarkable safety record of
    autonomous vehicles, which have been involved in only one fatality in
    more than a decade of testing and deployments, gives me hope that we
    will be able to make progress against this public health crisis. The
    record is clear: autonomous vehicles are being developed safely, and
    they will make our roads safer.
        As USDOT Secretary Buttigieg has recognized, we cannot accept the
    reality of our roads as the ``cost of doing business.'' Though we may
    have grown numb to the grim roadway statistics in our country, each
    fatality and injury is a tragedy that affects countless lives. To
    reduce fatalities and injuries, Americans need a comprehensive approach
    to roadway safety that includes a full suite of solutions, from safer
    road design to drunk-driving prevention systems, in addition to the
    deployment of AVs.
    B. AVs Can Improve Transportation Equity
        By improving safety and providing greater mobility, AVs will be a
    vital tool in securing transportation equity and connecting communities
    and individuals to the resources and jobs they need. Specifically, AVs
    will allow those who previously had limited or no access to a personal
    vehicle or transit system the freedom to travel, commute, and
    conveniently obtain goods and services.
                1. Roadway Safety and Equity
        Roadway crashes, and the resulting injuries and deaths, are not
    evenly distributed across socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic groups. An
    analysis published by the Governors Highway Safety Association
    highlights the disproportionate number of traffic fatalities
    experienced by Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (``BIPOC'').\7\
    In particular, per capita rates of traffic fatalities among American
    Indian/Alaskan Natives and Black populations were all higher than the
    national average,\8\ and pedestrian death rates per capita were higher
    than the national average for American Indian/Alaska Natives, Black,
    and Hispanic individuals.\9\ Estimates published by NHTSA indicate that
    these discrepancies have become exacerbated in recent years, with
    traffic fatalities of Black individuals up 23% in 2020 compared to
    2019, while American Indian deaths rose 11%.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, An Analysis of Traffic
    Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity 18 (2021), https://www.ghsa.org/sites/
    default/files/2021-06/An%20Analysis%20of%20
    Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20Race%20and%20Ethnicity.pdf [Hereinafter
    GHSA Race and Ethnicity Analysis].
        \8\ Id. at 8.
        \9\ GHSA Race and Ethnicity Analysis at 13.
        \10\ Id. at 18; Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of
    Transp., DOT HS 813 118, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic
    Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020 8 (2021),
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This analysis and other research indicate that socioeconomic status
    can also influence the risk of motor vehicle crash involvement. Census
    tracts have recorded pedestrian fatality rates within low-income
    metropolitan areas approximately twice that of more affluent
    neighborhoods.\11\ These patterns are echoed in a City of Chicago
    report revealing that Black residents and those living in communities
    with high levels of economic hardship were more at risk of dying in a
    traffic crash compared to white residents and those living in
    communities with low and medium levels of economic hardship,
    respectively.\12\ By reducing crashes across the board, AVs can reduce
    these inequities and improve the quality of life for all communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Governing, America's Poor Neighborhoods Plagued by Pedestrian
    Deaths 1 (2014), http://media.navigatored.com/documents/
    Governing_Pedestrian_Fatalities_Report.pdf.
        \12\ Vision Zero Chicago, Action Plan 2017-2019 17, https://
    visionzerochicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/17_0612-VZ-Action-
    Plan_FOR-WEB.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2. Connecting Underserved Communities to Transit,
                        Resources, and Jobs
        AVs can provide vital connections to areas with high demand but low
    supply of transportation, otherwise known as transit deserts.\13\
    Access to transportation and average length of commute are connected to
    upward mobility,\14\ and studies have found links between public
    transit access, income, and unemployment.\15\ A 2011 study showed that
    an average person can access only about 30% of all jobs and 25% of low-
    and middle-skilled jobs in a given metropolitan area via public transit
    within 90 minutes.\16\ AVs have the potential to reduce or eliminate
    gaps in transportation access by improving integration with mass
    transit, whether by providing both first mile and last mile connections
    to transit, servicing direct trips to workplaces and other endpoints,
    or by broadly increasing supply that helps free up other conventional
    and AV transportation options to build those linkages. Projections
    indicate that the transportation connections facilitated by the
    adoption of AVs would increase access to jobs within a metropolitan
    area by 45% by 2040.\17\ Through these various means, AVs will further
    connect Americans with a variety of key features of their communities,
    improving access and quality of life.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Frequently Asked Questions, Transit Desert Research, http://
    www.transitdeserts.org/faq.html (last visited July 22, 2021).
        \14\ Mikayla Bouchard, Transportation Emerges as Crucial to
    Escaping Poverty, N.Y. Times (May 7, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/
    2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emerges-as-crucial-to-escaping-
    poverty.html.
        \15\ Gillian D. White, Stranded: How America's Failing Public
    Transportation Increases Inequality, The Atlantic (May 16, 2015),
    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-
    americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/.
        \16\ Adie Tomer Et Al., Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in
    Metropolitan America, Brookings (May 11, 2011), https://
    www.brookings.edu/research/missed-opportunity-transit-and-jobs-in-
    metropolitan-america/.
        \17\ Richard Ezike et. al., Where Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us?,
    6 (2019), https://ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/Where-
    Are-Self-Driving-Cars-Taking-Us-web.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Access to food is another area of inequality that AVs can help
    alleviate. Transit deserts often overlap with food deserts, which are
    defined as areas with high poverty (20% or greater) and low access to
    food (at least 33% of people living more than one mile from a grocery
    store or supermarket).\18\ A 2017 report by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Economic Research Service (``ERS'') estimates that 54
    million individuals, or 17.1 percent of the total U.S. population, had
    limited access to a supermarket or grocery store between 0.5 and 10
    miles from their home.\19\ Further, a 2009 ERS report found that, at
    the time, 2.3 million people lived more than one mile from a
    supermarket and did not have access to a vehicle.\20\ The COVID-19
    pandemic has increased overall food insecurity--the lack of access to
    food due to financial constraints--across the nation, with projections
    suggesting that up to 42 million (1 in 8) people in the U.S. may
    experience food insecurity in 2021.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Michele Ver Ploeg et al., Mapping Food Deserts in the United
    States, Economic Research Service (Dec. 1, 2011), https://
    www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-
    deserts-in-the-us/.
        \19\ Econ. Rsch. Serv., EIB-165, U.S. Dep't of Agric. Low-Income
    and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015 12 (2017), https://
    www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82101/eib-165.pdf?v=3395.3.
        \20\ Econ. Rsch. Serv., Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food:
    Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences iii
    (2009) https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42711/
    12716_ap036_1_.pdf?v=8423.6.
        \21\ Feeding America, The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food
    Insecurity in 2020 & 2021 1 (2021), https://www.feedingamerica.org/
    sites/default/files/2021-03/National%20Projections
    %20Brief_3.9.2021_0.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs can prove particularly useful for improving access to food,
    both by transporting people to previously inaccessible or difficult to
    access supermarkets and grocery stores, and also by bringing food
    directly to their doors. AV companies are already preparing to use
    their vehicles in such ways, exemplified by Cruise delivering over one
    million meals to food-insecure families in San Francisco,\22\ TuSimple
    using autonomous tucks to deliver more than 3.5 million pounds of food
    (2.7 million meals) for food banks in Arizona,\23\ and Nuro vehicles
    helping the Houston Food Bank feed people in Texas.\24\ With more
    widespread deployment, AVs could improve access to fresh food for 14
    million low-income households, with roughly 70% of the total low-income
    population living in food deserts.\25\ The addition of safe and
    affordable options into the transportation ecosystem will create the
    capacity to execute on these trips.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Dan Ammann, Introducing Cruise for Good, Medium (Apr. 23,
    2021), https://medium.com/cruise/introducing-cruise-for-good-
    8ebf9bfdaf4a.
        \23\ Hunger-Free AZ News, Ariz. Food Bank Network (Summer 2020),
    https://azfoodbanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
    AzFBN_S20_Newsletter_DIGITAL.pdf.
        \24\ Sola Lawal, Serving America's Food Deserts, Medium (July 15,
    2020), https://medium.com/nuro/serving-americas-food-deserts-
    a7442e922053.
        \25\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                3. Expanding Mobility Options for All
        AV deployment offers new and improved transportation options for
    people with disabilities as well as for older residents. Studies by
    USDOT estimate that 25.5 million Americans have travel-limiting
    disabilities,\26\ while roughly 560,000 people with disabilities never
    leave their homes due to transportation difficulties.\27\ These
    difficulties are often due to a lack of accessible or convenient public
    transportation or an inability to operate their own vehicle, as is the
    case for the over 7.6 million Americans over the age of 16 who have
    significant vision impairment.\28\ This lack of transportation impacts
    employment as well--only 17.5% of people with disabilities are
    employed, compared to 65% of people without a disability.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Accessibility, U.S. Dep't of Transp. (July 29, 2020) https://
    www.transportation.gov/accessibility.
        \27\ Bureau of Transp. Stat., Transportation Difficulties Keep Over
    Half a Million Disabled at Home (2012), https://www.bts.gov/archive/
    publications/special_reports_and_issue_
    briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire.
        \28\ Blindness Statistics, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, https://
    nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics (last visited Jan. 28, 2021).
        \29\ Economic News Release, U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., Persons
    with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary (Feb. 24, 2021),
    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs can allow those with disabilities greater freedom to move about
    the world on their own schedule. AV mobility-as-a-service offerings can
    help improve transportation for individuals who cannot drive. For
    instance, Cruise has made public its work to develop a wheelchair
    accessible version of its Origin vehicle platform.\30\ For low vision
    individuals, companies like Lyft, through a partnership with Motional
    and the National Federation of the Blind, have worked to create Braille
    guides for AV riders.\31\ Likewise, in Arizona, Waymo has highlighted
    the use of its AVs by vision impaired people of all ages, while its
    ongoing efforts to develop additional accessibility features were
    recognized by the federal government when the USDOT named the company
    as a semifinalist in its Inclusive Design Challenge.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Sam Abuelsamid, Cruise CEO Shows Off Locker Module and
    Wheelchair Accessible Origin Robotaxi, Forbes (Oct. 6, 2021), https://
    www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2021/10/06/cruise-ceo-shows-off-
    locker-module-and-wheelchair-accessible-origin-robotaxi/
    ?sh=567dd9d61c78.
        \31\ Lyft, Aptiv, and the National Federation of the Blind Partner
    to Provide Rides to Blind and Low Vision Passengers, Lyft: Blog (July
    8, 2019), https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/lyft-aptiv-nfb-low-vision-
    riders.
        \32\ See Max's Story, Let's Talk Autonomous Driving, https://
    ltad.com/story/maxs-story-foundation-for-blind-children.html (last
    visited Jan. 28, 2022); Brian's Story, Let's Talk Autonomous Driving,
    https://ltad.com/story/brians-story-foundation-senior-living.html (last
    visited Jan. 28, 2022); Inclusive Design Challenge Semifinalists, U.S.
    Dep't of Transp., https://www.transportation.gov/inclusive-design-
    challenge/inclusive-design-challenge-semifinalists#
    Waymo (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, older populations also stand to benefit from the
    deployment of AVs. The number of Americans over the age of 65 grew by
    34% between 2010 and 2020,\33\ with 2016 estimates putting their total
    population at 46.2 million (10.6 million in rural areas alone).\34\ By
    2030, that number will grow to more than 70 million, or roughly 20% of
    the population.\35\ While transportation challenges can vary greatly
    between individuals, roughly 600,000 older adults a year give up
    driving, with many more changing their driving habits as they age.\36\
    Studies have shown that older Americans without access to a car make
    15% fewer trips to the doctor and 65% fewer trips to visit friends and
    family.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, 65 and Older Population
    Grows Rapidly as Baby Boomers Age (June 25, 2020), https://
    www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/65-older-population-
    grows.html.
        \34\ Amy Symens Smith and Edward Trevelyan, ACS-41, U.S. Census
    Bureau, The Older Population in Rural America: 2012-2016 (2019),
    https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/acs/acs-41.html.
        \35\ Dabid Dudley, The Driverless Car is (Almost) Here, AARP The
    Mag. (Dec.2014/Jan. 2015), http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-
    technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html.
        \36\ Transportation, Nat'l Ass'n of Area Agencies on Aging, https:/
    /www.n4a.org/transportation (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
        \37\ Transp. for America, Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options:
    Fixing the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby Boom Generation (2011),
    https://t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In particular, AVs are well positioned to assist older Americans as
    they navigate the world. As more people ``age in place'' by staying in
    their own homes, on-demand AVs could carry them to doctor's
    appointments and shopping trips, and help them visit friends and family
    whenever they like.\38\ AVs can also provide similar connections to the
    residents of retirement communities, as Voyage (now part of Cruise) did
    in a San Jose-based pilot program.\39\ AVs can keep millions of older
    Americans connected to their families and communities, and allow them
    to retain their independence without risking their safety or the safety
    of vulnerable road users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Dudley, supra note 35.
        \39\ Tara Andringa, When AVs Get Real, Attitudes Change, Medium
    (May 19, 2020) https://medium.com/pave-campaign/when-avs-get-real-
    attitudes-change-2463101d4dcf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                4. Connecting Rural Communities
        AVs also serve as a useful tool in rural communities, which face
    many of the same problems as urban and suburban ones, with the added
    issue of individuals often having to travel much farther to take care
    of their needs. Rural areas are threatened by food deserts \40\ while
    also facing motor vehicle death rates three to ten times higher than
    other areas.\41\ NHTSA's 2020 early estimates project an 11% increase
    in rural road deaths in 2020,\42\ while 2017 numbers show more than
    half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths occur on rural roads.\43\
    At the same time, approximately 40% of all rural residents live in
    areas with no public transportation.\44\ Almost a quarter of all people
    over 65 live in rural areas,\45\ leading to diminishing transportation
    options as they age in place. In rural areas, AVs are positioned to
    provide the same safety and mobility improvements as they will
    elsewhere and to improve the quality of life for residents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Lois Wright Morton and Troy C. Blanchard, Starved for Access:
    Life in Rural America's Food Deserts, 1 Rural Realities 1, 2007,
    https://web.archive.org/web/20131021015542/http://
    www.ruralsociology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rural-Realities-1-
    4.pdf.
        \41\ Passenger Vehicle Occupant (PVO) Deaths and Seat Belt Use
    among Rural Americans, Ctr. for Disease Control (Sept. 20, 2017),
    https://www.cdc.gov/ruralhealth/motorvehicle/policybrief.html.
        \42\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., supra note 10 at 1.
        \43\ Id.
        \44\ Transp. for America, supra note 37 at 10.
        \45\ Id. at 9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                5. Improving Public Health
        In addition, AVs can serve important environmental goals that
    advance public health.\46\ Emissions from motorized vehicles are a
    major source of air pollution, which is a leading risk factor for
    mortality and morbidity.\47\ Although the American Lung Association has
    found that more than 40% of Americans are living in places with
    unhealthy air, the effects of poor air quality are disproportionately
    experienced by BIPOC.\48\ Specifically, the American Lung Association's
    most recent ``State of the Air'' report demonstrates that BIPOC were
    61% more likely to live in a county with unhealthy air than white
    peers.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ See David Rojas-Rueda, et al., Autonomous Vehicles and Public
    Health, 41 Ann. Rev. Of Pub. Health 329 (2020), https://
    www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094035.
        \47\ Id. (citing Health Effects Inst., State of Global Air/2018,
    https://www.stateofglobalair.org/sites/default/files/soga-2018-
    report.pdf).
        \48\ State of the Air: Key Findings, American Lung Ass'n, https://
    www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
        \49\ Press Release, American Lung Association, More Than 4 in 10
    Americans Breath Unhealthy Air, People of Color 3 Times as Likely to
    Live in Most Polluted Places (Apr. 21, 2021), https://www.lung.org/
    media/press-releases/sota-2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AVs can positively impact air pollution by reducing emissions as
    well as offer an array of significant environmental benefits, ranging
    from greater fuel efficiency and reduced congestion to reduced
    agricultural spoilage and related preservation of soil and water
    resources. In the context of emissions specifically, AVs are helping to
    lead the way on reducing emissions, with numerous companies already
    using battery electric vehicles (``EVs'') or gasoline-electric hybrids
    for their AV fleets, and adoption of EVs is increasing. A study by
    Steer found that autonomous, electric local delivery vehicles could
    avoid more than 400 million tons of CO2 from 2025-2035.\50\ Embark
    Trucks has partnered with HP to help expedite this transition. The two
    companies are using Embark's network of transfer hubs to allow for the
    direct transfer of goods from autonomous-equipped trucks onto zero-
    emissions drayage vehicles which carry computer parts to their final
    destination. It is estimated that this process will remove up to 50,000
    tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from HP's distribution
    network over the next decade.\51\ Additionally, a recent study
    demonstrated that AV trucks can reduce fuel consumption of heavy-duty
    trucks by at least 10% as a result of more efficient driving, resulting
    in a significant reduction of CO2 emissions.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in nhe
    U.S. XV (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/
    200910_%20Nuro_Final_Report_
    Public.pdf.
        \51\ Alan Adler, Embark Knits BYD Electric Trucks with its
    Autonomous Tractors for Cleaner Air, Modern Shipper (Sept. 14, 2021),
    https://www.freightwaves.com/news/embark-knits-byd-electric-trucks-
    with-its-autonomous-tractors-for-cleaner-air.
        \52\ Ryan Gehm, Self-driving trucks cut fuel consumption by 10%,
    SAE International (Dec. 19, 2019), https://www.sae.org/news/2019/12/
    tusimple-autonomous-trucks-cut-fuel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    C. AVs Can Create Jobs and Broadly Benefit the American Economy
        The AV industry is currently creating new jobs and bringing new
    investment, tax revenue, resources, and human capital to states across
    the country, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
    Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, Colorado, Texas and the
    District of Columbia. A study performed for the Pittsburgh-based
    Regional Industrial Development Corporation found that in the
    Pittsburgh region alone the autonomous vehicle industry has created
    6,500 new jobs, and the global autonomous vehicle industry could be
    worth $1 trillion globally by 2026.\53\ The further development of the
    AV industry is poised to support the economic competitiveness of
    American businesses and help grow the U.S. economy. Currently, the U.S.
    is the world leader in the AV industry due to the strength and breadth
    of American innovation in the industry. Policies that support the
    deployment of AVs are also policies that support the growth of the U.S.
    economy. By saving lives, creating jobs, and reducing costs for
    consumers the economic benefits of AVs promise to be significant in the
    decades to come. Additionally, AV trucking alone is anticipated to
    produce substantial economic benefits for both consumers and workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ TEConomy Partners, Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-Out
    Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems ES-1-2 (2021), https://ridc.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PGH-Autonomy-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1. Job Expansion in the AV Industry
        The AV industry is creating jobs and providing opportunities for
    workers with a wide array of expertise and educational backgrounds,
    including many jobs that do not require a college degree. Today, in
    locations across the country, AV developers and manufacturers are
    hiring auto technicians, fleet managers, safety operations specialists,
    sensor calibrators, transportation planners, engineers, and many others
    to support the testing and deployment of AV technology. Additionally,
    as the industry continues to expand, delivery workers, and grocery
    store employees will be involved in selecting, packing, and delivering
    goods to consumers, among other jobs and roles that will emerge. AVs
    can expand access to affordable delivery while also creating over three
    million new jobs by 2035, as retailers and delivery providers expand
    their services, according to a study by Steer.
        In addition, the AV industry is investing in partnerships to create
    the jobs of the future. For example, Nuro's program with De Anza
    Community College will offer a new career pathway to prepare the next
    generation of autonomous fleet technicians.\54\ The initiative, which
    will include more locations in the near future, includes a free tuition
    option, access to paid internships and part time work, and preference
    for full time jobs and full benefits upon graduation. Another example
    is TuSimple's work with Pima Community College, which established an AV
    certificate program to prepare drivers for new jobs such as training AV
    systems as test drivers, operating the AV in situations where
    autonomous driving is not suitable, and remotely monitoring the system
    from a command center.\55\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Technician Pathway, De Anza
    College, https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/
    av#::text=A%20New%20Career%20Pathway%20With,nation
    %20%E2%80%94%20for%20De%20Anza%20students (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
        \55\ Linda Baker, TuSimple and Pima Community College Launch First-
    Ever AV Certificate Program for Truck Drivers, Freight Waves (June 13,
    2019), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/tusimple-and-pima-community-
    college-launch-first-ever-av-certificate-program-for-truck-drivers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2. Consumer Savings
        AVs can reduce the costs of consumer goods as well as
    transportation. To highlight one example, AVs have the potential to
    significantly reduce the cost of deliveries for consumers, with some
    pilots costing only $5.95 per grocery delivery, compared to the added
    costs of between $10 and $20 charged by existing delivery services.\56\
    With respect to transportation costs--which amount to the second-
    largest expense for most households \57\--AVs could reduce average
    household costs by as much as $5,600 per year when consumers rely on
    shared fleets of AVs.\58\ This would be particularly impactful in food
    deserts, rural communities, and other areas that do not yet have
    significant, accessible public transit options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ Steer, supra note 49 at XI.
        \57\ Fostering Economic Opportunity through Autonomous Vehicle
    Technology, SAFE (Jul 16, 2020) https://secureenergy.org/fostering-
    economic-opportunity-through-autonomous-vehicle-technology-2/.
        \58\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                3. Economic Benefits of AV Trucking
        In the coming years, autonomous trucking will fundamentally alter
    interstate commerce by changing the manner and speed in which goods
    move in our country while making roads safer for everyone, AV trucks
    can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity, which will in turn
    improve the efficiency of countless industries that rely on moving
    goods on trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing.
    Importantly, AV trucks will be part of a comprehensive trucking
    ecosystem that works with human drivers, not against them. Adoption of
    this technology will not lead to mass layoffs; it will lead to a
    positive lifestyle change for thousands of truckers, allowing them to
    stay closer to home during the day instead of driving routes that keep
    them on the road for weeks at a time. Our members' technology will
    allow drivers to spend more nights in their own beds instead of in the
    sleeper berth of a truck. That's a change we believe will be welcomed
    by many truckers.
        A recent study funded by USDOT and the Federal Highway
    Administration also indicated that adoption of AV trucking will
    increase total U.S. employment by 26,400 to 35,100 jobs per year on
    average and raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by between $203
    and $267 per worker per year.\59\ Given the timeline for AV truck
    deployment, autonomous trucking is not likely to cause significant
    displacement of jobs in the trucking industry,\60\ but it can serve as
    one tool to reduce strains on the supply chain caused, in part, by the
    longstanding truck driver shortage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
    Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-Haul
    Trucking (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
        \60\ See Securing Am. Future Energy, America's Workforce and the
    Self-Driving Future Realizing Productivity Gains and Spurring Economic
    Growth (June 2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2018/06/Americas-Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-
    Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AV trucking also holds substantial potential to decrease the cost
    of goods. Sixty-five percent of U.S. consumable goods are brought to
    market by trucks, and the implementation of full autonomy in the
    trucking sector stands to decrease operating costs by about 45%--
    resulting in savings between $85 billion and $125 billion.\61\ The
    benefits to our nation's economy, workers, and supply chains make AV
    trucking well positioned to complement the broader array of economic
    benefits that AV deployment will bring.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ Aisha Chottani, et al., Mckinsey & Co., Distraction or
    Disruption? Autonomous Trucks Gain Ground in US Logistics (Dec. 10,
    2018), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-
    infrastructure/our-insights/distraction-or-disruption-autonomous-
    trucks-gain-ground-in-us-logistics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     II. U.S. Leadership in AV Development Should Not be Taken for Granted
        The United States is leading the world in the development and
    deployment of AV technology, but the U.S. risks losing our
    technological and automotive leadership in a global market worth an
    estimated $8 trillion \62\ due to foreign competition. America's
    leadership role is integral to securing the economic growth, job
    creation and many safety and societal benefits offered by AVs. However,
    as explained below, foreign competitors are moving to surpass our
    progress through policy changes and government investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Michael Wayland, GM's Cruise Values Autonomous Vehicle
    Industry at $8 Trillion, CNBC (Feb. 5, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/
    2020/02/05/gms-cruise-values-autonomous-vehicle-industry-at-8-
    trillion.html. The estimate includes ride-hailing, trucking, data
    services, and telematics/infotainment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        China. China's government is investing heavily in developing
    autonomous vehicles as part of its strategy to overtake and replace
    foreign market leaders. The Chinese government has prioritized AV
    development and included AVs in the Made in China 2025 strategic
    initiative, which encourages local governments to open roads for
    testing.\63\ One company, AutoX, backed by e-commerce giant Alibaba,
    announced the launch of autonomous taxis on public roads across an area
    three times the size of Manhattan within Shenzhen in January 2021.\64\
    In 2020, Apollo Go, backed by China's leading search engine Baidu, was
    authorized to launch a pilot of the first paid AV taxi (or
    ``robotaxi'') service in Beijing,\65\ and has also begun public tests
    in Shanghai.\66\ Many other Chinese companies are investing in AV
    technology and testing, including Huawei, Pony.ai, WeRide.ai, Didi
    Chuxing, and Momenta. These companies are also attracting investment
    from other countries around the world. However, Chinese companies
    recognize that American talent and investment is a key to competing
    with the U.S. for leadership in the AV industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ Michael Dunne, China Races for Global Leadership in AVs, Axios
    (Oct. 27, 2018), https://www.axios.com/china-races-for-global-
    leadership-in-autonomous-vehicles-6a3a8059-d170-47e6-87d5-
    fbb6fa8e738b.html.
        \64\ Rita Liao, China's Robotaxis Charged Ahead in 2021, Techcrunch
    (Jan. 14, 2022), https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/14/2021-robotaxi-
    china/.
        \65\ Id.
        \66\ Rebecca Bellan, Chinese Tech giant Baidu Begins Publicly
    Testing Apollo Go Robotaxis in Shanghai, Techcrunch (Sept. 14, 2021),
    https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/13/chinese-tech-giant-baidu-begins-
    publicly-testing-apollo-go-robotaxis-in-shanghai/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Singapore. Singapore is ranked #1 in the world in regard to AV
    readiness \67\ and has launched an autonomous commuter bus available to
    residents for a small fee.\68\ The government of Singapore has also
    opened over 620 square miles of road for AV testing, and has set a
    target of having AV bus service to three new towns by the end of
    2022.\69\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \67\ KPMG International, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index
    12 (2020), https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/06/autonomous-
    vehicles-readiness-index.html.
        \68\ Eileen Yu, First Commercial Autonomous Bus Services Hit
    Singapore Roads, ZDNet (Jan. 25, 2021), https://www.zdnet.com/article/
    first-commercial-autonomous-bus-services-hit-singapore-roads/.
        \69\ KPMG International supra note 66 at 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Germany. Germany passed a law in 2021 that amended the national
    road traffic law to create an approval framework for L4+ capable
    vehicles.\70\ Mobileye is already testing vehicles in Munich,\71\ and
    in 2021, Argo AI and Volkswagen announced they would commence on-road
    testing in Germany with an intended launch date for AV commercial
    delivery and micro-transit services in 2025.\72\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ Jack Ewing, How Germany Hopes to Get the Edge in Driverless
    Technology, N.Y. Times (July 14, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
    07/14/business/germany-autonomous-driving-new-law.html.
        \71\ Kyle Hyatt, Intel's Mobileye Goes for an Autonomous Spin
    Around Munich, CNET: Roadshow (Dec. 15, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/
    roadshow/news/mobileye-self-driving-munich-demonstration/.
        \72\ Andrew Hawkins, VW Will Start Testing its Argo AI-powered
    Self-driving Vans in Germany this Summer, The Verge (May 12, 2021),
    https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22430813/vw-argo-autonomous-
    delivery-ride-pooling-germany.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        United Kingdom. In 2021, the United Kingdom (``UK'') legalized
    automated lane keeping systems (SAE Level 3), and on January 26, 2022,
    the Law Commission of England and Wales, along with the Scottish Law
    Commission released a joint report recommending new laws to regulate
    AVs in Great Britain.\73\ The UK government also touted a report last
    year that AVs could generate  41.7 billion and 40,000 skilled jobs by
    2035 for the UK, and the country has invested  200 million into British
    AV startups.\74\ AV testing is already underway across the country with
    backing from the UK government, universities, technology companies, and
    research institutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ Law Comm'n of England and Wales & Scottish Law Comm'n,
    Automated Vehicles: Summary of Joint Report (2022), https://s3-eu-west-
    2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2022/01/AV-
    Summary-25-01-22-1.pdf.
        \74\ UK on the Cusp of a Transport Revolution, as Self-driving
    Vehicles Set to be Worth Nearly  42 billion by 2035, Gov.uk (Jan. 13,
    2021), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-on-the-cusp-of-a-
    transport-revolution-as-self-driving-vehicles-set-to-be-worth-nearly-
    42-billion-by-2035.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        France. The French Council of Ministers passed an ordinance on
    April 14, 2021 amending the French road traffic law to allow L4+
    deployment.\75\ Late last year, the French government also approved a
    Level 4 AV shuttle to carry passengers on public roads.\76\ Further,
    France has indicated it will implement its own L4+ type approval
    requirements by September 2022, if the EU has not done so already.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \75\ Johnna Crider, France is Preparing for the Arrival of
    Autonomous Driving, Cleantechnica (July 4, 2021), https://
    cleantechnica.com/2021/07/04/france-is-preparing-for-the-arrival-of-
    autonomous-driving/.
        \76\ David Rogers, Europe's First Fully Autonomous Vehicle to Carry
    People in Toulouse, Global Construction Rev. (Nov. 29, 2021), https://
    www.globalconstructionreview.com/europes-first-fully-autonomous-
    vehicle-to-carry-people-in-toulouse/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Japan. Japan enacted a Road Transport Vehicle law in 2020
    recognizing AVs and establishing an inspection regime and permit
    system.\77\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \77\ Kazuhiro Ogawa, Japan Revamps Laws to put Self-driving Cars on
    Roads, NikkeiAsia (Mar. 9, 2019), https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/
    Japan-revamps-laws-to-put-self-driving-cars-on-roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other Countries. Other countries, including the Netherlands,
    Norway, Finland, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, also
    continue to make significant strides to incorporate AVs into the
    transportation landscape.
        The American automobile and technology industries will continue to
    develop, test, and eventually deploy AVs. However, as other foreign
    governments move forward, and in some cases give a leg up to their own
    domestic industries, the U.S. risks ceding its leadership position and
    market opportunity. To guard against this outcome, the U.S. should
    adopt a national policy framework that unlocks more opportunities for
    American companies to test and deploy AVs safely.
                            III. National Framework
        In order to advance toward a future that maximizes the benefits of
    AV technology, both the AV industry and policymakers will need to work
    together to establish a national framework for the safe and swift
    deployment of AVs. In the section below, we outline the core elements
    of such a framework: (a) enhancing public trust in safety, and (b)
    maximizing the deployment of safe AV technology with clear federal and
    state roles.
    A. Enhance Public Trust in AV Safety
        As with any new technology, the AV industry understands that many
    people have questions about how AVs work and how they affect local
    communities. To answer these questions, the industry will continue to
    take steps to educate the public about the safety of AV systems.
    Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association member companies that are
    engaged in AV testing and development have joined or will join NHTSA's
    voluntary ``Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe
    Testing Initiative'' (``AV TEST Initiative'') to provide the public
    with direct and easy access to information about testing of automated
    driving system-equipped vehicles. Participation in the AV TEST
    Initiative will increase the public awareness of on-road testing,
    safety precautions, and principles guiding the testing. Our members
    that are engaged in AV testing and development also are publishing, and
    updating as necessary and appropriate, safety evaluation reports that
    contain detailed information meant to educate the public and NHTSA
    about the SAE Level 4 technology being tested or deployed. Other
    initiatives that the industry is taking include working with public
    safety officials to educate them about how to interact with AVs with no
    human driver present in the vehicle and supporting increased funding
    for NHTSA to reinforce the role that the agency is playing to support
    the safe deployment of AV technology and to help ensure that the agency
    is able to resolve rulemakings and exemption petitions in a timely
    fashion.
    B. Maximize Deployment of Safe AV Technology
        The industry's work to enhance public trust in AV safety goes hand
    in hand with a policy framework that is optimized to bring the swift
    deployment of AV technology to the public. Below, we identify the core
    elements of such a framework:
        i.  Preserving traditional state roles in vehicle operation
    licensing, registration, inspection, and insurance, and the federal
    government's exclusive authority over vehicle safety performance.
        ii.  Preserving the traditional federal role in vehicle operation,
    licensing, inspection, repair, and maintenance for commercial vehicles
    transporting property or passengers in interstate commerce.
        iii.  Lifting vehicle exemption caps and creating predictable
    processing timelines.
        iv.  Completing a rulemaking or series of rulemakings on removing
    barriers to the deployment of AV technology.
        v.  Expanding eligibility for the test exemption in the FAST Act to
    level the playing field among all stakeholders in the AV and automated
    driving system development ecosystem.
        vi.  Clarifying that practices to avoid rider interference with
    conventional driver controls during autonomous operation do not fall
    within NHTSA's interpretation of the ``make inoperative provision.''
        vii.  Ensuring that no government policy, legislation, or
    regulation should require people who are unable to obtain a driver's
    license to obtain a license to be a passenger in an AV. People without
    a driver's license should not be precluded from obtaining the mobility
    benefits of this technology.
                                 IV. Conclusion
        We face a safety crisis on our roads caused in large part by human
    behavior. AV deployment will make our roads safer, and can improve
    transportation equity, freight efficiency, and economic growth. As
    other countries take steps to realize these benefits, the U.S. should
    not take its leadership position for granted. Through a national
    framework that enhances consumer trust and maximizes AV deployment, we
    can seize this momentous opportunity. I want to thank the Subcommittee
    for its leadership on these important issues. The Autonomous Vehicle
    Industry Association looks forward to serving as a resource concerning
    both technical and policy questions and working with you to make safe
    autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans nationwide. I look forward
    to answering any questions that you may have.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf.
        I now record recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr.
    DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all the
    witnesses for the testimony. This is a very important hearing,
    and the committee needs to be focused more on these issues.
        I would like to address one particular concern. Pretty much
    all of the discussion in Congress has been about the
    technology, the vehicles themselves. I think there has been
    very little discussion of the current state of our
    infrastructure and whether or not it is suitable, and, if not,
    what sort of measures do we need to implement in order to have
    vehicles safely deployed throughout the whole United States?
    Would anyone like to comment on that?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question, Chair
    DeFazio.
        Many of the autonomous vehicle companies have stated that
    the infrastructure needed is not different from the current
    infrastructure of drivers today. We can all benefit from
    improved roads, fewer potholes, and better lines. But the
    information that we have received in Houston is that these
    vehicles will operate with the infrastructure that we currently
    have in our cities.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but, I mean, some of them are dependent
    on camera--I mean, they use different ways of navigating.
        And if anybody else would like to comment, because I am
    concerned that when many States don't put state of good repair
    at the top of their list, that there are many roads that don't
    have adequate fog lines, that don't have good markings and
    other things that many of these vehicles are dependent upon to
    range more widely. Anyone want to comment on that?
        Mr. Beuse. Yes, Mr. Chair, I can comment on that. I think,
    being in a city that just experienced a pretty horrific bridge
    collapse--and thank goodness that there were no fatalities--the
    point that you raised is really, really important to understand
    around maintenance of the current infrastructure.
        While I completely agree with what Ms. Tatum was saying,
    there are normal things that make driving as human beings good,
    and those are good for self-driving vehicles. But to your
    point, everybody has sometimes a different approach. And so,
    when we talk about this issue, I think it is really more about
    what can we do to make the current environment safer. So,
    whether that be striping, whether that be making sure road
    signs are there, whether that be even equipping current-day
    vehicles with different technologies, all of those things
    together, actually, will help the deployment of AVs, as opposed
    to where we treat them now as sort of these very discrete and
    different issues.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. Anybody else?
        Ms. Chase. Mr. Chair, yes. Mr. Chair, Cathy Chase.
        I agree with some of the points that you already astutely
    pointed out, in terms of improvements that need to be made both
    for vehicles now, as well as vehicles of the future, especially
    as our population is aging. Signage needs to be improved.
    Different lines of sighting need to be improved for autonomous
    vehicles.
        I also am thinking about a few years ago, when the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on
    infrastructure and autonomous vehicles, and then-head of the
    New York City Department of Transportation, now Deputy
    Secretary of Transportation, Polly Trottenberg, said something
    to the effect of: New York City is never going to have a
    perfect infrastructure; these vehicles better be ready to
    pretty much deal with what they are going to come upon. And we
    agree with that. And that is why we are pushing so hard for
    these minimum standards, like a vision test, so that when a car
    or truck takes over the responsibility of seeing, that we know
    that the vehicle itself will actually see and respond to what
    is happening.
        So, I think we need a holistic approach, where the
    infrastructure needs to be improved both now--because people
    are holding on to cars for approximately 12 years--and vehicles
    of the future. And all of this can be accomplished. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. I want to----
        Voice. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Quickly make another point,
    because this is very important.
        Tomorrow we are holding a hearing on 5G. The FCC created
    issues, the way it was deployed. But we also saw that the FCC
    has proposed selling more than half of the vehicle-to-vehicle
    communication spectrum.
        Mr. Marler, you referenced this. Can you just comment on
    how abysmally stupid that is?
        Mr. Marler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to offer
    a few perspectives from the State DOTs. And to link it to the
    previous question about infrastructure, we all want good
    pavement condition.
        We all think that lane markings and clear signage are very
    important. These will help drivers today and the CAVs tomorrow.
    But the digital infrastructure is just as important to enable
    the future transportation systems. We are talking about
    communications, we are talking about data standards, we are
    talking about digital mapping.
        So, with specific regard to connectivity, we believe that
    the safety promise of the CAVs will be enhanced through
    connectivity. So, preserving the 5.9 gigahertz safety band,
    this would add certainty, not only for State and local
    jurisdictions, but also for developers and manufacturers, and
    we do see that as a key component of any future automated
    transportation system.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I now recognize Mr.
    Crawford for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
        I would note that this hearing was originally scheduled for
    10 a.m. I don't know how many people this change
    inconvenienced, but I would hope that we could, at the very
    least, maintain a schedule.
        And further, perhaps if we held hearings more frequently,
    we wouldn't need to jam eight witnesses into a single panel. At
    the very least it is unwieldy, but it also does a disservice to
    both witnesses and members of this committee by constraining
    meaningful dialogue.
        Let me say this. I want to direct a question to Catherine
    Chase.
        In your written testimony to the committee in November on
    challenges to the supply chain, you responded to the argument
    that many of my colleagues and myself made that, if 18 is old
    enough to put your life on the line and drive a convoy into
    battle, then it is old enough to make a living as a commercial
    truckdriver. Your testimony dismissed that idea. Not only did
    you miss the point of the argument, but you minimized the hard
    work and sacrifice of young men and women in uniform with an
    offensive political cartoon depicting seven sailors operating
    one compact car, including one sleeping in the back, presumably
    because it is such an easy task.
        Ms. Chase, would you consider manning military vehicles an
    easy job?
        Ms. Chase. No, sir.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. If 18 is old enough to die for
    your country, is it not old enough to choose to make an honest
    living as a truckdriver?
        Ms. Chase. Well, I would like to first address a comment
    that you made----
        Mr. Crawford. That is a yes or no question, ma'am. That is
    a yes or no question.
        Ms. Chase. I----
        Mr. Crawford. Is 18 old enough to die for your country--can
    they also drive a truck?
        Ms. Chase. They are not comparable questions. It is an
    apples to oranges.
        Mr. Crawford. They are. That is an absolute yes or no
    question. And you are taking a position that, as a military
    veteran, I find offensive, and many of the Members on this
    panel who are military veterans find offensive.
        Not only did you make that comment, but you included this
    [indicating a ``Broadside'' cartoon], which is already in the
    record, but I will ask unanimous consent to enter it into this
    record.
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        ``Broadside'' Cartoon by Jeff Bacon, Included in a Letter From
      Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
      Published in the November 17, 2021, Committee on Transportation and
       Infrastructure Hearing Transcript Entitled, ``Industry and Labor
          Perspectives: A Further Look at North American Supply Chain
        Challenges,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''
                                    Crawford
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Crawford. I find that highly offensive, as a veteran,
    and I think most veterans would, that your position is that we
    are either incompetent and/or lazy and not well trained.
        So, I am asking you again, this is a yes or no question, if
    18 years old is old enough to die for your country, shouldn't
    they be old enough to make a living driving a truck?
        Ms. Chase. Sir, the point of the----
        Mr. Crawford. Yes or no, and then I will go on to my other
    witnesses.
        Ms. Chase. It is very difficult----
        Mr. Crawford. Yes or no, and I will go on to my other
    witnesses.
        Ms. Chase. Please go on to your other witnesses.
        Mr. Crawford. So, you have no answer to that question? We
    know how you feel about it, based on the cartoon you entered in
    the record earlier in your testimony.
        Ms. Chase. I am trying----
        Mr. Crawford. OK, I will move on. I will move on to Mr.
    Ariel Wolf and Mr. Nat Beuse.
        We certainly, in my district, like many other districts, a
    lot of truckdrivers out there--and I know how vital trucks have
    been to the American economy, especially during the COVID
    pandemic and our recent supply chain crisis. Can you talk about
    how you envision higher levels of automation, making truck-
    driving jobs safer, and what impacts that will have, in terms
    of efficiencies on automated trucking and productivity?
        Mr. Wolf. Congressman, I am happy to take that question,
    and thank you for it.
        I think the place to start is the well-documented and
    longstanding truckdriver shortage that is having an impact on
    the economy as we speak, and the supply chain. And that issue,
    in concert with the U.S. Department of Transportation study
    that showed a net increase of jobs, as many as 35,000 per year,
    in addition to other economic benefits, leads us to the
    conclusion it really is time to shift the way we think about
    the conversation around jobs and autonomous trucks. These are
    two areas that can complement each other in this ecosystem.
        And as that technology moves forward, I would just also say
    it is a matter of safety as a baseline matter, because as we
    have talked about the safety statistics worsening over time, 14
    percent of fatal crashes, serious crashes, involve heavy
    trucks. So, getting this technology deployed is essential in
    that respect.
        And on the jobs front, we certainly see, overall, an
    increase in jobs, economic growth. And as I noted in testimony,
    as the ecosystem grows, there are a number of different roles
    and new kinds of jobs that are going to be created in this
    exciting area.
        So, I think, all of that taken together, we see a lot of
    positive activity going forward.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. Mr. Beuse?
        Mr. Beuse. Congressman, thank you for the question. I think
    I will mention two things.
        Part of the challenge we have with this space is the
    lumping of all the technologies together, and we call them all
    automated. Certainly, there are technologies in the pipeline,
    some already on vehicles today on commercial trucks, that make
    the driving task easier for human drivers.
        And then there is technology like that we are working on,
    which is really around the driving task, which could make the
    driving trucking jobs different in the future.
        So, it is not about some sort of replacement thing. And
    that is exactly why we are doing this pilot with FedEx, is so
    that we can learn all of these different issues beyond just:
    does the tech work? It is actually: how do we introduce this
    technology into the existing system in a way that is--and
    frankly--seamless, right? We don't want to introduce additional
    friction into a system that already has a bunch of friction in
    it.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I recognize myself for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Samuelsen, your testimony makes a strong case for
    ensuring workforce needs are addressed as deployment of
    commercial AVs becomes more prevalent. I share your concerns
    that, if left unchecked, automated vehicles may create
    tremendous hardship for commercial motor vehicle drivers.
        So, my question is, what steps can Congress and the Federal
    Government take to harness the safety benefits of automated
    trucks and buses, while at the same time supporting a stable,
    well-paid surface transportation workforce?
        And do you believe that addressing commercial driver
    workforce needs and employing AV technology are mutually
    exclusive goals, or can both be attained?
        Mr. Samuelsen?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you for the question.
        So, we have a situation now where there are waves of
    technology coming into public transport--buses, for instance,
    the operation of buses--that require an absolute robust Federal
    regulatory framework for them to be deployed safely. And I
    think the first thing that needs to be done is that there needs
    to be a Federal check that anything that goes on to highways,
    roads in America, meet a regulatory minimum that is set forth
    by the Federal Government.
        And the second piece of that is, I have listened to some of
    these questions back and forth about automated technology and
    impact on the workforce. I think that the impact on the
    workforce has the chance to be extreme. Right now, there are,
    despite discussion about automating technology being introduced
    for safety reasons, for many other reasons, there are transit
    systems and operators across the country right now that are
    embracing this technology simply for the purpose of reducing
    headcount. And that is absolutely true.
        We deal with transit employees across the country, public-
    sector operators that are looking to reduce budgets, and
    private-sector operators that are looking to maximize profit,
    and all doing this without any regard for the future safety of
    highways or roads. And I think that the only intervener there
    that can prevent this from happening in a chaotic way is the
    Federal Government.
        And in terms of the use of automated technology
    simultaneously with human operators, I think that is the way to
    go to utilize automated technology, augmenting and assisting
    humans operating vehicles, particularly in public transit.
    There is no working American that believes that replacing buses
    with automation is a good thing for working people who use
    public transit in America. Nobody believes it.
        And also, this notion that the introduction of automation
    is going to somehow create new jobs, we have heard all of this
    with NAFTA. We have heard it many, many times with NAFTA, with
    normalization of trade with China, that somehow the
    introduction of automated technology that could replace human
    operators is going to produce more jobs. We have heard that, we
    have seen that movie already, and have absolutely no trust or
    faith in this technology coming in in a positive way, unless
    the Federal Government steps up and regulates. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuelsen.
        Mr. Beuse and Mr. Wolf, the last time the subcommittee held
    a hearing on this topic was in 2013. That is going on 10 years
    ago. And at that time, AVs were still considered a technology
    of the future. But today there are at least 1,400 AVs,
    including automatic commercial vehicles, being tested on U.S.
    roadways in 36 different States.
        What do you think is a realistic timeline for deployment of
    your technology, specifically vehicles with Level 4 automation
    and above, and when can Americans expect to see these vehicles
    driving on the roads next to them?
        Mr. Wolf. Madam Chair, I am happy to jump in, and then
    defer to my colleague on the panel here.
        I think that, as a baseline matter, we see this technology
    on the roads today, as you noted. One of the most important
    things to see this technology scale--and again, it is, as Mr.
    Beuse noted, being used in pilot projects carrying freight, and
    helping to alleviate the supply chain crisis that we face, as
    well as other instances where the technology--and one example
    in Arizona: providing meals to individuals that live in food
    deserts is just another example.
        But to scale this technology, the timeline is somewhat
    dependent on building a national framework that will accomplish
    two things: one is to enhance consumer trust in the technology,
    but then two is to maximize deployment.
        And in my written testimony I note a number of different
    steps that we are eager to continue to work with this
    committee--and we are thankful for the work thus far in other
    committees in Congress and stakeholders--to develop a national
    framework that will maximize the deployment of this technology
    so that we can start to see those benefits that we have talked
    about a number of times accrue to the public.
        Ms. Norton. My time has expired, and I go next to Mr. Bost.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go on to my
    questions that I have prepared, I would like to associate
    myself with the comments that Representative Crawford made,
    because, as a member on this committee--probably the only one
    that actually had my license for a tractor-trailer when I was
    16, was driving when I was 18, and by the time I turned 19, I
    was in the Marine Corps. All of those things I was very capable
    of handling, and handling safely. My family believed in me. The
    State of Illinois actually tested me out and, by golly, guess
    what? I passed that driver's test at 16 years old, never had a
    car license, only had a tractor-trailer license.
        At a time when the United States is needing people to be
    available to work, wise decisions based on the individual, not
    discriminating against them because of their age, would
    probably be a lot wiser thing to do than to have cute cartoons
    about where we are at right now, and what we are needing.
        That being said, Mr. Wolf, the development and deployment
    of automated trucks is already raising a question for
    truckdrivers about what the future of their profession would
    look like. Many are wondering how their work will change, and
    what new skills they will need.
        To help us kind of understand what the future would look
    like for drivers, could you describe the level of
    standardization between the various AVs, as far as trucks, and
    their technologies that are being developed by different
    manufacturers?
        For example, if a trucker is trained to operate one of the
    trucks that Aurora has developed, would their skills be easily
    transferable to the drivers of a different manufactured truck
    or technology?
        And would the driver need to have separate or additional
    training? Do we know that?
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I am
    happy to address it.
        I think maybe the place to start is to understand that
    there are two different kinds of technologies here, and the
    Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, we are working with,
    of course, autonomous vehicle technology, which is so-called
    full automation, where the technology is not designed nor is it
    expected for a human to be involved in the driving task. That
    is distinct from driver assistance technology, which many of us
    have seen: lane-keep assist, adaptive cruise control. And
    others have described it. And that technology, there is an
    expectation for a licensed human operator or driver to take
    back control, or to be vigilant at all times to take control.
    So, those two are very different kinds of technologies, and I
    think that distinction is critical, because oftentimes it can
    be conflated.
        So, in that respect, I can't speak to the expectation to
    licensed human drivers in the driver assistance context, and
    the technology in that sphere. But in the autonomous vehicle
    side, again, the expectation is that there would not be a
    driver to take back control. For the time being, there are
    safety operators and monitors involved there, and I would defer
    to individual members of our association to speak to the
    transferability of those skills.
        Mr. Bost. I understand. I appreciate that answer.
        Mr. Samuelsen, well-trained mechanics are essential for
    keeping our trucks and buses safe and on the road. What
    additional training needs will there be for mechanics, for
    having automated systems?
        Are there additional safety concerns for workers around the
    automated trains or buses?
        And what can we do to make sure that the maintenance
    workers are prepared for these type of vehicles, once they
    start in operation?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, thank you for the question. So,
    workforce development forced by Federal intervention, Federal
    regulatory requirements, is of the utmost importance with the
    advent of these latest waves of technology coming in, and AV
    technology and electric buses closely related.
        And if that is a model going forward of what we could
    potentially expect, electric buses, which seem like such a
    great idea in terms of greening the environment, greening urban
    America, have had the unintended consequence of a massive,
    massive negative impact on workers, particularly bus mechanics.
    So, we anticipate a 30- to 40-percent reduction in bus
    mechanics that would be necessary when the bus fleets across
    America are fully electric. or fully zero emissions. Without
    the combustion engine, it is just a lot less maintenance
    required.
        So, what we see is a necessity for workforce development, a
    necessity by the Federal Government to ensure that our current
    mechanics on diesel buses are able to make the transition to
    work on the new fleet, and that systems and the trade union
    movement are able to work collectively to figure out how the
    existing workforce--how the negative effects can be mitigated
    as best available. So, the Federal Government is extremely
    valuable in this. They are going to be the guide here.
        And again, a regulatory framework and with workforce
    development requirements is vital. Thank you.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you.
        My time has expired. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. I recognize next Ms. Johnson of Texas.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
    thank you for holding this hearing. I have a question for Mr.
    Bloch, but I will do a part of my statement first.
        Over the last 3 years, the Dallas-Fort Worth area has
    become one of our Nation's central testing grounds for AV
    trucking technology. And two companies, Kodiak Robotics and
    Waymo, have opened operational hubs in my district. And another
    company, Aurora, expanded into the Dallas-Fort Worth area in
    June of 2020, bringing high-quality, high-tech jobs to many of
    my constituents.
        Indeed, this wave of investment is due in large part to the
    leadership and close coordination demonstrated by Dallas
    College, which is our community college network; the North
    Central Texas Council of Governments; the Dallas Regional
    Chamber; the Texas Department of Transportation; and the Texas
    Department of Public Safety. Dallas College has been a leader
    in creating workforce development in our community college
    district, focused on the future of transportation, in part
    fueled by $1\1/2\ million granted from COG to develop a
    curriculum for AV and transportation tech jobs.
        However, although AV technology has the potential to
    provide many societal benefits, serious questions remain. Like
    many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the issues related
    to safety, and want to make sure that a strong Federal safety
    framework is enacted and adhered to in the industry.
        Additionally, as we move forward, I believe that the
    Congress and AV industry should incorporate labor priorities,
    and address the workforce needs by including policies aimed at
    mitigating both job losses and any potential wage decreases.
        And lastly, I urge the AV industry to invest in the
    creation of high-quality jobs for those who may face
    displacement.
        Now we have a large traffic in trade. And this was simply a
    way to try to keep things moving. I noticed that most people
    are worried about the jobs, and we are too, except that we have
    such a small number of drivers for the traffic we have.
        So, Mr. Bloch, I want to thank you for highlighting a
    provision that I fought to include in the INVEST Act regarding
    workforce retraining. As you can imagine, I was more than
    disappointed that the Senate deleted that language from the
    final bill. Would you be able to expand on what kinds of
    programs you would like to see when you mention workforce
    retraining programs for surface transportation workers whose
    jobs have been affected by automation?
        Now, I have the largest Teamsters local in the country in
    my district, so, I would like you to respond to that, if you
    will.
        Mr. Bloch. Thank you very much for the question. I am
    thinking about legislation we are introducing in the California
    State Legislature, in the public transit arena, that will make
    it a subject of collective bargaining when AV technology is
    introduced in the public transit arena. And I think the
    important thing is that impacted workers get notice of new
    technology before it is introduced, and have a chance to
    respond and have a voice.
        Now, I gave some examples out of the canneries, where
    canneries were closed, and workers were thrown out there at the
    mercy of workforce development, and it did not work well for
    them. So, I do think it is important to get ahead of this, and
    I appreciate the efforts that are happening in your district.
        Here, we represent 800 workers at a bus company called
    Gillig. They are the highest paid manufacturing workers in the
    United States. They make buses that Mr. Samuelsen's members
    drive. And we are doing a partnership with Gillig with
    workforce development funding from the State of California to
    train workers to work on zero-emission vehicle buses.
        We really do think there are win-win scenarios out here,
    where we can leverage Federal and State money to train workers
    for the jobs of the future. But again, the important thing here
    is that, at least in California, when employers get money,
    there are strong labor standards attached to that: prevailing
    wages, minimum wages, so that we make sure that the workers
    that we are training actually stick around and get retained in
    their work.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I am out of
    time, but I ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my
    questions in the record for attention, and the rest of my
    statement.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Texas
        Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Highways and Transit Subcommittee
    Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis for holding today's hearing.
    I would also like to thank our outstanding witnesses for testifying
    before us today.
        Right before the holidays last December I took my staff to tour
    Kodiak Robotics' AV facility at the Dallas Inland Port, located in my
    congressional district. Seeing first-hand the technology being
    developed at this facility was truly impressive.
        In fact, over the last three years the Dallas-Fort Worth area has
    become one of our nation's central testing grounds for AV trucking
    technology. And two companies--Kodiak Robotics and Waymo--have opened
    operations hubs in my district, and another company, Aurora, expanded
    into the Dallas-Ft. Worth area in June 2020, bringing high-quality,
    high-tech jobs to many of my constituents.
        Indeed, this wave of investment is due in large part to the
    leadership and close coordination demonstrated by Dallas College, the
    North Central Texas Council of Governments, the Dallas Regional
    Chamber, the Texas Department of Transportation, and the Texas
    Department of Public Safety. Dallas College has been a leader in
    creating workforce development programs focused on the future of
    transportation, in part fueled by a $1.5 million grant from the COG to
    develop a curriculum for AV and transportation tech jobs, and through
    this grant, Dallas College has been partnering with the growing
    industry throughout the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.
        However, although AV technology has the potential to provide many
    societal benefits, serious questions remain. Like many of my
    colleagues, I am concerned about issues related to safety, and want to
    make sure that a strong federal safety framework is enacted and adhered
    to by the industry. Additionally, as we move forward, I believe that
    Congress and the AV industry should incorporate labor priorities and
    address workforce needs by including policies aimed at mitigating both
    job losses and any potential wage decreases. Lastly, I urge leaders in
    the AV industry to invest in the creation of high-quality jobs for
    those that may face displacement by this emerging technology.

        Ms. Norton. Mr. Stauber, I recognize Mr. Stauber.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today,
    and I think we have all learned a lot about the industry and
    about this technology already during this hearing.
        I will preface this with saying that I think that Congress
    needs to get this right, and I think there is a happy medium
    between letting tech companies rule our streets and applying
    over-restrictive Government regulations on the industry.
        My first question has to do with the actual technology used
    in the AVs. As technology progresses, I have no doubt that we
    will see more of these vehicles throughout the country, not
    just in cities or in areas where there are company-specific
    engineers to make repairs to vehicles. We have already seen
    with some manufacturers that they are limiting who can actually
    do work on their vehicles.
        I can tell you that I trust my local mechanic a lot more
    than someone who needs to fly out to my hometown of northern
    Minnesota from Silicon Valley to do the repairs. And Mr.
    Garamendi, this should not be offensive to you.
        I just want to know, Mr. Wolf or Beuse, how are companies
    looking at these types of issues as we move into the future?
        Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I will
    take a shot at it, and then I will pass it over to Ariel to
    talk about just kind of what we are doing at this stage.
        So, obviously, we are still in the testing phase, and
    getting kind of really focused on the path to shipping a
    product. One of the things we are learning in all of that is
    exactly the questions you are asking about, so, how do we think
    about maintenance, the schedule of those, what that really
    looks like.
        I think a key point to reference here is the fact that the
    technology that we are developing is really more of in a
    business-to-business relationship. So, think about a FedEx or
    Walmart or an Amazon who has their own fleet of vehicles, who
    is maintaining that fleet of vehicles for the operations that
    they are conducting, versus the point you excellently made
    about you or I in our personal vehicle needing to get a repair
    at the local repair shop where we choose to go.
        I think, again, this is where we and our principals are
    very supportive of Congress actually doing more on
    commissioning any studies on jobs, and that they really be
    around the quality of those jobs, because they are going to be
    slightly different than I think what we envision today.
        Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
        And Mr. Wolf?
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir. I may just add in response to
    that question that the autonomous vehicle industry is a diverse
    industry with respect to use cases and applications.
        And so, in thinking about those important issues you
    raised, there is, of course, personal vehicle ownership, there
    is deployment in a fleet model, there is autonomous trucking,
    and then there is last-mile autonomous delivery services. In a
    sense, it is not one size fits all. There may be different
    conversations in each of those use cases as those businesses
    start to continue to scale up and bring benefits to the
    American society.
        Mr. Stauber. And Mr. Wolf, this is the next question.
    Additionally, I also recognize that increased automation
    introduces new risk factors for folks that we do not understand
    yet, such as sensor, camera, or software problems. Because of
    this, diagnosing damage to a vehicle, determining liability,
    and completion of police reports will increasingly rely on the
    data that the vehicle generates before, during, and after an
    accident.
        Mr. Wolf, what do the companies you represent--what are
    they doing to ensure that relevant entities will have access to
    this critical data, and that it is timely, complete, and
    useful?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
        In that respect, the autonomous vehicle industry and
    companies that are developing and operating this technology are
    engaging in information sharing in a number of ways. Let me
    just spell out a couple here.
        All of these companies are responding to a NHTSA order with
    respect to incidents involving autonomous vehicles.
        The developers and manufacturers also are participating in
    a voluntary initiative with the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration to provide information about the location of
    testing and the parameters of that testing.
        Members also have released safety self assessments that
    examine the safety of the technology and provide information in
    that respect.
        And so, I think, for those reasons and other reasons, there
    are a number of ways that these companies are providing data
    and information, and I look forward to having the conversation
    going forward in other ways, as well.
        Mr. Stauber. OK, my last question real quick for Mr.
    Samuelsen.
        The human component of our public transit operators are
    really valuable, and great members of our community. In, for
    instance, in a bus or one of the transit commuters, we have
    seen examples where there is violence happening. Can you please
    speak to some of these incidents, and how are we going to look
    at them going forward on AVs?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, so, I mean, the violence is prevalent.
    There is a full-moon type atmosphere going on right now across
    passenger transportation. But it has been a glaring problem in
    urban transportation, urban transit, buses, and subways for
    decades.
        Actually, the uniformed bus operator is the single greatest
    deterrent to crime taking place against riders in the systems.
    And I think a really big problem with the potential of
    humanless operation in public transit is the crime that riders
    would be exposed to absent a uniformed presence of a bus
    operator. I think it is super important to contemplate that,
    going forward.
        I myself was on a B78 bus in Brooklyn many times, mugged
    during high school and saved by the intervention of a uniformed
    bus operator.
        So, I hope that answers your question. I think it does.
        Mr. Stauber. It does. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. I recognize next Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Madam Chair, thank you very much, very good
    hearing.
        Mr. Stauber, thank you for your questions. I was going down
    the same line here. My questions really go to, first, Ms.
    Chase.
        The gathering of information. It seems to me that one of
    the things that we must do immediately is to make sure that
    information on all accidents, as well as the machines and the
    technology, be readily available. Could you please respond to
    that? Is information available? What do we need to do to make
    sure that it is on reporting on all accidents?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As was
    recently just mentioned, there is a standing general order by
    the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which
    requires companies that are producing vehicles of SAE Level 2
    and higher to submit information regarding crashes.
        However, we have not seen that information, so, we don't
    know what is happening on our roadways, and it is very critical
    that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration share
    this, so that the public and consumers are informed when they
    are on the roads, when they are buying new cars, what they can
    trust.
        And I would just like to comment also on the compliance
    with the voluntary safety agreements, or the AV TEST
    Initiative. None of these are regulatory or required. They are
    all voluntary, meaning a company can decide to submit some
    tests, some information, choose what information they want to
    submit, or walk away at any point. And that is why these
    minimum performance requirements are so essential. A framework
    or voluntary agreements is not going to do the trick. We need
    to know what is happening on our roads, and the way to
    accomplish safety is through regulation.
        Mr. Garamendi. Very good. That also applies to the
    insurance industry. And that was, I am sure, one of the issues
    that was brought to us earlier today.
        Mr. Samuelsen and Mr. Bloch, representing the men and women
    that are on these trucks and vehicles, how do you envision a
    regulatory environment or scheme in which your workers would be
    protected, and the transit operators and people that are on
    those vehicles would also be protected? What do we need to do
    to create a regulatory environment?
        Mr. Samuelsen. So, if I may, the main thing here is to
    understand that we have seen advanced technology introduced
    into public transit several times before. In my 30 years here,
    this is about the third or fourth significant wave of
    technology coming in. And the technology can be used to enhance
    service delivery, safety, state of good repair, while
    simultaneously benefiting workers.
        And that is what a regulatory framework from the Federal
    Government should emphasize, that all of these can work
    synergistically together to produce a really good outcome for
    riders and transit systems and workers, where no worker gets
    left behind and no rider gets endangered. Thank you.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
        Mr. Bloch?
        Mr. Bloch. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
        So, we all know our friendly neighborhood UPS driver, and
    our members--we have 325,000 working for UPS, it is the largest
    collective bargaining agreement in the country--drive trucks
    that have driver-assistive technologies like automated braking
    systems, lane controls, telematics, mapping and routing
    software, and algorithms that all make our jobs safer and
    better.
        So, like Mr. Samuelsen, we are not afraid of technology and
    we benefit from it. However, in response to your question, I
    think it is very important, as others have mentioned, that the
    Federal Government set the floor for the regulation of
    technology, and not the ceiling.
        I am fortunate enough to live in a State like California,
    where a lot of this technology is being developed, and we have
    policymakers that are going above and beyond to protect both
    workers and the general public, and not to stop this
    technology, but to ideally develop it in a way that benefits
    workers and the public and industry. So, thank you.
        Mr. Garamendi. I thank you for that. It seems to me that we
    have a necessity to set at least a couple of standards here:
    one, that information from crashes and the technology be
    readily available, not only to the Government, but also to the
    insurance industry, as well as to the committee, so that we can
    then develop legislation; secondly, the training programs that
    have been discussed here must also be in place.
        Fortunately and unfortunately, this committee wrote a very
    good bill on surface transportation. Unfortunately, much of the
    training programs that were in that bill did not find their way
    into the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, so, we have to
    repurpose and get that back in.
        With that, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields. I ask next Mr. Burchett
    for your questions.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. Thank you all for being
    here. I will make a statement first that has absolutely nothing
    to do with my questions, but I think one of the folks in labor
    said something about NAFTA, and how they were promised jobs,
    and how that just turned out to be a joke. I think it might
    have been Mr. Samuelsen.
        And if you think these AV jobs are going to come to you, I
    think you probably are mistaken in that, because the only thing
    we seem to do up here very well is run up debt, and you are
    either at the table or on the menu. And I think American
    workers are currently on the menu when a lot of this stuff
    comes down. So, I hope you all are paying very close attention
    to that.
        But my question is for Mr. Beuse regarding the FedEx ground
    pilots with Aurora.
        What safety data is Aurora collecting, and how will that be
    used to improve the safety of AVs, more broadly?
        Mr. Beuse. Congressman, thank you for the question. This is
    a really great example of something I mentioned in my testimony
    about our safety case framework.
        So, our safety case framework is a holistic approach to
    safety, where we are not looking at just the product, but also
    our operations, as well as our organization. And so, in this
    way, this is how we are addressing safety, even before those
    vehicles are on the road with autonomy.
        As we get closer to actually releasing the product without
    vehicle operators, then all of those different principles that
    we have--and there are five--that we need to fulfill within
    that.
        So, the FedEx pilot is really learning more about the
    operational aspects of what we are trying to do, as opposed to
    how we are engineering the product. And certainly, there are
    some things that we are actively looking at, particularly with
    respect to maintenance, as I mentioned before. But really, the
    safety of the product is really handled by our safety case
    framework.
        Mr. Burchett. OK, thank you. I was county mayor, and I
    remembered hearing some testimony about it, and just out of
    the--I think the educational level on this is lacking out in
    the communities because a lot of folks thought that some of
    this would be controlled, community to community. But in
    reality, it has got to be an entire network. It can't be one
    county to one county or one State to one State, because we know
    those borders are not followed, especially when traveling. But
    the automotive vehicle legislation, of course, it has been in
    limbo for at least half a decade.
        And what do you think is going to be needed in the short
    and the long term to make sure that the automated vehicle
    technology can be safely deployed?
        And also, I wondered--and in my mind I hear a lot of folks
    talking about how AV, is somebody going to have the master
    switch and going to be able to turn it off, to where, if
    somebody steps afoul of the law, or some other reason, that
    they can literally shut that down. I wonder what your thoughts
    on that are, Mr. Beuse.
        Mr. Beuse. Thanks again, Congressman, for the question.
    Yes, I completely agree with your points around a jurisdiction-
    to-jurisdiction approach. That is certainly not workable for an
    efficient rollout of the technology, nor is it workable to
    actually realize that--even the potential, right? Like, that is
    a framework that just doesn't work, and it is a framework that
    we have never used for motor vehicle equipment in the United
    States.
        I think, with respect to what is needed, I think it is some
    of the things that bear mentioning here.
        So, one is NHTSA and DOT have already outlined a number of
    rulemakings. Some are started, some they planned as part of
    what Secretary Buttigieg put out late last week. And we need
    those to continue, and we need those to continue with some
    urgency.
        I think one of the themes that I keep hearing in this panel
    is we are pitting safety against innovation, and I don't know
    why we are doing that. We are literally in a crisis of
    fatalities on our Nation's roadways. We really need all of
    these tools on the table, including autonomous vehicles. And
    so, all of those rulemakings are helpful, whether they apply to
    lower levels of automation or whether they apply to what we are
    doing.
        I think the second thing we need is really for Congress to
    show and demonstrate some leadership with all of us
    stakeholders around developing laws and regulations that are
    technology and business neutral. I still hear a lot of
    commentary that seems very specific to a very particular
    application. In some cases, even a particular manufacturer,
    which, again, is not how we have developed and rolled out
    technology in the United States.
        And then the third thing is really with respect to the jobs
    question. No doubt there are issues that we need to study and
    understand. But that doesn't mean we should not take action.
    Again, the status quo is not great. That should not be our
    goal. Our goal should be: what are all the tools that we need
    to use in order to see this technology really advance.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. That is all my time.
    Thank you so much, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Norton. We hear next from Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
    this very important hearing, and thank you, witnesses, for your
    testimony.
        The Georgia Institute of Technology released a study in
    March of 2019 that exposed the algorithmic bias embedded in
    machine learning and the technology behind self-driving cars.
    Researchers found that people with darker skin are more likely
    to be struck by an autonomous vehicle than a person with fair
    skin, because models are programmed by people who do not
    consider every complexion a person can have.
        Mr. Beuse, what measures can be taken to root out racial
    bias at the onset of newly developed AV technology?
        And what, if anything, is holding back industry from taking
    those steps?
        Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman Johnson, for that
    question. Pretty important, as we sit here in the beginning of
    Black History Month, as well.
        I think what I would say is it is not necessarily about the
    folks writing the software. Part of what we are doing is
    training autonomy based on what it sees. And so, it really is
    more of the environment that it is in, as opposed to someone
    actually programming something malicious in the code.
        There is a lot of talk in the industry about how do we go
    about making sure that those biases aren't in the algorithms as
    we get closer to deployment. And I know some researchers have
    put some studies out there, but I think this is one that is
    worth maybe a deeper conversation around just how all of this
    is fitting together, and certainly how deeply Aurora thinks
    about this particular issue.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, sir. As AVs increase in
    numbers, they will need to talk to one another and their
    surroundings. This will result in the need for supportive
    infrastructure, not to mention cybersecurity and privacy
    safeguards for the exponential growth in data.
        Mr. Wolf, what regulatory measures are needed to prevent
    against cybersecurity attacks and to ensure the privacy of
    Americans' data?
        Mr. Wolf. Congressman Johnson, thank you so much for the
    question.
        The autonomous vehicle industry has some of the world's top
    engineers working to build AVs. And in that context,
    cybersecurity efforts are part of the engineering and design
    process from the start, at all levels of development. So, that
    is a very good aspect there, not just for the development, but
    for the testing and eventual deployment.
        Now, in the 21st century, of course, cybersecurity is
    critical every single day for the AV industry. But it is not
    confined to the AV industry, of course. It is not just for the
    rest of the automotive industry, but all sectors of the
    economy, writ large. So, we support, as an industry, a robust
    and risk-based policy approach that recognizes that cyber
    threats are dynamic and constantly evolving, and would be happy
    to work with this committee and other stakeholders to develop
    that approach.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. How should Federal
    agencies ensure that our wireless infrastructure can handle the
    data needs that AVs require, without causing interference with
    existing systems such as what we have seen with 5G and the
    aviation industry?
        Mr. Wolf?
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman. Now I want to make sure I
    answer the question directly. I think there are maybe two
    things.
        One is, if it is on the issue of spectrum, and the use of
    connected vehicle technology, of course, the industry welcomes
    investments in that respect. But autonomous vehicles are being
    developed, tested, and deployed so as to not have to rely on
    connected vehicle technology, but again, of course, welcomes
    investments in infrastructure that enables those
    functionalities.
        With respect to the data handling on the Federal side, I
    may have to defer to others on the panel who can better answer
    it, or just respond to you in writing on that. But I am happy
    to do so.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. The statistic that 94
    percent of traffic crashes are caused by human error is
    widespread, even though it is erroneous. In fact, numerous
    structural issues play a role in traffic crashes, including the
    distance between crosswalks and the roadway, the width of a
    lane as the speed limit changes, and the presence or absence of
    bike lanes. So, the idea that self-driving cars are the
    solution misses the bigger picture.
        What is more, Tesla recently developed a self-driving model
    that includes an assertive driving feature so that the car will
    not fully stop at stop signs. Mr. Wolf, what justification is
    there for developing a program that allows vehicles to violate
    State and local laws?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate the question, Congressman. And
    the simple answer is: Tesla is not a member of our association
    because it is not an autonomous vehicle. It is a driver
    assistance technology.
        Autonomous vehicles are developed from the start to comply
    with all Federal and State and local laws as just one component
    of the safety assurance systems that are put into these
    technologies. Other examples, as you raise, are just--they deal
    with other technologies--again, driver assistance--that just
    don't relate to it.
        And I would maybe just say one additional note very quickly
    on the statistic you noted. Whether or not it is a specific,
    exact number, DOT, the U.S. Department of Transportation, just
    last week reaffirmed in its National Roadway Safety Strategy
    that the overwhelming majority of serious and fatal crashes
    involve at least one human behavior issue as a contributing
    factor. And that is the key point.
        And the autonomous vehicle industry fundamentally, and
    first and foremost, exists to address that safety failure that
    is contributing to the crisis on our roadways and in addition
    to many other solutions and strategies that are outlined in
    that paper. And as you noted, Congressman, we are hopeful, and
    look forward to getting this technology widely deployed to
    solve that problem.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and I recognize Mr. Guest
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to first thank
    all of our witnesses for educating us on the challenges that
    lie ahead for automated vehicles.
        Mr. Beuse, I want to talk to you just a few moments. In
    your testimony you talk about the importance of safety and
    trust as being an important key mission. You actually say there
    in your written testimony--on page 3 you say, ``Safety is at
    the core of everything we do at Aurora. It shapes who we hire,
    how we work, and how we develop our products.''
        I see later, on page 4, you talk about Aurora's safety case
    framework, which was published in August of last year, and
    which you describe as the first AV safety case framework that
    applies to both autonomous trucks and passenger vehicles.
        And then you go on to talk a little bit more indepth about
    safety. One of the things that I found was particularly helpful
    was the fact that you say no single piece of evidence captures
    the totality of safety, and then you go on to list five safety
    principles. Those principles that you list in your report were
    proficient, fail-safe, continuously improving, resilient, and
    trustworthiness.
        And so, I would ask if you would take a few minutes to
    expand first on each of these principles, and then to explain
    how these principles are applied to automated vehicles.
        Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes, I
    am a safety guy, so safety appears a lot when I talk. It means
    a lot to me.
        One of the things that I think maybe help to explain how
    this all fits together is kind of taking a step back and
    talking about the Aurora Driver as a technology versus Aurora
    Driver being inserted, let's say, into one of our platform
    partners like PACCAR or Volvo or Toyota.
        So, in order to do those partnerships, we have to have deep
    relationships with those vehicle manufacturers who are very
    good at building vehicles. And what we are doing is putting
    together the best of the best. So, we are very good at building
    hardware and software that can do the driving task, and they
    are very good at building vehicles that are used today and for
    the foreseeable future.
        And so, when we think about the safety, it is the safety of
    that whole package together. And so, these five principles are
    how we engineer and design the Aurora Driver in concert with
    those vehicle manufacturers.
        And so, let me talk about proficiency, for example. So,
    proficiency is really around how we put the right behavioral
    competencies in the vehicle. Do we actually understand what
    those mean? Do we understand the environment that we are
    operating in? Do we have tests and requirements, and so on and
    so forth.
        When you look at the principle of fail-safe, that is really
    around: is the vehicle safe in the presence of all faults and
    failures. So, Chairman DeFazio mentioned, like, the camera goes
    out, right? That is something that we have to understand, and
    we have to understand how that relates so that the vehicle
    always ends up in a safe spot--or lidar, or whatever the case
    may be.
        When you think about continuous improving, so, this is
    where we are always learning. I think one of the challenges
    that we have in the industry right now is the assumption is
    that you do it once, and then it is done forever. Well, that is
    not the case with automated vehicles. There is a continuous
    improving part of it that we are always going to input the
    lessons learned, and put them back into the vehicle.
        Resilient is where we sort of really focus on things like
    software and how the vehicle can be misused. These are all
    things that we have to think through as we design the Aurora
    Driver to be used in commerce.
        And the last one is really around trustworthy. That is
    really with, first and foremost, our regulators. That is also
    with members of the public. And then that is also with our
    partners. We have to build a product that is safe for them to
    actually be able to trust it and actually use it in their
    course of business.
        And so, those five principles together, we believe,
    encompass the whole framework of safety that is needed to
    deploy these vehicles safely.
        Mr. Guest. And is this something that could be expanded
    industrywide, so, it is not something just unique to Aurora
    itself, but these same principles would be something that would
    be important to anyone who would be in this industry? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Beuse. Yes, Congressman, it is. We have been openly
    sharing our framework. And in fact, I would note that I was in
    DC about 2 weeks ago for the SAE Government/Industry Meeting,
    and there were some of our competitors openly talking about the
    use of safety case and some of the things that they consider.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chairman, at this time I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Guest. I next call on
    Ms. Brownley for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really do
    appreciate you holding this hearing today, and I am sure this
    is going to be one of many, many hearings on autonomous
    vehicles, certainly, as the technology progresses on this.
        So, I think always safety has to be first. I think
    everybody agrees on that. And as Mr. Samuelsen noted in his
    testimony, he said over-reliance on automation can be deadly.
    We certainly saw that on this committee with a 737 MAX and the
    2009 Red Line Metro crash in DC. So, in my opinion, we are
    going to continue to need highly skilled drivers for transit
    vehicles and trucks.
        So, Mr. Samuelsen, speaking further on safety, you also
    noted in your testimony that there are 9.1 self-driving car
    accidents per million miles driven versus 4.1 per million miles
    among regular vehicles. This is, to me, a startling statistic,
    since many proponents of AVs argue that the technology will
    improve safety. Why do you think there is such a disconnect
    between the real statistics and the rhetoric?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Well, first of all, I think that the
    introduction of automated operation into public transit is just
    so new, it is so absolutely new, it is not even here yet, in
    reality. There are tests going on into big city public transit
    systems in America. So, the rhetoric is going to accompany the
    introduction, because it is new, and nobody has ever seen it
    before.
        But absolutely, the statistics that are being put forth, we
    just saw kind of dueling statistics right now, with how many
    accidents there were per 100,000, and whether or not those
    accidents are based on human error or based on traffic design,
    and that type of thing.
        So, I don't think I am answering your question quite well.
        Ms. Brownley. Well, I appreciate your attempt at it, and I
    just think it is an important distinction to make as we move
    forward with this. We want to move forward based on the science
    and the facts, and not by rhetoric.
        Ms. Chase, do you have anything to add?
        Ms. Chase. I do, thank you, Congresswoman. I think that the
    lack of minimum performance standards and the confusion right
    now about what technologies can and can't do, and human over-
    reliance upon some of the technologies--not to beat up on
    Tesla, I don't mean to do that at all, but when a company calls
    a system auto driver, autopilot, or full self-driving, it
    really communicates a message that that is what it is going to
    do.
        And I think that while Aurora and other companies might be,
    as Nat said, tapping the best of the best, that is not
    happening throughout the industry. And that is why the Federal
    Government needs to step in, and we need our regulators to do
    their jobs with that assurance to the Federal Government. Then
    we will see all types of crashes reduced.
        Ms. Brownley. Thanks for that, and that leads me, actually,
    to another question for Mr. Wolf. And this is really more about
    public education.
        There seems to be some misunderstanding among the general
    public regarding the level of autonomy that some vehicles
    offer. For instance, I am sure we have all seen the viral
    videos of people sleeping behind the wheel, or sitting in the
    back seat of vehicles which are not fully autonomous. And then
    there have been some high-profile crashes that raise concerns
    that consumers do not fully understand the necessary level of
    driver engagement required to operate vehicles that are
    considered Level 2 vehicles.
        So, my question is, what is the Autonomous Vehicle Industry
    Association doing to educate consumers about the significant
    differences between Level 2 and Level 4 or 5 autonomy?
        And what additional steps do you think are needed in this
    area?
        Mr. Wolf. Congresswoman, thank you so much for that
    question, because it speaks to a very important safety issue
    that is at play today.
        Autonomous vehicles are distinct and different from driver
    assist technology. And that conflation, as you outlined, ma'am,
    that conflation is having, really, a twofold impact. One is, it
    is dangerous, because it is leading consumers to believe that
    lower levels of automation and technology are, in fact, actual
    autonomous vehicles, and over-reliance on that. And then
    second, it is having an impact on consumer trust in the
    autonomous vehicle industry, which is problematic because of
    the very positive safety benefits that will accrue to society
    if we get that technology deployed. So, it has a twofold
    impact, as well as other things.
        Now, the industry is absolutely committed to trying to
    brighten this line, delineate this as clearly as possible, and
    has undertaken some initiatives on consumer education. There
    are a number of educational initiatives. I am trying to work on
    terminology, standardizing terminology, so that consumers can
    understand that.
        So, in a number of different ways, we are laser-focused on
    trying to get this distinction--essentially, decoupling this--
    because what we are concerned about, in addition to what I
    mentioned, is in some respects in the conversation, leveraging
    these high-profile failures of driver assist technology, and
    having that impugn or disparage the autonomous vehicle
    industry, which has a very strong safety record going on more
    than 10 years and, again, will solve a number of safety
    problems that are driven by human behavioral issues in the
    statistics.
        So, I am happy to follow up with you more on that and
    explore ways to try and brighten that line.
        Ms. Brownley. Well, thank you for that. My time is way
    over.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. I next call on Mr. Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all
    of our panelists for being here, for all of your work. We do
    appreciate your expertise. I want to start with Mr. Samuelsen.
        Sir, good to see you. I wanted to talk a little bit about
    AVs. DOT recently issued a new set of innovation principles for
    transportation. These principles make it clear that innovation
    investment should be in service of creating high-quality jobs.
    Do you believe that Congress should adopt this approach to
    overseeing new technologies like AVs, as well?
        If so, do you expect this approach to improve the lives of
    your members in your union?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, so, thank you for the question.
        Absolutely, Congress should follow the lead that the DOT
    set out. Innovation investment can be an absolute win-win-win
    across the board in public transit. It could be a win for the
    workforce, in terms of ensuring that good jobs are protected
    and, when good jobs are created, that they are solid, union
    jobs. It can also enhance service delivery, enhance state of
    good repair, enhance the overall transit rider experience.
        So, that type of innovation investment is exactly what we
    are looking at. And with a regulatory framework in place that
    bears in mind the impact on workers, our members will likely
    greatly benefit from much of this technology.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. I appreciate that. Moreover, I want to
    expand on that topic.
        Since about 2016, DOT has taken steps to having a
    regulatory framework for AVs. If Congress were to move forward
    this year with an AV bill, what TWU provisions benefiting your
    union would you like to see in there?
        The AV bill this Congress could tell us what kind of
    provisions would ensure that labor has a seat at the table.
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes. So, we would want to see a bill that
    put an emphasis on rider safety, worker safety, workforce
    development, and an absolute assurance that we don't revisit
    mistakes of the past that workers are displaced by technology
    in the same way that they would be displaced by a mass
    exportation of jobs. All of this can be achieved with Federal
    Government intervention.
        That piece of legislation would be incredibly helpful to
    workers, and I fear, without a piece of legislation that
    accomplishes what I just laid out, that workers will be
    severely negatively impacted, going forward.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen. Next up, Mr.
    Wolf.
        The FAA has extensive experience with autopilot
    technologies, going back to its founding. More recently, it has
    dealt with AVs. Some AVs even have ambitions to be multimodal
    and serve as surface and air taxis. Sir, from your industry
    perspective, has there been adequate cross-agency collaboration
    between NHTSA, FMCSA, and the FAA?
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I can't
    speak to what conversations have taken place between the modes
    at DOT, whether between NHTSA and FAA and so forth.
        What I can say is that the autonomous vehicle industry and
    the engineers, and scientists, and all of the folks who are
    working to develop that technology, I know are open to learning
    from all different analogies and other technologies to make
    this technology as safe as possible.
        I would note that, of course, there are some key and
    important differences: 270 million-plus vehicles registered in
    the United States, and our approach does take a human driver
    approach to how those operate, and licensing. And so, all of us
    get behind the wheel.
        And as I noted a couple of times, it bears reiterating that
    the U.S. Department of Transportation has reaffirmed just last
    week that it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of
    serious and fatal crashes involve at least one human behavioral
    issue as a contributing factor.
        So, in that respect, it becomes very important for the
    autonomous vehicle industry to scale and deploy, so, it can
    work to remove those human behavioral issues that contribute to
    these tragedies on our roads. And if we can get that technology
    out, and scale it as quickly and safely as possible, in
    conjunction with many other safety approaches that may apply in
    the cross-modal context, as you noted, Congressman, then we can
    start to see a reversal of the terrible trend regarding
    fatalities and injuries on our roads.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you believe that there should be a new
    agency, whose sole mission it would be to oversee new
    transportation technologies such as AVs?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, Congressman, I would say that, as we look
    right now, as my copanelist, Nat Beuse, has mentioned, there
    are a number of regulatory instruments and rulemakings that are
    underway at both NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration that will help address the national framework
    that we need to get this technology to scale.
        So, at the moment we are looking at those rulemakings and
    advancing them as quickly as possible, in conjunction with
    congressional action that will also--with some of the measures
    I enumerated in my written testimony--help the industry scale,
    and build out, and bring those benefits to the public.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. We will next hear from Mr. Lowenthal.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses. I think what we have heard are the tremendous
    opportunities and challenges of the autonomous vehicle
    technology that it presents to us.
        And Mr. Bloch and Mr. Samuelsen, I want to hear from your
    perspective how these technologies impact a part of our supply
    chain which often gets overlooked, and that is--and
    frequently--and I will get to it--is really the disenfranchized
    part of our supply chain.
        I represent the Port of Long Beach, and I am also the
    cochair of the PORTS Caucus. Drayage truckers face some of the
    most challenging working conditions in an extremely competitive
    industry. And frequently, drayage drivers are misclassified, I
    believe. They are misclassified as independent contractors. And
    what that means is frequently it leaves them in a cycle of
    poverty, without the benefits of employment, without the
    benefits of potential unionization.
        And so, the question that I have is, when we are dealing
    with those that are the most disadvantaged now, the most
    impacted, how do we facilitate the deployment of AV
    technologies to take advantage of their potential to improve
    working conditions for existing drivers, such as the driver
    assistance technologies to improve operator safety and job
    quality, while also mitigating the risk of job loss or
    displacement, when we are really talking about those that are
    already disenfranchized, the members of the trucking workforce?
        Do you have any thoughts about how this is going to impact
    those that are the most disenfranchized today?
        Mr. Bloch. Well, Mr. Lowenthal, I appreciate the question,
    and I appreciate all the work that we have been able to do with
    you during your time as a Representative in California to
    improve the working conditions for truckdrivers at all of our
    California ports.
        We did a study with a researcher named Steve Viscelli out
    of the University of Pennsylvania a few years ago, looking at
    how automation was going to roll out in trucking. And the
    scenario that he projected, after talking to industry experts,
    was that a lot of the long-haul trucking is poised to take
    advantage of this technology, from platooning to semi-
    autonomous to fully autonomous vehicles.
        But when you get into urban areas, such as Long Beach and
    L.A., it is very hard to imagine drayage trucking, or short-
    haul trucking, or even less-than-truckload trucks fully
    automated, doing that work.
        So, the scenario we saw was hubs being set up outside urban
    areas where these transfers could happen. And our concern,
    unchecked, is that we could have hubs outside of urban areas
    all over the United States that operate under the same model
    that happens at our ports, which you are describing, which is
    hiring workers as independent contractors, instead of
    employees, making them buy the trucks, making them liable for
    everything, and, essentially, them making less than minimum
    wage after they pay all their expenses, which has led to huge
    turnover in the workforce, and gets back to my earlier point
    about the supply chain problems are not really a training and
    recruitment problem, but a worker retention problem that is
    tied to actually making sure that drivers make decent wages and
    benefits so they can stay in their jobs.
        I hope that answers your question.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Samuelsen, do you have anything to add? That was a very
    complete answer.
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes--and thank you for the opportunity--only
    that in your comments leading up to the actual question you
    spoke about innovation technology working synergistically with
    truckdrivers. And I think that is the ultimate goal here. That
    should be everybody's ultimate goal, to utilize technology to
    make transportation, either passenger transportation or
    otherwise, as safe as it possibly can be.
        We all know that automation fails. We have seen automation
    fail. There has been testimony and answers to questions about
    how safe it is. But all we have to do is look back at the 737
    MAX incident, where in, one fell swoop, a computer overrode the
    decision of a pilot and crashed, killing several hundred
    people, more than once.
        I am not suggesting that that is imminent, but it is that
    type of thing that a human operator would stop. And this type
    of technology, again, working hand in hand with a human
    operator, is an ideal that we should be pursuing. Thank you.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you. And I recognize Mr. Johnson of South
    Dakota.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
    appreciate it, and my conversation will be with Mr. Marler.
        And I liked the fact that you called out the fact that,
    although our rural areas only hold 19 percent of our
    population, it is 68 percent of our Nation's lane-miles and 45
    percent of our fatal crashes. And so, I am coming from a rural
    State. Of course, I care a great deal.
        And I thought Chair DeFazio asked a really good question
    earlier to one of the other witnesses about the effectiveness
    of these automated vehicles really depends a lot--autonomous
    vehicles, rather--depends a lot on the quality of the roads.
    And so, you mentioned this automated shuttle service that was
    operating on all different kinds of rural roads, including
    gravel and unmarked roads. And so, maybe tell us a little bit
    more about that. Maybe tell us how you would have answered
    Chair DeFazio's question.
        Mr. Marler. Well, thank you for that question.
        Rural roads and the operations of autonomous vehicles on
    rural roads is certainly on the minds of many of our States,
    because many of our populations are rural in nature. And as you
    pointed out, the rural areas have--45 percent of all fatalities
    are on rural roads. So, this absolutely is a concern.
        So, one of the things that we focus on in Iowa is our
    physical infrastructure across the board needs to be in good
    condition: better pavements and bridges, our lane markings, our
    signage, our shoulders. We know that good stewardship of our
    physical infrastructure helps to enable automated vehicles of
    the future.
        But we are also looking at the digital infrastructure, and
    that is getting at the demonstration project that you
    mentioned. The University of Iowa actually received a Federal
    grant to look at the operation of rural shuttle buses in rural
    parts of Iowa, and these buses are operating on gravel roads
    and unmarked roads, very rural scenarios in the State of Iowa,
    because we are trying to make sure that we are able to serve
    all of our populations across the State.
        And so, one of the things that is very important for this
    shuttle bus to work is the digital infrastructure and, more
    specifically, the high-definition mapping that is on board.
    That map is able to digitally paint a center line down a gravel
    road. And this is very key for the operation of this particular
    rural shuttle.
        Now, that is one thing that we are learning, and there are
    many learnings that we are experiencing, but I would say that
    there is work yet to do here, and we need to ensure that the
    benefits are going to be widespread.
        I will mention one other thing that will tie into this
    directly is the expansion of broadband across our States and
    across our Nation. In Iowa this has been a very important focus
    for us, and we, just in the last 12 months, as a matter--we
    have invested $323 million in broadband grants for the private
    sector to install more broadband.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, as we work on this
    demonstration project, as the University of Iowa works on this
    demonstration project, what appears to be the biggest
    challenge?
        I mean, logistically, what is going to be the largest
    hurdle to clear?
        Mr. Marler. Logistically, is standards across the board.
    Basically, this project is helping us understand the data
    standards that we need, but we are building that through this
    demonstration project: what are those minimum standards across
    our Nation that we need to look at for data; what are those
    minimum standards for connectivity?
        This is one reason we talk about preserving the 5.9
    gigahertz space, is we need to be able to rely on some of the
    communication technologies, as well as those minimum data
    standards that make the distribution of the technologies
    ubiquitous everywhere in our country.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Is the demonstration project--
    tell me more about if they are analyzing to what extent these
    things are scalable.
        Setting aside the broadband, because I think you are right,
    the digital infrastructure is critically important. But what
    about all of the other things?
        You talk about upgrading the quality of the roads. That is
    a pretty substantial undertaking, as well. Is a demonstration
    project very scalable?
        Mr. Marler. Well, we think it will be. And keep in mind, we
    are learning a lot with this. But the reason we think it is
    scalable is because these lessons that we are learning, we are
    trying to look at it more from an agnostic point of view with
    the technology, and just saying, what are those basic things
    that we need in these rural areas?
        And that is why I mentioned earlier the broadband
    perspective. It is because----
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Sure.
        Mr. Marler [continuing]. We know----
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. One more thing, quickly. What
    would come next?
        Let's say that the demonstration project is a big success.
    What does phase 2 look like?
        Mr. Marler. So, phase 2 is we are trying to understand,
    operationally, what we can do, as transportation departments,
    to help the situation with rural automation. What can we do,
    from an infrastructure and an investment perspective, to set
    that stage such that it can really, as you say, be scalable and
    go to the next level?
        So, it is really our operations focus is what comes next,
    as we analyze the data.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you. Next, Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chair Norton and
    Chairman DeFazio, for holding this important hearing on
    automated vehicles.
        As automation becomes more common across all our
    transportation modes, including public transit, we must
    proactively ensure that we are placing workers first, and that
    we are upholding the highest safety standards. We can do this
    by including workers in the decisionmaking on how automation is
    deployed and making sure that they are given knowledge to use
    the new technologies.
        My questions. To Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony you
    mentioned how the AV framework needs to focus foremost on
    upholding the highest safety standards, and on creation of good
    jobs. As you mentioned, we can do this by giving workers a seat
    at the table so that they can help shape innovation. Employers
    who automate jobs, including transit agencies, usually know
    that they will eliminate positions years ahead of time.
        Is this information generally shared with workers in a
    timely manner?
        And if not, should the Federal Government require companies
    that use automated technology to give workers advance notice on
    these kinds of procurements?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the
    question.
        Certainly, there is very little notice given, in general,
    to workers or representatives of workers, workers unions, very
    little notice. And it would be common for a worker or the union
    to find out that there is going to be technology displacing
    human jobs when a pink slip arrives. That would not be uncommon
    at all.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And how best can we bring workers
    to the table when it comes to deploying innovation?
        Is it fair to say that making sure workers learn about
    these kinds of events far enough in advance to find other
    employment or to retrain in the use of new technology is the
    first step?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, absolutely. In cities in America, where
    workers have the power to compel that to happen, it has
    happened. But in the overwhelming majority of transit cities
    across the country, that does not exist.
        So, the Federal Government stepping up and compelling
    transit employees or municipalities and State governments to
    give as much advance notice as possible, as a requirement,
    would be ultra helpful. And in fact, it would enhance labor
    peace in the long run. It would give the unions and the
    employees a chance to work together to identify jobs that
    workers who are potentially facing displacement could land in.
    And that is what this should all be about.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
        Mr. Bloch, from a Teamsters perspective, how can you bring
    workers to the table when it comes to innovation, so that we
    are putting workers first?
        Mr. Bloch. I appreciate the question, and would echo the
    comments of Mr. Samuelsen.
        When new technology comes to the workplace, and workers
    have the ability to join together in unions, then they can sit
    across the table from their employer and bargain about it. As I
    mentioned, we are introducing legislation in California to make
    the introduction of autonomous vehicles in the public transit
    sphere, where we also represent a lot of drivers, a mandatory
    subject of collective bargaining. We are going into bargaining
    with United Parcel Service this year, as I mentioned, the
    largest collective bargaining agreement in the country. And you
    better believe we are going to be bargaining around technology.
        Our experience has been that new technology can help make
    our jobs safer and make us more productive. But, as you have
    said, sir, to have those discussions on the front end allows us
    to be proactive and adapt.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great.
        Mr. Bloch. And for workers that don't have unions, they
    just have to take whatever they get from the boss, and that is
    not the sort of protections the workers need.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, sir.
        Councilmember Castex-Tatum, in your testimony you discuss
    how the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices needs to be
    modernized. In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
    Congress directed the U.S. Department of Transportation to
    revise MUTCD, including by making sure vulnerable users like
    pedestrians and cyclists are protected, and by incorporating
    AVs into the MUTCD for the first time. From the National League
    of Cities perspective, what reforms need to be made to the
    MUTCD to modernize it?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. The National League of Cities definitely
    supports the modernization of the manual. We think that better
    protection for road users equally is extremely important.
        The main thing we want to point out is we want to make sure
    that this does not become an unfunded mandate on cities. Local
    governments own many of the roads in our cities, and they
    maintain those roads. So, concerning the manual, we just want
    to make sure that it does not become an unfunded mandate with
    those changes.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
        And thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I yield
    back.
        Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize Mr.
    Nehls now for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking
    Member Davis, for having this hearing. I do have some concerns
    about how we integrate AVs safely onto roads and into the
    economy.
        Trucking is a critical industry, and disruptive technology
    like AVs promises great increases in efficiency and safety, but
    it threatens jobs in our already strained truck-driving market.
    While I appreciate talking about how technology could disrupt
    the trucking market in 20 to 30 years, I want to talk about
    what is forcing truckers out of the profession today, now, and
    that is the vaccine mandate.
        While the Supreme Court, thankfully, struck down the
    unconstitutional vaccine mandate imposed by President Biden,
    both the Canadian and U.S. Governments are imposing vaccine
    mandates on truckers just to be able to cross the border. We
    are releasing potentially COVID-infected aliens from Federal
    custody into our country on the southern border. But on the
    northern border we are not allowing truckers to cross, simply
    because they don't have the vaccine. Interesting. For the first
    2 years of the pandemic it was considered safe. But now that
    the main variant causes less serious infections, the truckers
    must be vaccinated. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
        This also threatens to disrupt trade with one of our most
    important partners, Canada, in the midst of an artificially
    created supply chain crisis. In Canada, we have seen a massive
    protest against these senseless mandates: a convoy of trucks 45
    miles long [indicating photo] made it all the way to Ottawa to
    protest, and a similar protest is being planned in the U.S.
        So, I have a question for Mr. Bloch. It is one question.
        In your written testimony, you talk about the difficulties
    truckers face in the occupation, including supply chain
    inefficiencies that caused drivers to wait in line for hours.
    The freight division and the car-haul division of the Teamsters
    represents thousands of hard-working drivers across the U.S.
    and Canada. Do you know how many of your members either
    resigned or lost their jobs due to earlier vaccine mandates?
        And is the union concerned about the new cross-border
    mandate's impact on your members' livelihood?
        Mr. Bloch. Well, thank you for the question, sir.
        On the Federal policy and the cross-border, I will have to
    ask our Federal policy experts to respond to your question,
    which I am happy to do.
        The California experience on the inefficiencies, I think
    everybody on this panel today who has worked for somebody or
    supervised anybody during your career can appreciate the
    efficiencies you have with an employee, where you can direct
    that person to go somewhere and do something, versus this model
    that Mr. Lowenthal talked about of hiring truckdrivers as
    independent contractors.
        Mr. Nehls. OK, so, you represent--OK, got it. So, you
    represent 100,000 truckdrivers from California and Nevada, and
    you are telling me you can't answer the question of how many of
    those truckdrivers have been affected, how many have lost their
    jobs as a result of the vaccine mandate? You can't answer that?
        Mr. Bloch. I can tell you that we have heard complaints,
    but we have not seen resignations because of vaccine mandates
    here in California.
        Mr. Nehls. Very well, not surprising.
        Mr. Bloch. And sir, we did not take a position on the
    mandatory vaccinations, as well.
        Mr. Nehls. I am just saying, with all the issues we were
    facing across this country, and right now what you are seeing
    in Canada and now coming to the U.S. with vaccine mandates on
    our truckers, I am surprised that you, who represent the
    Teamsters, you couldn't have an answer to my question. But
    again, it doesn't surprise me.
        Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back. Since a vote has
    been called on the House floor, the subcommittee will stand in
    recess, subject to the call of the chair. We will restart the
    hearing as soon as the last vote is over. That is approximately
    30 minutes. It could be longer, and we do have a number of
    Members who haven't had the opportunity to ask their questions.
    We will reconvene after a recess for votes that are now being
    taken.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Norton. I want to call the subcommittee to order and
    resume the hearing while Members are returning, and we
    certainly have one Member here already.
        Mr. Auchincloss, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate
    the patience of our witnesses as we take a break to vote.
        I want to start by emphasizing points that have been made
    in different threads by both my colleagues and by some of our
    witnesses, which is who needs to be at the table as we roll out
    autonomous vehicle technology.
        With long-haul trucking in particular, as Mr. Bloch, I
    think you emphasize really quite articulately, the Teamsters
    need to be at the table, whether it is the hub model, whether
    it is a different model that ends up being the organizing
    architecture for an AV long-haul trucking system, unions and,
    in particular, the Teamsters, need to be at the table to make
    sure that we are sustaining, reinforcing, and cultivating good
    union jobs as we roll out this technology.
        And then, insofar as AVs have a place in our cities--and
    maybe they do, maybe they don't, I think we are going to
    explore that over the next decade, and cities, mayors, and
    Governors really need to be the ones driving that ship, because
    they know what is best for their constituents. But insofar as
    we are rolling out AV technology in our cities, I would
    encourage us all to organize them around the premise of
    walkability.
        What makes cities thriving places, what promotes public
    health, good environmental quality would help small businesses.
    What makes cities more livable for citizens of all abilities
    and ages is walkability, is the infrastructure and the ambiance
    that promotes walking and cycling. And we do not want an
    autonomous vehicle future to in any way undermine that. And it
    may not. It actually may promote it. And I think one way it
    could do that, as has been pointed out by one of our witnesses,
    is by reducing the need for parking, which has really been a
    plague of American urban land use for the last 70 years.
        If we can drastically reduce the amount of parking that is
    required because of an autonomous vehicle fleet, a ride share
    fleet, that would be a good thing. And that would--that should
    be used as an opportunity for cities to promote walkability,
    and how they spend their infrastructure dollars, and how they
    repurpose public land.
        One institution that really has not been brought up to date
    in this hearing as being an important stakeholder is the
    property and casualty insurance industry. And I would encourage
    my colleagues and I, as well as our witnesses from their varied
    perspectives, to bring in the P&C industry in these
    conversations.
        The property and casualty insurance industry has a huge
    stake in making sure that we do this well. They are on the hook
    for a lot of the safety considerations, financially. They have
    got tremendous data, sometimes over the course of 100 years and
    at population scale, about what kind of behaviors make for safe
    driving, what kinds of infrastructure and semiotics make for
    safe driving. And they really need to be part of this
    conversation.
        So, I would open it up to any of the witnesses to weigh in
    here about how they have worked with the P&C industry, or how
    they propose that we should work with the P&C industry to
    ensure a safe rollout of AV technology.
        Ms. Chase. Congressman, if I could respond to your
    question.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Sure.
        Ms. Chase. By no stretch of the imagination do I speak for
    the P&C industry, but I wanted to share that our board of
    directors is comprised half of members of the P&C industry and
    half of other leading public health, law enforcement, consumer
    and safety advocates, and individuals. So, there are some
    wonderful companies that belong to Advocates for Highway and
    Auto Safety who are deeply devoted to making sure that
    autonomous vehicles, both cars and trucks, are developed and
    deployed in as safe a way as possible.
        I also just wanted to comment on your remark about making
    sure that cities are walkable and bikeable. We share that as
    well. And one of the positions that we have been advocating for
    is to make vehicles more absorbing if there is a conflict or a
    crash with a car or a truck, especially delivery trucks, which
    are more ubiquitous in some of our neighborhoods, and
    bicyclists.
        And my last point on that is, again, the urge for automatic
    emergency braking, to require that as standard equipment in
    cars, and not as an add-on in a luxury package, or only in a
    high-end vehicle, which not everyone can afford, because then
    it is an equity issue. Every family should be afforded the
    safest braking systems, and that will be to tremendous value of
    all road users, especially vulnerable road users. Thank you.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Ms. Chase.
        Mr. Beuse. Congressman, I can add on from an industry
    perspective, if that would be helpful.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, very briefly, please. I am over time.
        Mr. Beuse. Sure. So, one of the things we have done is
    [inaudible] very, very important. And here in Pennsylvania we
    are on a committee, along with several other local firms that
    are working on self-driving, along with insurance companies.
    So, absolutely, they need to be at the table.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
        Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. [sic] Van Duyne?
        Ms. Van Duyne. I have been called worse. Ms. Van Duyne. I
    identify as----
        Ms. Norton. I am sorry, Ms. Van Duyne. Please forgive me.
        Ms. Van Duyne. No, you are fine. You are fine. Thank you
    very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        Only a slim framework currently exists when it comes to
    automated vehicles across this country. Many States, such as
    Texas, have been leading the charge to provide safe testing,
    while also giving companies the flexibility to run productive
    tests.
        As we continue to recover from the pandemic, employers
    struggle to find enough workers, experience slowed economic
    recovery, and are faced with national supply chain disruptions.
    A regulatory framework favoring AV deployment in the U.S. is
    critical for workforce opportunity and domestic growth.
        The U.S. is home to a dynamic AV industry that provides job
    opportunities for Americans across the country. A regulatory
    framework favorable to deployment in the U.S. will ensure
    continued growth of this industry by having increased career
    opportunities and more seamless supply chains.
        A 2021 U.S. Department of Transportation study found that
    Level 4 and Level 5 automation in the long-haul trucking
    industry would raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by
    between $203 and $267 per worker per year. The study
    additionally found that trucking automation would increase
    total U.S. employment by 26,000 to 35,000 per year, on average,
    over 30 years.
        So, Mr. Bloch and Mr. Samuelsen, the trucking industry
    currently needs approximately 80,000 drivers. I have heard this
    from businesses across the country, specifically within Texas.
    This need is expected to double by 2030. And yet, in your
    testimony you stoke fear of massive job loss and a layoff. And
    I have got to be honest with you, you are literally the only
    folks that I have heard that from in the country.
        And I would be curious. What solutions do you propose to
    close these gaps, and if you do look toward the future and
    innovate through advancements in new technology?
        Mr. Bloch. Well, thank you for the question, and actually,
    we are not out running around, screaming about a robot
    apocalypse coming to take jobs in the trucking industry. I
    don't see it. I actually agree with----
        Ms. Van Duyne. [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Bloch. OK, well, thank you. I don't go for hyperbole.
    And quite honestly, we do believe that, in some segments of the
    supply chain, we may see a net job increase.
        I think that our concerns are more around the quality of
    jobs. We are doing a big push around our apprenticeship program
    here in California to train workers to take these jobs. The big
    concern is how long people stay in those jobs after we train
    them, and we don't want to invest a lot in California or
    anywhere in the country, including Texas, in training workers
    if it is just going to be a revolving door. And so, that is why
    I tried to tailor our comments to the quality of jobs that we
    are creating.
        And I appreciate you raising those issues in your question,
    as well.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you.
        Does anyone else have a comment on how to bridge the gap
    with the need in the current glut that we have got, if not
    through technology?
        [Pause.]
        OK, I will go on to my next question. North Texas is home
    to a growing AV industry, and has more aviation jobs than
    anywhere in the country. Autopilot requires extensive
    programming, and this creates new jobs to develop, maintain,
    and update the system, while increasing the efficacy and
    resulting wages for pilots in the aviation industry. So, why
    would autonomous motor vehicle technology not do the same thing
    for road transportation?
        And would your members not benefit from safety and
    productivity and wage improvements?
        Would your organization welcome the opportunity to
    represent the new folks who program and maintain these systems?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Hi. If I may, and thank you for the
    question, I had no comment because we are simply not in the
    trucking industry. We are in the airlines and public transit
    and railroads. No trucking.
        So, the question was posed as if somehow that we are
    opposed to the implementation of technology, or the development
    of technology, and the way that that can create jobs. It is
    simply not the case.
        So, we are in favor of technology. We have embraced now
    waves of new technology and the jobs that that brings into
    public transit. We just want that technology harnessed in a way
    that creates and sustains jobs, doesn't have an unnecessary
    impact on workers, and doesn't jeopardize worker safety or
    rider safety. So, the comments that I have made all day, I
    think, sort of connect with the question you are asking, which
    is that type of innovation is good, and we embrace it.
        We just want good jobs. We don't want workers inadvertently
    displaced where, if another route was taken in implementing all
    of this, they would be fine. So, we are good with innovation.
    We just want good union jobs across America, and we want safe
    jobs.
        So, we do have a disagreement with the use of AV in public
    transit to replace bus operators. We believe it is dangerous.
    We believe automation should be under the control of a human
    operator at all times. And so, thank you.
        Ms. Van Duyne. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Bloch, did you have anything to add?
        Mr. Bloch. I would say very quickly, because you are out of
    time, yes. And if there are employers who are tuning into this
    hearing who think there are jobs out there, please call us.
    Please, please contact. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. OK.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Awesome.
        Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Bourdeaux, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you
    for holding today's hearing.
        It is clear from the testimony that we are going to see
    automated vehicle technology increasingly woven into our
    transportation systems, and it is now our job to ensure that
    we, at all levels of Government, create safe, equitable, and
    well-researched AV policies that really maximize the benefits
    of this technology, while also protecting against the risks.
        My district is home to Curiosity Lab at Peachtree Corners,
    which is a one-of-a-kind living lab, and it is designed to
    provide a real-world test environment to advanced next
    generation intelligent mobility and smart city technology.
    During a conversation with the head of Curiosity Lab in
    November, he mentioned that vehicles are taking over
    smartphones as the most connected devices in the world.
        A key element of safety, of course, is ensuring that these
    highly connected, technologically reliant vehicles will not be
    hacked or remotely controlled, and one of the things that they
    are testing there is cybersecurity. So, I just wanted to talk
    about that a little bit.
        And starting with Ms. Chase, in your testimony you list
    cybersecurity standards as one of the tenets of autonomous
    vehicle legislation. Could you fill us in, and talk a little
    bit about the current cybersecurity requirements for autonomous
    vehicles?
        And are there additional standards or things we need to be
    thinking about to ensure their safety?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you, Congresswoman. I greatly appreciate
    the question, and you are completely correct that addressing
    cybersecurity and having a minimum standard is in our AV
    tenets.
        I am not going to claim to be a cyber expert by any stretch
    of the imagination, so, I can't get granular into the details
    of that, other than to say we have deep concerns because we
    have already seen hacking and weaponizing some vehicles that
    have advanced technologies in them to the detriment of
    pedestrians and road users. So, it is a concern of ours.
        And the AV tenets was really a collaborative process, as I
    mentioned earlier, with approximately 60 stakeholders
    representing a myriad of organizations. And we listened to
    everyone, and we created this living document, if you will,
    that we hope that the committee and the subcommittee will use
    as a foundation for future legislation.
        Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you.
        Mr. Wolf, do you have any thoughts on this? I know you
    talked about a similar issue earlier.
        Mr. Wolf. Absolutely, Congresswoman, thank you so much for
    the question.
        Cybersecurity is a challenge, which is one that is not
    limited to the AV industry, of course, but for the automotive
    sector and, of course, the economy writ large in all sectors.
    And so, the AV developers and manufacturers, they build in
    cybersecurity by design upfront, and it is something of
    paramount importance at the outset.
        As we look ahead to ways in which the AV industry and the
    auto sector writ large can address cybersecurity
    vulnerabilities, we look at a robust, risk-based approach as
    the best way to address that, and I am happy to work with
    stakeholders on that process, going forward.
        Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you very much. So, building on that--
    and back to you, Mr. Wolf--are there things that we should be
    doing in Congress to talk more about cybersecurity protections
    or build out standards? Should we be focused on software
    requirements, the workforce, physical infrastructure? What are
    the kinds of things we should be thinking about as we move
    forward with trying to find ways to support the deployment of
    these technologies?
        Mr. Wolf. I appreciate the question. I think, ultimately, I
    would be happy to respond to you in writing with some of the
    more specifics here. A risk-based approach is intended on
    looking for what are those risks and vulnerabilities, and how
    can there be a framework that is able to adapt over time,
    rather than enact specific provisions and have a static, kind
    of, check-the-box exercise. So, that is the exercise that is
    important for this kind of policy.
        And I know that, again, across different sectors--I believe
    it was the National Institute of Standards and Technology has a
    framework for cybersecurity, and a number of other measures can
    be adapted and applied in this context. And again, I am very
    happy to follow up in writing on that.
        Ms. Bourdeaux. OK, thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. The gentlelady yields back. Representative
    Gimenez.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Gimenez?
        Well, Mr. LaMalfa.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Norton. Representative LaMalfa?
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I am here,
    mostly. Thank you for convening today's hearing, and I had a
    few thoughts on what is going on here in rural California, and
    the effects of legislation on people that were providing Lyft
    and Uber services, and then tying that back in to what AV
    vehicles might be able to provide in our rural area.
        Excuse my illness here today, I am at home and taking it
    easy here.
        So, in my rural district in northern California, Lyft was
    performing about 2,500 rides late at night, which might entail
    people that have had too much to drink or other purposes, but
    certainly drunk driving and drowsy driving is something they
    want to avoid.
        In the State of California, of course, a bill passed called
    AB5, and the PRO Act in DC is being modeled after that. So, the
    result was that they were trying to classify Lyft and Uber
    drivers as employees of companies there, when actually they
    really do have, in their own way, autonomy as to set their own
    hours and their own workplace, et cetera. So, the voters of
    California overturned that portion of AB5 via an initiative
    process to a referendum to say that had gone even too far over
    the line.
        And so, what we are looking at is that rural areas are
    especially affected by less choices with these types of Uber
    and Lyft operators. As you can surmise, there is just going to
    be less people operating at those hours versus when you are in
    Washington, DC, et cetera. So, it is harder to compete for
    rural folks like that.
        And so, if we find that they still can't compete because of
    the effects of AB5 or PRO Act coming through, then, Mr. Beuse
    and Mr. Wolf, what can autonomous vehicles provide, do you
    think, in rural settings like we are talking about here, very
    rural, many miles between towns, et cetera?
        Mr. Beuse. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question. I
    think you point out at the macro level sort of an issue with
    regulations that sometimes kind of go the wrong way.
        Specific to AVs, for example, when you look at the use case
    of where I live, for example, I wouldn't consider myself
    necessarily rural, but it can take, let's say, a half hour to
    get an Uber or Lyft out there. And you can think one of the use
    cases for AVs is to kind of load balance that, where that part
    of the population that doesn't get the magic of the service, as
    Dara would say, are better served by something like an
    autonomous vehicle operating on the network.
        I think the issue is larger, though, right? The issue right
    now we have is that, in some States, it is particularly just
    not clear. So, for example, in California, there currently is
    just a flat-out prohibition on the testing and deployment of
    autonomous trucks. And so, until that gets fixed, we can't even
    start to address some of the issues that you are talking about
    with respect to trucking.
        But one of the things we have to do is work closely with
    not just other industry partners, but also the Government
    partners to kind of really encourage a more future-looking
    view, and not trying to lock down things for what we know
    today.
        I mean, having regulated at the Federal level for a while,
    rulemakings are challenging, and this is exactly, I think, the
    point I was raising earlier around we really need a more
    flexible approach here, and for DOT to continue the rulemakings
    that they are working----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Well, let's bear down a little more on the
    rural aspect. I mean, we are talking long, long stretches of
    two-lane road, highway, and even turning down a dirt road,
    perhaps, for certain--whether you are talking deliveries or an
    Uber or Lyft situation via an autonomous vehicle.
        How do you see it applying that well to areas that just
    have less infrastructure of markers or signs, or whatever you
    would use as an autonomous vehicle to tie into that?
        Mr. Beuse. Yes, exactly. Those are challenges that we have
    to solve within the operational design domain, or the area that
    we are going to go into.
        I would point out, part of our mission at Aurora is to
    deliver this technology not just safely and not just quickly,
    but broadly. We believe there is a huge, huge impact far beyond
    our imaginations on what this technology could deliver. And
    certainly, I think rural America is part of that.
        I mean, I grew up in a very rural part of town. We had one
    stoplight, so, I can relate.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. Well, the time has flown by. I thank
    you.
        And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Strickland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
    Member Davis.
        As we consider the direction of this emerging technology, I
    know my constituents back home in the Washington 10th
    Congressional District want to see transportation developments
    that can improve their daily lives and also have a focus on
    equity. But they also want to know that they will be safe and
    secure on our Nation's roadways.
        As we have heard today, there is evidence that AVs have the
    potential to reduce roadway deaths and injuries. And with 2021
    being the deadliest year for motorists in Washington State in
    15 years, I am glad that the subcommittee is exploring these
    possibilities. So, I have two questions, one for Mr. Wolf and
    the industry, and this is more of a conversation about
    messaging.
        Could you very briefly talk to our constituents and people
    who may be hesitant, or not quite certain, or nervous about AV
    deployments happening across the country?
        And what would you tell them after this discussion today?
    What should be the big takeaway for people outside of our
    bubble?
        Mr. Wolf. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for that
    question. The simple and straightforward answer is that the
    data is clear: autonomous vehicles are not only safe, but they
    are making our roads safer.
        There is a crisis on our roadways, as has been discussed a
    number of times in this hearing, and it cannot be stated
    enough. And the number of crashes and fatalities and severe
    injuries continues to go up at an alarming rate, and in the
    overwhelming majority of those, there is a contribution of a
    human behavioral issue, whether it is distracted driving, drunk
    driving. Those are the numbers, and it is a big problem.
        So, autonomous vehicles, the industry that we represent and
    the members of our association, are designing technology that
    will address that specific issue, and it will have a dramatic
    impact on safety, in conjunction with many other solutions that
    were put forward by Secretary Buttigieg and the National
    Roadway Safety Strategy.
        So, first and foremost, this is about improving safety, not
    just of other drivers on the road, but vulnerable road users,
    as well: bicyclists, pedestrians, across the whole gamut. So,
    that is the key thing.
        And I would just very quickly enumerate the other benefits:
    with respect to equity, the ability to enhance and expand
    mobility for individuals with disabilities; and with respect to
    economic growth, there are tremendous benefits that accrue to
    society as a result of the deployment of AVs, and what we are
    looking to do is build out a national framework to scale that
    deployment in a way that brings those benefits to the greatest
    number of people as possible.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. Well, thank you very much. Now I
    would like to turn to Vice Mayor Pro Tem Castex-Tatum.
        And welcome, ma'am, it is nice to see you here. And I am a
    former mayor myself, so, I really appreciate that you are here
    today. And I would like to ask you, on a local level, what
    specific infrastructure investments have been needed in your
    city, in Houston, or any dedicated lanes as you tried to
    prepare for this deployment? That is the first part.
        And then the second part, tell me how you have done this
    through the lens of equity, as a leader.
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question. I can speak
    from the pilots that we have had, here in Houston. With the
    pilot that we had at Texas Southern University, in conjunction
    with METRO, we had a shuttle that was riding on the campus of
    Texas Southern University, and that was phase 1. We are working
    in phases. Phase 2, we are looking at going off-road between
    two universities. So, as we work through each of the phases, we
    are hoping to gather more data so that we can make sure the
    infrastructure works alongside of the autonomous vehicles.
        With our work with Nuro, which is delivering for
    businesses, we have seen transportation become less of a
    barrier for some of our lower economic communities.
    Specifically, during our time with COVID, Nuro was able to
    deliver senior boxes to apartment complexes in one of our
    poorer areas in the city of Houston, one of our complete
    community areas, one of the areas where residents need
    assistance with getting groceries.
        So, we see the opportunity for these autonomous vehicles to
    really help the quality of life for some of our residents who
    can't drive to the store because they don't have a car, or some
    of our differently abled constituents to get their
    prescriptions delivered. So, we see this as a new and
    innovative way for us to meet the needs of our residents, and
    really improve their quality of life in cities.
        Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mrs. Napolitano, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Norton. My statement
    would be that it is going to create quite a bit of confusion,
    people seeing driverless cars and trucks. So, we have got to be
    sure that we--because that is going to be a tremendous traffic
    safety hazard. But I have a question for Mr. Bloch.
        I agree with your testimony regarding the concerns over the
    misclassification of truckdrivers. And I have met with some of
    the drivers in southern California that work 14-plus-hour days,
    make below minimum wage with no benefits because of forced
    independent contractor status. The State of California has been
    trying to crack down on these companies, but the Government
    needs to step in and do more. I authored a provision in the
    bipartisan infrastructure bill that creates a Federal task
    force to study the problem and create policy to address this
    problem.
        Secretary Buttigieg recently announced a plan to formulate
    the task force. What are your thoughts on what the Federal
    Government can do to address this problem?
        Mr. Bloch. Thank you very much, and this has been a problem
    the Teamsters Union has been combating for the last 40-plus
    years, since deregulation of trucking. And prior to that, 90
    percent of the truckdrivers in the United States made good
    wages working under a Teamster contract, and I wish that was
    still true today.
        I can speak to the California experience that Mr. LaMalfa
    mentioned, which came out of a court ruling against a package
    delivery company using independent contractors that competes
    with UPS, one of the largest private-sector employers in his
    district. A UPS driver makes $100,000 a year in California, on
    average, has fully paid family health insurance and a pension.
    And it doesn't matter if you have a criminal background or just
    a high school education, you can get that job.
        The California law that passed, and the portions of the PRO
    Act that deal with misclassification, came out of a court case
    involving a company that was competing with UPS and
    undercutting those good wages. And that is the issue that is
    happening within the trucking and transportation industry in
    the United States. And so----
        Mrs. Napolitano. What can the Federal Government do to make
    it better, to address it?
        Mr. Bloch. So, having a task force to look at
    misclassification is very important. The new ABC test, the
    provisions in the PRO Act that Mr. LaMalfa mentioned, is a test
    in many States in the United States, and it is the most
    stringent test to address the classification of workers.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Samuelsen, I want to thank the Transport Workers Union
    for working with me on a provision in the bipartisan
    infrastructure bill that improves transit safety program with
    busdriver protection and blind spot removal requirements. How
    can technology help drivers with blind spot issues and general
    safety issues?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Well, thank you for the question. In terms
    of blind spots on buses, it is a fact that buses in the United
    States, across every transportation district, every transit
    provider, bus operators are ordered to go through pedestrian
    right-of-way areas to maintain schedule on buses with blind
    spots. And that is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen, and
    it is an example of where technology has such an extremely
    positive place, in terms of collision avoidance and that type
    of thing, in order to protect pedestrians, protect riders, and
    protect the operator. And so, technology does have its place.
        And I am sorry, you asked a second question, and I forget
    what that one was.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, how the technology helps drivers
    with a blind spot. Because if they implement it in the AVs,
    then it solves a problem that might work. I don't know what
    technology can do to avoid having a blind spot, to help prevent
    accidents.
        Mr. Samuelsen. Oh, absolutely. Our position, essentially,
    across the entire spectrum of this conversation, is that the
    technology should be utilized to increase safety, to increase
    service reliability, increase state of good repair where that
    is applicable, and all synergistically working with a bus
    operator. We believe that that is the safest outcome, a bus
    operator being in control of the automation, a bus operator
    that can pull a switch and end the dangerous situation if one
    is arising. But yet utilizing the technology to improve safety
    and improve service delivery.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very----
        Mrs. Napolitano. The AV issues are enormous, so, we have to
    be very careful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
        Mr. Carbajal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
    the witnesses that are here today. Thank you for your time and
    your testimonies.
        From passenger to commercial vehicles, there is no doubt
    that autonomous vehicles will become integrated into our
    transportation system in the coming years. Congress must begin
    preparing now to legislate in a way that optimizes economic
    benefits, prioritizes safety, and avoids job displacement.
        I am interested in learning how Congress can support the
    growth and deployment of AVs, but also what we should be
    considering when it comes to safety regulations and ensuring
    transportation workers have a place in this workforce.
        Mr. Samuelsen, you note that the Department of
    Transportation, DOT, innovation principles will put job
    creation and workers at the center of the innovation
    development process. Elements of these principles include
    forging partnerships with the private sector while protecting
    interests of the public, workers, and communities. How can
    Congress promote partnerships with the private sector and local
    communities in ways that facilitate support for workers by
    expanding access to skills?
        And how can these partnerships wrap around ongoing
    deployments and pilots to develop and build training models?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Right, so, thank you for the question.
        The Federal Government plays a vital role, from workforce
    development and across a whole wide array of other necessities,
    as we go into the future of public transit. Now, as the Federal
    Government doles out money to transit providers, the Federal
    Government needs to ensure that those transit providers are
    doing everything that you said, both in terms of investing in
    workforce development so that workers aren't left behind, and
    also involving communities that workers live in, and the
    decisions on what public transit will look like going forward.
        And you have said--I believe you said a couple of times--
    about the deployment of automated vehicles in public transit.
    And again, we would be adamantly opposed to that. And it is not
    just about the degradation of jobs, which is bound to come,
    despite what some people might put forth about how this is
    going to be a job creator. When you talk about automated
    vehicles, automatically what that is going to lead to is the
    degradation or the diminishment of bus operator jobs.
        And we are opposed to that on a whole bunch of levels, and
    the main one is that service delivery and public transit
    delivery is about more than the amount of buses that you put
    out. It is about service quality and service reliability. And
    we believe that innovation technology is best utilized, as I
    said before, in conjunction with a human operator, technology
    used to augment the safe operation of buses, augment service
    reliability, augment scheduling in a positive way to ensure
    that service delivery is at the highest level it can be for our
    riders. Thank you.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, it is exciting to hear about the
    successes of pilot programs in Houston. How did Houston work
    with the industry to implement these programs safely and
    equitably?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Well, I will tell you that Nuro came to
    us with their pilot and their bots, and we met with them. We
    had an opportunity to also introduce their product to the
    community. We introduced them to the law enforcement officers
    in our community so that, once they started to see these bots
    on the roads, if there were any problems or concerns, they
    would know how to interact and who to contact.
        So, I say it all the time, Government can't do this work
    alone. So, these public-private partnerships are extremely
    important for us to make sure we are meeting the needs of our
    constituents and really doing our best to try to make their
    quality of life better.
        So, we are excited about the opportunity to bring services
    directly to people's homes, and also to provide shared services
    to help get one person out of one car. And we think that the
    autonomous buses will allow us to get some cars off the road
    and move more people at the same time so that we won't all be
    sitting in traffic all the time.
        Mr. Carbajal. Should other cities wish to implement similar
    programs, what lessons can they learn from Houston?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. I think it is important that they start
    piloting with companies like Nuro and transit authorities like
    METRO. We learn as we pilot and gather data. That is why, as
    the National League of Cities, we are asking for Federal
    partnerships for more testing in more places, so that we can
    provide more data and get more AVs to have some regulated
    safety standards. So, my suggestion would be keep piloting.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Next, we have Mr. Moulton
    for 5 minutes.
        I recognize you, Mr. Moulton.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to
    all the witnesses for sticking this out. I know this is a long
    time, but we are grateful for your wisdom on this incredibly
    important issue.
        Professor Larco, if I may start with you, Motional, which
    is an AV company headquartered in Boston, has partnered with
    Hyundai to develop AV fleets. But without a Federal regulatory
    and legal framework for AVs, testing their technology looks
    different in Massachusetts than it does in Nevada, or at least
    that is how I understand it. So, States, essentially, are being
    burdened with the absence of clear Federal guidance.
        Beyond the burden to individual States and communities like
    Nevada and Massachusetts, what does this cost with regard to
    our national priorities, to not have these Federal standards?
        Mr. Larco. Thank you very much for the question. I think
    you are absolutely right that a lot of the deployment of AVs
    are actually--it is a local issue, right?
        And a lot of the things that I talked about before, some of
    these ramifications, cascading impacts, are really going to be
    affecting different communities differently, and there needs to
    be some control at the local level to be able to respond to
    these things.
        The conversation that we have had so far, it is fantastic
    to hear, the issues around safety and labor. But I guess the--
    one of the main points is that that is not the only questions
    that are important for AV deployment, and we really need to be
    working at the local level to be able to answer some of these
    things.
        To answer your question about the role of the Federal
    Government, I would say what is really important is that the
    Federal Government actually does many of the things that we
    have been talking about here: help support pilots, and help
    support research into these topics, and support cities, but
    making sure that it is not only about safety and about the
    technology itself, but really looking at these cascading
    impacts.
        Mr. Moulton. So, to follow on on that, Mr. Wolf, the U.S.
    can be first in marketwide AV deployment, or we could cede that
    leadership to countries like Germany, allies, or competitors
    like China. How will the U.S. market and efforts to create a
    Federal framework be impacted if we don't act first, if China
    sets the rules of the road for AVs?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you so much for the question,
    Congressman. I think it is a critical issue that I don't think
    we have discussed enough today, and that is American leadership
    in this technology.
        America is the birthplace of autonomous vehicle technology
    and, in many respects, it has got the largest amount of
    investment, and we are the leader in that technology. Where we
    are slow, where our edge is eroding is in the regulatory
    framework component. The national framework piece is a critical
    aspect of being able to scale the technology. And in that
    respect, the countries that you mentioned and others are
    catching up in being able to allow technology to scale and
    deploy there.
        So, the biggest thing that needs to happen, from the
    industry's perspective, and I think it sounds like from the
    perspective of a number of folks, is actually we need to
    proceed without delay to enact this national framework that has
    a couple of components. And the way we structure it is really
    two pieces.
        It has to be able to enhance consumer and public trust in
    the technology. That is first and foremost, and that comes from
    completing a number of rulemakings that NHTSA has underway and
    the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has underway,
    and a number of other initiatives that can help on that front.
        But the second part--and they must go hand in hand--is to
    maximize deployment of the technology. The vice mayor is
    correct. One of the key things that comes from being able to
    scale the technology in the interim, while rulemakings are in
    process, is the information that regulators and policymakers
    can get from being able to deploy the technology. So, raising
    exemption caps, being able to put new and different kinds of
    vehicles on the road in the interim, that is critical. We have
    to maximize deployment to keep that position, that leadership
    position.
        Mr. Moulton. So, Mr. Wolf, just following on that, and
    specifically on your first point about consumer trust, I hear a
    lot of concerns from constituents, from technology experts,
    perhaps most concerningly from some artificial intelligence
    experts, about the degree of trust that drivers currently place
    in their Teslas. So, a rather technical question, but why is
    Level 3 and above automation different than what Teslas are
    using on the road with us today, and do you think these
    technologies are safe?
        Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate the question, Congressman.
        I think the key thing there is that the AV Industry
    Association, we represent Level 4 and above, and the
    distinction is critical because Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous
    vehicles are not designed to have nor do they have any
    expectation of a human involvement in the performance of the
    driving task.
        Mr. Moulton. Right, but a lot of humans today read the
    newspaper behind their Tesla, so, there seems to be an
    expectation that they don't need to do anything.
        Mr. Wolf. Well----
        Mr. Moulton. That is a problem, right?
        Mr. Wolf. To that exact point, Congressman, Tesla is not a
    Level 4 or Level 5 technology. It is a driver assistance
    technology. And as we were discussing a little bit earlier, it
    is very important to your point, sir, that we are very clear
    what the difference between those technologies are, so that
    consumers are not confused and engaged in dangerous activity
    with driver assist technology that they assume is autonomous
    vehicle technology. Those things have to--they are different
    industries, different business models, different technologies.
    All of it needs to be separated very clearly, and we welcome
    the dialogue and working with other stakeholders to do that.
        Mr. Moulton. Well, thank you.
        And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me a little bit more
    time, because I do think this is a critical issue, and clearly,
    there is work that the Federal Government needs to do in this
    regard. So, thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Of course, Mr. Moulton.
        Ms. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want
    to thank all of the witnesses here today that are testifying
    for sticking it out with us, for waiting through the votes.
    When you get to a freshman Member whose last name starts with a
    ``W,'' you know you are in the home stretch, and it is almost
    time to go home. So, thank you, thank you.
        When people say that Congress writes the rules of the road,
    that is usually just an expression, except here on the Highways
    and Transit Subcommittee, because, y'all, we really do write
    the rules of the road. And our job is to be sure that we are
    writing the rules as quickly as the roads are changing, while
    centering safety, workers, and innovation, simultaneously. When
    it comes to writing the rules of the road for automated vehicle
    technology, this is no different, and we must center
    transportation workers and the people who rely on
    transportation systems every day.
        Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, in your testimony you highlighted
    the importance of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. What
    role do you see automated vehicle technology playing in
    achieving that goal?
        And how can Congress start writing policy in preparation
    for automated vehicle technology that prioritizes safety for
    both motorists and pedestrians?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question,
    Representative Williams. Zero is the only number that makes
    sense for us with fatalities on the road.
        NLC's position is we are recommending more pilot
    partnerships with our cities. That way, we can have more
    testing in more places, more climates, more areas, our rural
    areas, the areas that are urban. We need more data so that
    autonomous vehicles can get their own safety standards. Until
    we have more information, I think that we will need to do more
    testing, more piloting so that you can write the rules that
    would be equitable across the country.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you. And last week I took
    the time to speak with State and local elected officials in my
    district about many of the programs and opportunities that
    exist in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. One of the programs
    that garnered interest was the Safe Streets and Roads for All
    program, which funds projects aimed at reducing traffic
    fatalities.
        Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, how could a critical program like
    this support projects that both advance responsible technology
    and reduce traffic fatalities?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. We definitely want to take the human
    error out of the fatalities that are happening on our roads,
    and we feel like autonomous vehicles is that opportunity that
    can take that human error out of the numerous number of crashes
    that are happening on our roads. The sensors that are on these
    autonomous vehicles have shown that they are stronger than the
    human eye. The vehicles can react faster than a human.
        This technology is very innovative. However, it is still
    very premature, and there still needs to be more piloting and
    more data collected so that we can do all of this innovation
    safely, and make sure we are protecting the public trust.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you.
        And Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony you mentioned the
    importance of protecting collective bargaining principles at
    every stage of automated vehicle development, including during
    research, testing, and implementation. Can you elaborate on
    this, and tell me how these principles can be implemented at
    each state of technology development to ensure that workers
    have a seat at the table every step of the way?
        Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, and thank you for the question.
        So, as the technology comes in, and what needs to be done,
    definitely, which has been referenced here many times today, is
    that the Federal Government needs to set up a framework that
    protects workers, protects jobs, doesn't allow a situation
    where transit providers--and I am speaking strictly in
    transit--transit providers implement technology in a blindside
    manner that eliminates workers.
        So, the Federal Government has an ability to compel transit
    operators, transit employers to engage in workforce development
    investment, and also to engage with communities and workers in
    such a way where waves of technology that are going to impact
    working neighborhoods and impact workers themselves are
    discussed well ahead of time, well before the time of
    implementation.
        And those things are happening now, where workers have
    power to compel that to happen; for instance, in New York City,
    where that is very common, it is a very common element of the
    TWU contracts that we have in New York. But the Federal
    Government needs to adopt this as a uniform standard, so that
    it happens city after city after city, transit provider,
    transit provider, and on.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen. My
    policymaking always centers those most marginalized, and
    building a transportation system that is accessible for all is
    always a top priority for me on this committee.
        I do have additional questions that I will submit for the
    record, and I hope that I can get further answers.
        And Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Your time has expired.
        Ms. Williams of Georgia. No time to yield.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Stanton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
    this important hearing, and thank you to each of the witnesses
    for your important testimony today.
        Arizona, and my district in particular, has been at the
    epicenter for the development and testing of autonomous
    vehicles. In Chandler, Waymo is operating a fully driverless
    vehicle as part of its ride hailing service, Waymo One. In
    Scottsdale, Nuro and Cruise have partnered with retailers for
    local deliveries. And in Tucson, Arizona, TuSimple recently
    completed its first fully autonomous semi-truck run on the open
    road between Phoenix and Tucson.
        AVs have the potential to transform our transportation
    system by improving mobility for vulnerable populations or
    those who face barriers to transportation, enhancing vehicle
    safety, reducing vehicle crashes and deaths, and increasing
    productivity. At the same time, we also need to recognize that
    AVs have the potential to alter our workforce, and we want to
    keep as many people employed as possible.
        As Congress continues to consider the Federal role in the
    testing and deployment of AVs, it will be important for this
    committee and all of the entities represented by the witnesses
    before this committee today to have a seat at the table. My
    first question is for the vice mayor, Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum.
        I am a former mayor myself. I come from the city world, the
    former mayor of Phoenix. I know firsthand that leadership at
    the local level is key to fostering innovation. What are your
    thoughts about what the Federal Government can do to support
    and collaborate with cities in AV testing and development?
        Ms. Castex-Tatum. Again, I will reiterate the importance of
    piloting with the cities. We want to see partnerships with
    cities that create more testing in more places, providing more
    data, and really working to get autonomous vehicles their own
    safety standards.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. My next question is for
    Mr. Marler.
        Mr. Marler, there are many public places and public and
    private stakeholders involved in AV development. Your testimony
    calls for Federal leadership to help direct the conversation
    surrounding AVs. What role can the Federal Government play to
    help facilitate the safe deployment of AVs to meet community
    needs?
        Mr. Marler. Thank you for that question. In Iowa, we have
    convened a public-private multisector vision for AVs, and we
    created a space for this in our State via the Iowa Automated
    Transportation Council. We have done this regionally in the
    Midwest, among our 10 Midwestern States, and it is our view
    that we need to replicate these types of engagements at the
    national level, and establish a clear, consistent vision,
    strategy, and framework.
        There is sufficient energy across the Nation, in terms of
    this conversation. It has been somewhat fragmented. In Iowa, we
    call them silos of excellence. Congress can foster this
    collaborative environment at all levels of Government. We
    believe that you can convene a new national dialogue and
    conversation. You can make sure that we are engaging a broad
    cross-section for input, including local communities, both
    public and private. And also, there are some great
    collaborative efforts already underway that support is critical
    for, like the Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition.
        So, those are some thoughts on how we might meet some
    community needs.
        Mr. Stanton. I appreciate it. This is for yourself and any
    other witness that may want to answer.
        A significant number of roadway fatalities occur on rural
    roads. One of the challenges on the use of connected and
    automated vehicles is the lack of required infrastructure
    features to accommodate them in rural parts of our country.
    What can and should be done to prepare rural America for the
    expanded use of AVs?
        Mr. Marler. I would be happy to start with an answer to
    that question, and thank you for that question. Really, two
    things that we are looking at.
        First is, we do need to look at our physical
    infrastructure, and make sure that we have good condition
    pavements, our signs, our lane markings, that these things are
    in good condition in our rural areas, especially. But the
    investment can still be challenging. Our rural areas do
    struggle to have the available levels of funding to ensure that
    they are making those stewardship investments that they need.
        The second thing we can do is really an emphasis on digital
    infrastructure, really looking at our broadband, particularly
    in rural areas, looking at our mapping, looking at our
    connectivity and spectrum. This is why the spectrum question is
    so critical. These things, these two components, both physical
    and digital for our rural areas, they really have the
    opportunity to lift our rural communities across our Nation.
        Mr. Stanton. In my short time left, any other witness want
    to take a----
        Mr. Beuse. Yes, I will chime in here, just add something
    from an industry perspective.
        Two points you raised. One, we find a lot of value in the
    convening power, both at the State level, like Congress is
    doing today, but also even at the USDOT level to really bring
    all stakeholders together. My personal opinion is I don't know
    that we have done enough of that lately on these particular
    issues.
        On your point about rural, part of our mission is to
    deliver this technology broadly. In fact, when you look at even
    some of our locations right now, they are what are considered
    to be rural America. And I think we need to keep that in the
    conversation, as well. I mean, many of the paths that highways
    cut through are rural in nature, and there are a lot of needs
    that probably should be considered, again, to support the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the rollout.
        Mr. Stanton. All right, I have run out of time here, so, I
    am going have to yield back. But I would love to get, at a
    later time maybe, a separate conversation with our
    representatives of organized labor about some of the thoughts
    on that one, as well. I will yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I would like to thank each
    of the witnesses for your testimony today.
        You can see by how many Members came back after the votes
    to ask questions, that this was an important hearing in our
    committee today. Your comments, you who have testified today,
    have been very informative and very helpful.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
    writing.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
    for 15 days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
    of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Norton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
    our witnesses for participating today.
        Throughout my time on the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee, one of my top priorities has been to support innovation, and
    make sure that advancements in technology are incorporated into our
    transportation system.
        Automated Vehicles (AVs) may be one of the most transformational
    innovations in transportation since the automobile was invented.
        Automated trucks and buses have the potential to increase mobility,
    and make our transportation system safer and more efficient, and the
    movement of goods less costly.
        AVs will create new highly skilled jobs and strengthen our economy.
        While many have called for a federal regulatory framework, such a
    framework should not be overly prescriptive but instead create
    guardrails for the industry to grow with safety at the forefront. We
    must avoid stifling innovation as it is just getting off the ground.
        Striking this balance is vital for America to secure our global
    competitive edge in this industry.
        I look forward to hearing about challenges and solutions to full
    deployment of automated trucks and buses.
        Thank you again to our witnesses, and I yield back.

     Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His Remarks to
     Hon. Mike Bost, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 4, 2022.
    The Honorable Mike Bost,
    House of Representatives,
    1211 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Representative Bost:
        I appreciated your question to me during the recent Highways and
    Transit subcommittee hearing ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles''.
    You noted a very important issue and I wanted to get you a more
    extensive, detailed answer.
        During our exchange you asked:
        What additional training needs are there for mechanics on automated
    systems? Are there additional safety concerns for workers around
    automated trains or buses? What can we do to make sure that maintenance
    workers are prepared for these kinds of vehicles once they enter
    deployment?
        There are two groups of maintenance workers that will have to
    interact with this kind of technology very differently: mechanics
    fixing these vehicles--who will need to have equipment-specific
    training--and the workers maintaining tracks, roads, and the rest of
    the built environment around these vehicles--who will need clear safety
    protections and trust that an autonomous system would be able to
    recognize and follow safety procedures. In both cases, the federal
    government needs to be an active partner and regulator to ensure these
    vehicles meet existing standards.
        Mechanics working on AV-equipment will need access to all of the
    vehicle's systems along with the diagnostic tools necessary to
    troubleshoot and repair issues as they arise. This could mean more
    training on software or other advanced tools. Especially for commercial
    fleets, which may have many purpose-specific operational rules or
    limitations, these workers will need significant job-training
    investments to make sure that they can continue to do their jobs on
    this new equipment.
        For track workers, road workers, and others who are working on
    active roadways, it is essential that workers trust that any vehicle
    around them will stop, slow down, or divert to maintain a safe
    distance. If these workers don't believe that a train car is going to
    stop for them to clear a track, they cannot do their work. No AV should
    be allowed to operate in these kinds of situations if the safety of the
    workers around the vehicle cannot be guaranteed (as well as the safety
    of those inside the vehicle).
        Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and questions. I look
    forward to working with you on these issues.
            Sincerely,
                                                John Samuelsen,
      International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
                                                                   CIO.

    cc: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
    Highways and Transit staff

     Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His Remarks to
     Hon. Julia Brownley, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
                                     Norton
                                                      February 4, 2022.
    The Honorable Julia Brownley,
    House of Representatives,
    2262 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Representative Brownley:
        I appreciated your question to me during the recent Highways and
    Transit subcommittee hearing ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles''.
    You noted a very important issue and I wanted to get you a more
    extensive, detailed answer.
        During our exchange you asked: ``Why do you think there is such a
    disconnect between the real statistics and the rhetoric [regarding the
    safety of autonomous vehicles]?''
        There is a significant gap between the promises being made about
    AVs and the reality of this technology today. While manufacturers and
    software developers have focused exclusively on the potential future
    benefits of these vehicles, the technology available today is not as
    safe as the average human operator even in personal vehicles.
        AVs operate on public roads through a series of waivers and
    exemptions from safety rules. The expected result of these waivers is
    exactly what we're seeing: more accidents for the vehicles that have
    the most exemptions from safety requirements. Whatever the public
    perception may be, it is up to our elected leaders in Congress and the
    safety professionals in the administration to hold all technology
    accountable to our safety standards rather than bow to marketing
    campaigns.
        Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and questions. I look
    forward to working with you on these issues.
            Sincerely,
                                                John Samuelsen,
      International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
                                                                   CIO.

    cc: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
    Highways and Transit staff

       Letter of February 1, 2022, from Garrick Francis, Vice President,
    Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Submitted for the
                      Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chair,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
            and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
            DC 20515.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
            and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
            DC 20515.
        Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        On behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto
    Innovators), I appreciate your attention to the importance of
    developing a national strategy to support the incorporation of
    automated vehicles (``AVs'') and technologies into our nation's
    transportation networks, services, and infrastructure. The U.S. has an
    opportunity to advance its leadership role in developing these
    revolutionary technologies and new mobility business models that have
    the potential to contribute to a safer, cleaner, more accessible, and
    equitable transportation future.
        Auto Innovators was formed in 2020 to serve as the singular,
    authoritative, and respected voice of the automotive industry in the
    United States. Our members include auto manufacturers producing nearly
    99 percent of the cars and light trucks sold in the U.S., along with
    original equipment suppliers, technology companies, and other
    automotive-related value chain partners. In total, our industry
    supports roughly 10 million jobs in America, accounts for approximately
    5.5 percent of our country's gross domestic product and represents our
    country's largest manufacturing sector.
        As a global leader in the development of AV technologies, the U.S.
    is at the forefront of innovations that will transform transportation
    in a number of ways. Safety, of course, is a critical component in the
    development of AVs. Another benefit of these vehicles is the promise to
    provide life-changing opportunities for those who are not adequately
    served by existing mobility options, such as seniors, persons with
    disabilities, and those who require more affordable transportation.
    Further, the benefits of these vehicles extend to other roadway users,
    not to mention the benefits that AV's have shown various communities
    and individuals in need during the COVID-19 pandemic.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See e.g., Jane Lanhee Lee, Nathan Frandino, Reuters, ``Self-
    driving vehicles get in on the delivery scene amid COVID-19,'' (April
    29, 2020) available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-
    coronavirus-self-driving-deliv/self-driving-vehicles-get-in-on-the-
    delivery-scene-amid-covid-19-idUSKBN22B2LZ.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. has the opportunity to drive AV innovation. According to
    KPMG, the U.S. is home to the headquarters and testing locations of
    more than 425 AV companies, nearly half of all companies tracked for
    their annual Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index.\2\ In fact, AV
    companies continue to safely test vehicles in California, Arizona,
    Nevada, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states to
    further research and validation of key technologies, bringing with it
    not only technological leadership, but jobs, investment, tax revenue
    and local economic growth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/07/2020-
    autonomous-vehicles-readiness-index.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As these technologies mature, including companies today on the cusp
    of initial commercialization in the U.S., the nation needs updated
    federal regulations and a pathway to scale their development with
    appropriate oversight in order to realize many of the promises of this
    technology. That is why a responsible federal framework for the safe
    development, testing and deployment of AVs in the United States is so
    important. Consistent with the Department of Transportation's newly
    released principles for innovation, this will help to preserve U.S.
    leadership in these potentially life-saving and life-changing
    technologies and ensure U.S. innovations benefit the traveling public
    and our economy for decades to come.
        As we have witnessed in other technologies and sectors, the nations
    that lead the development of AVs will have the potential to guide the
    development of international standards, control supply chains, and
    define international markets. With a technology like AVs, this could
    have implications far beyond transportation. This is not simply a
    question, therefore, of global or economic competitiveness. It is about
    defining the future of this technology--and associated infrastructure--
    in a manner that emphasizes safety, responsibility, and opportunity for
    more citizens to benefit from this transformative shift in mobility.
        While the U.S. is well positioned to continue its long-standing
    leadership in automotive innovation, we cannot be complacent. Across
    the globe, nations are backing bold commitments with government
    investments and supporting policies. That is why in December 2020 Auto
    Innovators released the AV Policy Roadmap. The Roadmap outlines the
    auto industry's AV policy priorities and includes fourteen specific
    recommendations that can be implemented by federal policymakers over
    the coming years to facilitate the testing and deployment of AVs at
    scale. These recommendations are focused on reforming regulations,
    harmonizing policies, and laying the foundation to achieve longer-term
    objectives--including expanding the number of exemptions that U.S. DOT
    can provide on a case-by-case basis--with safety oversight and full
    enforcement powers--which can then provide the data necessary to
    support future Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for AVs.
        We are approaching a pivotal moment in the evolution of this
    technology and have an opportunity to work collaboratively to chart a
    course that sustains U.S. leadership and innovation in these critical
    safety and mobility solutions for decades to come. We look forward to
    continuing to work with you and your colleagues in Congress, as well as
    the Administration and other stakeholders, to realize the benefits of a
    safer, more environmentally friendly, accessible, and equitable U.S.
    transportation future.
            Sincerely,
                                               Garrick Francis,
              Vice President, Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive
                                                            Innovation.

    cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Chairman
        The Honorable Sam Graves, Ranking Member
        The Honorable Frank Pallone, Chairman, House Committee on Energy
    and Commerce
        The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member, House
    Committee on Energy and Commerce

    Statement of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the
    Committee:
        The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
    thanks the Committee for holding its February 2nd hearing entitled,
    ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.'' From the start, AAMVA and
    its state-based membership have been leaders in describing how
    automated vehicle technologies can make the transition from concept to
    deployment. AAMVA has contributed our expertise for more than a decade
    to finding the safest path forward for these life-saving technologies.
    As Congress continues to contemplate the federal policy platform for
    Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Advanced Driving Assistance Systems
    (ADAS) AAMVA offers the following in support of the hearing.
        AAMVA's state-based transportation experts have developed a
    resource guide documenting their contributions in moving these
    technologies to our roadways. AAMVA's ``Safe Testing and Deployment of
    Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving Systems Guidelines'' is now in
    its second edition, and provides recommendations for ADS/ADAS program
    administration, vehicle safety considerations, driver licensing
    considerations, law enforcement considerations and additional
    considerations for issues including cybersecurity, data collection,
    low-speed automated shuttles, connected vehicles, and vehicle
    platooning. Key amongst its finding is that no true path forward will
    take place in a vacuum. The responsible management and rollout of new
    technology takes input from a wide range of stakeholders, all of which
    must play a role in heralding emergent vehicle technologies. AAMVA will
    publish its updated third edition of this important resource in the
    Summer of 2022.
        Of primary importance in consideration of any federal legislation
    is the key role state and local governments provide in the safe
    integration of ADS and ADAS-equipped vehicles into existing
    transportation networks. Implementation of a successful AV policy
    requires finding the appropriate balance between cooperating partners,
    delineating the respective responsibilities, documenting
    accountability, and ensuring that appropriate funding and incentives
    are in place for desired outcomes. Federal, State and local government
    must approach these issues in a systematic and pragmatic manner to
    ensure that safety on our nation's roadways and streets is paramount.
        Key amongst those considerations is the fact that current federal
    and state roles in safety are already prescribed. AAMVA urges that no
    additional preemption over state authority to regulate vehicles of any
    type be included in federal legislation. When something goes wrong with
    any new technology, federal resources are not primary responders to the
    scene of a crash. Should there be safety issues that need to be
    rectified, permitting agile response to enforcement and regulation
    without having to leverage the federal recall mechanism may be not only
    warranted, but necessary to save lives. There are sure to be issues
    between the design features of a vehicle on the assembly line, and how
    those vehicles interact in a mixed fleet under dynamic circumstances.
    For this reason, every stakeholder should play its part in safety, and
    all state and local response options should be preserved.
        The responsible path forward does not require any shift in the
    current federal-state preemptive dynamic. States recognize federal
    oversight of design features and the establishment of safety standards.
    The work ahead simply requires adjusting those safety standards to
    accommodate vehicles that are performing the dynamic driving task.
        While the current regulatory structure does not contemplate a
    vehicle as driver, AAMVA feels confident that the current preemption
    precluding a state from enforcing against an identical federal standard
    is all the preemptive authority the federal government needs to pursue
    future ADS/ADAS continuity goals. In the lack of such standards, which
    the states rely heavily on, the states must retain their ability to
    regulate and enforce against unsafe products.
        AAMVA has offered comprehensive comment on the issues we feel are
    most important with respect to accommodating these technologies through
    numerous USDOT regulatory dockets. Those comments are available at
    www.aamva.org/AAMVA_Comments.
        AAMVA again thanks the Committee for holding this important hearing
    and stands ready to assist in describing the framework for getting
    life-saving technologies on our roadways in the safest means possible.

      Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association,
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Automated driver assistance system (ADAS) and automated driving
    system (ADS) technology is rapidly increasing automation of the driving
    function. 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. 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 54 percent of
    the automobile insurance in the United States.
        As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure studies the
    deployment of automated vehicles, it is important that members of
    Congress understand the needs of the automobile insurance industry so
    that insurers can continue to efficiently provide protection to vehicle
    passengers and commercial vehicles. Today, the automobile insurance
    industry faces disruption on several fronts. While car accidents have
    been down during the pandemic with fewer drivers on the roads, the
    trend in recent years has, unfortunately, been an increase in the
    number of accidents, injuries, and deaths on our roads. These tragedies
    come at a time when vehicles are safer than ever due to better
    construction and crash avoidance technology. However, those same
    improvements that make vehicles safer also significantly increase the
    cost of repairs. The cost of medical care for auto accident victims is
    also increasing much faster than the rate of inflation.
        While navigating these issues, insurers will be challenged to make
    fundamental changes in how they assess risk as the focus moves from the
    human driver towards the technology that operates the vehicle. While
    vehicle characteristics have always played a role in pricing auto
    insurance, assessing accident risk has primarily focused on drivers.
    Going forward, insurers will need to identify vehicles equipped with
    autonomous technology and have that identification reflected in motor
    vehicle records and crash reporting to assess the risk of different
    automated or autonomous driving systems, just as they are able to
    differentiate between drivers today.
        Similarly, when determining liability in an auto accident claims
    situation, the primary approach today is to interview the drivers. With
    autonomous vehicles, insurers will need access to recorded vehicle data
    to provide evidence of how an accident happened. APCIA believes that
    our current state-based system of determining liability for accidents
    and compensating victims should be able to adapt to the changing nature
    of the driving risk if vehicle data is accessible and in a form that
    allows for prompt accident investigation and resolution of claims.
        Access to and sharing of automated or autonomous vehicle data is a
    critical issue, not only for insurers but for automotive technology
    developers, manufacturers, vehicle owners, and numerous other
    stakeholders. At a minimum, vehicle owners or lessees should have the
    ability to authorize access to vehicle data to third parties with whom
    they wish to share data for any reason and APCIA urges the committee to
    address this issue in legislation. This can be accomplished while
    protecting an individual's privacy and protecting developers'
    intellectual property. Also, establishing a single set of rules for
    data access and sharing as well as a standardized set of data elements
    that balances those interests, is critical.
        Finally, APCIA supports the 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 and 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 thanks the committee for the opportunity to share our
    comments in connection with this hearing. In addition to these
    comments, we would also like to share our comments made to the U.S.
    Department of Transportation regarding DOT's Automated Vehicle
    Comprehensive Plan in the letter below.
                                   __________
                                                        March 19, 2021.
    U.S. Department of Transportation,
    1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
    Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Submitted via Regulation.gov.

    Re: Docket Number: DOT-OST-2021-0005
    Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan, Request for Comments

        To Whom It May Concern,
        Automated driving technology, which from an insurers perspective
    includes advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) and automated driving
    system (ADS) technology, is rapidly increasing automation of the
    driving function. 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. 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 54 percent of
    the automobile insurance in the United States.
        While the Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan makes no direct
    mention of insurance, it does touch upon issues that are very important
    to APCIA members that write automobile insurance, including safety,
    information sharing, and appropriate division of oversight of automated
    driving system technologies between the federal government and the
    states.
     Prioritization of Safety: Updating FMVSS and Standard Terminology for
                              ADS and ADAS Systems
        It is entirely appropriate that the department places safety at the
    center of its comprehensive plan. APCIA believes that safety standards
    applicable to automated vehicles must set clear expectations for the
    public and provide clear direction for technology developers and
    manufacturers for compliance.
        As such, we believe that the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards (FMVSS) should be updated to address vehicles with both
    automated driving systems (ADS) and advanced driver assistance
    technology (ADAS). APCIA also supports the concept of requiring
    manufacturers to submit self-certification of their technology and that
    that recall authority applies to these systems, as it does for
    conventional vehicles serving as the primary enforcement mechanism for
    the FMVSS.
        APCIA believes that 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.
        APCIA strongly believes that 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 also enable the
    public to have a clearer understanding of the technology and allow
    insurers to identify and differentiate systems by performance, a
    critical element for insurance product development and pricing.
    Standardized terminology would also facilitate education of the public
    on the proper way to use automated driving systems on an ongoing basis
    as the technology evolves should be a key element of any safety
    framework for automated driving systems and automated driver assistance
    systems.
    Promoting Collaboration and Transparency: Data Access Standard and Data
                                    Elements
        Access to and sharing of automated or autonomous vehicle data is a
    critical issue, not only for vehicle owners and insurers, but for
    automotive technology developers, manufacturers, vehicle owners and
    numerous other stakeholders. Safety, security, privacy, and protection
    of intellectual property are all important, but must be balanced with
    the need for third parties to access such data. At a minimum, vehicle
    owners or lessees should have the ability to authorize access to
    vehicle data to third parties with whom they wish to share data for any
    reason.
        When determining liability in an auto accident claims situation,
    the primary approach today is to interview the drivers. With automated
    vehicles, insurers will need access to recorded vehicle data to provide
    evidence of how an accident happened. APCIA believes that our current
    state-based system of determining liability for accidents and
    compensating victims should be able to adapt to the changing nature of
    the driving risk, but only if vehicle data is accessible and in a form
    that allows for prompt accident investigation and resolution of claims.
        The Comprehensive Plan continues to call for the private sector to
    identify opportunities for voluntary data exchange, but it's becoming
    clear that manufacturers are reluctant to do so absent clear guidance
    on what their obligations are. Establishing a single set of rules for
    data access and sharing at the federal level, and a standardized set of
    data elements that balances the interests of all stakeholders is
    critical. One suggestion that APCIA supports is updating the current
    event data recorder (EDR) law to apply to automated vehicles with the
    department working with state motor vehicle regulators, and insurance
    regulators to develop a standard set of data elements.
       Recognition of State Regulation of Insurance and Liability Issues
        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, 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.
                                   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 the Department of Transportation and look forward
    to working together to establish a regulatory framework for automated
    driving.

                                               Robert Passmore,
                                Vice President, Auto and Claims Policy,
                      American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

    Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
                      Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                  Introduction
        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit a statement to the House Subcommittee on Highways
    and Transit for the hearing on The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.
        Thoughtful planning and safe deployment are critical as these
    vehicles become a more prevalent part of the nation's transportation
    landscape. ASCE recommends industry and government representatives work
    cooperatively to establish national standards for the planning and
    deployment of transportation infrastructure associated with automated
    vehicles (AV). These standards will help guide the development of AV
    systems by the private sector while establishing a framework for local
    jurisdictions that plan and maintain infrastructure.
        ASCE commends the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
    hearing from a variety of vehicle industry leaders and transportation
    experts. Federal, state, and local government officials need to balance
    investments to preserve safety on existing systems while planning for
    the roadways of the future with consideration of autonomous vehicles.
              ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
        Every four years, ASCE publishes its Report Card for America's
    Infrastructure, which grades the nation's major infrastructure
    categories using an A to F school report card format. The most recent
    report card \1\, released in March 2021, evaluated 17 categories of
    infrastructure and reflected an overall C- grade.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Roads earned a D on the report card, which recognized that the
    introduction of connected and autonomous vehicles represents a major
    technological shift. Although these technologies can provide an
    opportunity to increase safety and mobility, reduce congestion and
    carbon emissions, and improve land use, autonomous vehicles could also
    lead to extra stress on the transportation system if implemented
    incorrectly. Some 40 states have already either enacted legislation or
    issued executive orders on autonomous vehicles, and a national
    framework is necessary to prevent a patchwork of individual state-level
    policies.
                                     Safety
        AV technologies have the potential to improve safety at a time when
    roadway fatalities are a serious issue. The National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA) released data \2\ in October indicating
    20,160 people died in motor vehicle crashes between January and June
    2021. This figure marks an increase of 18.4% compared to the first half
    of 2020, in which 17,020 such fatalities were projected.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    813199
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to a Human Factors for Connected Vehicles study by NHTSA
    \3\, connected vehicle technologies have the potential to address up to
    82% of crash scenarios with unimpaired drivers. These technologies
    could save a significant number of lives and prevent crash-related
    injuries, and help avoid tens of thousands of crashes each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/812068-
    humanfactorsconnectedvehicles.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are several areas where technology can fill in the gaps of
    human performance and improve safety and mobility.
        For example:
          Technology improvements can provide stability control,
    automatic braking, all-wheel drive, steering by wire, traction control,
    collision avoidance, blind spot warning systems, lane control, and
    automatic cruise control.
          Infotainment systems linked to cell phone technologies
    (e.g., Bluetooth and voice activated commands) in vehicles can reduce
    distracted driving (e.g., from texting, looking down at a phone for
    directions, searching for an address, etc.).
          AVs possess hardware and software collectively capable of
    performing some aspects of safety-critical control functions (e.g.,
    steering, throttle, and braking) without direct driver input. AVs may
    use vehicle sensors, cameras, GPS, and telecommunications to obtain
    information to make decisions regarding safety-critical situations and
    act appropriately by effectuating control at some level. In this way,
    the AV infrastructure and the roadway infrastructure are
    interdependent.
          Vehicle to Everything (V2X) technologies are being
    developed and tested to prevent or mitigate crashes. V2X technologies
    must improve safety for the passenger and provide increased efficiency
    for existing infrastructure. Connectivity to 5G systems will be
    required and enough spectrum band must be preserved to support V2X
    technologies.
          ASCE has joined industry partners such as the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in
    supporting the preservation of the 5.9 GHz wireless spectrum on which
    connected vehicles using V2X technologies rely.

        The recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    represents a substantial investment in surface transportation. The
    legislation contains a five-year, $383.4 billion reauthorization of
    federal surface transportation, highway safety, transit, and rail
    programs and an additional $110 billion for road and bridge programs.
    As this law is implemented, it will be important to make investments
    that enhance growing technology.
        Consideration should be given to the following:
          As connected and automated vehicles (CAV) technology
    continues to develop, cooperative systems must be achieved through
    strong partnerships between vehicles manufacturers, infrastructure
    owners and operators, government entities, freight transport and
    logistics professionals, transportation safety groups, law enforcement,
    first responders, and other private sector representatives.
          Our nation's transportation infrastructure system needs
    to meet the growth and demands of CAV technology. Strong and resilient
    infrastructure must be in place to adopt new transportation technology.
          It is important to invest in the infrastructure system to
    ensure CAV technology is properly implemented. There must be a complete
    and properly maintained infrastructure system in order to maximize the
    safety benefits that CAV technology can provide.
                                   Conclusion
        ASCE thanks the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
    hearing from a panel of experts on the subject of AVs.
        AV technologies have the potential to improve safety and reduce
    motor vehicle crashes. These vehicles will continue to be a part of the
    nation's transportation landscape, and their appropriate use will be
    facilitated by national standards developed by government and industry
    leaders.

        Statement of the American Traffic Safety Services Association,
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
        The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) welcomes
    the opportunity to provide this Statement for the Record regarding
    automated vehicles and roadway safety.
        Established in 1969, ATSSA is an international trade association
    which represents the manufacturers, distributors, and installers of
    roadway safety infrastructure devices. Comprised of approximately 1,500
    member companies, ATSSA's mission is to advance roadway safety and
    achieve the policy priority of Towards Zero Deaths.
        While the expanded use of connected and automated vehicle (CAV)
    technology is an exciting technological advancement, it is important
    for policy makers, automobile manufacturers, state departments of
    transportation, local governments, and other stakeholders to recognize
    that a critical focus needs to be the safe operation of these vehicles
    on this nation's roadways. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration's (NHTSA) early estimate of traffic deaths in the first
    nine months of 2021 showed a 12 percent increase in fatalities. ATSSA
    members understand the potential safety benefits that can be realized
    from the use of CAVs--but these benefits will only be realized after
    thoughtful planning and strategic roadway safety infrastructure
    investments.
                                   Case Study
        ATSSA has been on the forefront of examining specific types of
    modifications to existing roadway safety devices and systems that will
    be necessary to accommodate CAVs. For example, in 2018, ATSSA led a
    case study evaluating pavement marking widths in order to determine how
    they interact with CAV technology. This case study explored the effect
    of longitudinal pavement marking width on the detectability of
    preformed tape pavement markings by a machine vision (MV) based
    advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). More specifically, this
    research compared the performance of MV technology relative to 4-inch
    and 6-inch-wide pavement markings. An aftermarket advanced driver
    assistance lane departure warning (LDW) system was adapted such that
    the pavement marking detection confidence rating that the LDW algorithm
    assigned to each pavement marking was extracted. The detection
    confidence rating assigned to each pavement marking served as the
    measure of the detectability of the pavement markings. Variations of 4-
    and 6-inch-wide preformed pavement marking tape were manufactured and
    installed on a closed course testing area to simulate different levels
    of in-service markings. The testing included various combinations of
    lighting (daytime, nighttime, and nighttime with on-coming headlamp
    glare) and environmental conditions (dry and wet recovery). This
    research shows that the 6-inch-wide longitudinal preformed tape
    markings consistently improved MV detection performance under wet
    daytime conditions, which is critical since wet daytime conditions
    provide a significant challenge for the MV technologies tested.
        Much more work needs to be done to fully understand the
    relationship between the vehicle and the roadway--and the potential
    need for increased investments needed in roadway safety infrastructure.
    Studies such as this should be part of an increased research and
    planning effort that will be necessary to support the safe integration
    of autonomous vehicles onto our roadway infrastructure system. Failure
    to prioritize roadway safety in the development of CAV deployment
    strategies could lead to an uptick in both motor vehicle crashes and
    fatalities--which could be the reality if an automated vehicle should
    fail to properly interact with a traffic signal, stop sign or pavement
    marking.
                                   Conclusion
        The American commuting pattern continues to change--changes
    exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in bicycle and
    pedestrian traffic has highlighted the importance of safety for all
    transportation system users, including vulnerable road users. Ensuring
    that roadway safety infrastructure is in place to protect these
    commuters and all who use our roadways must also not be overlooked.
        While connected and automated vehicles are an exciting addition to
    the roadway system, roadway safety needs to be considered every step of
    the way in the planning, development and deployment process. ATSSA
    stands ready to help make this technology a safe and successful part of
    the transportation future in this country.

        Letter of February 1, 2022, from Bill Sullivan, Executive Vice
     President of Advocacy, American Trucking Associations, Submitted for
                    the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
    Chair,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives.
    The Honorable Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
            Representatives.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chair,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives.
        Dear Chairs DeFazio and Norton, and Ranking Members Graves and
    Davis:
        In anticipation of the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit's upcoming hearing, ``The Road
    Ahead for Automated Vehicles,'' the American Trucking Associations
    (ATA) would like to provide the trucking industry's recommendations and
    pillars for the establishment of sensible federal policy. ATA is the
    largest national trade association representing the U.S. trucking
    industry. Employing more than 7.9 million people and moving nearly 12
    billion tons of freight annually, trucking is the industry most
    responsible for moving America's economy. It is no coincidence that an
    industry so essential to American productivity is at the forefront of
    its most exciting innovations. America's truckers stood up and
    delivered throughout the pandemic, ensuring the availability of life-
    saving vaccines and personal protective equipment, and keeping our
    grocery store shelves stocked. As we emerge from the pandemic,
    Americans expect their goods delivered even faster, cheaper, and more
    efficiently. Ongoing supply chain disruptions are exposing the need for
    greater flexibility to meet these new challenges. ATA believes
    automated driving systems (ADS) will significantly enhance the safety,
    efficiency, and productivity of the U.S. freight and logistics system.
        The benefits of automation can be accelerated by committing the
    federal government to collaborations with private industry partners
    that preserve the widest pathways to commercialization. ATA appreciates
    the work of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to adapt
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Federal Motor Vehicle
    Safety Standards for automated trucks, and for their consideration of
    the interaction between automated vehicles (AVs) and roadway
    infrastructure. ATA believes that collaboration among stakeholders,
    with leadership and guidance from DOT, is critical for developing a
    unified national framework of laws and regulations to facilitate the
    safe development, testing, deployment, and operation of commercialized
    automated vehicles.
        As work progresses on any such AV legislative or regulatory
    framework, ATA encourages Congress and DOT to adopt a multi-modal
    approach and prioritize commercial motor vehicles, heavy specialty
    vehicles, trailer-combination vehicles, and passenger vehicles equally.
    We strongly recommend that any legislation establishing federal
    oversight of the development and deployment of AV technologies consider
    all road users, including passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, buses,
    as well as the supporting infrastructure. To that end, ATA offers
    several guiding principles to promote the expeditious deployment of AV
    trucks in the U.S.:
        1.  The federal government should take a leading role in setting
    policies that will help foster the nationwide deployment of AV
    technologies in trucking. The trucking industry relies on interstate
    highways to facilitate the free flow of goods between states.
    Accordingly, it is important that state and local laws do not
    inadvertently create disparities that slow the adoption of these
    safety- and productivity-boosting technologies. A clear process and
    standards-setting role for the federal government that preempts state
    efforts to regulate vehicle design is critical for commercial AV
    development.
        2.  The federal government's approach should follow technological
    maturity and industry best practices. AV technology in trucking is
    developing rapidly--and demonstrations continue to show the promise of
    enhanced safety and efficiency benefits. DOT should work with ATA,
    including ATA's Technology & Maintenance Council, and other trucking
    industry representatives to incorporate industry best practices when
    developing guidance and regulations for ADS-equipped commercial motor
    vehicles. Industry best practices provide a vital technical basis to
    assist the evolution of legislative and/or regulatory frameworks.
        3.  The federal government should collaborate with industry to
    create performance-based standards that focus on objective testing and
    evaluation criteria for autonomous vehicles. Requiring AVs to achieve
    an acceptable level of safety and performance, rather than requiring
    the use of specific technology, will focus regulations on risk
    management within specific operating environments. Government-industry
    interactions through the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment (VSSA)
    process and the AV TEST Initiative provide DOT with information on a
    variety of approaches to ADS technology and operations from a cross-
    section of organizations testing ADS-equipped vehicles. This
    information will help DOT and other agencies develop policies,
    regulations, and/or guidance without inadvertently picking
    technological or operational winners or losers.

        While some have raised concerns about the potential impacts of
    automation on the workforce, ATA expects that there will continue to be
    a significant role for drivers in trucking. Automation will iteratively
    help build the capacity of the nation's transportation system, but
    there will always be a need for professional drivers capable of
    navigating the challenges of trucking. Because of the complexity and
    diversity of the trucking industry, drivers will retain an essential
    role in the deployment of automated vehicles while benefiting from
    automated technologies that improve their safety and productivity.
    Drivers will remain essential for monitoring automated driving systems,
    manually driving outside the operational design domains of automation,
    securing cargo and hazardous materials, and interacting with customers,
    shippers, and receivers. With improved quality of life through these
    new technologies that enhance driver safety and productivity, more
    people will be attracted to the trucking industry and will help close
    the driver shortage gap, which is now 80,000 drivers and expected to
    top 160,000 by 2030.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ American Trucking Associations. ``ATA Chief Economist Pegs
    Driver Shortage at Historic High.'' October 25, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATA thanks the Highways and Transit Subcommittee for holding this
    important hearing and welcomes the opportunity to engage Congress on
    this critical issue. As policymakers contemplate AV policies and
    regulations, it is critical that the trucking industry's perspective is
    considered and that industry best practices are taken into account. ATA
    looks forward to continuing its engagement with stakeholder advisory
    groups and governmental entities, including the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration (FMCSA) and other operating administrations
    within DOT on automated vehicles. ATA will also continue working with
    state trucking associations, state legislators, and transportation
    officials as policies, regulations, and research emerge at all levels
    of government and academia nationwide.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and continued
    leadership.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bill Sullivan,
               Executive Vice President of Advocacy, American Trucking
                                                          Associations.

    cc: U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Members

     Letter of February 14, 2022, from Jimmy Christianson, Vice President,
        Government Affairs, Associated General Contractors of America,
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                     February 14, 2022.
    The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.

    RE: Hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles''

        Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)--
    the leading association in the construction industry representing more
    than 27,000 firms, including America's leading general contractors and
    specialty-contracting firms--thank you holding this important hearing
    on the future of autonomous vehicles. Now, more than ever, in order to
    prepare for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and electric vehicles (EVs), we
    must strategically invest in road and bridge infrastructure to ensure
    that it is safe and ready for this emerging technology. States partners
    need flexibility in addressing unique transportation challenges,
    including the ability to prepare the nation's roadways for vehicle
    technology of the future. In addition, we must protect the user-fee
    system to ensure adequate funding for our nation's infrastructure.
        As you know, funding for federal surface transportation programs is
    supported by revenues from motor fuels user fees, and other trucking
    user fees, which are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. However,
    Congress has not adjusted the motor fuels user fees since 1993, and the
    purchasing power of these user fees has fallen significantly. In
    addition, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and the growing number of
    alternative fuel vehicles are further reducing revenues. These revenues
    are now insufficient to support current levels of funding.
        In 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
    Commission concluded that the U.S. needs a new approach to
    transportation infrastructure financing. The commission specifically
    notes that ``direct user charges are the most viable and sustainable
    long-term, user pay option for the Federal government.'' There, the
    commission recommended moving to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee or
    mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The VMT is a user charge based on miles
    driven in a specific vehicle as opposed to the current excise tax on
    fuel consumed. At its simplest, the fee would be cents per mile. A VMT
    would ensure that all users are paying their ``fair share'' to keep
    roads and bridges in a state of good repair regardless of the type of
    vehicle they drive. In the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
    (FAST) Act, Congress provided nearly $95 million to states to undertake
    pilot programs to look at implementation of a VMT fee.
        Last year, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provided historic funding for our
    nation's infrastructure. Recognizing that it was now time to pilot this
    VMT concept at the national level, Congress included a national VMT
    pilot program in the IIJA. Many lessons were learned from these state
    pilots, and the national VMT pilot will continue to help answer
    questions including privacy protection, equity by income, geography,
    and vehicle type, cost of administration, and complexity of
    implementation. Advancement of a VMT system in the U.S. must include
    adequate system development, promotion of national awareness and
    improvement of public opinion, combining state and federal efforts into
    a unified national concept, demonstration of national leadership, and
    resolution of the key issues learned from the initial pilot programs.
        Autonomous vehicles will require state and local governments to
    make additional investments in our infrastructure to ensure they can
    operate safely. This makes it even more important, as the country looks
    to advance to AVs and EVs, that we protect the user-fee system to
    ensure that we can adequately fund our nation's infrastructure for the
    future. If we do not, the solvency gap in the Highway Trust Fund
    between revenues and expenses will continue to increase, making it
    harder for Congress to pass long-term surface transportation
    reauthorizations. Congress will continue to struggle to piece together
    a multitude of pay-fors to cover the necessary general fund transfer in
    the absence of an innovative and reliable user-fee.
        As stated, the rise in autonomous vehicles will require significant
    investment, including roadway safety enhancements that decrease
    dangerous traffic bottlenecks and improve pavement and marking
    conditions on roadways. As such, it is paramount that state and local
    governments are able to maintain needed flexibility in Congressionally
    directed transportation funding to address and prioritize this matter.
        We applaud Congress for the passage of the IIJA. However, we must
    prepare for the next reauthorization to ensure that the investment in
    our infrastructure, like IIJA, becomes the new normal--not a once in a
    lifetime accomplishment. The most sensible way to transition from the
    motor fuel taxes would be to start these early adopters of AVs and EVs
    on VMT or another user fee. We thank you for the opportunity to weigh
    in on this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Jimmy Christianson,
    Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated General Contractors
                                                            of America.

       Letter of February 17, 2022, from Michael Robbins, Executive Vice
        President of Advocacy, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
     International, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                     February 17, 2022.
    Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2167 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2164 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        Thank you for holding the hearing titled ``The Road Ahead for
    Automated Vehicles'' on February 2, 2022. Congress has been in sore
    need of an update on the status of the automated vehicle industry, and
    I appreciate the oversight your Subcommittee conducted during this
    hearing. On behalf of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
    International (AUVSI), thank you for the opportunity to submit the
    following statement for the record.
        AUVSI is the world's largest nonprofit organization dedicated to
    the advancement of unmanned systems and robotics across domains and
    represents corporations and professionals from more than 60 countries
    involved in industry, government and academia \1\. Included in our
    membership are companies in the vehicle automation sector, and
    specifically those businesses dedicated to automated goods movement
    technologies. Specifically, AUVSI represents companies working in
    automated trucking, automated low-speed delivery devices, and automated
    warehouse yard and internal warehouse robotics \2\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.auvsi.org/member-organizations-list/all
        \2\ https://www.auvsi.org/commercial-ground-advocacy-initiatives
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a result, we were excited about the inclusion of industry
    witnesses who were able to update the Subcommittee on the status of the
    full range of automated vehicles (AVs), including automated trucking.
    Testing and deployment of automated commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
    are continuing to gain traction in various states across the country,
    which is testament to the technology's ability to streamline and
    strengthen the domestic supply chain, augment the human workforce, and
    increase efficiencies \3\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.auvsi.org/our-impact/level-4-cmv-deployment-map
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A number of the witnesses raised the ever-worsening scourge of
    roadway fatalities and accidents. We too are saddened by the continued
    and heightened loss of life suffered by all road users. AVs can and
    should play a larger role in reversing that trend, coupled with other
    safety enhancement technologies and regulations. We urge this
    Subcommittee to take seriously the numerous safety benefits AVs
    represent; they will never drive drunk, speed, or get distracted from
    texting and as a result they will save lives \4\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-
    safety
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With that said, it is critical for all stakeholders to delineate
    between AVs and vehicles that are equipped with advanced driver
    assistance systems (ADAS). The latter technology also has a role to
    play in increasing roadway safety. However, it is important to
    distinguish that automated driving systems (ADS) and ADAS are not the
    same thing \5\. In fact, inaccurately conflating the two will lead--and
    has led--to injury and death. The terminology around these systems can
    be confusing and there is no doubt we all need to do a better job
    explaining why and how ADS and ADAS differ. We ask that this
    Subcommittee join other AV stakeholders in insisting that the
    technologies are characterized correctly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.cars.com/articles/what-does-adas-mean-442753/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recent Standing General Order (SGO) issued by the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was also mentioned by
    witnesses. However, what was not mentioned was that the agency itself
    has not determined how and when the data companies are submitting will
    be made public. Their intent to release the information is clear,
    however any implications that industry is hindering public release of
    the information are untrue and delivered in bad faith. AUVSI, along
    with a number of other industry stakeholders, has requested clarity
    from NHTSA on how officials plan to release collected information. Yet,
    to date, NHTSA has not shared any information with us or any other
    stakeholders. We would strongly suggest that this Subcommittee
    encourage the agency to be more forthcoming on this point, since
    consumer awareness and trust is of paramount importance to AV
    companies.
        Finally, we were heartened to hear the labor representatives'
    express interest in working collaboratively with AV companies and
    associations to shape the future transportation workforce during the
    hearing. AUVSI is eager to continue conversations already in progress
    with labor unions, and we share their overarching goal of preparing
    today's workers for good-paying and long-lasting jobs of the future.
        In fact, the industry already has meaningfully pursued
    relationships with career and technical education (CTE) providers to
    begin the process of transitioning existing skillsets. Nuro recently
    announced a groundbreaking initiative with De Anza College \6\, and
    TuSimple established an innovative program partnership with Pima
    Community College to train safety operators \7\. Over the last several
    years, Aurora has partnered closely with Montana State University's
    Gallatin College on their Associate of Applied Science (AAS) in
    Photonics and Laser Technology on their curriculum, and company
    representatives currently serve on the program's industry advisory
    board. AUVSI is working to enable other companies to pursue similar
    relationships with CTE providers and would encourage this Subcommittee
    to examine these examples further, and push for more like them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/av
        \7\ https://www.pima.edu/news/press-releases/2019/201906-tu-
    simple.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Importantly, we ask that this Subcommittee sustain the momentum
    generated by this hearing and we would implore you to continue engaging
    with industry stakeholders on how Congress can create safe and
    responsible guidelines around the testing and deployment of AV
    technologies. This industry holds immense promise to positively affect
    every aspect of American life, and, on behalf of AUVSI and our member
    companies, I thank you for your leadership on this issue and look
    forward to future hearings and conversations. If AUVSI or any of our
    members can ever be a resource, please do not hesitate to contact me at
    any time.
            Sincerely,
                                               Michael Robbins,
                                  Executive Vice President of Advocacy,
                Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

       Letter of February 2, 2022, from Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi, Senior
    Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress, Submitted for the
                      Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 2, 2022.
    The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
            House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chairwoman,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
            and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
            Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
            House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
            and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building
            Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Representatives DeFazio, Norton, Graves, and Davis:
        Chamber of Progress appreciates the opportunity to submit a
    statement for the record for the hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead for
    Automated Vehicles,'' held by the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure on February 2, 2022. Chamber of Progress is a new
    progressive tech industry group fighting for public policies that will
    build a fairer, more inclusive country in which all people benefit from
    technological leaps. Our partners include a number of autonomous
    vehicle (AV) companies, but our partner companies don't have a vote or
    veto over our positions.
       AVs Will Reduce Traffic Fatalities, Expand Access to Seniors and
                          Disabled, Improve Emissions
        There are many benefits that AVs can provide to society. AVs can
    provide access to people with disabilities and the elderly. A Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics survey found that six million people with
    disabilities lack access to the transportation they need, limiting
    their ability to find job opportunities and see loved ones.\1\ AV
    companies have the opportunity to make transportation much more
    accessible from the start by accounting for a number of impairments,
    including visual and mobility, in their design within all of their
    fleets.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/
    special_reports_and_issue_briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, studies forecast that AVs could reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions from cars and trucks--the biggest source of transportation
    emissions--by 80 percent.\2\ Most AVs will be electric, and many others
    are hybrids. That's largely because electric vehicle (EV) technology
    and AV technology complement one another. Electric vehicles are easier
    for computers to control than traditional vehicles, and combining EV
    and AV technology maximizes cost and fuel savings. Plus, AVs drive more
    efficiently than humans can.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://e360.yale.edu/features/will-self-driving-cars-usher-in-
    a-transportation-utopia-or-dystopia
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, deploying AVs on the road now could save hundreds of
    thousands of lives over the long term as the technology continues to
    become more advanced every year.\3\ Research shows that 90 percent of
    car crashes are caused by human error. By eliminating human error, AVs
    can make our roads safer. Studies suggest that putting AVs on the road
    now could save hundreds of thousands of lives over the long term.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-
    perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html
        \4\ https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-
    perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Public Support for AVs is Strong
        The time is now to support robust AV deployment. In fact, a survey
    commissioned last fall by Chamber of Progress found that there is
    support for the deployment of AVs.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://progresschamber.org/morning-consult-poll-dems-biden-
    voters-union-members-support-autonomous-vehicles/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The survey found that 53% of voters are ready to increase
    autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, and 53% are ready to ride in
    an AV either now or in the next five years. A larger majority of those
    surveyed (63%) believe there are major benefits to AVs including
    accessibility and independence for non-drivers, including wheelchair
    users, the blind, seniors, and those living in transportation deserts.
        In fact, the same polling showed that a majority of adults support
    AVs being tested in their state. Narrowing the results to respondents
    in Western states including California, the poll found that 58% of
    respondents favored local AV testing.
        For Democrats and union members, support was even higher; 60% of
    Democratic voters and 75% of labor union members support AV testing in
    their state.
     AVs Have the Potential to Spur New Job Creations and Fill in Turnover
                                      Gaps
        In addition to the jobs created by increasing efficiency in the
    transportation and logistics industries, widespread use of AVs can
    increase demand for maintenance and IT professionals. To meet this
    demand, companies like Nuro have partnered with community colleges to
    create technician training programs.\6\ Additionally, companies like
    Waymo, Zoox, and Cruise have hired remote human operators to assist
    their vehicles and improve passenger experience.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.losaltosonline.com/schools/de-anza-college-
    introduces-autonomous-vehicle-training-program/article_ffbd1d4c-57b6-
    11e c-b9db-3f562772a842.html
        \7\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-08-10/
    driverless-cars-are-proving-to-be-job-creators-at-least-so-far
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Department of Transportation also predicts that AVs can improve
    working conditions in existing transportation jobs by reducing the risk
    of accidents and shifting demand toward last-mile services and short
    trips.\8\ For long-haul truckers, this could mean fewer nights spent
    sleeping in truck cabs and more time on deliveries close to home.
    Driverless vehicles would also cut down the amount of turnover the
    trucking industry faces as most drivers are of retirement age or close
    to it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/
    Driving%20Automation
    %20Systems%20in%20Long%20Haul%20Trucking%20and%20Bus%20Transit%20Prelimi
    nary
    %20Analysis%20of%20Potential%20Workforce%20Impacts.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, the Department of Labor and its state partners have
    created job transition and retraining programs to assist those affected
    by the introduction of autonomy. These entities help drivers adapt to
    new technologies and market conditions, helping them find gainful
    employment. By utilizing these driverless vehicles, involuntary job
    losses would be reduced.
       Government Investment Is Needed To Ensure a Robust Future With AVs
        The timeline to a full transition to fully autonomous driving is
    unknown and difficult to predict, but the importance of ensuring a
    robust skilled workforce is critical to realizing the full benefits of
    AV technology. Governments at all levels have a real opportunity to not
    only ensure that innovation in this field flourishes, but also to help
    secure the future for current commercial drivers who are prepared to
    enter new roles. Furthermore, any new entrants should have robust
    opportunities to gain necessary training and skills.
        There is real opportunity for governments to play a major role in
    helping commercial drivers prepare for an autonomous vehicle future.
    For example, Congress could establish grant programs to incentivize new
    entrants into training programs focused on roles established by
    evolving AV technology. As referenced in Senator Gary Peters' Workforce
    DATA Act,\9\ Congress could also pass a provision that measures the
    impact of automation on the workforce in order to inform workforce
    development strategies in the AV industry. Finally, Congress could pass
    legislation to direct the National Academies to study how to measure
    the impact of automation on the workforce, including job creation, job
    displacement, job retention, and skill shifts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1738
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As industries evolve, it is important to build incentives for
    interested individuals to begin training for future positions that will
    be established under an AV workforce; however it is just as important
    to enhance or establish relevant programs that will respond to any
    potential job loss or job displacement.
        Furthermore, the full array of roles that will be available under
    an AV workforce have yet to be determined. Therefore, fully
    understanding what potential positions may be created through industry
    evaluations and studies will be important in bolstering training
    programs and incentivizing new workers to join the industry.
        Our country has undergone industrial change based on technological
    innovations for over a century. Now is the time to apply those lessons
    and develop creative and efficient avenues of ensuring that workers are
    prepared for a future with fully utilized AV technology.
        Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and for
    holding this hearing.
            Sincerely,
                                      Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi,
           Senior Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress.

        Letter of February 17, 2022, from Consortium for Citizens with
      Disabilities Transportation Task Force Cochairs, Submitted for the
                      Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                     February 17, 2022.
                                                   Via electronic mail.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    United States House of Representatives,
    2136 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    United States House of Representatives,
    2079 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Transportation
    Task Force Co-Chairs write to provide comment on issues addressed in
    the February 2, 2022 Highways and Transit subcommittee hearing ``The
    Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.'' CCD is the largest coalition of
    national organizations working together to advocate for Federal public
    policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment,
    integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in
    all aspects of society free from racism, ableism, sexism, and
    xenophobia, as well as LGBTQ+ based discrimination and religious
    intolerance.
        The CCD Transportation Task Force developed Autonomous Vehicle (AV)
    principles in December 2018 \i\. Signatories to the Principles included
    22 national organizations. The Principles were submitted to the US
    Department of Transportation (USDOT) in response to its request for
    comment on its AV 3.0 guidance. The Task Force also submitted detailed
    feedback in 2019 on issues to be addressed in a bi-cameral, bipartisan
    self-driving car bill. Please find the feedback attached.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Transportation Task
    Force Autonomous Vehicle Principles. December 3, 2018. Available at
    http://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Transp-TF-AV-Principles-120318.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the February 2nd hearing there was acknowledgement that AVs
    could expand mobility access for people with disabilities. Nearly 1 in
    5 people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57 million). In 1990,
    Congress passed the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
    In enacting the ADA, Congress sought to ``provide a clear and
    comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
    against individuals with disabilities.'' As a result, 99% of public
    buses are equipped with ramps, far more curb ramps benefit the public,
    and there is improved provision of accessible transit to people with
    sensory disabilities. Yet, significant barriers to accessible,
    affordable transportation remain across modes.
        Many people with disabilities are currently unable to obtain a
    driver license, and cannot afford to purchase an accessible vehicle.
    Without affordable, accessible transportation people with disabilities
    are unable to travel to work, to school, to contribute to and
    participate in their communities, to support and spend time with family
    and friends, and live their lives to the fullest.
        AVs have the potential to drastically improve access for people
    with disabilities, including members of the blind and low vision, deaf
    and hard of hearing, intellectual, developmental and cognitive
    disability communities, people with physical disabilities, including
    wheelchair users, and people with neurological conditions including
    epilepsy and seizure disorders. However, the promise and safety of AVs
    will only be realized if the vehicles and the surrounding
    infrastructure are fully accessible, and the safety elements consider
    the needs of all people with disabilities.
        We ask you to consider the following priorities, and to refer to
    our full responses submitted in 2019:
          First and foremost, legislation should require full
    accessibility for all types of common and public use electric and
    autonomous vehicles. Full accessibility, or inclusive design of a
    vehicle, ensures usability by people with sensory, physical, cognitive
    and neurological disabilities, including wheelchair users.
          Licensing discrimination on the basis of disability must
    also be prohibited.
          Infrastructure must be improved for AVs to maximize their
    benefits. Walk and rollability and access to vehicles for all will
    require accessible public rights of way such as sidewalks, curb cuts,
    accessible pedestrian signals, drop-off/pick-up points and cross walks.
    Funding for these improvements should prioritize underserved
    communities with the greatest need, and would provide much needed
    access and mobility for travelers with disabilities in the short and
    long term.
          Passenger safety should be protected by ensuring health
    and disability status and locations visited is not shared or used for
    commercial or tracking purposes without permission of the individual.
          We encourage studies examining the potential impacts on
    transportation and land-use patterns, congestion, pollution, road
    safety and public transit, members of low income, disability and
    Indigenous communities and communities of color.
          Finally, as you take seriously the needs of workers who
    may be impacted by the transition to both electric vehicles and AVs,
    and consider funding for training and new jobs, we ask you to ensure
    inclusion of workers with disabilities.

        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments regarding
    the road ahead for AVs. Please do not hesitate to contact Carol Tyson
    with any questions. We look forward to supporting the work of the
    Committee on this important topic. Thank you for your commitment to
    ensuring people with disabilities benefit from, and are included in,
    the future of mobility.
            Sincerely,
                      Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
                            Transportation Task Force Co-Chairs
                      Sarah Malaier, American Foundation for the Blind.
                     Swatha Nandhakumar, American Council of the Blind.
                    Claire Stanley, National Disability Rights Network.
               Carol Tyson, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund.

       Letter of February 1, 2022, from Gary Shapiro, President and CEO,
       Consumer Technology Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                             Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2167 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2164 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        Ahead of the February 2, 2022, Highways and Transit Subcommittee
    hearing examining ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles,'' we
    highlight how self-driving vehicle technology is improving American
    lives and advancing U.S. competitiveness.
        The Consumer Technology Association's (CTA) members are the
    world's leading innovators--from startups to global brands--helping
    support more than 18 million American jobs, including many who are
    working to make the transportation system safer with self-driving
    vehicles. Our membership includes a wide range of companies working to
    bring self-driving vehicle innovations to America's roadways. This
    includes vehicle and component manufacturers, software developers and
    transportation platforms engaged in a multidisciplinary approach to
    this emerging and growing industry.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Self-Driving Vehicles: Consumer Sentiment 2021--Consumer
    Technology Association (cta.tech)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Self-driving technology benefits have become clearer over the past
    few years. As our nation continues to feel the impact of COVID-19,
    self-driving vehicles help provide safe and contactless deliveries of
    food, medicine, and medical prescriptions to Americans in need.\2\
    Self-driving shuttle vehicles transport COVID-19 tests at major
    hospitals and clinics.\3\ Additionally, many self-driving truck
    companies provide a free service for food banks in Texas, Arizona, and
    Ohio.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus-resources-nhtsa/coronavirus-
    innovative-automotive-technologies
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The benefits and usage of self-driving vehicles has gone way beyond
    the applications to assist during the pandemic. The self-driving
    vehicle industry has made incredible advances in technology and
    deployed more vehicles in a safe, thoughtful and measured manner.
    Companies are safely deploying vehicles in California Michigan,
    Colorado, Texas, Florida, and many other states across the country.\5\
    Consumers can use ride-hailing self-driving vehicle services in
    Arizona.\6\ Self-driving truck companies are operating on public
    roads.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/117199-2/; https:/
    /www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool;
        \6\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-14/my-rides-in-
    a-fully-driverless-waymo
        \7\ https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/29/tusimple-completes-its-first-
    driverless-autonomous-truck-run-on-public-roads/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Self-driving vehicles will improve productivity, cut road
    congestion and make transportation cleaner and more efficient. They
    will provide undreamed of independence, accessibility and mobility to
    seniors and people with disabilities. Most importantly, they will
    reduce roadway fatalities, the vast majority of which (94%) are caused
    by human error.
        Americans want these benefits. CTA research illustrates that
    consumers desire safety improvements, better mobility and less time
    wasted in traffic. Almost two-thirds of Americans surveyed are
    interested in replacing their cars with self-driving vehicles.\8\ Also,
    a recently study on automated trucking by the Volpe Center made clear
    the economic benefits of the technology.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Supra, note 1.
        \9\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As Congress discusses competitiveness legislation, automated
    transportation is key to America's future economic success. Self-
    driving technology is the subject of fierce global competition. China
    prioritized autonomous transportation in its high-tech infrastructure
    program. The EU and other nations are also aggressively moving forward.
    The nation that wins this race will claim the economic benefits and
    high-skill jobs that self-driving vehicles produce--from the
    manufacturing of advanced sensors to the development of new artificial
    intelligence technologies. Our infrastructure must allow for the
    advancement of self-driving vehicles.
        Realizing the rewards of self-driving innovation will require
    thoughtful, forward-thinking and targeted policies. However, even as
    self-driving applications advance, American national testing and
    deployment are thwarted by a maze of conflicting state rules, legacy
    testing restrictions and federal limitations. That is why CTA worked
    with the U.S. House on the SELF DRIVE Act and the House Energy and
    Commerce Committee on legislative initiatives to promote the safe but
    robust American rollout of self-driving vehicles.
        Creating rules to capture the benefits of automated transportation
    will require commitment, vision and flexibility. We encourage the House
    to prioritize innovation and safety to allow this cutting-edge
    technology to flourish.
        Congress recently passed infrastructure legislation--which CTA
    wrote to the President in support of the principles within the
    legislative framework \10\--and we encourage you to consider ways to
    support American innovation, remove unnecessary roadblocks and create a
    clear and practical regulatory path that allows this next-generation
    technology to advance in the U.S. Such efforts could include directing
    the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise outdated
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and encouraging states to
    harmonize their self-driving and traffic regulations to avoid a state
    patchwork of conflicting laws.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ cta-letter-to-wh_bipartisan-infrastructure-goals-7-22-
    21_1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CTA offers the House its resources and comprehensive expertise in
    this effort. We welcome the opportunity to participate in conversations
    about advancing automated transportation and putting America in the
    driver's seat for global technology leadership.
        Sincerely,
                                                  Gary Shapiro,
                    President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association.

    cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce

     Statement of Kenneth W. Stuebing, BHSc, CCP(f), FO IV, President and
     Board Chair, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Submitted for
                    the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
        As President and Board Chair of the International Association of
    Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I am grateful to the subcommittee for holding this
    important and timely hearing on autonomous vehicles (AV). I appreciate
    the opportunity to submit the following statement on the IAFC's behalf.
        The IAFC represents the leadership of over 1.1 million firefighters
    and emergency responders. IAFC members are the world's leading experts
    in firefighting, emergency medical services, terrorism response,
    hazardous materials (hazmat) incidents, wildland fire suppression,
    natural disasters, search and rescue, and public-safety policy. Since
    1873, the IAFC has provided a forum for its members to exchange ideas,
    develop best practices, participate in executive training, and discover
    diverse products and services available to first responders.
        America's fire and emergency service is an all-hazards response
    force that is locally situated, staffed, trained, and equipped to
    respond to all types of emergencies. There are approximately 1.1
    million men and women in the fire and emergency service--consisting of
    approximately 300,000 career firefighters and 800,000 volunteer
    firefighters--serving in over 30,000 fire departments around the
    nation. They are trained to respond to all hazards ranging from
    automobile accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods to
    acts of terrorism, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues,
    fires, and medical emergencies. We usually are the first on the scene
    of a disaster and the last to leave.
        The IAFC has been active in examining the effects of the deployment
    of AVs on the nation's roads and highways. Both IAFC members and staff
    have attended multiple Federal Highway Administration National Dialogue
    meetings. The IAFC has met with National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA), AV manufacturers and state officials to discuss
    traffic safety and other issues relating to AV deployment issues.
        With numerous statistics stating that most traffic accidents are
    caused by human error, the IAFC sees great promise in the deployment of
    AVs. However, the IAFC also wants to better understand how AVs will
    interface with emergency responders. The IAFC recommends that the House
    of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure work
    to develop national standards to address interactions between AVs and
    emergency responders along with AV actions during traffic accidents.
    Specifically, the committee should focus on establishing national
    standards for AV manufacturers to ensure AVs yield to emergency
    vehicles on the highways and recognize the many different local and
    state regulations that may be in place in the various jurisdictions
    through which AVs travel. AVs should be able to react properly to
    malfunctioning traffic signals and preemption systems, poorly marked
    roads or vandalized road signs. AVs must also be able follow hand
    signals by emergency responders that are meant to control or direct
    traffic.
        The committee should also focus on establishing national standards
    for AV manufacturers to ensure that an AV can be properly identify when
    it has been involved in an accident, and whether the accident involves
    another AV or non-AV vehicle, animal, bicyclist or pedestrian.
    Standards also should be enacted to ensure an AV's engine shuts off
    automatically in such accidents and the ability for emergency
    responders to physically disable the vehicle if needed. AV
    manufacturers should also be required to dialogue with first responders
    on their interactions with AVs and develop emergency response guidance
    for first responders to address the unique response challenges AVs may
    present, especially when there are lithium-ion batteries involved.
    Manufacturers also should provide education to first responders and
    help them prepare for the deployment of these vehicles in their
    communities. AV manufacturers also should take steps to educate the
    public on the various autonomous capabilities of an AV they may
    operate, whether these capabilities consist of basic driver assist
    features or more automated systems with little or no human control
    needed.
        For areas where AV manufacturers intend to deploy fleets for
    transportation, the IAFC would like AV manufactures to notify local
    fire, EMS and law enforcement organizations before deploying vehicles
    in their jurisdictions. These notifications should include where the
    AVs will be deployed, the number of AVs being deployed, the hours the
    AVs will operate, the level of automation the AVs will have, their
    expected performance in inclement weather, how the AVs are expected to
    respond to various traffic incidents, how accidents involving AVs will
    be handled, and how the public will be notified about such accidents.
        If AVs are used for freight transportation, the IAFC would like to
    see special protocols and training be developed for transporting
    hazardous materials shipments. Additionally, AVs transporting hazardous
    materials should have electronic shipping papers, so first responders
    can be aware of the type and quantity of hazardous materials they may
    encounter at an emergency scene involving an AV.
        Both AV manufacturers and first responders will have to be prepared
    to invest a lot of time and effort to ensure the proper rollout of AVs
    within each emergency jurisdiction. Fire departments will have to
    ensure that all fire stations in the operational area (and their mutual
    aid partners) are trained to recognize and respond to emergencies
    involving AVs. AV Manufacturers and local responders will have to work
    on closed courses to test the AVs and help the AVs to learn to
    recognize human directions and even the sound of the various sirens
    employed by local emergency responders' vehicles.
        The IAFC is also concerned about potential false alarms where an AV
    will call a 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) accidentally to
    inform them of an accident that didn't occur. To ensure against these
    false notifications the IAFC recommends that AV operations centers
    reach out to PSAPs if there is a traffic accident.
        Finally, the IAFC is pleased to see the committee's engagement
    regarding 5.9 GHz spectrum and recommends that the committee continue
    to monitor and oppose the FCC's decision to reallocate usage of the
    lower 45 MHz of the 5.9 GHz band to unlicensed operations. It is
    important that the FCC reconsider this decision and retain 75 MHz of
    5.9 GHz spectrum for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. The
    retention of this spectrum for V2X will be key in facilitating the
    technologies that will enable AVs to properly communicate with
    roadways, emergency vehicles and other AVs. The IAFC strongly believes
    that the safe and successful deployment of AV technology will directly
    depend on there being sufficient spectrum available for V2X
    applications.
        On the behalf of the IAFC I thank the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit this statement on the key issues to consider as
    AV technology advances and more AV vehicles are tested and introduced
    on America's roadways. The IAFC looks forward to continuing to work
    with the subcommittee to ensure that AV deployment and development will
    involve the active consultation of first responders, so this promising
    technology can realize its full potential in improving the safety of
    America's roadways.
        Thank you, Merci, Wela'lioq.

      Statement of ITS America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
                                 Holmes Norton
    ITS America: Equity, Climate, Safety, and Infrastructure Principles for
                       Automated and Autonomous Mobility
    Introduction
        More than 38,000 people died on US roads in 2020. Our cities, the
    engine of the U.S. economy, are revving once again, leading to
    increased congestion. Some interstates divide our communities. The
    transportation sector is responsible for 29 percent of the country's
    greenhouse gas emissions. Our highways and bridges, built largely
    between the mid-1950s to 1970s, are crumbling and struggling to move
    goods and people with the efficiency required by the technology-driven
    global economy.
        Twenty-one years into the 21st century, automated and autonomous
    vehicles (AVs) present us with a generational opportunity to reimagine
    our transportation system and transform outcomes--saving tens of
    thousands of people, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and congestion,
    and leading to more vibrant, equitable places.
        Critical to achieving this future is the federal government putting
    in place national regulatory frameworks and investments for the
    physical and digital infrastructure with developers of AV technology
    around areas such as equity, climate, safety, and intelligent
    infrastructure, as the technology moves from expanded pilots to full
    deployment of AV fleets. AVs present significant opportunities to
    expand mobility for people who currently have limited transportation
    options and increase access to mobility more broadly.
        ITS America's Automated Vehicle Standing Advisory Committee
    established task forces on equity, climate, safety, and infrastructure
    to develop a set of principles to ensure AV benefits are broadly
    realized. The resulting principles are intended to inform federal
    programs, regulations, and recommend best practices that can be
    implemented today and in the future.
    Principle Recommendations
                Improving Transportation Safety
        1.   Laying the groundwork for the transformation of our nation's
    transportation systems and communities starts with safety. ITS America
    supports enacting a federal regulatory framework to accelerate and
    guide AVs' continued safe development and deployment, establishing a
    national AV pilot program, and enacting innovative regulatory
    approaches while ensuring compliance with state and local traffic laws
    and rules, and an improved exemption petition process. We urge the U.S.
    Department of Transportation (USDOT) to promote comprehensive public
    education that can be uniformly messaged across industry, research, and
    government sectors to advance responsible public education and
    marketing, including awareness of the capabilities and limitations of
    AVs and the transition from Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
    to Automated Driving Systems (ADS). We call on the USDOT to provide the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with adequate
    resources, funds, staff, and public message resources to guide the safe
    development and deployment of AVs, including funding to work with
    industry, state, and local governments on regulations and laws that may
    need to be updated to address AVs, and work with industry, government,
    and research sectors to develop shared AV terminology for engineers,
    policymakers, and consumers with precise definitions that the public
    can understand.
                Expanding Transportation Equity
        2.   Both the public and private sectors' thoughtful integration of
    AVs can lead to more affordable, accessible, and equitable mobility
    access and delivery options for underserved and low-resourced
    communities. ITS America supports conducting or encouraging pilot
    programs and research activities in Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP)
    within state and local AV testing and deployment sites, which will
    allow these communities to experience the technology and develop a
    thorough understanding of opportunities for AVs to deliver more
    equitable transportation outcomes.
        3.   ITS America supports the integration of AVs with other pilot
    programs focused on enhancing equity, such as programs that provide
    subsidized access to transit and transit-integrated Mobility on Demand
    (MOD) and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) programs, and Universal Basic
    Mobility (UBM), including mobility wallets. This integration should
    include a focus on increasing job access or increasing investment in
    public transit services and providing transit agencies with increased
    flexibility to fund smart transit technologies that support first-mile/
    last-mile connections, including integrating shared ride services and
    flex routes to increase access in APP. ITS America supports increased
    federal and state research for AV pilot funding for rides and
    deliveries that demonstrates innovation and learnings, with an emphasis
    on programs that enhance mobility for areas of persistent poverty,
    individuals with disabilities, older adults, communities of color,
    tribal communities, unbanked and underbanked populations, rural
    communities, food deserts, and pharmacy deserts.
        4.   ITS America supports developing criteria to evaluate and
    prioritize AV pilot program selection on the priorities identified in
    USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
    (RAISE) grants funding directives.
                Accessible Transportation
        5.   ITS America supports accelerating the modernization of federal
    regulations to allow for the implementation of new vehicle designs,
    technologies, and capabilities that improve accessibility and equitable
    access while complying with state and local traffic laws and rules.
               ITS America urges NHTSA to modernize federal motor vehicle
    safety standards (FMVSS) to allow for the safe introduction of AVs with
    innovative designs, including vehicles that are designed from the
    ground up for purposes such as accessible personal transportation,
    connections to mass transit, and facilitating deliveries. ITS America
    urges NHTSA to use its statutory authority while FMVSS are being
    updated to issue exemptions for vehicles with novel designs that are
    safe. NHTSA should streamline the process for considering FMVSS
    exemption petitions. Reducing regulatory uncertainty and providing
    greater clarity will enable manufacturers to introduce new types of AVs
    that will enhance USDOT's base of knowledge on the safety, efficiency,
    and equity benefits of AVs with novel designs--while informing ongoing
    and future rulemakings and complying with state and local traffic laws
    and rules.
        6.   ITS America supports accessible and barrier-free universal
    design practices for AVs and infrastructure. USDOT should work with
    automakers, wheelchair devices manufacturers, and stakeholders to
    advance the development of design standards that will provide
    regulatory clarity and guidance to assist in building accessible AV
    designs for wheelchair securements including wheelchair self-
    securement. Ultimately, USDOT should work to increase the overall
    number of vehicles that can be operated and ridden by wheelchair users
    without extensive modification. It should also convene relevant
    government agencies to explore ways to modify existing regulations to
    allow for greater access to crash tested and transit compatible
    wheelchairs. USDOT should work with AV developers and infrastructure
    owners and operators to coordinate vehicle and infrastructure design.
    AVs can significantly enhance mobility options for individuals without
    a driver's licenses--especially people with disabilities and older
    adults. However, many states require a licensed driver to be present
    when a vehicle is being operated. USDOT should work with states to
    ensure that unlicensed individuals are not prevented from using fully
    automated vehicles that do not require human intervention (SAE Level 4
    and 5) while complying with state and local traffic laws and rules.
        7.   ITS America supports disseminating best practices to ensure
    that learnings from publicly funded pilot programs are broadly shared.
    ITS America supports the exchange of best practices and learnings
    pertaining to vehicles' design and development, transportation
    operators and providers, impact on communities, and impacts on
    underserved and vulnerable populations where AVs are in a position to
    enhance management of mobility, promote the creation of innovative
    planning tools, and create positive outcomes.
                Sustainable Transportation
        8.   ITS America supports AVs and alternative and sustainable fuels
    policies that support and supplement, not replace, high-efficiency
    modes of transportation such as public transit; it also supports
    multimodal, growth management, and transportation demand management
    (TDM) objectives. ITS America supports AV policies that will prioritize
    higher occupancy trips and modes made by AVs that will reduce vehicle
    miles traveled, including ride-hailing AV fleets and policies that
    increase vehicle utilization rates, decrease the need for vehicle
    parking to reclaim and repurpose real-estate for other purposes, and
    doesn't require roadway expansion. ITS America supports combining AV
    technology with V2X connectivity, according to well-developed technical
    standards, to save energy and reduce emissions through more efficient
    driving speed profiles and aerodynamic drag reductions for AVs,
    regardless of their powertrain technology.
                Advancing Electrification Goals
        9.   ITS America urges Congress to eliminate the statutory
    obstacles to electric vehicle charging on federal-aid highway right of
    way and increase funding for publicly accessible electric vehicle
    charging infrastructure and the electric grid that will be accessible
    to all drivers of electric vehicles. ITS America supports the
    development of recyclable and environmentally-friendly battery
    technology, incentivizing a domestic recycling industry, reducing the
    amount of rare-earth materials needed to build batteries, and research
    into renewable recyclable materials that are still crash-worthy and
    produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. ITS America supports policies
    that encourage widescale adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)
    including tax credits for manufacturing of ZEVs; incentives for
    consumers, especially low-income consumers, to purchase ZEVs; tax
    credits for the purchase of EV charging equipment, including for
    residential, commercial, multi-family condo, and apartment complexes;
    funding for zero-emission infrastructure; and credits for AV/ZEVs that
    are shared use.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ It is noted that for item nine, under Advancing Electrification
    Goals, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Arizona
    Department of Transportation (AZDOT) are not positioned to support
    language regarding tax credits or incentives for consumers, as these
    are not issues over which they have jurisdiction or oversight.
    Therefore, TxDOT and AZDOT should be considered to have abstained from
    item nine as included in ITS America's ``Automated Vehicle Standing
    Advisory Committee Equity, Climate, Safety, and Infrastructure
    Principles for Automated and Autonomous Mobility.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Modernizing America's Infrastructure
        10.  ITS America supports increased digital infrastructure
    investments, including broadband, 5G, and intelligent transportation
    systems, to support human drivers and AVs. ITS America prioritizes
    state of good repair investments for transportation infrastructure to
    support a mixed fleet of AVs and human-driven vehicles. ITS America
    does not believe AV-specific infrastructure programs are needed as long
    as AVs are being designed to operate under current nationwide
    infrastructure standards, not just areas with specific AV
    infrastructure improvements. ITS America supports including
    infrastructure improvements in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
    Devices (MUTCD) update as a more prescriptive standard for
    infrastructure investments that benefit AVs and human-driven vehicles.
    As the MUTCD evolves to become more multimodal, with a more balanced
    focus on vehicles and active transportation modes (e.g., walking and
    biking), ITS investments, including V2X applications, that support
    improvements in transportation services will be more fully realized.

      Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tara Lanigan, Head of Policy, May
     Mobility Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 2, 2022.
    U.S. House of Representatives,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for
            Automated Vehicles''
        Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on the future
    of autonomous vehicles (AVs). May Mobility was pleased to see a well-
    rounded panel and list of witnesses on this important subject.
                               About May Mobility
        May Mobility is a Michigan-based company that develops autonomous
    technology for use in shared vehicles. May Mobility does not focus on
    the technology stack alone: we provide shared mobility solutions that
    can complement existing public transit. Partnering with cities, transit
    agencies, businesses, and states, May Mobility has deployed nine
    autonomous vehicle pilots to-date, eight of which have been open to the
    general public, and four of which are currently active in Michigan,
    Texas, and Indiana. Our AVs have safely provided over 300,000 rides and
    traveled over 400,000 miles on public roads.
                             Opportunities for AVs
        As with any new technology, automated driving systems are merely a
    tool for achieving tangible outcomes, and it is up to all of us to
    ensure that this tool is used to make our communities safer, cleaner,
    more accessible, and more equitable. While the potential of AV
    technology is enormous, not every use case is a good fit for an
    equitable and sustainable future of autonomous transportation. It is
    essential that we get it right. This is particularly true when it comes
    to safety, equity, the environment, accessibility, the workforce, and a
    collaborative approach. As several witnesses testified in the hearing,
    the future of AVs and our communities is not preordained. The policies,
    planning, pilots, and partnerships that are initiated over the coming
    years are critical to maximizing the benefits and minimizing the
    negative externalities imposed by this promising technology.
        Safety: May Mobility's mission is to make transportation safer,
    greener, and more accessible. Safety is the foundation of a successful
    autonomous future, both in development and implementation of AVs. It is
    essential that the AV industry work hand in hand with cities and
    transit agencies to ensure the appropriate public safety entities are
    part of this conversation. This provides critical data on deployments
    and understandings for regulators to ensure we can appropriately
    monitor and develop standards for safety guidelines.
        Complement existing transit: Public transportation is the backbone
    of our nation's transportation system, and is the most important
    foundation for a truly equitable and sustainable mobility system. In
    many of the nation's largest and oldest cities such as New York,
    Washington, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco,
    transit delivers on this central role for large shares of trip mode
    shares. However, for too many medium and small-sized cities that are
    less densely planned, large gaps of service and frequency leave
    potential riders with few choices outside of owning and driving a
    personal vehicle. Purpose-built automated transit shuttles have the
    potential to bring reliable service to areas that higher capacity,
    lower frequency services are not able to provide.
        Equity: With the right supportive policy choices, integration of
    AVs into public transit services can contribute to a more equitable
    future of transportation. As then-Mayor Pete Buttigieg described in his
    last State of the City Address, the ``trap of being a low-income worker
    who lacks reliable transportation to work'' is one that continues to
    ensnare far too many Americans \1\. Just as the City of South Bend
    looked to innovative new approaches to tackle their persistent mobility
    challenges, so too should all cities and transit agencies have the
    flexibility and federal support to pilot new ideas with clear outcomes
    at the center of the planning from the start. Whether it's reaching
    underserved communities, providing transportation to jobs, or creating
    more accessible microtransit solutions, automated transit vehicles are
    a new tool for transit agencies to utilize in further meeting the needs
    of their communities. However, if actual or de facto regulatory and
    policy barriers are applied to transit deployments of AVs, this
    potential will be blocked and equitable service will be at the mercy of
    private services or unattainable personally owned AVs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://southbendin.gov/mayor-pete-buttigieg-remarks-for-the-
    2019-state-of-the-city-address/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accessibility: AVs also have the potential to provide more
    accessible transportation at the outset of their wide adoption. May
    Mobility offers wheelchair accessible vehicles in all of our pilot
    cities today, and we look forward to releasing a new ADA compliant
    vehicle platform later this year. We are also a semi-finalist team
    member of the USDOT Inclusive Design Challenge, in which we're working
    with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to
    prototype their automated wheelchair securement system and create a
    roadmap for scale. With accessible solutions incorporated early, AVs
    could provide more options for the disability community to get around
    more safely, comfortably, and efficiently.
        Workforce development: We thank the TWU for publishing its ``New
    Technologies in Transit Systems'' report. This is an important step in
    the conversation. The report notes, ``how significant these impacts
    are--and whether they are positive or negative--will depend on choices
    made by transportation decision-makers and what policies are in place
    to protect and assist workers through the transition.'' As the industry
    matures, May Mobility is thinking about these long-term perspectives
    when it comes to workforce development, training, and integration. In
    the long term, transit agencies will be the owners and operators of
    automated vehicles, as much as they are with traditional public transit
    buses and other rolling stock. While we do not need to retrain the
    entire workforce today for a technology in the pilot stages, we support
    and are actively engaged in understanding and defining what the future
    of this integration looks like, hand-in-hand with transit agencies and
    their workforces.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Transport Workers Union of America, ``New Technologies in
    Transit Systems'': 2019. https://www.twu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/
    04/INNOVATION-WHITE-PAPERV2.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Regulatory Barriers to Shared AV Transit: Achieving the greatest
    benefits, while reducing and avoiding the most potential negative
    impacts, of AVs is made more difficult by a series of overlapping
    regulatory, policy, and other impediments that appear to push the
    industry toward the most harmful deployment models. In 2015, this
    Committee and the Congress passed the FAST Act, in which Section 24404
    of amended Section 30112(b) of title 49, United States Code, to
    restrict the use of non-compliant vehicles for research, testing, and
    evaluation to automakers that have sold compliant vehicles in the past.
    This provision creates a moat for legacy manufacturers against
    competition from technology companies like May Mobility and others for
    any unique, purpose-built vehicle designs.
        Furthermore, the process for seeking an exemption from the FMVSS
    for even low volume, pilot deployment use cases has proven to be an
    unworkable path. Companies that seek to deploy innovative vehicle
    designs for automated passenger vehicles have not been granted a
    waiver, while others have received a waiver after 18 months for cargo-
    only design. This has allowed foreign companies in the industry to have
    an advantage over domestic companies because they have been able to
    utilize the Part 591 importation process that allowed the deployment of
    non-compliant shuttles in the US for testing and evaluation. Several US
    companies were then forced to take their domestically built and
    manufactured vehicles, drive them across the Ambassador Bridge to
    Canada, then apply for an importation approval from NHTSA and the EPA,
    and then drive the vehicles back into the country. This process is not
    only illogical and counter to US policy priorities, it is extremely
    costly and time consuming. These delays and added costs have already
    forced several once-promising companies out of business.
        While May Mobility does not manufacture vehicles, these limitations
    have limited the variety of options available to us when selecting a
    vehicle platform to either our initial low-speed vehicle platform, the
    Polaris GEM, or to use traditional automobiles like the Lexus RLX
    Hybrid that we have currently deployed. Without the ability to travel
    at normal roadway speeds and to offer purpose-built vehicle designs for
    shared AV usage, we are not able to fully maximize the best case
    deployment model of shared, autonomous, accessible, and electric
    vehicles.
        For this vision to become a reality, we urge the Committee and the
    Department of Transportation to provide pathways for innovation to be
    piloted and safely tested that does not dramatically and unnecessarily
    delay such processes with contradictory policies and requirements.
                                Recommendations
        Take a collaborative, scalable approach: Publicly available, shared
    and electric AV shuttles are critical to ensuring that we maximize the
    tremendous potential benefits of autonomous vehicles. Deploying AVs in
    collaboration with cities and states also provides the public with a
    safe first experience with a new technology. But funding pilots for
    just one or two years will not allow for the learnings nor the
    scalability that both the private and public sectors need for AVs to be
    a successful addition to the transportation landscape.
        Grant funding for pilot deployments are more essential now than
    ever: We were pleased to see the SMART program included in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provides robust and consistent
    funding opportunities for these pilots in cities of all sizes and
    environments. To meet the evolving transportation needs of cities,
    transit agencies must be enabled to innovate, iterate, and adapt the
    way that they serve their communities. Without federal grant programs,
    transit agencies will have no funding to try new approaches or
    technologies without taking money from core services and functions
    funded through traditional formula funds and local sources. FTA grants
    also ensure the equally important involvement of FTA for distributing
    lessons learned and best practices so that the entire industry is aware
    of ideas and lessons emanating across the nation.
        Facilitate a productive, holistic conversation on workforce
    development: There is an opportunity for transit agencies and AV
    providers to figure out a long-term workforce plan together. This does
    not mean purely automating every vehicle in public transit; this means
    figuring out how a new technology and the possibilities for vehicle
    design and deployment models offer great new tools for transit agencies
    and mobility managers to provide a better, more equitable, more
    sustainable, and ultimately more utilized public transit system.
        We know that labor, industry, transit agencies, and the DOT must
    begin working together to assess and plan for the just and inclusive
    workforce transition. We stand eager and ready to be active in that
    discussion. Today's hearing was an important step in advancing these
    conversations, but it is even more important that this Committee and
    the Department further the conversation among all stakeholders beyond
    the questions this technology may raise, and toward working together to
    solve them.
                                   Conclusion
        Thank you for holding this important hearing and for your
    leadership on these issues. We look forward to being an active and
    engaged participant in future conversations and legislative efforts to
    ensure the best outcomes from introducing new and exciting technologies
    that best meet the mobility needs of the public.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Tara Lanigan,
                                      Head of Policy, May Mobility Inc.

           Letter of February 16, 2022, from Ben Siegrist, Director,
       Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy, National
    Association of Manufacturers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
                                 Holmes Norton
                                                     February 16, 2022.
    The Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chairwoman,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Transportation and Infrastructure
            Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Hon. Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Transportation and Infrastructure
            Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        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,
    appreciates your focus on addressing autonomous vehicle (AV)
    regulations and potential legislation by holding the recent hearing
    entitled, ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
        The NAM shares the committee's interest in the safe deployment of
    AVs across the United States and believes that there is ample
    opportunity to advance important legislation to safely support the
    deployment of new vehicle technologies. The expansion of A Vs into our
    national transportation system is an opportunity to lead by enhancing
    safety on our roadways and increasing efficient goods movement across
    our strained supply chains. By holding the recent hearing focused on AV
    regulation, safety, workforce and societal impacts, the committee is
    reaffirming its commitment to a comprehensive review of outstanding
    regulatory concerns and federal oversight. Manufacturers look forward
    to supporting the legislative process to get safer vehicles, utilizing
    innovative technology, on the roads for the benefit of all.
        Legislation that would provide a necessary national regulatory
    framework has repeatedly stalled in Congress and this inaction has
    slowed our global leadership in the AV marketplace. America's AV
    innovators require a regulatory regime that allows the continued
    pursuit of safe, data-driven development of vehicle technology. Under
    current regulations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA) can issue no more than 2,500 exemptions per year, per
    manufacturer, for AVs that do not utilize existing approved safety
    equipment to operate on America's roadways. By their very nature, the
    most advanced AVs do not or will not require the same equipment
    standards as even the most modern, non-automated vehicles. By
    restricting NHTSA exemptions, the current regulatory paradigm prohibits
    the collection and synthesis of data that is vital for AVs to further
    develop safety enhancements. As your committee considers legislation,
    the NAM encourages you to expand NHTSA's ability to grant AV exemptions
    in order to further develop safety technology.
        Additionally, NHTSA is currently pursuing a variety of rulemakings
    related to AV deployment and safety oversight. Along with industry
    stakeholders, the NAM wrote to Secretary Buttigieg last year urging for
    the timely publication and processing of those ongoing regulations. The
    uncertainty surrounding potential regulatory action presents an
    impediment to innovation at a crucial juncture in AV development. The
    NAM and related equipment manufacturers and suppliers share the goal of
    safe and responsible AV deployment and we encourage the committee to
    work closely with agency regulators to clear any rulemaking backlog.
        Lastly, as with all safety-related vehicle regulation, NHTSA plays
    a vital role in establishing a federal standard that will allow for
    safe vehicle operations across all jurisdictions. While states should
    rightfully be partners committed to enacting vehicles rules for safe,
    local road use, the U.S. Department of Transportation must pursue the
    comprehensive and preeminent regulatory framework necessary for
    national AV deployment. A nationwide standard that supersedes any
    efforts for patchwork regulatory compliance will ensure the highest
    performing technological advances are commercially viable and available
    for all consumers.
        The development and deployment of AVs into the larger fleet of
    vehicles on American roads will require a partnership between
    automotive innovators, manufacturers and regulators to meet
    technological and safety challenges. Manufacturers are on the cutting
    edge of vehicle development, but also related road markings, signage,
    equipment, and systematic components that are needed to grow the
    domestic AV industry into a global economic engine. We encourage your
    committee to consider expanding NHTSA's exemption capabilities, pursue
    timely regulatory development and ensure the establishment of a
    national regulatory framework necessary for safe AV deployment.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Ben Siegrist,
      Director, Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy,
                                 National Association of Manufacturers.

     Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the Record by
                           Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Thank you for allowing the National Safety Council (NSC) to submit
    this statement for the record. NSC is a nonprofit organization with the
    mission of eliminating preventable deaths from the workplace to any
    place through leadership, research, education and advocacy. Our 15,500
    member companies represent employees at nearly 50,000 U.S. worksites.
        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) projects
    that an estimated 31,720 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in
    the first nine months of 2021 between January and September.\1\ These
    entirely preventable crashes have a tremendous human toll and cost the
    American economy over $463 billion a year.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
    813240
        \2\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
    introduction/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Motor vehicle deaths, United States, 1913	2020
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               2022 National Safety Council. All rights reserved.

        NSC would like to add information to the hearing record on the
    following topics:
        1.  Automated vehicle (AV) technologies have the potential to save
    thousands of lives each year but will require federal leadership to set
    minimum national safety standards and requirements.
        2.  Consumers are confused about the advanced driver assistance
    system (ADAS) safety features vehicles currently have. As such,
    consumer education about these safety features should be enhanced and
    manufacturers should be required to clearly communicate the limits of
    existing safety technologies.
        3.  Connected vehicles are an important part of safe implementation
    of AVs, and federal Communications Commission (FCC) action could
    undermine full implementation of connected vehicles.
        4.  There will be a range of technologies on the roads for decades,
    representing everything from existing non-automated vehicles to the as
    yet unseen full autonomous, which will bring yet unknown additional
    safety issues to the fore.

        Understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction is commercial
    vehicles, NSC uses the term vehicle to refer to both personal and
    commercial throughout the statement.
       Federal Leadership Needed to Advance the Lifesaving Potential of
                              Advanced Technology
        NSC believes advanced vehicle technology, up to and including fully
    automated vehicles, can provide many benefits to society if deployed
    responsibly and with safety as a primary goal. Most importantly,
    advanced vehicle technology has the potential to greatly reduce the
    number of fatal crashes on our roadways. However, federal leadership
    and action on motor vehicle safety is required to realize these
    benefits and ensure one level of safety across the United States
    regardless of the technology enjoyed by consumers. Consumers need
    confidence in the safety of their vehicles regardless of where they
    reside, and manufacturers need certainty in order to invest in design
    and production. States do not possess the expertise or resources to
    replicate design, testing and reporting programs. Further, a patchwork
    of requirements will result in confusion for consumers and an increase
    in cost for manufacturers and operators. Finally, the absence of safe,
    workable standards will drive development, testing and deployment
    overseas, resulting in the flight of innovation and the jobs that
    accompany it to locations outside of the U.S. The absence of these
    standards also contribute to avoidable safety risks and could
    contribute to the already high number of preventable deaths on our
    roadways.
                                  Transparency
        As Congress evaluates potential legislation on AVs and other
    automated safety advances, transparency regarding this technology is
    key. Previous bills have included requirements for reporting to DOT by
    AV developers on safety metrics. NSC supports such required reporting.
    Congress should add this level of transparency and require topics
    including, but not limited to, crashworthiness, human-machine interface
    data, post-crash behavior, capabilities and limitations of the vehicle,
    operational design domain, and consumer education efforts to be
    reported. This information should be reported regularly and presented
    clearly in a way for the public to be able to digest.
        Data are key to transparency and safety. NSC believes that data on
    electronic logging devices (ELDs) and electronic data recorders (EDRs),
    which provide a window into the human-machine interface with advanced
    vehicles, can be key to improve safety. The knowledge gained from these
    devices allows manufacturers to be nimbler and make adjustments in near
    real time to improve safety based on what is actually occurring in
    operation, rather than making changes based on assumptions and
    estimations that must be accommodated in a later model year. To this
    end, Congress should facilitate data sharing as widely as possible and
    require that manufacturers provide accessible, standardized data to law
    enforcement, state highway safety officers, 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. It will allow the industry to take proactive steps based on
    leading indicators, rather than waiting for a crash or a series of
    crashes to occur. Finally, the 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, near miss and post-crash information sharing
    can help civil engineers and planners design better and safer roadways.
    It will also help safety and health professionals design better
    interventions to discourage risky driving or affect the behaviors of
    other roadway users.
        NSC has long supported de-identified data sharing similar to what
    the aviation industry does, and we are pleased to see the PARTS
    (Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety) proceeding.
    Analysis of de-identified data in the vehicle industry will provide
    windows into leading indicators, increasing the potential to save
    lives.
     Enhancing Consumer Understanding of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
        The potential safety benefits of automated vehicles and other
    advanced safety technologies could be incredible. However, to be clear,
    it will be decades before there is meaningful AV fleet penetration on
    U.S. roadways. In the meantime, there are significant safety
    technologies currently available in vehicles today that should be made
    more widely available. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) can
    prevent or mitigate crashes, and NSC is working to expand consumer
    education around these new technologies, which is critical in realizing
    their full potential. NSC created the first and largest ADAS national
    education campaign, MyCarDoesWhat.org. The purpose of MyCarDoesWhat.org
    is to educate the public about these assistive safety features in order
    to maximize their potential lifesaving benefits. Visitors to
    MyCarDoesWhat.org learn about dozens of existing safety features on
    their vehicles, including lane departure warning, blind spot
    monitoring, backup cameras, and automatic emergency braking.
        In 2019, NSC, in collaboration with AAA, Consumer Reports, and J.D.
    Power, released ``Clearing the Confusion: Recommended Common Naming for
    Advanced Driver Assistance Technologies.'' \3\ Since release, more
    organizations have joined in support of standard, simple, and specific
    names for ADAS technologies in an effort to reduce consumer confusion.
    Safety features may change over time as software and hardware updates
    in turn modify the operational parameters for vehicle systems.
    Providing education throughout the life of vehicles can help consumers
    better understand how these features can advance safety. Today, 93
    percent of new vehicles offer at least one ADAS feature, and the
    terminology often seems to prioritize marketing over clarity.\4\ DOT
    endorsed the naming recommendations, and we urge other safety
    organizations, automakers, journalists and lawmakers to join us in
    adopting these terms.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/
    miscellaneous/adas-nomenclature.pdf
        \4\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-Names-
    Research-Report.pdf
        \5\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-
    secretary-elaine-l-chao-announces-new-initiatives-improve-safety
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NSC recommends that, at the very least, systems that are not fully
    automated (level five), should not be described as such. ADAS, with
    emphasis on ``driver assist,'' are the only technologies commercially
    available in vehicles today and each and every one of those vehicles
    requires the driver 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'' or
    ``self-driving,'' only confuses consumers and can contribute to loss of
    situational awareness around the driving task. Marketing is not
    education. It will take a commitment to standard nomenclature and clear
    performance outcomes promulgated by DOT to ensure that consumers better
    understand how to engage with and what to expect from these
    technologies.
                                    5.9 GHz
        Connected vehicles are an important part of safely implementing AVs
    to provide safety redundancy. FCC actions to reallocate the 5.9GHz
    ``safety band'' away from its intended use for transportation safety to
    unlicensed use, such as Wi-Fi derail this effort to save lives. NSC
    strongly believes that FCC action to diminish the safety band to be a
    grave mistake. The federal government, numerous automakers and
    suppliers have proven this band is viable for vehicle communications,
    and some are beginning to deploy to this dedicated spectrum.
        Improvements in technology and safety in transportation have
    historically gone hand-in-hand. Setting aside this spectrum for
    transportation safety was done with the goal of reducing or mitigating
    fatal transportation incidents, some of which were at least partially
    attributable to predictable and preventable human behavior. The FCC
    action nullifies this foresight and removes the full benefit that
    technology provides.
        Motor vehicle crashes are an epidemic in the U.S., and operating a
    motor vehicle remains one of the deadliest things we do on a daily
    basis in spite of much improved, safer vehicle designs and record-
    setting seat belt use rates across the nation. The FCC should be part
    of the solution to saving lives. NSC urges the Subcommittee to seek
    answers from the FCC about the safety impacts of this proposal and
    ensure that roadway safety remains our top priority.
                                   Conclusion
        Today, we have millions of drivers behind the wheel and spend
    millions of dollars on education and enforcement campaigns. Yet, we
    still recognize billions in economic loses as a result of motor vehicle
    crashes. The integration of automated vehicle technologies will likely
    be messy as we deal with a complex and ever-changing human-machine
    interface. That is why federal leadership is needed. There is no need
    to repeat mistakes of the past.
        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 a promising opportunity
    to achieve that outcome and will go a long way to take us down the road
    to zero.

    Letter of February 1, 2022, and Autonomous Vehicles Policy Guide, from
    Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE, President, National Society of Professional
       Engineers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman,
    The Honorable Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
            Washington, DC 20515.

    NSPE Public Comment RE: House Highways and Transit Subcommittee
    Hearing: The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles

        On behalf of more than 23,000 members of the National Society of
    Professional Engineers, these comments are submitted for consideration
    of inclusion into the public record for the House Highway and Transit's
    February 2 hearing on ``The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles.''
    NSPE's commitment to the protection of the public health, safety, and
    welfare warrants a seat at the table in the discussion around
    autonomous vehicles (AVs).
        The National Society of Professional Engineers is committed to
    creating a world where the public can be confident that engineering
    decisions affecting their lives are made by qualified and ethically
    accountable individuals. NSPE Position Statement No. 03-1772 states
    that the testing and deployment of AVs must include a licensed
    professional engineer. The rationale for the position is rooted in a
    professional engineer's ethical obligation to protect the public
    health, safety, and welfare.
        The duty to protect the public goes beyond an ethical obligation,
    however; every state licensing board has a system of laws and
    regulations that holds professional engineers accountable for
    protecting the public. Professional engineers also must complete
    continuing education (the number of hours varies by state) to maintain
    their license. By fulfilling a continuing education requirement,
    professional engineers are able to stay abreast of new developments in
    AV technology and can use that knowledge to inform decisions around the
    development and deployment of AVs. By virtue of their ethical duty to
    protect the public and technical expertise, professional engineers are
    uniquely positioned to contribute to this conversation.
        With this role in mind, the National Society of Professional
    Engineers recommends the Subcommittee utilize the voice of professional
    engineers when considering policy around AVs, as well as follow the
    recommendation found in NSPE's Autonomous Vehicles Policy Guide.
        NSPE would like to highlight its recommendation on creating a
    third-party verification system found in the Autonomous Vehicle Policy
    Guide. A third-party verification process should establish that the
    automated vehicle technology under review meets a minimal level of
    safety, as determined by an assessment of risk. This can be done
    through the submittal of risk assessments audited by a professional
    engineer who is in responsible charge of the third-party verification
    process. When using the expertise of a PE as a third party, one can be
    sure that their decisions are being made with the utmost consideration
    for the public health, safety, and welfare rather than out of loyalty
    to the manufacturer or owner of the Automated Driving System (ADS). By
    suggesting this guide rail of third-party verification, we ensure
    responsible innovation in ADS technology.
        I thank the Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member for scheduling a
    hearing on this important topic, and for their consideration of these
    comments.
            Sincerely,
                                     Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE,
                 President, National Society of Professional Engineers.

    Attachment: Autonomous Vehicles: A Regulatory Policy Guide
                                   __________

                                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Autonomous Vehicles: A Public Regulatory Policy Guide
        With the introduction of autonomous vehicles, automation is poised
    to become a much larger part of our transportation environment. Much of
    the discussion to date has focused on the technology, its capabilities,
    and the perceived public benefits. However, many questions remain
    unanswered by industry, which has led to uncertainty within the public
    regulatory environment. To address this uncertainty, NSPE proposes the
    outcome-based standards below, based on careful consideration and
    deliberation, as a starting point for adopting standards that protect
    public safety.
        This policy guide provides public policy decision makers,
    regulators, manufacturers, and others with guidelines to measure safety
    readiness of autonomous vehicles under consideration for deployment.
    1. Risk Assessment
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should adopt a risk assessment
    and/or hazard severity model. What is an acceptable amount of risk? In
    order for industry and the public to properly assess risk,
    manufacturers should be required to report all incidents involving
    autonomous vehicles. An industry standard for risk assessment needs to
    be established.
    2. Ethics Compliance Disclosure
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers' safety concerns cannot, nor
    should, be limited solely to the vehicle's occupants. A human driver
    will assess the immediate environs to determine the best possible
    outcome for an operating action.
    3. Self-Sufficiency
        Autonomous vehicles should be able to operate safely and correctly
    without the support of additional public infrastructure and investment,
    such as dedicated AV lanes and vehicle-to-infrastructure investments.
    4. Accountability
        Autonomous vehicles manufacturers should be required to maintain an
    expanded ``black box'' (event data recorder) of data inputs for post-
    incident evaluation and should include the following:
            Reference to a time standard so all recorded events
    refer to a known point in time.
            The service brake data event should also include
    braking intensity from 0 to 100%, not just ON/OFF.
            A series of recordings from the outside object
    detection sensors, both forward and lateral looking--invaluable
    information for accident reconstruction.
            Outside conditions (temperature, weather conditions,
    posted speed limits, and traffic intensity) should also be recorded.
            Any received driving condition alerts that may have
    been broadcast via the GPS or traffic control signals.
    5. Third-Party Verification
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be required to demonstrate
    capability for safe driving before further expansion and rollout.
    Third-party verification should be performed by a licensed professional
    engineer or others who are appropriately qualified.
    6. Redundancy
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should provide back-up operating
    systems. Redundancy can ensure that critical operating systems will
    function while maintaining passenger and occupant safety.
    7. Map Standardization
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should work toward a standardized
    mapping system that ensures the correct location of the vehicle and
    that provides necessary and timely changes to the system's maps.
    8. Security
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should demonstrate, before
    widespread deployment, a certain level of security to prevent jamming
    and hacking.
    9. Training/Operational Licensing
        Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should provide training and
    operational support beyond the regular driver's license, educating
    drivers about the limitations of self-guiding features.
    10. Maintain Manual Controls
        Manual driver controls should be maintained for autonomous vehicles
    for all levels of autonomy. Eliminating the ability of vehicle
    occupants to move the vehicle to a position of safety is
    counterintuitive to safety principles.
    11. Safety Features
        The current level of automotive safety devices/features should be
    maintained. Vehicle safety devices and features should remain until
    sufficient historical data is compiled on the accident history and
    safety record of autonomous vehicles and can justify otherwise.
    12. Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connectivity
        As part of autonomous vehicle operation and to enhance safety,
    vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity should be included as part of
    autonomous vehicle operation.

    Licensed professional engineers should play a critical role as part of
    the autonomous vehicle design and manufacturing process because of the
    breadth and depth of the professional engineers' understanding of
    engineering issues as well as their obligation to hold paramount the
    public health, safety, and welfare.

       Letter of February 1, 2022, from Todd Spencer, President and CEO,
    Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Submitted for the
                      Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office
            Building, Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing, ``The Road Ahead for
    Automated Vehicles''

        Chairman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
        Since 1973, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
    (OOIDA) has been advancing and protecting the rights of small-business
    motor carriers and professional drivers. OOIDA is a critical
    stakeholder for all issues affecting trucking, with a unique focus on
    those directly impacting small-business truckers. As the Subcommittee
    on Highways and Transit meets to discuss the future of automated
    vehicles (AVs), we urge you to consider how these technologies will
    impact the trucking industry, especially the vital role of professional
    drivers and independent owner-operators.
        Professional truckers have a keen interest in the development of
    AVs as these technologies have the potential to drastically change the
    trucking industry, in particular its workforce. While we are still
    years away from fully automated trucks, decisions made today will have
    a significant impact on how AV technologies are deployed, and
    ultimately, on the livelihood of truck drivers and the economy at
    large. Elected officials, federal regulators, and our industry partners
    must ensure AV policies are developed in a safe and responsible manner
    that takes commercial drivers' perspective into account.
        We understand the desire to swiftly unleash American ingenuity in
    multiple transportation sectors and agree the federal government must
    play an integral role in balancing safety and innovation on our roads.
    But Congress should not pursue a one-size-fits-all legislative approach
    that implements the same policies for autonomous passenger and
    commercial vehicles. The safe operation of an automobile contrasts
    greatly with that of a heavy vehicle. The introduction of autonomous
    technology to both classes will present distinct safety challenges that
    should be addressed and regulated on separate paths. Naturally, the
    equipment and technology that works well on an automobile weighing
    3,000-4,000 pounds is far different from what is needed for trucks
    weighing 80,000 pounds. As various Committees consider AV legislation,
    Congress must develop separate policies that better reflect the
    different safety challenges facing automobiles and heavy vehicles.
        OOIDA members and millions more working in other segments of
    trucking face a particularly uncertain future as technology may first
    diminish the quality of their jobs and then threaten to displace them
    completely. Given the economy's reliance on the trucking industry,
    Congress must consider the potential displacement of jobs, expected
    changes to the skills and training necessary for drivers to safely
    operate autonomous trucks, and how these changes would affect driver
    compensation. OOIDA also recommends that Congress examine the specific
    impact AVs would have on small trucking businesses, which account for
    96% of all U.S. motor carriers. Lawmakers must also evaluate the costs
    associated with the introduction of various technologies, how these
    costs would affect the price of new and used trucks, and how price
    changes would impact the ability of a small businesses to purchase new
    vehicles.
        OOIDA strongly believes that any process to advance automated
    technology should be met with mandatory data transparency from
    manufacturers. This will help educate consumers, the industry, and
    regulators about the actual reliability of autonomous technology.
    Despite the various claims that AVs will lead to zero deaths, there
    have been real-world situations in which automation has devastatingly
    failed. While AVs might improve safety under certain conditions, they
    create new risks with dangerous and often unknown outcomes.
    Regrettably, U.S. Department of Transportation proposals such as AV
    4.0, the AV Comprehensive Plan, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration's (NHTSA) AV TEST Initiative have maintained a self-
    certification approach and promoted voluntary reporting as the way to
    balance and promote safety and innovation.
        We supported NHTSA's 2021 General Standing Order that now requires
    AV trucking companies to report crashes on public roadways. However,
    this safety data should be made available throughout the deployment
    process, not just after a crash occurs. The use of unproven automated
    technologies on our highways poses a significant threat to small-
    business truckers, and we urge you to take action to protect all road
    users with greater transparency and oversight of their development.
    Without such measures, we will never know how or why AV technology is
    causing crashes and fatalities. In fact, some developers have already
    used the legal system in hopes of keeping safety data from public view.
        The potential introduction of AVs on the nation's highways invites
    more questions than answers. As autonomous technology develops, OOIDA
    is concerned that federal regulators will push for more technology as
    the solution to the industry's safety and workforce issues without
    considering the negative impacts of these technologies. Regardless of
    their potential, it is important to understand exactly how well these
    AVs perform. Beyond ensuring that legislation provide appropriate
    standards for the safe operation of AVs, Congress must consider
    practices and unintended consequences that might offset the potential
    safety, mobility, and sustainability benefits from the technology.
            Thank you,
                                                  Todd Spencer,
    President and CEO, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
                                                                   Inc.

    cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure

       Letter of February 1, 2022, from Jordan Crenshaw, Vice President,
        Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
             Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                      February 1, 2022.
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Chair,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Highways and Transit, United States House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC 20510.
    The Honorable Rodney Davis,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Highways and Transit, United States House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC 20510.
        Dear Chair Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC)
    respectfully submits the following statement for the record for the
    House Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and
    Transit hearing titled ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
        America's future economic success, growth, and competitiveness
    depends on a thriving and innovative private sector. Every company is a
    tech company, and data-driven innovation is the foundation of
    businesses across the country. The transportation sector is no
    different, and the private sector is leading the way on advancing new
    technologies to increase motor vehicle safety and security, enhance
    Americans' mobility options, and bolster American leadership abroad.
        In particular, automated vehicles (AVs) are a significant and
    transformative transportation technology, impacting industry sectors
    ranging from insurance to trucking while providing enormous benefits to
    consumers and the public at large. We advocate for Congressional action
    to advance a national framework for legislation and caution
    policymakers against advancing policies that would hinder U.S.
    leadership and the benefits of AVs.
        The introduction of AVs will bring several important benefits.
    First, the most critical benefit is the potential for the technology to
    reduce traffic fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA), 38,680 Americans lost their lives in
    2020 due to motor vehicle crashes, a significant portion of which can
    be attributed to human error.\1\ Second, AVs will empower more
    Americans to be mobile. Currently, more than six million Americans have
    a disability impairing their ability to obtain the transportation they
    need to get to work, shop, and travel.\2\ AVs are expected to empower
    two million Americans with disabilities to become employed as well as
    save $9 billion in healthcare costs from reducing missed medical
    appointments stemming from transportation challenges.\3\ Finally, the
    economic potential of automated vehicles is substantial. It is
    estimated that the annual U.S. customer and public benefits from full
    AV deployment will reach $796 billion by 2050.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alexa Lardieri, Traffic Deaths Increased in 2020 Despite Fewer
    People on Roads During Pandemic, U.S. News and World Rep. (Jun. 4,
    2021), https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-04/
    traffic-deaths-increased-in-2020-despite-fewer-people-on-roads-during-
    pandemic.
        \2\ Henry Claypool et al., Self-Driving Cars: The Impact on People
    with Disabilities, Ruderman Fam. Found. & Securing Am.'s Future Energy
    (Jan. 2017), https://rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/
    Self-Driving-Cars-TheImpact-on-People-with-Disabilities_
    FINAL.pdf.
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Richard Mudge et al., America's Workforce and the Self-Driving
    Future, Securing Am.'s Future Energy (Jun. 2018), https://
    avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Americas-
    Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-
    Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the United States currently remains the leader in developing
    AV technology, American leadership is not guaranteed and faces
    challenges from our economic competitors. By 2025, China plans that 30%
    of all cars sold in China will have some level of automation and is
    projected to emerge as the largest market for self-driving vehicles at
    $500 billion by 2030.\5\ Also, Europe is not far behind. According to
    KPMG's 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index, six of the top ten
    ranked countries are in Europe.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Chris O'Brian, China's Drive To Dominate Autonomous Cars,
    Medium: The Innovator (Oct. 22, 2019), https://innovator.news/chinas-
    drive-to-dominate-autonomous-cars-84894b95961f.
        \6\ KPMG International, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index
    (Jul. 2020), https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2020/07/2020-
    autonomous-vehicles-readiness-index.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To ensure continued U.S. global leadership in AV technology, C_TEC
    encourages Congress to enact legislation to facilitate safe AV
    development and deployment. In the 115th Congress, the House of
    Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act, which
    would establish a safe and effective regulatory framework for AVs.\7\
    In October 2020, C_TEC published a comprehensive policy agenda for
    emerging transportation technologies, including AVs, which could serve
    as a basis for Congressional and Executive action.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Aarian Marshall, Congress Unites (Gasp) to Spread Self-Driving
    Cars Across America, Wired (Sept. 6, 2017), https://www.wired.com/
    story/congress-self-driving-car-law-bill/.
        \8\ U.S. Chamber's Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC), America's
    Next Tech Upgrade: Building the Foundation for the Future of
    Transportation (Oct. 2020), https://americaninnovators.com/wp-content/
    uploads/2020/10/CTEC_TechUpgrade_Transportation.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While C_TEC believes that these policy solutions will create a
    regulatory environment to further enable widespread AV deployment,
    Congress should avoid pursuing policy proposals that would
    inadvertently hinder innovation and impede the benefits provided by
    AVs. Lawmakers should be especially cautious of policies that impose
    unnecessary regulatory burdens or expand legal liability.
        The United States must not cede its competitive edge in the AV
    revolution, nor limit the ability for this technology to save lives and
    increase mobility for millions of Americans. C_TEC stands ready to work
    with Congress to further AV adoption.
            Sincerely,
                                               Jordan Crenshaw,
                  Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center,
                                              U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    cc: All members of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee

         Statement of the American Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights,
            Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri
        The undersigned organizations and companies of the American
    Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights (``AAVOR'') respectfully submit
    this statement to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
    and ask that it be made part of the official hearing record for the
    February 2, 2022 hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead for Automated
    Vehicles.''
                              Background on AAVOR
        AAVOR is a diverse group of stakeholders united by the common goal
    of guaranteeing the right of all vehicle owners and users to have
    access to, and control of, the data generated by their vehicles.
    AAVOR's members represent interests from across the mobility ecosystem,
    including consumer advocates, fleet owners and operators, shared
    mobility service providers, automotive repairers, insurers, automotive
    recyclers, and telematics providers.
         Connection Between Vehicle Data Access and Autonomous Vehicles
        The policy issue of the control--or ``ownership''--of, and access
    to, the data generated by a motor vehicle--whether a car or a truck--by
    the owner of that motor vehicle is not solely an autonomous vehicle
    (AV) issue. It applies to the motor vehicles on the road today as well
    as those that will be deployed in the coming decades. From AAVOR's
    point of view, getting a vehicle data access bill done and reaffirming
    the rights of vehicle owners to control vehicle generated data is a
    goal the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee--and the entire Congress--should embrace. Whether vehicle
    data access for vehicle owners and those who have the owners'
    permission to access that data is addressed through AV legislation or
    another legislative vehicle is less important than achieving the goal
    of enactment of such an important new law.
                   The ``Road Ahead'' for Vehicle Data Access
        Vehicle generated data is the new frontier for the development of
    the future of mobility. Today's connected vehicles (cars, trucks and
    buses) offer consumers innovative new services, and bring significant
    downstream business development potential for all stakeholders in the
    on-road transportation sector, including, but not limited to,
    navigation (real-time localization/traffic information), infotainment
    (access to online movies/music), maintenance (fleet management/remote
    diagnostics/vehicle recovery), insurance (pay-as-you-drive/claim
    investigation), traffic efficiency (reduced congestion), sustainability
    (reduced fuel consumption), and safety.
        However, this requires the right legal framework, which enables all
    stakeholders to access data generated by vehicles, starting with
    individual consumers and fleet owners, and extending through Original
    Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), parts suppliers, vehicle repairers, and
    the other many players across the entire transportation sector. This
    vehicle-generated data is related to nearly every aspect of the
    vehicle's operation and has been historically accessed through a
    physical ``on-board diagnostics'' (e.g., OBD-II in passenger cars)
    port. A growing number of vehicles are transitioning to wireless
    access, bypassing the in-cabin, wired-access port and restricting
    access to vehicle-generated data by vehicle owners and third parties.
        Vehicle-generated data--whether accessed through a wired port or
    wirelessly--already provides many benefits to both consumers who own
    individual cars and companies that own dozens or thousands of vehicles.
    But these benefits will only be realized if vehicle owners: (1) retain
    the ability to securely access and control the data their vehicles (and
    equipment attached to their vehicles) generate, collect and store; (2)
    without artificial barriers that reduce consumer choice or competition;
    (3) in real-time through secure, technology-neutral, standards-based,
    in-vehicle access; and, (4) without obtaining consent from an entity
    that does not own or lease the vehicle.
        AAVOR is convinced that Congress must take a lead role in
    guaranteeing vehicle owners and lessees access to and control of all
    data generated, collected and stored by vehicles. AAVOR supports
    enactment of federal policies that safeguard the rights of vehicle
    owners to:
          securely access and control their vehicle data (including
    authorizing access by third parties);
          directly, through in-vehicle access, in real-time;
          through a technology-neutral, standards-based, secured
    interface;
          that provides interoperable and bi-directional
    communication with the vehicle.

        The rights of vehicle owners to control and access the data
    generated by their vehicles is too important to be left unaddressed by
    federal legislation. AAVOR supports federal efforts to establish a
    framework for securing the continued rights of vehicle owners--and
    entities that secure the express permission of vehicle owners--to
    control and access vehicle-generated data on a real-time, secure and
    competitive basis.
        AAVOR appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement to the
    Committee today and looks forward to working with its leadership and
    members to secure enactment of federal vehicle data access legislation
    in the near future. If you have questions about AAVOR's views on the
    issues covered in these comments or other policy matters related to
    vehicle data access, competition, consumer protection or privacy,
    please do not hesitate to contact Greg Scott.

    American Bus Association.
    American Car Rental Association.
    American Property & Casualty Insurance Association.
    Automotive Recyclers Association.
    Automotive Service Association.
    Consumer Action.
    NAFA Fleet Management Association.
    National Consumers League.
    National Motor Freight Traffic Association.
    Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association.
    Geotab, Inc.
    Lytx.
    Privacy4Cars.
    Safelite Group.

     Article Entitled, ``Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in Kansas City
     Early Saturday, Police Say,'' by Kaitlyn Schwers, fox4kc.com, August
      30, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas
    Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in Kansas City Early Saturday, Police
                                      Say
    by Kaitlyn Schwers

    fox4kc.com, posted Aug. 28, 2021, and updated Aug. 30, 2021
    https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-man-struck-killed-on-i-70-in-kansas-
    city-early-saturday-police-say/

        KANSAS CITY, Mo.--A Kansas man died early Saturday morning after he
    was struck by a tractor-trailer on Interstate 70 in Kansas City, police
    said.
        The crash happened just before 3:30 a.m. in the westbound lanes of
    I-70 near Pittman Road. According to a crash report from Kansas City
    police, the victim's car, a Chrysler sedan, was stopped in the outside
    lane of traffic after experiencing a tire blowout.
        Police said the driver of a westbound tractor-trailer tried to
    swerve around the Chrysler and then struck the man, who was standing
    nearby. The tractor-trailer then ran off the right shoulder and
    overturned.
        The driver of the Chrysler died at the scene. He has been
    identified by police as a 28-year-old man from Osawatomie, Kansas. He
    has been identified as Mark A. Johnson.
        The driver of the tractor-trailer was not reported to be injured. A
    passenger in the tractor-trailer was taken to a hospital with injuries
    that were not considered to be life-threatening.
        I-70 was closed at Blue Ridge Boulevard for about two hours as
    police investigated early Saturday. The interstate has since been
    reopened.

    Article Entitled, ``Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies Underscore
    Need for Drivers to Slow Down, Move Over,'' by Ellen Edmonds, Manager,
    AAA Public Relations, AAA, September 29, 2021, Submitted for the Record
                        by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas
    Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies Underscore Need for Drivers to
                              Slow Down, Move Over
    AAA Research Reveals That Some Drivers May Not Grasp the Danger They
            Pose To Those at the Roadside
    by Ellen Edmonds, Manager, AAA Public Relations

    AAA, September 29, 2021
    https://newsroom.aaa.com/2021/09/grim-reminder-latest-roadside-
    tragedies-underscore-need-for-drivers-to-slow-down-move-over/

        ORLANDO, Fla. (Sep. 29, 2021)--The recent deaths of two AAA tow
    providers, killed while assisting motorists, highlight just how
    dangerous it is for individuals who regularly work along the shoulders
    of America's busy and congested roads.
        Glenn Ewing, 32, was killed July 4 near Cincinnati, OH, while
    placing a disabled vehicle on the back of a flatbed on the side of the
    road. He leaves behind a fiancee and two children. Only three weeks
    later, 30-year-old David Meyer was assisting a driver on the left-hand
    shoulder in Castle Rock, CO, when he was also struck and killed. As of
    August of this year, 14 tow providers have been killed while helping
    others at the roadside in 2021.
        ``Deaths like these can be avoided if drivers slow down and move
    over to give these people room to work safely,'' said Marshall Doney,
    AAA President and CEO. ``We can't stress enough how important it is to
    pay attention so you have time to change lanes when you see AAA, an
    emergency responder, or simply anybody along the side of the road.''
        Startling new data from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
    [https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/18733/] finds that
    among drivers who do not comply with Move Over laws at all times:
          42% thought this behavior was somewhat or not dangerous
    at all to roadside emergency workers. This demonstrates that drivers
    may not realize how risky it is for those working or stranded along
    highways and roads close to moving traffic.

        An average of 24 emergency responders including tow providers are
    struck and killed by vehicles while working at the roadside each year--
    meaning someone in this line of work is killed, on average, every other
    week.
        To protect these individuals, AAA and other traffic safety
    advocates have led the way in getting Move Over laws passed in all 50
    states and the District of Columbia. Yet, the AAA Foundation finds
    that--
          nearly a quarter of those surveyed (23%) are unaware of
    the Move Over law in the state where they live, and
          among those who are aware of their state's Move Over
    laws, about 15% report not understanding the potential consequences for
    violating the Move Over law at all.

        In Colorado, for instance, drivers face a $70 ticket, four penalty
    points, and a misdemeanor charge for failure to move over or slow down
    when approaching an emergency vehicle, tow truck, utility vehicle, or
    road maintenance vehicle with flashing lights on the side of the road.
    Ohio's Move Over law requires all drivers to proceed with caution and
    if possible move over one lane when passing an emergency vehicle, tow
    truck, municipal vehicle, or road maintenance vehicle with flashing or
    rotating lights parked on the roadside, and violators can face fines up
    to $300 for a first offense.
        It's not just tow providers and other emergency responders being
    killed on the side of the road. Since 2015, over 1,600 people have been
    struck and killed while outside of a disabled vehicle. The reality is
    that drivers are increasingly distracted while driving. Previous AAA
    Foundation research has found that drivers are up to four times as
    likely to crash if they are talking on a cell phone while driving and
    up to eight times as likely to be in a crash if texting.
        ``If you see something, anything, on the shoulder ahead, slow down
    and move over,'' said Jake Nelson, AAA's director of traffic safety
    advocacy and research. ``It could literally save someone's life.''
                           About Slow Down, Move Over
        Since 2007, AAA has been instrumental in passing Move Over laws
    [https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/18736/] in all states,
    including advocating for those laws to cover tow providers and other
    emergency responders. Additionally, AAA clubs have participated in
    educational and advocacy initiatives, creating public service
    announcements and reaching out to state officials. But, there is more
    work to be done. AAA is committed to raising awareness of the Move Over
    laws and the dangers associated with working at the roadside.
        These laws require motorists to move over one lane or slow down
    when approaching an incident where tow providers, police, firefighters
    or emergency medical service crews are working at the roadside. Many
    states have also expanded their laws to cover other vehicles, such as
    utility and municipal (e.g. sanitation vehicles) fleets, as well as any
    disabled vehicle on the side of the road.
        To protect roadside workers, drivers with disabled vehicles, and
    others, and to improve highway safety, AAA offers these precautionary
    tips:
          Remain alert, avoid distractions and focus on the task of
    driving.
          Keep an eye out for situations where emergency vehicles,
    tow trucks, utility service vehicles or disabled vehicles are stopped
    on the side of the road.
          When you see these situations, slow down and if possible
    move one lane over and away from the people and vehicles stopped at the
    side of the road.

        Last year NHTSA and DOT committed to protecting first responders at
    the roadside [https://newsroom.aaa.com/2020/12/aaa-commends-nhtsa-and-
    dot-on-commitment-to-protecting-first-responders-at-the-roadside/] and
    it's important we all do our part to further this effort.

    About the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: Established in 1947 by
    AAA, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a nonprofit, publicly
    funded, 501(c)(3) charitable research and educational organization. The
    AAA Foundation's mission is to prevent traffic deaths and injuries by
    researching their causes and by educating the public about strategies
    to prevent crashes and reduce injuries when they do occur. This
    research develops educational materials for drivers, pedestrians,
    bicyclists, and other road users.

    About AAA: AAA provides more than 62 million members with automotive,
    travel, insurance, and financial services through its federation of 30
    motor clubs and more than 1,000 branch offices across North America.
    Since 1902, the not-for-profit, fully tax-paying AAA has been a leader
    and advocate for safe mobility. Drivers can request roadside
    assistance, identify nearby gas prices, locate discounts, book a hotel
    or map a route via the AAA Mobile app. To join, visit AAA.com.

      Article Entitled, ``Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a Major
      Upgrade Soon--and Here's Why,'' by Mark Phelan, Detroit Free Press,
     December 5, 2020, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of
                                     Kansas
         Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a Major Upgrade Soon--
                                 and Here's Why
    by Mark Phelan

    Detroit Free Press, December 5, 2020
    https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2020/12/05/car-
    emergency-flashers-upgrade-help/3821201001/

        One of the oldest--and possibly least effective--auto safety
    features may be getting a 21st-century upgrade.
        A new system to improve the visibility of vehicles stranded by the
    side of the road could help reduce thousands of collisions and hundreds
    of deaths a year. The system could be available nearly immediately, if
    supplier Emergency Safety Solutions (ESS) gets regulatory approval.
        ``Vehicles on the side of the road pose a significant danger,''
    said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports
    magazine. Fisher hasn't evaluated Houston-based ESS's system, but he
    liked the idea of updating emergency flashers quickly and
    inexpensively.
        ``We should absolutely look to see if emergency flashers are
    optimized,'' he said. ``There's a big push for complicated auto safety
    systems. There are simple things we can do to save lives and make
    driving safer.''
        More than 64,000 people have been involved this year in the United
    States in crashes with disabled vehicle, according to an ominous real
    time ticker on ESS's website [https://www.ess-help.com/].
                      70,000-plus crashes, 500-plus deaths
        Every year from 2016 through 2018, nearly 72,000 people in the U.S.
    were involved in a crash that included a disabled vehicle, according to
    research ESS commissioned.
        More than 14,000 people were injured and an average of 566 killed
    each year, according to the study. This year is tracking below those
    figures, possibly because pandemic shutdowns and precautions affected
    travel patterns.
        ``Our objective is to completely change how people receive
    information about roadside hazards,'' ESS co-founder and COO Stephen
    Powers said. The company hopes to start that with a patented system
    that uses software to speed up emergency flashers from the current
    pace, which was set in in 1951, when the U.S. National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration wrote the regulation that still governs the
    lights.
        The 70-year-old regulation was written when the speed at which
    incandescent bulbs could be switched on and off was the limiting factor
    and there'd been no research into what kind of lights work best to warn
    drivers, Powers said.
                         A deceptively simple solution
        Current emergency flashers blink at the same rate as turn signals,
    about 1.5 flashes per second. About 5 hertz--five flashes a second--is
    best, according to research ESS used to develop its system, which it
    calls the Hazard Enhanced Lighting Package (HELP). Even then, faster is
    better but only up to a point. Rates faster than five flashes per
    second become less effective for alerting people without distracting
    them.
        ESS uses software to change how the vehicle's existing lights work.
    HELP works on any vehicle with LED lights and electronic controls that
    are common on new vehicles. It could be beamed into existing vehicles
    in a smartphone-style over the air software update, or built into
    vehicles' body control computer, Powers said. The over the air update
    could happen as soon as the feature gets NHTSA's approval.
        That could come quickly if HELP is classified as a modification to
    an existing safety system rather than an all-new feature. That's
    possible because vehicles with the ESS system retain their old-style
    slower flashers for use when the vehicle is moving--going slowly up a
    long hill, for instance.
        ``We don't want to become a nuisance or something people ignore
    because they see it all the time on moving vehicles,'' Powers said.
        The 5 hertz flashes can only be activated when the vehicle is
    motionless. Pressing the existing flasher control once activates old-
    style flashing. A second push in a motionless vehicle accelerates to
    five cycles per second.
        The fast lights are automatically activated if the vehicle's air
    bags deploy.
        NHTSA is evaluating the system. There's no announced schedule for a
    decision, but Powers said it's a ``front burner'' item at the
    regulator. The company also is talking to European regulators.
                      Why are police flashers distracting?
        ESS also is working on digital alerts that could alert navigation
    systems like Waze when a vehicle is disabled on the side of the road.
        ``We're working with tech companies to make that communication
    widespread, even without (direct) vehicle-to-vehicle communication,''
    Powers said.
        ESS will license its intellectual property to manufacturers who
    want the feature. The company has 46 patents, covering its concept and
    technology in every major automaking and auto buying country.
        The quicker flashes do not mimic the sometimes disorientating
    pattern of lights on police cars, Powers said. The police lights flash
    the lights on a rooftop lightbar and conventional lights at different
    times, a pattern that's reserved for emergency vehicles.
        HELP is less distracting because of its flash rate, single color
    and the ``outlining effect,'' which Powers said allows people to
    identify the shape and location of a vehicle more easily when all the
    lights flash at the same time.
        No automaker has committed to using the system, but ESS is talking
    with several and expects quick implementation when it gets regulatory
    approval.

       Article Entitled, ``Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in Hundreds of
    Fatalities Per Year,'' Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway
      Loss Data Institute, June 3, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                            Sharice Davids of Kansas
       Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in Hundreds of Fatalities Per Year
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute,
    June 3, 2021
    https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-result-in-
    hundreds-of-fatalities-per-year

        Hundreds of people are killed and thousands are injured each year
    in crashes involving stopped or disabled vehicles that may not have
    stood out enough to alert drivers to the danger they pose, according to
    a new study commissioned by a company that makes enhanced hazard
    lighting systems.
        Using federal crash statistics, transportation data analysis firm
    Impact Research estimated that 566 people were killed and 14,371
    injured each year over 2016-18 in crashes on all types of roads
    involving a disabled vehicle in which visibility was likely a factor.
    The annual societal cost of those crashes totaled around $8.8 billion
    in medical payments, lost wages, and the less easily quantified costs
    of death or disability.
        ``This study identifies a part of the road safety equation that
    doesn't get much attention, despite the size of the problem,'' says
    David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer at the
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
        The federal crash databases include codes denoting crashes that
    involve stopped or disabled vehicles. To estimate how many of those
    might have resulted because the stationary vehicle wasn't conspicuous
    enough, the authors analyzed detailed police reports from a subset of
    Florida crashes to determine the percentages of different types of
    collisions that involved a stopped vehicle that was too difficult for
    other drivers to see. Then they applied those percentages to the
    broader data set.
        They found that 95 percent of these inconspicuous-vehicle crashes
    occur when a vehicle traveling down the roadway collides with a
    stationary one. However, more than half the deaths and almost 1 in 5
    serious injuries occur when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian who is
    leaving, working on, or returning to a stopped vehicle. On average,
    this type of crash kills 300 pedestrians a year, a number that has
    risen by more than a quarter since 2014.
        That increase comes amid a steady rise in pedestrian fatalities,
    generally. Overall, 6,205 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads in
    2019, up from just 4,109 a decade earlier. An earlier IIHS study
    [https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/land-use-plays-a-role-in-pedestrian-
    freeway-fatalities] found that around 800 pedestrians a year are killed
    on U.S. interstates and other freeways--about 18 percent of them due to
    a disabled vehicle.
        ``These crashes illustrate the potential value of stopped-vehicle-
    ahead warnings, which are already provided by some navigation apps and
    could be integrated to work with advanced driver assistance features
    and more advanced driving automation,'' Zuby says. ``They're also a
    reminder of why we put so much emphasis on good headlights as a vital
    crash avoidance technology.''
        Crashes like these could potentially be eliminated with vehicle-to-
    vehicle communication, which enables vehicles to wirelessly exchange
    information about their speed, location, and heading. But long before
    that technology becomes commonplace, several simpler countermeasures
    could help, the report suggests.
        Earlier research indicates that improving hazard lights so they
    flash brighter and more frequently and are triggered automatically in
    the event a vehicle is disabled could reduce crashes. Nearly a third of
    the collisions in that study involved a stationary vehicle that had its
    hazards on. Emergency Safety Solutions, which commissioned the Impact
    Research report, makes one such enhanced hazard lighting system.
        Adjustments to the ``move over'' laws that require drivers to
    change lanes to give police and emergency services vehicles more room
    to operate could also help, Impact Research concluded. Such laws are
    now in place in all 50 U.S. states. But first responders continue to be
    killed and injured in secondary crashes, prompting the U.S. Government
    Accountability Office to announce in June 2019 that it would conduct a
    study to review what might be done to make these laws more effective.
        Better traffic management practices could also make a difference.
    Under one such policy, first responders dispatch two vehicles to every
    highway incident and use one vehicle primarily to shield the personnel
    working on the disabled vehicle from oncoming traffic, increasing the
    visibility of the scene with flares, safety cones and flashing lights.
        However, more research is needed there, as well. The most recent
    Federal Highway Administration report on the subject was written in
    2010, before many relevant technologies became available, and its
    authors were unable to identify specific traffic management procedures
    that were most effective in preventing secondary crashes.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

       Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Martha
     Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX, and Councilmember,
      District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the National League of Cities

        Question 1. African Americans make up the majority of pedestrian
    and cycling fatalities. Furthermore, both pedestrian and cycling
    fatalities are skyrocketing due to numerous factors, including
    distracted driving and a shift toward SUVs, which create greater blind
    spots and heavier impact from collisions. That said, we know that
    relatively cheap and quick infrastructure improvements such as building
    sidewalks and protected bike lanes can help prevent cycling and
    pedestrian fatalities, and the disproportionate loss of Black and
    minority lives.
        Why not invest in existing safety measures to save lives,
    especially for people of color who are disproportionately impacted,
    rather than rely upon the potential for safety that may or may not
    transpire from the usage of AVs?
        Answer. Congressman Johnson, we absolutely should be investing in
    proven safety solutions on our roads to save lives today, and cities
    like Houston are continuing to do that with our Vision Zero efforts and
    our transportation investments across our neighborhoods. We're also
    looking forward to doing more with the new ``Safer Streets and Roads
    for All'' program once USDOT is able to stand that up. While AVs may
    help with safer driving in the near future, we have to use a full
    ``Safe System'' wrap-around approach to combat the rising deaths on our
    roads and that means doing far more--on roads, with vehicles and with
    our communities.

       Question from Hon. Sharice Davids to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa
    Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of
                   State Highway and Transportation Officials

        Question 1. Conversations around AVs are important, but I also
    don't want to lose sight of the need to address critical safety issues
    now. For example, crashes involving disabled vehicles are happening
    regularly. Anyone that's ever had a flat tire or had to walk to get
    help knows just how frightening it can be. And sadly, tragedies
    continue.
        Just this last August, a Kansas man was killed after he had a tire
    blowout on I-70 just over the border in Missouri. An oncoming vehicle
    wasn't able to stop in time and he was tragically struck and killed.
    This is just one example of the thousands of injuries and fatalities
    happening every year. In fact, every seven minutes, a disabled vehicle
    is struck by an oncoming driver on U.S. roadways. I'd like to include
    for the record a few articles highlighting the significant safety
    challenge of these crashes and how technology that is available today
    can help oncoming drivers see these vehicles before it's too late to
    react.
        I'm wondering whether we're doing enough to address this challenge
    in the interim before AVs are prevalent.
        Mr. Marler, are you seeing these types of crashes in your state?
    What is the impact?
        Answer. Thank you, Representative Davids, for your question.
    Unfortunately, Iowa is experiencing crashes like the one you describe
    where there is a vehicle (disabled or not) stopped on the side of the
    roadway and then another vehicle moving at speed collides with it,
    resulting in a serious injury or fatality. All fatalities are
    unacceptable on our roadways and Iowa DOT is doing everything we can to
    eliminate the crashes you described and all crashes for that matter.
        There are a range of actions that a state can take to mitigate and
    eliminate these types of crashes. First, states can enact and then
    educate drivers about laws requiring them to move over or slow down to
    provide room to vehicles and people who are stopped on the side of the
    roadway. These laws are designed to protect motorists, including
    motorists stranded by the side of the road, persons being transported
    in emergency vehicles, and personnel at high risk while performing
    their duties on Iowa's roadways. A good rule of the road is to change
    lanes or slow down anytime you are approaching a vehicle that is slow
    moving, stopped or stranded on the shoulder, if you can safely do so.
    Iowa enacted its Move Over or Slow Down \1\ law in 2018 and now has an
    aggressive campaign to educate the public about the law and impose
    penalties to motorists who do not follow the law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://iowadot.gov/rules
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, states can further improve the infrastructure so that
    motorists can better perceive lane markings on roadways, maintain
    variable message signs so motorists know a disabled vehicle is ahead,
    and install static signs to educate and remind motorists of the Move
    Over or Slow Down law.
        Third, technology will play an important role in mitigating and
    eliminating these types of crashes. More vehicles are being equipped
    with advanced driver assistance systems, including technologies that
    warn drivers of lane deviation, display upcoming roadside hazards to
    the driver, and prevent and reduce the severity of crashes through
    automatic emergency braking.
        All of these efforts are happening now and will prevent many
    crashes from occurring until such time as connected and automated
    vehicles (CAVs) are operating on our roadways. In the future, CAVs will
    be an important tool in preventing these types of crashes. A connected
    vehicle should know the precise location of a disabled vehicle, with
    this information being relayed to the driver and/or the automated
    systems on board to help prevent a collision with the disabled vehicle.
    In fact, this technology and application could be used for other
    situations as well, such as informing drivers of an unexpected vehicle
    queue and work zones to better indicate where there is active and
    inactive construction occurring.

         Question from Hon. Sam Graves to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa
    Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of
                   State Highway and Transportation Officials

        Question 2. Please explain some of the safety and mobility
    improvements Automated Vehicles (AVs) can bring to rural areas.
        Answer. Thank you, Representative Graves, for your question. CAV
    technologies have the potential to improve mobility, access, and equity
    and help engage disadvantaged and marginalized communities regardless
    of their geographic location. State DOTs, like Iowa DOT, and their
    partners recognize the role transportation plays broadly in society,
    its ability to connect communities, as well as inequities from the 20th
    century when building out the nation's transportation system. In the
    United States, CAV technologies need to benefit all users of the
    transportation system regardless of their income levels or geographic
    location.
        Specific to rural areas, I would like to draw your attention to
    recently completed research that answers your question in greater
    detail. Consideration of Automated Vehicle Benefits and Research Needs
    for Rural America, provides information regarding the safety and
    mobility improvements AVs bring to rural areas.\2\ The authors consider
    the importance and magnitude of improved: a) safety, b) mobility and
    accessibility, and c) traffic operations and energy efficiency--three
    commonly cited benefits attributed to automation--for rural areas in
    the continental United States. They focus on the benefits that are
    inherent to vehicle automation and thus can be achieved with any shared
    or private ownership and use schemes, and I would like to utilize their
    report to explain some of the safety and mobility improvements that may
    be expected from CAV's in rural areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Dowds, Jonathan, et. al., Consideration of Automated Vehicle
    Benefits and Research Needs for Rural America, pages 2-4, July 2021.
    https://escholarship.org/content/qt4v25q5n9/qt4v25q5n9.pdf?t=qxoumb.
    Accessed March 10, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In this report, the authors state that rural crash fatality and
    serious injury rates are nearly three times as high in rural versus
    urban areas. There are a wide variety of factors that contribute to
    this statistic including speed and risk-taking behavior; the nature of
    rural roads with undivided opposing direction traffic streams that make
    head-on collisions more likely; and driver behavior concerns which
    include more frequent inebriation and an older population that
    experiences a higher crash involvement rate than middle-aged drivers.
    All of these factors could be addressed through automation. In
    addition, crash avoidance could be especially beneficial since there
    are longer response times for emergency personnel.
        For mobility, the authors focus on the limited accessibility that
    rural populations have to various destination types, low density
    development patterns, and a population that is, on average, older than
    those in suburban and urban areas. These factors all contribute to a
    significant car dependency in rural areas and lead to long distances
    that are hard to serve by walking and biking and also lower total
    demand that is more difficult to serve with transit, ride-hailing, or
    ride-sharing. In these situations, eliminating the burden of driving
    longer distances and the ability to send a vehicle on an unoccupied
    errand may be particularly important in rural areas.
        Finally, for traffic operations and energy efficiency, near-
    universal AV adoption, especially with connected automated vehicles,
    could lead to reduced vehicle size and weight without adversely
    impacting safety outcomes. This could result in closer following
    distances, smoother traffic flows, and reduced crash rates, thereby
    increasing lane capacity and reducing congestion at high-volume rural
    locations and intersections.
        In Iowa, we are specifically addressing the mobility and
    accessibility aspect head-on where our research partners at the
    University of Iowa's National Advanced Driving Simulator were awarded
    one of the eight Automated Driving System (ADS) demonstration grants
    from USDOT.\3\ While 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 68
    percent of our nation's total lane miles are in rural areas, and 45
    percent of all traffic related fatalities occur on rural roadways.\4\
    Iowa's population is aging, and it remains paramount that older
    individuals have the ability to get to the important services they
    need, such as healthcare which is being regionalized. The ADS for Rural
    America project is a demonstration project that involves a highly
    automated shuttle bus with advanced sensors. This automated vehicle is
    now being driven on all types of rural roads in Iowa including gravel
    roads and paved unmarked roadways. The goal is to understand the unique
    challenges that rural roadways present for automated vehicles as well
    as identify opportunities for advancing automation so that it improves
    safety and mobility for everyone, especially the mobility challenged
    populations in rural America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.transportation.gov/av/grants. Accessed January 28,
    2022.
        \4\ https://www.bts.gov/rural. Accessed January 28, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Scott Marler,
    Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
           Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

        Question 3. Are you aware of efforts by states around the country
    to preempt local authority over AV operations? These laws undermine
    local control and make it difficult for local communities to ensure the
    safe operation of AVs in their communities, and therefore the safety of
    their residents.
        Mr. Marler: Do you support such efforts and why? Do you agree the
    consequences of these laws can be dire?
        Answer. Thank you, Representative Johnson, for your question. The
    National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) maintains a robust and
    curated database of self-driving vehicles enacted legislation that
    provides up-to-date, real-time information about state autonomous
    vehicle legislation that has been introduced in the 50 states, the
    District of Columbia, and territories \5\. The legislation passed to
    date includes a wide range of laws that enable the safe testing and
    deployment of automated vehicles on public roadways. And, there are
    examples where state legislatures have passed laws that preempt local
    jurisdictions from regulating AVs, including Illinois, Nevada, North
    Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-
    vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx. Accessed March
    12, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The enactment of laws regulating automated vehicles at the state
    level is an issue of serious importance to our local partners and the
    state DOTs as infrastructure owners and operators recognize this
    concern. Speaking from the perspective of a state DOT, we believe that
    the traditional framework that has laid out specific responsibilities
    among federal, state, and local authorities regarding the
    certification, titling, licensing, and development/enforcement of
    traffic laws should not be changed. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the design and
    safety of vehicles through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
    (FMVSS). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has the authority,
    via the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
    Highways (MUTCD), to define the standards used by road managers
    nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all
    public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public
    travel. States have the authority to title and license vehicles on
    roadways.
        States and local jurisdictions have a shared responsibility to
    develop and enforce traffic laws that govern the safe operation of
    vehicles on our roadways. In fact, many states, including Iowa, do have
    provisions in their state law for local jurisdictions to make certain
    decisions. This framework has worked well since it was first
    established, and the state DOTs intend to maintain this distribution of
    responsibilities going forward. We do recognize that this framework may
    need to be revisited in some aspect in the future once Level 4 and 5
    autonomous vehicles are ready for deployment (not development or
    testing) on roadways. The state DOTs, working through the National
    Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 20-102(7)
    Implications of Automation for Motor Vehicle Codes, has started to
    research and assess what changes, if any, may need to be made in the
    future.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/
    TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4006. Accessed March 10, 2022.

        Question 4. For example, in 2018, Elaine Herzberg was killed when a
    self-driving car crashed into her. It was later reported that the
    vehicle had numerous safety flaws--its software was designed not to see
    people who were ``jaywalking'', and the safety drivers were found to
    have been distracted. Arizona state laws, under Governor Ducey, adopted
    a more lenient approach to regulating AVs, so that car makers were not
    held to the highest safety standards.
        Mr. Marler: Should there be a federal role in ensuring a minimum
    level of regulation of AVs so that no state level preemption could
    endanger people's safety?
        Answer. Thank you, Representative Johnson, for your question. The
    situation you refer to regarding the tragic death of Elaine Herzberg
    occurred when the self-driving car was being tested on the public
    roadway. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
    (AAMVA) has published, and updated, their Safe Testing and Deployment
    of Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving Systems Guidelines, which
    provides important guidelines for jurisdictions to consider in the
    testing and deployment of automated vehicles. As stated in this
    document, a successful path to the safe testing and deployment of
    technology in vehicles must include appropriate government oversight
    developed in coordination with strong stakeholder engagement formed
    through partnerships with the many entities engaged in or affected by
    these rapidly developing technologies. These partnerships should be
    formed to address the far-reaching impacts of the technologies and
    should include representatives from a broad spectrum of government
    organizations, government support associations, and industry and
    advocacy groups.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Safe
    Testing and Deployment of Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving
    Systems Guidelines, Edition 2. September 2020. https://www.aamva.org/
    getmedia/66190412-ce9d-4a3d-8b6e-28c1b80e3c10/Safe-Testing-and-
    Deployment-of-Vehicles-Equipped-with-ADS-Guidelines_Final.pdf. Accessed
    March 10, 2022.

        Question 5. What would that regulation look like?
        Answer. The state DOTs believe that the traditional framework that
    has laid out specific responsibilities among federal, state, and local
    authorities regarding the certification, titling, licensing, and
    development/enforcement of traffic laws should not be changed. The
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the
    authority to regulate the design and safety of vehicles through the
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) has the authority, via the Manual on Uniform
    Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), to define the
    standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain
    traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and
    private roads open to public travel. States have the authority to title
    and license vehicles on roadways as well as limit and authorize the
    testing and deployment of AVs on their roadways. The role of the
    federal government should be to continue updating the FMVSS to ensure
    the safety of the vehicles, be they automated or non-automated, and to
    continue to define the standards used by road managers nationwide.
        Another role that the federal government can play is to continue
    updating of the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
    (NMVTIS). The NMVTIS is designed to protect consumers from fraud and
    unsafe vehicles and to keep stolen vehicles from being resold and is
    also a tool that assists states and law enforcement in deterring and
    preventing title fraud and other crimes.
        As vehicles change and more information is needed to title a
    vehicle, this should be updated as part of the NMVTIS. Specifically, if
    a vehicle is known to be an automated vehicle, it should be captured on
    the vehicle title such that if the vehicle moves state-to-state, the
    new state knows it. The NMVTIS is set up as a national system, but the
    states contribute the data on individual vehicle transactions. This is
    another example of a federal-state partnership or shared responsibility
    that needs to continue and be strengthened for the future as AVs are
    deployed.

      Question from Hon. Nikema Williams to John Samuelsen, International
             President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

        Question 1. Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony, you mentioned the
    need to protect equity and accessibility for consumers when it comes to
    technological innovation.
        What are the key policy considerations for Congress in this area
    when it comes to automated vehicle technology?
        Answer. As we have seen from other recent transportation
    innovations, unregulated industries tend to ignore equity and
    accessibility until the are forced to address these issues.
    Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft are actively
    arguing in court that they are not bound by federal requirements to
    provide accessible services.\1\ At the same time, these ride-hailing
    companies ``deepen the desperation of workers who have been excluded
    from traditional employment'' \2\, specifically people of color, by
    both selling a product significantly more expensive than other
    competing modes of transportation and undermining the value of work
    disproportionally performed by historically disadvantaged groups.\3\
    There is no doubt that, left unregulated, the nascent AV industry will
    follow a similar path.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.fastcompany.com/90343921/lyft-claims-its-not-a-
    transportation-company-to-avoid-ada-compliance
        \2\ https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/People-v.-Uber-Lyft-
    Application-Amici-Curiae.pdf
        \3\ https://ttd.org/the-cost-of-doing-business/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To avoid this outcome, Congress should focus on the following
    considerations as you prepare AV legislation and oversight actions:
          Hold AVs to existing standards. AV companies have already
    submitted exemption and waiver requests from hundreds of federal
    standards. These standards, including equity and accessibility
    requirements, are established in law to prevent unequal and unsafe
    outcomes. Any new technology that seeks federal approval should be
    required to meet these standards before widespread deployment.
          Prioritize the voices of working people. Most frontline
    workers employed by public transportation agencies are people of color.
    The good, union jobs these workers have are well-established pathways
    to the middle class and towards creating generational wealth. These
    workers have an essential role to play in technology development that
    maintains and expands their existing employment.
          Build standards now for the industry to grow around. As
    mentioned above, unregulated industries will inevitably undermine
    equitable outcomes and reduce accessibility. Congress has the
    opportunity now, before the AV industry deploys a significant number of
    vehicles into our transportation systems, to establish clear standards
    and expectations for the industry to grow around. Requiring these
    companies to develop technology towards equitable outcomes is much
    easier today than it will be in ten years.

        Additionally, the TWU's comments in response to the DOT's recent
    RFI on Transportation Equity Data \4\ include more policy suggestions
    applicable to the entire transportation system. These recommendations,
    while more general, would also buoy efforts to ensure AVs are developed
    inclusively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2021-0056-0291/
    attachment_1.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to John Samuelsen,
      International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

        Question 2. Mr. Samuelsen, the commercial aircraft industry has had
    some version of autopilot for many years; however, two pilots are still
    required in the cockpit and those pilots routinely take over to
    manually fly our planes.
        Do you believe that we should also require human operators in
    commercial vehicles on our roads as this technology advances?
        Answer. Yes. Automations fail on a regular basis. We have to expect
    and plan for those failures if we are going to maintain a safe
    transportation system. Both the FAA and FRA acknowledge this fact and
    require human oversight of automated systems. These agencies also
    required well-trained, well-qualified workers to be ready to take
    control of their vehicles at all times, as needed. The same approach
    should be taken for automations on commercial vehicles travelling our
    roads.
        Human judgement from a well-trained operator saves lives. This is
    especially true during crises which, by their nature, are unexpected
    and impossible to program solutions to. For example, on September 11,
    2001, TWU members were ordered by management to stop service to
    downtown Manhattan--effectively trapping thousands of people under the
    World Trade Center. Subway and bus operators ignored that order and
    returned time again, risking their own lives and their jobs, to shuttle
    people out of the area. The last subway pulled out of the World Trade
    Center station just minutes before the towers collapsed, filled to
    capacity with people who might not otherwise have been able to get
    away. Without the compassion and ingenuity demonstrated by TWU members
    that day, capacities that AVs will never posses, we would have lost
    many more lives in that attack.

       Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to John Samuelsen, International
             President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

        Question 3. Are your members opposed to AV legislation or to
    transportation innovation generally?
        Answer. No, on the contrary we are active and enthusiastic
    supporters of pro-worker innovation. Our members regularly spend their
    own bargaining power during contract negotiations to force our
    employers to upgrade to new technology. Transit agencies across the
    country would still be waiting to implement blind spot detection, lane
    assist, and other recent innovations if not for the TWU forcing these
    agencies to buy and install these vital systems. We would love to see a
    bill passed into law this Congress that establishes a regulatory regime
    that the AV industry can grow around; one that maintains safety
    standards, protects workers, and ensures that this technology creates
    jobs in America.

         Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Catherine Chase,
                President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 1. Ms. Chase, your testimony notes that automated driving
    technology has the potential to improve roadway safety and reduce
    deaths and injuries. However, your testimony also notes that there's
    often confusion between the potential safety benefits of commercial AVs
    and safety benefits offered by partial automation convenience features,
    such as automatic emergency braking.
        Can you elaborate on this distinction?
        Answer. Currently there are no federal performance standards for
    autonomous vehicles (AVs), advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS),
    or partial automation convenience features. Understandably, there is a
    great deal of confusion among the public about these different
    categories. In an actual AV, the car is taking over the entire driving
    task, unlike ADAS and convenience features where a driver always must
    be engaged in the driving task. There are no AVs available to consumers
    at this time. ADAS include safety features presently offered in some
    vehicles such as automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure
    warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD). The Insurance Institute
    for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that equipping large trucks with
    forward collision warning and AEB could eliminate more than two out of
    five crashes in which a large truck rear-ends another vehicle.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large trucks
    too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-front-
    crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Conversely, partial automation convenience features, such as
    adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane centering used together, have
    not been proven to improve vehicle safety. According to IIHS President
    David Harkey, ``[T]here is no evidence that [partial automation
    systems] make driving safer . . . In fact, the opposite may be the case
    if systems lack adequate safeguards.'' \2\ Misuse of and overreliance
    on some technologies already have led to numerous fatal crashes.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
    (Jan. 20, 2022).
        \3\ Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated
    Driving System and Pedestrian, Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018, Accident
    Report NTSB/HAR-19/03 (Nov. 19, 2019); NHTSA Office of Defects
    Investigation Preliminary Evaluation PE21-020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure for including numerous provisions in
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law last
    November, that will improve safety and strengthen our nation's
    infrastructure.\4\ The law requires the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (DOT) to issue a final rule within two years for AEB in
    large commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and the issuance of a Federal
    Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to require drivers use AEB.\5\
    We urge the U.S. DOT to meet the statutory deadline for this standard
    and not delay regulatory action. However, this directive must be
    expanded to include all CMVs and the U.S. DOT has the authority to do
    so. Based on new truck sales data, limiting the installation of AEB to
    Class 7 and 8 trucks will potentially exclude over half a million Class
    3-6 trucks every year. These vehicles travel on local streets and
    through neighborhoods everyday making millions of deliveries. Equipping
    these trucks with AEB will make neighborhood streets safer for
    pedestrians, bicyclists, children, older adults, people in wheelchairs
    and other vulnerable road users. Advocates also has consistently
    supported the use of speed limiting devices for CMVs because high speed
    crashes involving large trucks have the potential to be far deadlier
    than those that occur at lower speeds.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
        \5\ Id. at Sec. 23010.
        \6\ Docket: FMCSA-2014-0083, Comment ID: FMCSA-2014-0083-4459.

        Question 2. How should Congress treat automated vehicle
    technologies that can be adopted today to improve safety on U.S. roads
    versus more advanced levels of automation which supersede the need for
    a human driver?
        Answer. While autonomous vehicle (AV) technology continues to be
    developed, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are available to
    immediately improve public safety. These safety technologies can
    address a range of crash causes including impaired, distracted and
    drowsy driving. 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.\7\ However, the widespread use of these
    technologies and realizing their significant lifesaving benefits are
    hampered by their limited availability to consumers typically in higher
    end models or in luxury packages with non-safety features at a
    significant additional cost. Moreover, there are currently no minimum
    safety standards to ensure the technologies perform as expected and
    needed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
    Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the near term, regulations must be promulgated for elements of
    autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) including but not limited
    to the autonomous driving system (ADS), human machine interface,
    sensors, privacy, software and cybersecurity. ACMVs must also be
    subject to a ``vision test'' to guarantee they properly detect and
    respond to other vehicles, all people and objects in the operating
    environment. Also, a standard to ensure ACMVs do not go outside of
    their operational design domain (ODD) should be issued. Standards for
    ACMVs must be required to be issued by specific deadlines, with a
    compliance date, set by Congress before deployment.
        For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
    automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid CDL in the vehicle
    at all times. Drivers will need to be alert to oversee not only the
    standard operations of the truck but also the ADS. Therefore, the
    Secretary must issue a mandatory safety standard for driver engagement.
    In addition, critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as
    those that apply to driver hours of service (HOS), licensing
    requirements, entry level training and medical qualifications must not
    be weakened.
        Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional endorsement or
    equivalent certification on their commercial driver's license (CDL) to
    ensure they have been properly trained to safely oversee and understand
    the ODD of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV. This
    training must include a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel
    training.
        Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a safety
    assessment report that details the safety performance of its automated
    driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers must be required
    to promptly report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) all crashes involving ACMVs causing fatalities,
    injuries and property damage, which the agency should make publicly
    available shortly upon receipt.
        ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards (FMVSS) must not be introduced into commerce nor be subject
    to large-scale exemptions from such. Any safety defect involving the
    ACMV must be remedied before the ACMV is permitted to return to
    operation. The potential for defects to infect an entire fleet of
    vehicles is heightened because of the connected nature of AV
    technology. Therefore, manufacturers must be required to promptly
    determine if a defect affects an entire fleet. Those defects which are
    fleet-wide must result in notice to all such owners and an immediate
    suspension of operation of the entire fleet until the defect is
    remedied.
        The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Secretary
    must be required to establish a public searchable database for ACMVs
    that includes such information as the vehicle's identification number;
    manufacturer, make, model and trim information; the level of automation
    of each automated driving system with which the vehicle is equipped;
    the ODD of each automated driving system; and the FMVSS, if any, from
    which the vehicle has been exempted.
        Motor carriers using ACMVs must be required to apply for additional
    operating authority. In addition, FMCSA must consider the additional
    measures that will be needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and
    local law enforcement authorities and requirements, and what measures
    must be taken to properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside inspections.
    In particular, the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of
    several large ACMVs platooning on bridges, roads and highways must be
    assessed.
        NHTSA must be given imminent hazard authority to protect against
    potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs and the
    authority to impose criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not
    willfully and knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
        NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources, funding and
    personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the agency due to
    the advent of AV technology. Without these necessary safety
    protections, mandated by Congress to assure they are adopted with
    prescribed deadlines, commercial drivers and those with whom they share
    the road are at risk. Allowing technology to be deployed without
    rigorous testing, vigilant oversight, consumer information and
    comprehensive safety standards is a direct and unacceptable threat to
    the motoring public.

        Question 3. What can Congress do now to ensure the safe deployment
    of commercial AVs, when the time comes?
        Answer. Automated technology may have the potential to be
    transformative in reducing our nation's mounting roadway death and
    injury toll. However, we are deeply concerned about the future of
    automated, or autonomous, vehicles (AVs) including trucks and buses
    without targeted legislative directives requiring regulatory and
    industry actions to address identified problems. The lack of
    comprehensive federal performance standards, strong government
    oversight, adequate consumer information, and effective industry
    accountability imperils all road users who are currently unknowing and
    unwitting participants in the testing of experimental autonomous
    technology on public roadways. Therefore, Congress must exercise
    stringent oversight, demand transparency from all stakeholders, ensure
    industry accountability and advance comprehensive legislation directing
    the issuance of minimum performance standards to ensure public safety.

       Question from Hon. Sharice Davids to Catherine Chase, President,
                     Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 4. Conversations around AVs are important, but I also
    don't want to lose sight of the need to address critical safety issues
    now. For example, crashes involving disabled vehicles are happening
    regularly. Anyone that's ever had a flat tire or had to walk to get
    help knows just how frightening it can be. And sadly, tragedies
    continue.
        Just this last August, a Kansas man was killed after he had a tire
    blowout on I-70 just over the border in Missouri. An oncoming vehicle
    wasn't able to stop in time and he was tragically struck and killed.
    This is just one example of the thousands of injuries and fatalities
    happening every year. In fact, every seven minutes, a disabled vehicle
    is struck by an oncoming driver on U.S. roadways. I'd like to include
    for the record a few articles highlighting the significant safety
    challenge of these crashes and how technology that is available today
    can help oncoming drivers see these vehicles before it's too late to
    react.
        I'm wondering whether we're doing enough to address this challenge
    in the interim before AVs are prevalent.
        Cathy Chase, why is it important to incentivize new technologies
    now while we wait for full deployment of AVs?
        Answer. Preventable crashes such as those involving disabled
    vehicles are tragic especially when proven solutions are currently
    available. Data recently released by the National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that 38,824 people were killed
    in motor vehicle crashes in 2020. The fatality rate increased by 21
    percent and is the highest annual total since 2007. This number is
    especially stunning considering the estimated number of police-reported
    crashes and injuries decreased, by 22 and 17 percent respectively. In
    nearly half (45 percent) of the fatal crashes, speeding, impaired
    driving and unbuckled drivers were involved. Fatalities of vulnerable
    road users--bicyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists--also rose to
    historic levels.
        The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) should be
    issuing minimum performance standards for proven and available safety
    technologies with urgency. NHTSA has estimated that between 1960 and
    2012, over 600,000 lives were saved by motor vehicle safety
    technologies.\8\ 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.\9\ In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
    has found that equipping large trucks with forward collision warning
    and AEB could eliminate more than two out of five crashes in which a
    large truck rear-ends another vehicle, and AEB can decrease front-to-
    rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent for passenger motor
    vehicles.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
    (NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
    endnote 1.
        \9\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
    Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
        \10\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
    trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
    front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too; IIHS, Real world
    benefits of crash avoidance technologies, available at: https://
    www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/
    ADVANCED%20DRIVER
    %20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The widespread use of these technologies and realizing their
    significant lifesaving benefits are hampered by their limited
    availability to consumers. Often AEB is sold as part of an additional,
    expensive trim package along with other non-safety features, or
    included as standard equipment in high end models or vehicles. This
    practice hinders mass dissemination and safety equity by providing
    access only to those who can afford an upcharge of thousands of
    dollars. Additionally, segments of the trucking industry have opposed
    requiring AEB in small to medium-sized trucks.
        There are currently no minimum safety standards to ensure the
    technologies perform as expected and needed. When consumers walk into
    auto showrooms to purchase a vehicle, a major expenditure for most
    families, they expect the assurances of minimum safety standards to
    protect them, as has been the case since the first federal vehicle
    safety regulation was issued in 1966. Also, consumers are keeping cars
    longer. In 2021, the average of age of vehicles operated on roads in
    the U.S. was 12 years.\11\ As such, without federal regulations
    requiring ADAS as standard equipment, it will take far longer for these
    safety systems to be prevalent on our roadways. The current void of
    regulations for ADAS renders all road users vulnerable to needless
    dangers, including bicyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road
    users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Robert Ferris, Cars on American roads keep getting older, CNBC
    (Sep. 28, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Catherine Chase,
                President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 5. African Americans make up the majority of pedestrian
    and cycling fatalities. Furthermore, both pedestrian and cycling
    fatalities are skyrocketing due to numerous factors, including
    distracted driving and a shift toward SUVs, which create greater blind
    spots and heavier impact from collisions. That said, we know that
    relatively cheap and quick infrastructure improvements such as building
    sidewalks and protected bike lanes can help prevent cycling and
    pedestrian fatalities, and the disproportionate loss of Black and
    minority lives.
        Ms. Chase: What regulation is needed to enforce traffic laws and
    ensure that AVs don't drive recklessly?
        Answer. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.
    DOT) National Roadway Safety Strategy, fatalities among Black people
    increased by 23 percent between 2019 and 2020 compared to an overall
    increase of 7.2 percent.\12\ In addition, people who are American
    Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates more than double
    the national rate on a per population basis.\13\ Moreover, the 40
    percent of counties with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced
    a fatality rate 35 percent higher than the national average on a per
    population basis.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ U.S. DOT, National Roadway Safety Strategy, pg. 11 (Feb.
    2022).
        \13\ Id.
        \14\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Several actions can be taken to reverse these deeply troubling
    figures. Restrictions on the use of federal dollars by local
    communities to use automated enforcement (AE) should be removed.
    Research has consistently demonstrated the safety benefits of AE.\15\
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) revised the misguided
    limitation by permitting the use of federal funds for AE in work and
    school zones but not elsewhere.\16\ This restriction should be stricken
    in its entirety. In 2018, Advocates, the American Automobile
    Association (AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
    and the National Safety Council issued guidelines to help ensure red
    light camera AE is used properly and equitably, and last year
    guidelines for speed enforcement AE were added.\17\ We encourage all
    localities to implement these recommendations. In addition, the IIJA
    provides funding opportunities for states and localities to implement a
    Safe System Approach that seeks to prevent traffic fatalities by
    minimizing roadway conflicts and reducing crash forces when they do
    occur.\18\ This is accomplished through measures such as reducing
    speeds, road safety infrastructure improvements, vehicle safety
    enhancements and better post-crash management.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ IIHS, Safety groups create automated enforcement checklist to
    encourage well-designed programs (May 6, 2021).
        \16\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
        \17\ IIHS, New guidelines for automated enforcement programs
    emphasize safety amid rise in red-light-running crash deaths (Jul. 24,
    2018)
        \18\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Development of AVs must be undertaken without jeopardizing public
    safety. Advocates spearheaded the development of the ``AV Tenets,''
    policy positions which should be a foundational part of any AV
    policy.\19\ This comprehensive approach is based on expert analysis,
    real world experience, and public opinion and is supported by 60
    stakeholders representing safety, consumer, public health, labor,
    bicyclists, pedestrians, individuals with disabilities, smart growth,
    and others. It has four main, commonsense categories including: 1)
    prioritizing safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing accessibility
    and equity for all individuals including those with disabilities; 3)
    preserving consumer and worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control
    and sustainable transportation. Many promises have been touted about
    AVs bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths
    and injuries, lowering traffic congestion and vehicle emissions,
    expanding mobility and accessibility, improving efficiency, and
    creating more equitable transportation options and opportunities. As
    Secretary Buttigieg recently acknowledged, these outcomes are far from
    certain.\20\ The AV Tenets will be necessary if these goals are to be
    achieved, as well as mitigate potential negative consequences. Among
    the numerous recommendations in the AV Tenets, requiring that AVs meet
    minimum performance standards, including for cybersecurity, and that
    operations are subject to adequate oversight, including a comprehensive
    database accessible by vehicle identification number (VIN) with basic
    safety information, will be critical to putting safety first with
    regards to this technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See: https://saferoads.org/autonomous-vehicle-tenets/
        \20\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
    Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Catherine Chase, President,
                     Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 6. What impact will AVs deployment have on the number of
    impaired driving crashes and fatalities?
        Answer. If and when fully autonomous (SAE level four and five)
    vehicles (AVs) are developed and comprise the entirety of vehicles
    operated on U.S. roadways, the technology has the potential to reduce
    impaired driving crashes and the resulting fatalities. In 2020,
    according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA), 11,654 people died in crashes involving impaired driving
    across the nation.\21\ These crashes are 100 percent preventable, and
    technology can help eradicate impaired driving. In fact, the Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released research showing that
    impairment detection systems could save upwards of 9,000 lives each
    year once widely deployed.\22\ Regrettably, impaired driving detection
    technologies currently are not required as standard equipment. However,
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act compelled the U.S. DOT to
    issue a final rule on advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
    technology by November 2024.\23\ Until these systems are standard
    equipment, additional safety technologies, such as automatic emergency
    braking (AEB), should be in all new vehicles subject to minimum federal
    performance standards. AEB can address a number of the conditions
    leading to crashes and can help to mitigate or prevent impaired driving
    collisions until such time as the systems noted above are in all
    vehicles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle crashes
    in 2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration.
        \22\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Alcohol-detection
    systems could prevent more than a fourth of U.S. road fatalities (Jul.
    23, 2020).
        \23\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Questions from Hon. Eric A. `` Rick'' Crawford to Catherine Chase,
                President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 7. Your testimony states that, ``According to the U.S.
    Department of Labor, truck driving is one of the most dangerous
    occupations in the United States''.
        How do you suggest we address the truck driver shortage? If truck-
    driving is dangerous, how would AVs improve safety by reducing human
    error?
        Answer. The trucking industry is facing a retention crisis, not a
    driver shortage. The U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) has determined
    that ``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as the
    labor markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper look
    [at the truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a
    secular shortage.'' \24\ Additionally, states issue more than 450,000
    new commercial driver licenses (CDLs) each year demonstrating that
    there are candidates to fill vacancies.\25\ Until the harsh and unsafe
    working conditions for interstate truck drivers are remedied, labor
    issues will persist. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
    has found that equipping large trucks with forward collision warning
    and automatic emergency braking (AEB) could eliminate more than two out
    of five crashes in which a large truck rear-ends another vehicle.\26\
    In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
    included increasing implementation of collision avoidance technologies
    such as AEB in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety
    Improvements since 2016.\27\ The technologies can make operating a
    truck a safer job as well as improve safety for everyone driving on our
    nation's roads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
        \25\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?,
    National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
        \26\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
    trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
    front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too
        \27\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
    Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) may in the future
    improve public safety but this potential remains far from certain. In
    fact, this technology still faces significant operational challenges
    such as responding to all participants in the transportation ecosystem
    including traffic control officers and vulnerable road users as well as
    differing weather conditions. While ACMV technology continues to be
    developed, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) should be required
    to immediately improve public safety.

        Question 8. What are the national security implications and
    resulting safety impacts if China gains a leadership position in the
    global AV market?
        Answer. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a
    coalition of public health, safety, law enforcement 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' mission is advancing safe vehicles, safe
    motorists and road users, and safe infrastructure. Issues involving
    national security and prognostications about the impact of China
    gaining a leadership position in the global AV market are outside our
    area of expertise.

        Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Catherine Chase, President,
                     Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

        Question 9. In North Carolina, as well as 15 other states, vehicles
    must undergo a periodic safety inspection to check items like brakes,
    tires, lights, etc. Autonomous vehicles will have all these features
    plus a more advanced system of sensors, software, and electronics. It
    is important that these vehicles be properly maintained from a safety
    perspective once they are on America's highways.
        How does your organization view state periodic vehicle inspection
    programs for autonomous vehicles?
        Answer. Advocates supports annual vehicle inspections such as those
    required in North Carolina. Proper maintenance and inspection of
    autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) is critical to ensuring
    the safe operations of these vehicles. The operation of trucks under an
    autonomous mode raises serious questions as to the ability to properly
    service vehicles continuously in use. Even without this potential new
    regime, 21 percent of CMVs were placed out of service in 2021 for
    maintenance issues.\28\ In addition, many of the issues with the
    physical condition of the truck which would be identified by a human
    driver during a pre- or post-trip inspection as well problems during a
    trip such as the shift of a load or other emergencies noted by a human
    driver may not be identified or corrected under this type of use.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
    data snapshot as of 12/31/2021. Available at: https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
    SafetyProgram/RoadsideInspections.aspx
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Advocates supported the proposal issued by the Federal Motor
    Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 2016 that would have required
    the annual state inspection of passenger carrying motor vehicles (the
    rulemaking was withdrawn in 2017) as doing so would serve to better
    ensure that such vehicles are not transporting the public while in
    disrepair.\29\ Current federal regulations require CMVs to undergo an
    inspection every 12 months and carriers may perform those
    inspections.\30\ With the heightened safety concerns and complexities
    associated with ACMVs, requiring that the vehicles undergo an annual
    inspection performed by a properly trained state authority or
    independent party is prudent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ 81 FR 24769 (Apr. 27, 2016).
        \30\ 49 CFR 396.17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
                                     Aurora

        Question 1. With AV technology, the truck driver has less active
    engagement, but must remain attentive and be ready to step in if
    necessary.
        Mr. Beuse, does Aurora use any technologies to address issues of
    driver attention and distraction?
        Answer. Yes, at Aurora we employ a variety of processes, training
    protocols, and technologies for our vehicle operators to address issues
    of driver attention, fatigue, complacency, and distraction to support
    the overall safety of our operations while testing on public roads. We
    also adhere to industry best practices such as those published by AVSC,
    federal guidance issued by the U.S. DOT, and recommendations from the
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
        The Aurora Driver is a Level 4 autonomous driving system (ADS). As
    defined by SAE, a Level 4 system is the hardware and software that are
    collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task
    (DDT) on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a
    specific operational design domain (ODD). Level 4 ADS systems are
    different from lower levels of autonomy that require humans to conduct
    the dynamic driving task. We are building the Aurora Driver through our
    development program which includes five stages: Lay the Foundation,
    Define and Build, Refine and Pilot, Validate, and Launch and Expand.\1\
    As I discussed with the Subcommittee during the hearing, we are in the
    Refine and Pilot stage for several of our partnerships, which includes
    on road testing with vehicle operators.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://aurora.tech/blog/the-aurora-driver-development-program-
    a-structured
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that our vehicle operators play a key role
    in the development of self-driving vehicles and are essential to the
    collaboration between the safety, software, hardware, and product
    teams. Our vehicle operators play an integral role in the development
    of our technology and our overall approach to safe testing on public
    roads. They ensure safe vehicle testing and commercial operations,
    provide feedback to the development team, execute data collections for
    mapping and labeling, and represent the single biggest source of public
    interactions, since they are out in public with our vehicles.
        Our vehicle operators are key to understanding and evaluating the
    performance of our self-driving system. They support the feedback loop
    for our developers by providing them with actionable insights and data
    from closed course and public road testing. Proper training, continuous
    education, and open lines of communication with our safety and
    engineering teams help ensure our vehicle operators are able to do
    their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently. We also utilize the
    safety programs that are embodied in our Safety Management System to
    understand that our policies and programs are effective and appropriate
    for our road operations.
    Policies and Technologies
        Recognizing key distinctions between conventional driving and
    operating a developmental self-driving vehicle, we have implemented a
    number of technologies and policies for vehicle operators to assist
    with the safety of self-driving vehicle operations, which include but
    are not limited to collision avoidance features potentially included by
    OEMs, limiting cell phone and smartwatch use, and monitoring. Vehicle
    operators are strictly prohibited from interacting with their mobile
    devices and/or smartwatch while the vehicle is in motion or the self-
    driving system is engaged. All of our self-driving vehicles are
    equipped with a third-party driver monitoring system providing Aurora's
    operations management with the ability to maintain ELD/HOS compliance
    and review driver behavior and attentiveness. The system automatically
    identifies possible violations such as speeding, harsh braking events,
    seat belt usage, distracted driving, fatigue, and others. Trip data is
    periodically reviewed and triaged for coaching opportunities on
    sustained vigilance while operating or overseeing the Aurora Driver on
    public roads.
    Training
        Our vehicle operators are required to complete a comprehensive
    training program to prepare them to safely operate a self-driving
    vehicle and protect its surroundings and occupants from harm. As part
    of this intensive, multi-level training program, our vehicle operators
    must complete classroom assignments, undergo defensive-driver
    education, and be evaluated by driving with an instructor to confirm
    mastery of both basic and specialized driving skills. Our training
    program starts with safe manual driving training to ensure fluency and
    comfort operating vehicles equipped with non-standard technology
    features and physical equipment required for self-driving operations.
    This training begins on a closed course before proceeding to public
    road training. In order to move to the next level, vehicle operators
    must also have demonstrated acute situational awareness for potential
    nearby hazards, competence in conducting tests to confirm the safety of
    proposed changes in software, fluency with post-incident procedures,
    and mastery within each testing type. In addition to completing our
    rigorous training program (including recertification for qualified
    events), our truck operators must possess a valid Commercial Driver's
    License (CDL) in order to pilot a truck.
        Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
    with any follow up.

     Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Nat Beuse, Vice President
                               of Safety, Aurora

        Question 2. While I was touring the Kodiak AV facility, we were
    briefed on how autonomous vehicle developers analyze their decision-
    making through a safety lens. I still have safety concerns with respect
    to this technology.
        How can we work together to help ensure that all autonomous vehicle
    developers approach building this technology while maintaining safety
    first?
        Answer. We strongly agree with the premise of this question: we can
    all work together to ensure safety across the AV industry and in turn
    improve safety on our roadways from the tragic loss of almost 40,000
    Americans every year.
        To drive the adoption of self-driving technology, we believe
    transparency and collaboration are critical. Sharing our own work and
    progress pushes forward the standards of safety for the entire AV
    industry; the transparency also ensures everyone, from regulators and
    partners to the general public, understands Aurora's safety approach
    and gives the rest of the industry tools to leverage in their own
    operations. Recent examples of this commitment to knowledge sharing
    include how we recently offered our perspective on standing up a Safety
    Management System (SMS) and unveiled our Safety Case Framework, as well
    as a Safety Case 101 on our blog.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Aurora, ``Aurora Unveils First-Ever Safety Case Framework
    that Addresses the Safety of Both Autonomous Trucks and Passenger
    Vehicles'' (Aug. 17, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-unveils-
    first-ever-safety-case-framework; Aurora, ``Welcome to Safety Case
    101'' (Mar. 8, 2022), https://aurora.tech/blog/welcome-to-safety-case-
    101.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At Aurora, we approach safety as a continuous process, not a static
    checklist of to-do items, and our evidence-based approach is critical
    internally and externally. Within Aurora, our Safety Case Framework is
    how we continuously review evidence and evaluate the company and our
    operations, including the Aurora Driver's performance and development
    against internal standards to ensure we are confident putting self-
    driving vehicles on public roads both with and without a vehicle
    operator. Externally, our Safety Case Framework enables us to
    effectively share our approach and progress with partners, customers,
    regulators, and the general public. This transparency is imperative and
    helps us build trust, which we believe is vital when developing and
    eventually deploying our technology. We also encourage other AV
    developers to establish and publish their own safety case frameworks as
    a tool to improve public trust in the AV industry.
        Industry standards bodies also play a critical role in establishing
    industry-wide best practices and common practices around safety
    critical issues. As I mentioned in my testimony, it is worth noting how
    far the industry has come in the last decade in the development of
    standards for AVs. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation
    (USDOT) published AV 2.0, which lists exactly three standards (SAE
    J3016, ISO 26262, and MIL-STD-882E) that should be considered by
    automated driving system (ADS) developers. Fast forward to 2021, and
    USDOT's comprehensive plan now lists 20 different standards that
    automated driving system (ADS) developers should consider. And based on
    Aurora's involvement in industry standards development, we know there
    are over a dozen more standards and best practices currently under
    development across the various standards organizations. This work is
    critical to engage across the industry and various stakeholders to
    ensure it is actually utilized.
        We also see strength in the convening role of the government at all
    levels to support the safe development of AV technologies. There are
    tremendous opportunities for the federal government to continue
    supporting the development of AV technology in the United States to
    provide certainty that companies, including Aurora, need to continue
    investing and building here. Creating a level playing field where the
    rules are clear and conducive to realizing the benefits for safety,
    mobility, and efficiency for AV technology is a necessary role of
    government.
        Aurora supports the work of Members of this Committee, Congress,
    and USDOT to ensure that laws and regulations for AVs are performance-
    based and technology and business-model neutral.
        Federal regulatory leadership supporting the development of AV
    technology here in the United States is critical. The work that started
    many years ago at U.S. DOT under Secretary Foxx, continued under
    Secretary Chao, and carries through today under Secretary Buttigieg.
    USDOT's guidance, research, and rulemakings that have been initiated
    specific to AVs, along with the Department's use of its convening
    authority to bring stakeholders together, has laid the foundation for
    the future. We would like to thank Secretary Buttigieg for raising
    important safety issues in his six guiding principles for
    transportation innovation and in the ``Comprehensive National Roadway
    Strategy.'' We also believe the U.S. DOT should be considering the full
    suite of potential solutions, including AVs, to address the rise in
    highway fatalities.
        Finally, we support NHTSA's efforts to modernize the Federal Motor
    Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), such as NHTSA's recent final rule for
    alternatively designed vehicles, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration's (FMCSA) efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to encourage the safe development of new and
    innovative AV technologies.
        Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
    with any follow up.

    Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
                                     Aurora

        Question 3. In North Carolina, as well as 15 other states, vehicles
    must undergo a periodic safety inspection to check items like brakes,
    tires, lights, etc. Autonomous vehicles will have all these features
    plus a more advanced system of sensors, software, and electronics. It
    is important that these vehicles be properly maintained from a safety
    perspective once they are on America's highways.
        How does your organization view state periodic vehicle inspection
    programs for autonomous vehicles?
        Answer. Aurora complies with federal and state inspection
    requirements today in the states where we are operating, and we share
    the same strong interest in the safety of our vehicles on the road.
        In addition, Aurora is working closely with the Commercial Vehicle
    Safety Alliance, and its members, including the North Carolina Highway
    Patrol, on the development of enhanced inspection protocols for AVs. As
    currently proposed, an enhanced pre-trip inspection model would
    transition en-route stops for random roadside inspections to
    structured, higher frequency, and higher standard inspections of
    autonomous commercial motor vehicles.
        Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
    with any follow up.

    Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
                                     Aurora

        Question 4. Mr. Beuse, can you share with this Committee what
    Aurora is learning about your technology from your pilot with FedEx and
    PACCAR?
        Answer. We are thrilled to be in partnership with FedEx and PACCAR.
    This industry-first collaboration is born out of mutual trust and
    respect with industry leaders that share our vision to transform
    transportation and realize the benefits of self-driving technology.
    With PACCAR's Autonomous Vehicle Platform (AVP), we are creating a
    deeply integrated self-driving truck with a manufacturer that delivers
    hundreds of thousands of Class 8 trucks each year. And now, through
    this pilot, we are extending that partnership to a key customer, FedEx,
    to integrate those trucks into its massive network, which delivers
    billions of packages each year.
        We are regularly and autonomously hauling FedEx loads with a
    vehicle operator between Dallas and Houston, a 500-mile round trip
    along the I-45 corridor that our autonomous semi-trucks travel day-and-
    night and with a 100 percent on-time record. Our pilot with FedEx and
    PACCAR demonstrates how we are progressing and advancing through the
    Aurora Driver Development Program as we are now in the exciting phase
    of ``Refine and Pilot.'' \3\ In this phase, we build a handful of
    vehicles on which we will test, refine, and validate the requirements
    through on-road testing, virtual testing, and commercial pilots with
    networks, carriers, and private fleets. In our trucking pilots, we pull
    real loads in commercially representative ways to gain experience and
    incorporate customer feedback into the final product. Throughout this
    phase, we work closely with our platform partner to understand the full
    scope of customer preferences, even as they relate to non-autonomy-
    specific characteristics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Aurora, ``The Aurora Driver Development Program: A Structured
    Approach for the Creation of Aurora-Powered Vehicles'' (Sept. 10,
    2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/the-aurora-driver-development-program-
    a-structured.

        Question 5. In your testimony, you mention the importance of
    transparency and building trust with all stakeholders. What does that
    look like in your day-to-day work?
        Answer. Trustworthy is one of the five principles of our Safety
    Case Framework because of its critical importance underpinning the
    whole of our work at Aurora. Aurora's AV may be Proficient, Fail-Safe,
    Continuously Improving, and Resilient, but without the trust of the
    public and governmental regulators in our vehicles and company, we
    cannot fully realize our top level claim that Aurora's self-driving
    vehicles are acceptably safe to operate on public roads.\4\ The
    Trustworthy principle addresses how Aurora plans to gain trust through
    public, government, and stakeholder engagement, safety transparency,
    safety culture, as well as external review and advisory activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Aurora, ``Aurora Unveils First-Ever Safety Case Framework
    that Addresses the Safety of Both Autonomous Trucks and Passenger
    Vehicles'' (Aug. 17, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-unveils-
    first-ever-safety-case-framework; Aurora, ``Welcome to Safety Case
    101'' (Mar. 8, 2022), https://aurora.tech/blog/welcome-to-safety-case-
    101.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While no day is the same in my role, my work to build trust and
    transparency with all stakeholders includes meeting with safety-focused
    advocacy groups, working with Aurora's Safety Advisory Board,\5\
    leading Aurora's standards organization engagement, and supporting
    engagement with our federal and state regulators, including routinely
    publishing materials on many aspects of safety to share our progress
    and insights from that work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Aurora, ``Our Updated Safety Report and First-Ever Safety
    Advisory Board'' (June 2, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-
    shares-safety-report.

        Question 6. In your testimony you ask for performance-based law and
    regulations for AVs. As we are considering various policies to support
    AVs and improve safety on our roadways, what should we be aware of that
    would impact Aurora and FedEx's ability to continue to do its work?
        Answer. This is an incredibly important question at this time of
    Aurora's development. In my testimony, I laid out several elements of
    any AV policy that would be important to Aurora's continued work with
    partners, like FedEx, including that the policy contains performance-
    based and technology and business-model neutral requirements.
    Legislation or regulation that is counter to any of those principles
    could pose risk to our operations and partnerships and more broadly a
    risk to AVs being able to deliver on their promise to impact safety for
    the motoring public.
        In my oral testimony, I described how Aurora is a regulated company
    at all levels of government and cited some of the many federal and
    state laws and regulations we are subject to as both a developer of AV
    technology and an operator of a fleet of autonomous trucks and
    passenger cars. For example, our AV technology is subject to the
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) motor vehicle
    safety requirements and oversight and our motor carrier operations are
    subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration safety
    regulations and oversight. In addition, each state in which we operate
    has its own approach to permitting and regulating our AV operations.
        Current federal law, namely the Safety Act, federal regulations
    promulgated by NHTSA and FMCSA, state AV-specific regulations, and
    traditional tort and product liability law, provide the construct for
    Aurora's duties and obligations as both a developer of AV technology
    and a tester and operator of AVs. Any fundamental change to NHTSA or
    FMCSA's well-established authority and jurisdiction may raise
    compliance questions that could impair Aurora's work with FedEx. For
    example, creating a bifurcated regulatory process at NHTSA for
    establishing safety standards for vehicles above and below 10,000
    pounds that does not exist today, mandating industry adoption of
    specific types of technology, or restricting certain types of business-
    models would impede our current work.
        Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
    with any follow up.

       Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Doug Bloch, Political
       Director, Joint Council 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

        Question 1. Thank you, Mr. Bloch, for highlighting a provision that
    I fought to include in the INVEST Act regarding workforce retraining.
    As you can imagine, I was more than disappointed the Senate deleted
    this language from the final bill.
        Would you be able to expand on what kinds of programs you would
    like to see when you mention ``workforce retraining programs for
    surface transportation workers whose jobs have been affected by
    automation''?
        Answer. While the impact that Automated Vehicles (AVs) will have on
    transportation workers is not yet fully know, the development and
    testing of AVs that has occurred so far has given us a look into the
    future and a degree of certainty that current workers will need to be
    retrained and up-skilled to remain in what will eventually be a fast-
    changing workplace. The most important step that Congress can take is
    to ensure that workforce development plans are in place and implemented
    before workers begin to be replaced or lose their jobs altogether to
    automation. Your Surface Transportation Workforce Retraining Grant
    Program is the kind of forward-thinking policy that could go far in
    mitigating these impacts to workers before they happen.
        All too often, assistance to workers that lose their jobs to
    automation comes after the fact. Most cannot afford to give up a
    paycheck to attend a trade school, college classes or other forms of
    education full time to learn a new skill. I noted in my oral testimony
    to the Committee that when Campbell's Soup closed its Sacramento
    cannery, the government swooped in to provide job training assistance,
    but in one representative case, it took a worker three years to learn
    to become an ultrasound technician and find a job. In the interim, this
    worker experienced extreme financial hardship. We can and must do
    better!
        Financial grants, as in your proposal, must be tied to workforce
    development programs that are aimed at retraining/up-skilling workers
    while they are in their current jobs. It cannot be a secret to
    manufacturers developing the technology to produce self-driving
    vehicles what their workforce needs will be in the future and how their
    current employees need to be trained to transition to those new jobs.
    Instead of giving a worker a pink slip, give them an opportunity to
    learn new skills. Labor-management partnerships, pre-apprenticeship and
    registered apprenticeship programs are all proven ways to create the
    types of workforce retraining programs that lead to real up-skilled
    jobs. And most importantly, there needs to be a component in any
    workforce development plan that places an emphasis on timely job
    placement, should there be a need for employment with new company.
        The Teamsters Union does not foresee a time when human intervention
    will not be part of the protocol in the operation of Commercial Motor
    Vehicles (CMVs). Therefore, for Level 3.4 and 5 autonomous vehicles, we
    see an opportunity to develop driver training programs that recognize
    new driver skills needed to oversee the advancing technology that will
    allow periods of vehicle self-driving, recognize and diagnose warning
    signals, and prepare to take over driving tasks if and when the
    autonomous driving systems malfunction or a need for other human
    intervention. We also envision training programs that would allow
    mechanics to upskill to meet the demands of automation, trading in
    their wrenches for computerized diagnostic tools that could detect
    problems with self-driving components. These are but a few of the
    examples that come to mind.
        It has been estimated by various sources that between 2.2 and 3.1
    million car, bus and truck driving jobs in the U.S. would be eliminated
    by the advent of self-driving vehicles. While that may be a staggering
    prediction, we must be prepared make a transition no matter how many
    workers are affected. Thank you for taking such an interest in making
    sure that workers are not left behind in this race to deploy automated
    vehicles.

     Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Nico Larco, AIA, Director and
             Professor, Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon

        Question 1. Dr. Larco, your testimony describes how policymakers
    and the public should prepare for AVs not just focusing on the
    technology, but based on the societal impacts of AVs. AVs have the
    potential to expand mobility options for the traveling public and, in
    turn, may have a significant effect on travel behavior.
        Dr. Larco, how do you envision AVs fitting into the larger
    portfolio of mobility options, including ride-share and public transit?
        Answer. It is important to frame the answer to this question in the
    context of societal and community goals. Nothing says we absolutely
    need to have AVs as part of our transportation future. Instead, this
    should only happen if AVs improve societal goals such as safety,
    livability, sustainability, and equity. Our transportation system--
    including a future system that may include AVs--should be designed and
    optimized to increase safety, increase equitable mobility, increase
    accessibility, and reduce GHG emissions while moving people and goods.
        One thing that is becoming clear is that the best way to achieve
    these goals is probably not through a transportation system based
    primarily on individually owned or individually utilized AV cars and
    trucks. Studies have shown that this will increase congestion and
    vehicle miles travelled. Instead, one of the most effective ways to
    achieve safety, livability, sustainability, and equity goals is to make
    low-carbon options, walking, biking, and taking transit, the easiest
    way for people to travel. AVs that help support these modes can
    absolutely benefit communities. For example, AV technology applied to
    transit could help increase transit frequency and coverage. AV shuttles
    might pick-up and drop-off passengers at high-capacity transit stations
    thereby supporting transit use while addressing first/last mile issues.
    In some cases, in less dense areas, AV sedans might be used to serve
    areas not easily served by transit, but if we are to achieve the goals
    described above, this should be the exception, not the rule.
        The risk is that we replace our personally-owned vehicles with an
    autonomous vehicle, increasing the number of vehicles (both with and
    without passengers) on the road and resulting in a large rise in
    congestion (Green et al., 2019). I worry about a world of privately
    owned AVs--or one dominated by rideshare AVs--that exacerbate many of
    our existing transportation challenges while also creating the
    problematic cascading impacts I discussed in my written and oral
    testimony.

    Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Nico Larco, AIA,
       Director and Professor, Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon

        Question 2. There's a perception that AVs are inherently greener
    and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that ignores the Jevons
    Paradox--that as driving becomes less of a hassle, more people will
    drive. This could cause people to take more and longer trips leading to
    increased emissions, and tire and road erosion. In my district outside
    of Atlanta, which struggles with urban sprawl, this would also result
    in greater congestion and delays. As we know, the phenomenon of induced
    demand has shown it is not possible to widen roadways to solve
    congestion.
        Mr. Larco: How can we ensure AVs do not incentivize additional
    sprawl and congestion?
        Answer. Throughout history, any increase in the ease of travel that
    did not come about without some means of control has resulted in the
    expansion of the metropolitan footprint and sprawl. While this has
    facilitated the development patterns and lifestyles we see in suburbia,
    it has also come at a cost to our environment and to equity. There are
    four approaches communities can use to limit AVs incentivizing of
    sprawl and congestion.
        1.  Create controls that increase the friction of unfettered AV
    travel. Price signals are an effective way to incentivize behavior. If
    communities want to limit the number of vehicles driving long-
    distances, then a road usage charge (RUC) or vehicle miles traveled
    (VMT) tax is one method to both increase the cost of sprawling
    development and reducing congestion.
        2.  Build and locate housing, jobs, schools, and shopping closer
    together. If communities don't want to encourage people to live on the
    metropolitan fringe, they must provide housing and employment at closer
    in locations. Land use is a critical component of reducing sprawl and
    congestion. Too many communities across the U.S. have made it difficult
    to build additional housing as they restrict missing middle housing
    such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
        3.  Improve walking, biking, and taking transit. Land use and
    transportation planning work hand-in-hand. If communities want to
    reduce sprawl and congestion, then they must design and build
    communities with housing, jobs, schools and shopping closer together
    and make it easy, safe, and affordable to walk, bike, e-scooter, or
    take transit.
        4.  Constrain residential expansion into rural areas. Finally, if
    communities want to reduce sprawling development into rural areas, they
    can make it more difficult to develop in these areas while making
    development closer in easier and more profitable. Oregon has done that
    by requiring every city to adopt an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and
    restricting the types of development that can occur outside of UGBs.

        Question 3. Mr. Larco: How can climate effects be minimized if
    Americans continue to rely on cars--AVs or otherwise--as their primary
    mode of transportation?
        Answer. History suggests it will be challenging, if not impossible,
    to reduce GHG emissions if Americans continue to rely on cars as their
    primary mode of transportation. Historically, we have increased our
    vehicle miles travelled faster than we have improved fuel efficiency,
    leading to a continued increase in GHG emissions since automobiles were
    first mass produced in this country. The best scenario, if we continued
    our reliance on cars, would be to have a fully electrified fleet that
    is fueled solely by energy from renewable sources. Achieving this would
    require overcoming significant technological hurdles as well as
    significant political and market barriers. Even in this scenario,
    however, there is no guarantee that GHG emissions would be reduced to
    the levels necessary to curtail climate effects as the lifecycle costs
    of electric vehicles (the energy and environmental effects of its
    manufacturing/production) result in substantial GHG emissions
    (Andersson & Borjesson, 2021; Hawkins et al., 2013). Less energy
    intensive modes such as transit, biking, and walking continue to be the
    preferred solution to our climate concerns around transportation.
        I will also mention that energy and GHG emissions are not the only
    concern of our continuing to have a car-dominated transportation system
    and, more specifically, if we continued to promulgate land use and
    development patterns that force us to use cars (namely sprawl). Even if
    cars themselves were GHG and energy neutral, we would still have the
    problems of continued land consumption, disruption and degradation of
    natural water systems, disruption and degradation of critical
    ecologies, and a continued increase in inequities.
    References
    Andersson, O., & Borjesson, P. (2021). The greenhouse gas emissions of
        an electrified vehicle combined with renewable fuels: Life cycle
        assessment and policy implications. Applied Energy, 289, 116621.
        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116621

    Green, W. H., Armstrong, R. C., Ben-Akiva, M., Heywood, J., Knittel,
        C., Paltsev, S., Reimer, B., Vaishnav, C., Zhao, J., & Gross, E.
        (2019). Insights into future mobility: A report from the mobility
        of the future study. MIT Energy Initiative. http://energy.mit.edu/
        wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Insights-into-Future-Mobility.pdf

    Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Stromman, A. H. (2013).
        Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and
        Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 53-64.
        https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

    This testimony was prepared by Nico Larco, Becky Steckler, and Amanda
    Howell of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon.

    Urbanism Next Center--http://urbanismnext.org/

    Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General
                Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

        Question 1. Mr. Wolf, given that many autonomous truck companies
    expect to begin commercial deployment within the next few years, I am
    wondering in what ways the industry is working to ensure that our
    workforce is prepared to be a part of this workforce and equipped with
    the necessary skill sets to fill new roles created by AV technology?
        Answer. The autonomous vehicle (``AV'') industry has already added
    jobs in regions where it is most active. A study performed for the
    Pittsburgh-based Regional Industrial Development Corporation found that
    in the Pittsburgh region alone, the AV industry has created 6,500 new
    jobs.\1\ The AV industry is providing opportunities for workers with a
    wide array of expertise and educational backgrounds, including many
    jobs that do not require a college degree. Today, in locations across
    the country, AV developers and manufacturers are hiring auto
    technicians, fleet managers, safety operations specialists, sensor
    calibrators, transportation planners, engineers, and many others to
    support the testing and deployment of AV technology. As the AV industry
    continues to expand, delivery workers and grocery store employees will
    be involved in selecting, packing, and delivering goods to consumers,
    among other jobs and roles that will emerge. AVs can expand access to
    affordable delivery while also creating over three million new jobs by
    2035, as retailers and delivery providers expand their services,
    according to a study by Steer.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ TEConomy Partners, Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-out
    Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems ES-1-2 (2021), https://ridc.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PGH-Autonomy-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf.
        \2\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in the
    U.S. XV (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/
    200910_%20Nuro_Final_Report_Public.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The AV industry is investing in partnerships to create the
    workforce needed to support the widespread deployment of AVs. For
    example, Nuro's program with De Anza Community College will offer a new
    career pathway to prepare the next generation of autonomous fleet
    technicians.\3\ The initiative, which will extend to more locations in
    the near future, includes a free tuition option, access to paid
    internships and part time work, and preference for full-time and full
    benefits jobs upon graduation. Another example is TuSimple's work with
    Pima Community College, which established an AV certificate program to
    prepare drivers for new jobs such as training AV systems as test
    drivers, operating the AV in situations where autonomous driving is not
    always suitable, and remotely monitoring the system from a command
    center.\4\ In San Francisco, Cruise partners with a local non-profit
    organization, Humanmade,\5\ to help build bridges between historically
    underserved communities and the advanced manufacturing economy through
    skills training, education, access to advanced tools and machinery,
    interview workshops, and other resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Technician Pathway, De Anza
    College, https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/
    av#::text=A%20New%20Career%20Pathway%20With,nation%20%
    E2%80%94%20for%20De%20Anza%20students (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
        \4\ Linda Baker, TuSimple and Pima Community College Launch First-
    Ever AV Certificate Program for Truck Drivers, Freightwaves (June 13,
    2019), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/tusimple-and-pima-community-
    college-launch-first-ever-av-certificate-program-for-truck-drivers.
        \5\ Workforce Development Programs, Humanmade, https://
    www.humanmade.org/workforce-development (last visited Mar. 13, 2022).

        Question 2. While I was touring the Kodiak AV facility, we were
    briefed on how autonomous vehicle developers analyze their decision-
    making through a safety lens. I still have safety concerns with respect
    to this technology.
        How can we work together to help ensure that all autonomous vehicle
    developers approach building this technology while maintaining safety
    first?
        Answer. The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association's (``AVIA'')
    members are dedicated to the safe development and deployment of AV
    technologies. One of the most important benefits of AV adoption is the
    safety improvements the technology offers when compared to human
    drivers. AV developers have publicized their safety policies and
    development strategies in public reports to help the public understand
    how developers are placing safety at the forefront of their
    programs.\6\ One important action that Congress can take to help ensure
    the continued safe deployment of AVs is to provide a clear regulatory
    framework. With the regulatory certainty provided by such a framework,
    AV developers would be better positioned to expand AV testing and
    deployments, which would provide data and experience that can help
    refine AV technology and enhance its already significant safety
    capabilities, while also allowing the safety and mobility improvements
    offered by AVs to be utilized by communities across the country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ A few of the companies that have published safety reports
    include Waymo, Aurora, TuSimple, and Nuro.

        Question 3. Mr. Wolf, how can autonomous trucking help to relieve
    supply chain backlogs, especially at ports and in districts like mine
    that serve as freight and logistics hubs? And how can we prepare those
    regions for the changes that autonomous trucking will bring?
        Answer. AV trucks can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity,
    which will in turn improve the efficiency of freight and logistics hubs
    along with countless other industries that rely on moving goods on
    trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. By
    supplementing human drivers and increasing the time vehicles can spend
    on the road, goods can be moved from port and freight hubs to final
    destinations with greater speed and efficiency, cutting down the time
    it takes to transport goods.
        Importantly, AV trucks will be part of a comprehensive trucking
    ecosystem that works with human drivers, not against them. Adoption of
    this technology can lead to a positive lifestyle change for thousands
    of truck drivers, allowing them to stay closer to home during the day
    instead of driving routes that keep them on the road for weeks at a
    time. A recent study funded by USDOT and the Federal Highway
    Administration also indicated that adoption of AV trucking will
    increase total U.S. employment by 26,400 to 35,100 jobs per year on
    average and raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by between $203
    and $267 per worker per year.\7\ Given the timeline for AV truck
    deployment, autonomous trucking is not likely to cause significant
    displacement of jobs in the trucking industry,\8\ but it can serve as
    one tool to reduce strains on the supply chain caused, in part, by the
    longstanding truck driver shortage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
    Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-Haul
    Trucking (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
        \8\ See Securing America's Future Energy, America's Workforce and
    the Self-Driving Future Realizing Productivity Gains and Spurring
    Economic Growth (June 2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2018/06/Americas-Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-
    Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions from Hon. Rodney Davis to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel,
                    Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

        Question 4. During the hearing, you highlighted the safety record
    of autonomous vehicles (AVs), however, there was some disagreement
    among panelists on this topic. One panelist cited a statistic which
    states that 9.1 accidents occur for every million miles traveled by an
    AV, while only 4.1 accidents occur per million miles traveled by a
    human driver.
        How do you respond to claims that AVs are less safe than human
    drivers, specifically the rate of accidents per million miles?
        Answer. The statistic referenced comes from a study on AV crashes
    that was produced in the fall of 2015, when the AV industry was
    considerably smaller. The final statistics in that study were generated
    from a data set that included 11 total crashes over a 4-year period and
    in each of those 11 crashes, the drivers of the conventional vehicles
    involved were found to be at fault.\9\ By comparison, the California
    Department of Motor Vehicles (``DMV'') reported that AVs drove four
    times as many miles on that state's roads in 2021 alone than during
    that entire 4-year period studied.\10\ The AV industry and AV
    technology has developed significantly in the last decade, and research
    shows that even when an AV cannot avoid a collision, they are better
    able to reduce the severity of a crash when compared to a human
    driver.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak, A Preliminary Analysis of
    Real-World Crashes Involving Self-Driving Vehicles (2015), http://
    websites.umich.edu/umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf.
        \10\ Press Release, Cal. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, AV Permit Holders
    Report 4 Million Test Miles in California (Feb. 9, 2022), https://
    www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/av-permit-holders-report-4-
    million-test-miles-in-california/.
        \11\ John M. Scanlon, et. al., Waymo Simulated Driving Behavior in
    Reconstructed Fatal Crashes within Autonomous Vehicle Operating Domain
    (2021), https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents/
    Waymo-Simulated-Driving-Behavior-in-Reconstructed-Collisions.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When considering comparisons between AVs and traditional vehicles,
    it is also important to note that AVs are often monitored much more
    closely, both by AV developers and by federal and state regulators.
    California requires AVs to report any collision that resulted in
    property damage, bodily injury, or death within ten days of an
    incident,\12\ while NHTSA's Standing General Order 2021-01 (``SGO'')
    requires reports within one day for some serious incidents and monthly
    reports for minor crashes.\13\ This is not true for incidents involving
    traditional motor vehicles, with a 2015 NHTSA study estimating that
    approximately 30% of crashes go unreported.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports, Cal. Dep't of Motor
    Vehicles, https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/
    autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-collision-reports/ (last visited
    Mar. 13, 2022).
        \13\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
    First Amended Standing General Order 2021-01 (Aug. 5, 2021), https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-08/
    First_Amended_SGO_2021_01_Final.pdf.
        \14\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT HS 812 183, National
    Telephone Survey of Reported and Unreported Motor Vehicle Crashes,
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812183.

        Question 5. How can autonomous trucking help to relieve supply
    chain backlogs, especially at ports?
        Answer. AV trucks can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity,
    which will in turn improve the efficiency of freight and logistics hubs
    along with countless other industries that rely on moving goods on
    trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. By
    supplementing human drivers and increasing the time vehicles can spend
    on the road, goods can be moved from port to freight hubs, to final
    destinations with greater speed and efficiency, cutting down the
    transportation times of goods. This will allow for a more efficient
    flow of goods into and out of ports, easing congestion and backlogs.
    AVs can also move goods within a port, assisting port workers in
    managing materials and helping prevent backlogs.

        Question 6. You mentioned in your testimony that deployment of AVs
    can expand mobility for seniors and people with disabilities, is a
    regulatory framework necessary to maximize these benefits?
        Answer. A regulatory framework for AVs that enhances public trust
    in AV technology, maximizes AV deployments, and promotes innovation
    will help ensure that everyone can enjoy the benefits of AV
    technologies, including expansion of safe and affordable
    transportation. A clear regulatory framework would encourage AV
    deployment across the country, rather than having to target scaled
    deployments to only those states that have created regulatory
    environments authorizing AV deployments. The 25.5 million Americans
    with travel-limiting disabilities do not live only in states like
    Arizona, Nevada, or Texas where there are established paths to
    widespread AV deployment. A framework that allows for deployments
    nationwide will expand opportunities for millions of those people to
    access the mobility benefits offered by AVs.

       Question from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Ariel Wolf, Esq.,
            General Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

        Question 7. You stated in your testimony that the United States
    leads the world in AV technology, but is in danger of ceding the lead
    to other countries who are developing a framework for deploying AVs.
        What type of competitive advantage does leading the world on AVs
    give the United States? What does the United States risk by ceding the
    lead?
        Answer. As the center of global AV development, the United States
    is poised to lead in a global market for AVs worth an estimated $1
    trillion by the latter half of this decade.\15\ America's leadership
    role is integral to securing the economic growth, job creation, and
    many safety and societal benefits offered by AVs. If the U.S. can
    maintain its lead in AV deployment, American automakers and AV
    developers can create and export valuable gold standard AV technologies
    to markets across the world. U.S. leadership in AV development and
    deployment also means the significant mobility and safety benefits of
    AV technology can be more easily shared among all Americans, as
    communities and consumers can purchase and benefit from domestically
    produced vehicles and technologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ TEConomy Partners, supra note 1 at ES-1-2 (2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 [all]