[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 [email protected].
    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]