[Senate Hearing 117-715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-715

                          DRIVING INNOVATION:
                   THE FUTURE OF AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY,
                         SAFETY, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                             APRIL 27, 2021

                               __________

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





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





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

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-088 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024











       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                    David Strickland, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel

                                 ------                                

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Chair         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TODD YOUNG, Indiana
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JON TESTER, Montana                      Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on April 27, 2021...................................     1
Statement of Senator Peters......................................     1
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................     2
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    41
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    43
    Prepared statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates 
      for Highway and Auto Safety................................    45
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    59
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    60
Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    65

                               Witnesses

Rana Abbas Taylor, Survivor/Advocate, Mothers Against Drunk 
  Driving........................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
John Bozzella, President and CEO, Alliance for Automotive 
  Innovation.....................................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor & Equipment 
  Manufacturers Association......................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Reuben Sarkar, President and CEO, American Center for Mobility...    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31

                                Appendix

Letter dated April 27, 2021 to Hon. Gary Peters and Hon. Deb 
  Fischer from Shailen Bhatt, Intelligent Transportation Society 
  of America (ITS America) and Jim Tymon, American Association of 
  State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)............    71
Chris R. Swonger, President and CEO, Foundation for Advancing 
  Alcohol Responsibility and Distilled Spirits Council of the 
  United States, prepared statement..............................    73
Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 
  of American Railroads, prepared statement......................    75
Response to written question submitted to Rana Abbas Taylor by:
    Hon. Klobuchar...............................................    78
Response to written questions submitted to John Bozzella by:
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    78
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    79
    Hon. Cynthia Lummis..........................................    82
Response to written questions submitted to Ann Wilson by:
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    84
Response to written questions submitted to Reuben Sarkar by:
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    86
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    87







 
                          DRIVING INNOVATION:
                   THE FUTURE OF AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY,
                         SAFETY, AND TECHNOLOGY

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2021

                               U.S. Senate,
 Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, 
                                Freight, and Ports,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Fischer, Thune, Lujan, and Lummis.

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

    Senator Peters. The Committee will come to order.
    First, I'd like to thank each of our witnesses for joining 
us for today's very important discussion. Few innovations have 
had as great an impact on the modern world as the automobile.
    Over the last hundred years, the auto industry has helped 
our country achieve some of its greatest successes, from 
creating millions of jobs that have supported generation after 
generation of middle class families to using its manufacturing 
prowess to help America win World War II to fostering some of 
the most cutting edge technological developments that the world 
has ever known.
    It's no exaggeration to say that the invention of the 
automobile quite literally transformed society as we know it, 
and I'm proud that Michigan has played a leading role in these 
achievements.
    But as fascinating as auto history is, we're here to talk 
not about the past but we're to talk about the future and 
that's an exciting topic because the possibilities are endless, 
and there's no question we're at a crossroads now when it comes 
to mobility.
    How do we maintain our leadership on the global stage? How 
do we seize this opportunity to ensure mobility innovation is 
just as transformative as the invention of the automobile 
itself?
    I want to start by addressing the most important topic 
first: safety. Almost 40,000 people die each year in crashes on 
U.S. roads. Those are more than just statistics. Those are 
husbands and wives, sons and daughters, loved ones, and close 
friends. Each and every year, families all across our country 
are forced to grieve the losses that occur on our roads and 
highways.
    There must be a better way to address safety on our roads. 
Whether it's incorporating new technologies or improving safety 
rules, we must take action. Doing so will literally save lives.
    That's why I'm committed to comprehensively working to 
improve safety. This includes efforts, like passing 
legislation, such as the RIDE Act, which we will hear about 
today, so that we can spare families from preventable 
tragedies.
    I've also committed to working with the auto industry to 
achieve a future technology innovation and the contributions of 
autoworkers to solve some of the most pressing challenges that 
we face.
    One of the most important opportunities we can seize is 
autonomous vehicle technologies. We know that autonomous 
vehicles save lives since 90 percent of accidents are caused by 
human error. We know that these technologies are also rapidly 
emerging and are already impacting the workforce, and we know 
that our competitors on a global stage, especially China, are 
recognizing the benefits of these technologies and, let's be 
clear, let's be absolutely clear, these technologies are coming 
inevitably.
    If we want to continue being the mobility capital of the 
world, we must allow innovation to continue and we cannot 
afford to wait until countries, like China, seize the moment.
    Allowing for the safe testing, the research, development, 
and deployment of these technologies will not only cement 
American leadership but bring with it economic growth and good 
paying jobs with improved safety and that's why I'm committed 
to working with the auto industry, stakeholders, my colleagues 
in Congress, and the Biden Administration to ensure we can 
update Federal rules and allow these technologies to emerge 
safely.
    And with your help, Congress can chart a very bright future 
for our country, a future where innovation improves mobility 
for our communities while also protecting the environment, a 
future that transforms mobility in the way that our society 
operates for the better, a future where we grow manufacturing 
jobs here in the United States to support a new century of 
opportunity for middle class Americans, and a future where new 
technologies prevent the kind of tragedy that struck the Abbas 
family.
    With that, I invite Ranking Member Fischer to share her 
opening remarks. So good to see you.

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

    Senator Fischer. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman 
Peters, for convening today's hearing. I appreciate the 
opportunity to work with you again on this subcommittee. I look 
forward to getting a lot done. So thank you.
    As we both know, this subcommittee has an important role to 
play as we debate how to fix our infrastructure. Members of the 
Subcommittee have worked on a number of bipartisan measures, 
including the PIPES Act of 2020, reauthorizations of the 
Maritime Administration, and reauthorization of the Federal 
Maritime Commission.
    The Chairman and I have already introduced bipartisan 
legislation this Congress to advance our understanding of the 
scope and severity of blocked railroad crossings.
    When it comes to surface transportation reauthorization 
programs, last authorized in the FAST Act of 2015, set to 
expire on September 30th, I hope we can work together to 
advance bipartisan transportation proposals. That starts with 
today's hearing on innovation and safety in the automotive 
industry.
    Advances in automotive technology show promise for 
improving safety and the passenger experience. Some examples of 
technology that are already available in newer vehicles include 
various types of driver-assist features, automatic emergency 
braking, and cameras to provide a greater view of our 
surroundings. Fully autonomous driverless vehicles may even 
deliver groceries to your homes soon.
    What I hope to hear from our panel is an update on where 
the automotive industry is today, where we want to see it go, 
and the Federal policies that will help us get there.
    First and foremost, our Federal policies should prioritize 
the safety of those who are on the road. In 2019, there were 
36,096 traffic fatalities on U.S. roads. More alarming are the 
National Safety Council's preliminary estimates for 2020 which 
shows that there were 42,060 motor vehicle deaths last year, 
despite the fact that Americans drove 13 percent fewer miles 
than in 2019. Each one of those fatalities is a family member, 
a friend, and a loved one.
    Even more tragic is the fact that according to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, a major factor in 94 percent of 
fatal motor vehicle crashes is human error. The choices that we 
make every day on the road affect us all.
    Last year, this subcommittee heard testimony from highway 
safety professionals who discussed the role that Federal, 
state, and local governments play in road safety.
    Today, we have the opportunity to add to that record by 
hearing from our witnesses about innovative ideas that can 
improve both safety and the passenger experience.
    I look forward to hearing from Mr. Bozzella and Ms. Wilson 
about the advances that members of their associations are 
making to improve the driving experience.
    I would also like to know how current Federal regulations 
impact their work to advance new technologies.
    And I look forward to hearing Mr. Sarkar's unique 
perspective as President and CEO of the American Center for 
Mobility. Having the leader of a third party testing facility 
here today will provide important context on the present and 
future prospects for automotive innovation.
    And Ms. Rana Abbas Taylor, I want to especially thank you 
for your willingness to share your story with us today. I had 
the opportunity to talk with a constituent earlier this year 
who shared the story of his daughter, Alexis Victoria Cathey, 
who was killed by a drunk driver. What happened to your family 
is a tragic reminder that there is more to do to address drunk 
and impaired driving.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
    Our first witness today is Rana Abbas Taylor, who will 
bravely share the story of her family members who were 
tragically killed by a drunk driver in a horrific incident that 
shocked the conscience of everybody in Michigan and really the 
entire nation.
    I remember attending the funeral in Dearborn and the 
outpouring of support and grief was just so overwhelming. No 
family ever, ever should have to endure the heartbreak of what 
happened on January 6th of 2019.
    Rana's incredible advocacy for improving safety is a 
testament to her family's memory. We're grateful for her 
dedication to saving the lives of Americans traveling on our 
roads.
    Ms. Abbas Taylor, welcome to the Committee. You are now 
recognized for your five minute opening comments.

      STATEMENT OF RANA ABBAS TAYLOR, SURVIVOR/ADVOCATE, 
                 MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member 
Fischer, and the Committee for holding this hearing.
    My name is Rana Abbas Taylor, and I am from Northville, 
Michigan. I'm here representing MADD and millions of drunk 
driving victims. We are so thankful that you've recognized that 
MADD's viewpoint is critical to your deliberations.
    While it is with gratitude that I join you today, the truth 
is I wish I didn't have to be here. On January 6, 2019, my 
world, the only one I have ever known, collapsed. In a split 
second, I lost nearly my entire family because a drunk driver 
was able to get into a vehicle, take that vehicle on to the 
wrong side of the same freeway my family was on and collide 
with them head on. Killed instantly were my sister and only 
sibling Rima, my brother-in-law Issam, my two nieces, Isabella 
and Giselle, and my nephew Ali. That driver had a BAC nearly 
four times the legal limit, yet he was able to operate a 
vehicle and senselessly end the lives of five incredible 
people.
    Rima, an exceptional physician, committed her life to 
healing and saving lives. Issam, an expert litigator, was 
dedicated to making the world a better place and pursuing 
justice for all. Ali or A.J., as we called him, was 13 and 
inherited his parents' compassion and strong belief in justice. 
Isabella or Izzie was 12. She was gentle and empathetic and had 
a deep love for animals. Giselle or Jazz was only seven and 
showered our world with happiness, joy, and sunshine.
    It is not OK that my parents had to bury their daughter, 
son-in-law, and all of their grandchildren. It is not OK that I 
don't have my only sister by my side or that I'll never hear 
the words Auntie Rana again. It is not OK that we have the 
technology and the ability to prevent these tragedies, yet we 
still debate this matter.
    Congresswoman Dingell and Senator Peters showed up for my 
family during our darkest days. Congresswoman Dingell's 
attendance at our family services was a catalyst for her 
introduction of the Honoring Abbas Legacy to Terminate Drunk 
Driving or HALT Act. She has now been joined by Representatives 
McKinley and Rice on this bipartisan bill.
    HALT will lead to tech-neutral solutions for drunk driving 
prevention tech in all new cars. I am grateful for the network 
of incredible advocates that I have come to know through MADD. 
I am honored to be part of this movement.
    For months, MADD has hosted weekly calls with dedicated 
victims advocating for the HALT and RIDE Acts. I'm submitting a 
letter to the Committee from these victims. Our purpose is to 
get this legislation across the finish line.
    Just last week, Senators Lujan and Scott, who have 
personally felt the pain of drunk driving, introduced the RIDE 
Act. Chair Peters, MADD is honored that you are also a co-
sponsor of RIDE. I am so grateful to the three of you for your 
leadership.
    The tech to stop drunk driving exists. MADD knows and has 
submitted for the record over 200 forms of tech that NHTSA can 
consider today as part of a process to set standards for 
impairment prevention tech. Many of these technologies could be 
deployed now at minimal cost and should be standard features on 
all new vehicles.
    My family is proud to hail from the Motor City. I grew up 
with the big three in my backyard. The auto industry is a true 
innovator, building cars that better protect their occupants. 
The time to act is now. The longer we wait, the more people 
die.
    I am here in honor of my family, in honor of Issam, Rima, 
A.J., Izzie, and Giselle. I am also here in honor of every 
victim in our weekly calls who've loved lost ones and in honor 
of every person whose life has been taken senselessly by a 
drunk driver, hoping to continue the work my baby sister 
committed her life to, saving lives.
    Rima was a formidable force. She was my hero, but even 
heroes, especially heroes, hurt from the pain they are made to 
bear witness to. Few of us saw the vulnerable side of Rima. She 
maintained a fierce and stoic facade and she took very 
seriously the fact that her strength is what everyone, 
including her family, relied on.
    Rima would phone me on her drives home from a difficult 
day, especially after having diagnosed a patient with a 
terminal illness or, worse, when she'd lost a patient. It was 
always personal to her.
    During our talks, she would unpack her pain with me as her 
way of seeking help to carry it so that she could be present 
for her family by the time she made it home. I fight this 
battle because it is personal for me, too. I do this work for 
those who are unable to in a humble attempt to continue my 
promise to unpack and carry and help heal for Rima.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Rana Abbas Taylor, Survivor/Advocate, 
                     Mothers Against Drunk Driving
    Thank you Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer and Members of 
the Committee for holding this critical hearing today. My name is Rana 
Abbas Taylor and I am from Northville, Michigan. I am here representing 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and hundreds of thousands of drunk 
driving victims and survivors throughout the country.
    Every day 28 people die in drunk driving crashes in the United 
States--that's one person every 52 minutes. In 2019, 10,142 people were 
killed in alcohol-related crashes on our Nation's roads. And 
approximately three hundred thousand more were seriously injured.
    MADD has worked tirelessly since 1980 to prevent drunk driving 
crashes and to serve the victims of this 100 percent preventable crime. 
Thanks in part to the leadership of this Committee, we have advanced 
successful public policies such as the 21 Minimum Drinking Age Law, the 
national .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) standard, open container 
laws, repeat offender laws, high visibility enforcement campaigns and 
all-offender ignition interlock laws--policies which have saved 
countless lives. But our work is not done.
    Your focus on technology and innovation today is well timed and 
very much needed. There is no question that technology enhancements can 
and must play a major role in reducing deaths and injuries on our 
roads.
    We will hear today from industry experts who know first-hand that 
the auto industry is in the midst of a technological revolution. I am 
inspired by the knowledge and experience at this hearing. I offer a 
deeper perspective. I thank you, Chair Peters and Ranking Member 
Fischer, for recognizing that MADD's viewpoint is critical to your 
deliberations. I am not here representing a business. I am here 
representing people in pain. People who are demanding change so that no 
other family has to experience what we experience every day of our 
lives: unbearable loss.
The Crash: January 6, 2019
    While it is with the sincerest gratitude that I join you at this 
important hearing today, the truth is, I wish I did not have to be 
here. I should not have to be here. On Jan. 6, 2019, my world--the only 
one I had ever known--collapsed. In a split second, I lost nearly my 
entire family, because a drunk driver was able to get into a vehicle, 
take that vehicle onto the wrong side of the same freeway my family was 
driving on, and collide with them head-on. Killed instantly were my 
sister Rima, who was my only sibling and best friend; my brother-in-
law, Issam; my two nieces, Isabella and Giselle; and my only nephew, 
Ali. They were returning home to Northville, Michigan from a family 
vacation in Florida.
    The individual who killed my family near Lexington, Kentucky had a 
BAC nearly four times the legal limit--a level so high it is lethal. 
Yet, he was able to operate a vehicle in this condition and senselessly 
wipeout the lives of five incredible people--an entire family. My 
family. What I didn't know then was that technologies exist that could 
have saved their lives and prevented any drunk driver from operating a 
vehicle.
    I remain unable to adequately articulate the magnitude of this 
horrific tragedy. There are no words and, I have come to learn, no 
language that exists that can convey the enormity of this kind of loss. 
From this unimaginable pain and heartbreak was born a personal 
obligation that no family should ever have to suffer like ours did. Let 
me be clear, my family did not ask for this fight, it came crashing 
down on us. Sometimes, we don't choose our battles, our battles choose 
us.
My World: Rima, Issam, Ali, Isabella, Giselle
    While I remain at a loss when it comes to articulating the impact 
of this tragedy, there are not enough words to describe how 
extraordinary these five people that were ours were.
    My sister, Rima, 38, was not just a physician, she was the best 
kind; the kind that had waiting lists of patients who would schedule 
appointments months in advance just to see her; the kind who really 
listened; the kind who sat with patients for as long as they needed and 
helped them navigate their fears; the kind who gave out her cell phone 
number to them, so that she was always within reach. Five months prior 
to her death, Rima had been promoted to a regional director position 
with Beaumont Health. Even though this new role was meant to be 
primarily administrative, upon her insistence and without any 
additional pay, she chose to continue her patient care. She had 
committed herself to medicine and to healing. She refused to give that 
up.
    My brother-in-law, Issam, 42, was both a successful attorney and 
real estate agent, who had chosen to pursue the field of law because of 
his passion for justice and his conviction that it is our 
responsibility to use the legal mechanisms we have in place to make the 
world a better, safer place for all. He was a dedicated husband, 
father, brother, uncle and friend, who lived by example. As an expert 
litigator, he carried a deep commitment to fairness and equity.
    Ali, or AJ as we called him, was 13. He was an old soul in a young 
boy's body who had inherited his parents' compassion and strong sense 
for a just world. His greatest desire, as evidenced by a school 
project, was for equity in our world. He particularly hoped for access 
to clean water for everyone. His ultimate concern, though, was for his 
family's well-being. He would worry incessantly about his parents 
making it home safe when they were out without him, and he would often 
call them, inquiring of their whereabouts.
    Isabella, better known as Izzy, was 12, and was most like her 
mother: gentle, empathetic and softspoken. She was the kindest and most 
giving of humans and was the first to volunteer to help someone in need 
or make a new student feel welcome. She carried a deep love for 
animals, especially her two pet cats. At the time of the crash, one of 
her listed `to-dos' for the New Year was to bake apology cookies for 
her friends at school for forgetting a Secret Santa gift exchange that 
final Christmas. She never got to.
    Giselle, or Jazz, was only seven. Despite being the youngest--or 
perhaps because of it--she packed the biggest personality, showering 
every room she walked into with happiness, her magnificent smile and 
her special brand of goofiness. She was pure joy and sunshine. As her 
nickname indicated, she was the music in our lives. Her idea of fun 
included spending time with those she loved most. Rather than go Black 
Friday shopping with her mom that final November, she had insisted on 
being dropped off at our house so that she could eat stale Goldfish 
crackers and help my husband, Tom, and I trim our Christmas tree.
    It is not okay that Ali, Isabella and Giselle were robbed of a 
future and the opportunity to realize their full potential. It is not 
okay that my parents had to bury their daughter, son-in-law and all of 
their grandchildren. It is not okay that I do not have my one and only 
sister by my side, or that I will never hear the words `Auntie Rana' 
again. It is not okay that countless others have lost loved ones to 
drunk driving and suffered unspeakable trauma as a result. And it is 
not okay that we have the ability and know-how to prevent these 
tragedies from happening and save thousands of lives a year and, yet, 
we are still debating this matter.
Courageous Leadership: MADD Congressional Heroes
    Among the thousands of individuals impacted by this tragedy who 
attended my family's funeral was Congresswoman Debbie Dingell and 
Senator Gary Peters of Michigan. Senator Peters--thank you for showing 
up for my family during our darkest days. Your compassion means 
everything to us. And thank you for hearing my family, and recognizing 
that the auto industry can do this.
    I have known and worked closely with Congresswoman Dingell for over 
a decade on various issues that matter mutually to us. As she later 
shared with me, during the services she had been approached by a 
classmate of my nieces and nephew who asked her how something like this 
could have happened. She further asked why something can't be done to 
prevent the loss of lives like her friends--my nieces and nephew. That 
conversation was the catalyst for why we are here today.
    Within days of Rima, Issam, Ali, Isabella, and Giselle's 
preventable deaths, Congresswoman Dingell led the way by proposing 
groundbreaking legislation that over the past two years has been 
refined to reflect what is included in Honoring the Abbas Legacy to 
Terminate Drunk Driving Act, or HALT Act, today: a mandate for a 
rulemaking that would lead to a technology-neutral solution for getting 
drunk driving prevention technology in all passenger vehicles.
    Just a few weeks ago, Congresswoman Dingell, along with Congressman 
David McKinley of West Virginia and Congresswoman Kathleen Rice of New 
York, co-sponsored the bipartisan HALT Act, which will mandate 
technology that will save 9,400 lives a year, according to a study 
released last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. By 
comparison, airbags, mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 that went into effect in 1998, save about 3,000 
lives a year. Seatbelts save 15,000 lives a year.
    Just last week, Senator Rick Scott of Florida and Senator Ben Ray 
Lujan introduced a companion bill in the Senate. Both Senator Lujan and 
Senator Scott have shared their personal stories with MADD victims and 
survivors privately. Five days ago, at a press conference announcing 
introduction of the RIDE Act, they shared their personal stories 
publicly. Senator Lujan and Senator Scott--thank you.
    You are one of us. You are victims and survivors yourselves, and 
you understand our pain. To have you lead this effort in the Senate is 
comforting to me and my family. We are unstoppable. Your stories--our 
collective stories--are our power.
    Senator Scott--thank you for being with us since the beginning of 
the last Congress. MADD Immediate Past National President Helen Witty 
sends her gratitude from Florida. She greatly values your leadership, 
as do I. You are a fierce advocate for drunk driving victims.
    Senator Lujan--thank you for effortlessly picking up the baton from 
long-time MADD champion Senator Tom Udall. Your vulnerability with New 
Mexico victims and current MADD National President Alex Otte will 
forever be remembered. We appreciate you and are grateful for your 
advocacy and leadership.
    I cannot express how grateful I am for Congresswoman Dingell's 
courageous and swift action and leadership to create legislation in my 
family's honor that would end the single biggest killer on our Nation's 
roads, and for Congressman McKinley, Congresswoman Rice and Senators 
Lujan and Scott's unwavering leadership on this issue. Even as the 
months, and now years, have gone by since that horrific day for my 
family, Congresswoman Dingell has remained steadfast in her commitment 
to seeing this legislation through and sparing thousands of families 
the indescribable pain and loss that we will carry with us for the rest 
of our lives.
    I would also like to thank you, Senator Peters, for the commitment 
you made to my family to help us develop a regulatory framework for 
moving forward. You have been so wonderful to us, and we appreciate 
your support, insight and leadership more than you will ever know. I 
remember when we met in your office in October 2019--me, my husband 
Tom, along with members of Issam's family. You saw our intense pain. 
You sat with us for an hour. And we talked about the technological 
revolution that was going on in the auto industry.
    Senator Fischer, MADD Nebraska victims appreciate your commitment 
to stopping drunk driving. When victims and survivors met with you 
recently, you showed them so much compassion. You have shown true 
commitment to understanding the available technologies and what the 
RIDE Act will achieve. You have shown MADD that you are here to help us 
navigate and move forward. Thank you.
MADD War Room: United by Grief and Purpose
    I want to pause for a moment to say these words slowly and let them 
sink in: becoming a MADD victim/survivor is not a club that anyone 
wants to join. Absolutely no one should ever have to endure what my 
family has had to endure and continues to endure. And at the same time 
I am so honored and privileged to be a part of this movement for 
change, and getting to know and volunteer with some of the most 
incredible advocates I have ever met.
    Some victims and survivors grieve in silence. Others grieve loudly. 
Grief affects people in very different ways. Expressions of grief are 
varied and that's OK. There are many of us who grieve loudly together 
every Thursday at 5pm ET on our MADD ``War Room'' calls. Our purpose is 
to push the RIDE Act across the finish line. We started these weekly 
calls many months ago as a way to stay connected, focused, and 
organized. We begin each call with a ``Mission Moment,'' listening to 
one group member each week tell their story and share pictures of their 
loved ones. We then have everyone report out on what meetings they have 
had, and discuss next steps. We tell each other ``We've got this.'' And 
our grief has purpose. To save others from the pain we endure. Those 
saved by passage and implementation of the RIDE Act will never know . . 
. but we will.
The Auto Industry CAN End Drunk Driving NOW
    Some--not many--have questioned MADD victims and survivors as we 
have virtually fanned out across Capitol Hill, meeting with Members of 
the House and Senate. While we are not experts on vehicle technology 
development or selling cars, we are victims of a preventable crime who 
want to stop drunk drivers from being able to use their cars as 
weapons. We also happen to know that the auto industry can 100 percent 
solve this problem.
    Over the past century, the auto industry has made huge strides in 
building cars that better protect their occupants. Speed control, lane 
departure warnings, automatic emergency braking, and airbags throughout 
the vehicle are some of the technologies that are widely deployed and 
even taken for granted today.
    MADD has collected information from various sources inside the 
industry and outside the industry. More than 200 forms of technology 
currently exist that NHTSA can consider as part of a Federal rulemaking 
process to set standards for drunk driving and impairment prevention 
technology. These innovative technologies, or a system of these 
technologies, will eliminate drunk driving. Many of them could be 
deployed today, at minimal cost. And MADD is here to say that life-
saving drunk driving prevention technology must be a standard feature 
on all new vehicles. The auto industry tells us all today that they are 
leaders in innovation. I believe them. Afterall, I grew up with the 
``Big Three'' in my backward. My family is proud to hail from the Motor 
City. Today, on behalf of my family and the millions of victims of this 
devastating crime, I ask the auto industry to support the HALT Act in 
the House and the RIDE Act in the Senate. Let's move forward with a 
technology-neutral rulemaking and reach a goal of No More Victims 
together.
Drunk Driving Prevention Technology: Three Categories
    Drunk driving accounts for nearly one-third of all highway traffic 
deaths and represents the single biggest cause of carnage on America's 
roads. Make no mistake: drunk driving is a national public health 
crisis. Our sense of urgency is palpable: the longer we wait, the more 
people needlessly continue to die.
    MADD is technology-neutral and is committed to NHTSA's development 
of standards and thresholds to determine the best solutions through a 
rulemaking process. On January 11, 2021, MADD submitted a response to 
NHTSA's Request for Information (RFI) on drunk driving prevention 
technology. I would like to submit an updated response for the hearing 
record. Our RFI update outlines 241 different technologies, most of 
which are already available. These technologies can be put into 3 broad 
categories: 1) driving performance monitoring technologies; 2) driver 
monitoring technologies; and 3) passive alcohol detection technologies.
Driving Performance Monitoring Technologies
    This type of technology is already available on cars. For example, 
all new cars include an Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). This 
is a series of sensors that look at the world on the outside of the 
car. Usually, it is used for Lane Assist, emergency braking, blind spot 
warning, etc. But it can be, and has been by some auto makers, 
programmed to detect erratic/reckless driving. Most drunk drivers, 
including the one who killed my family, exhibit reckless driving prior 
to a collision. Because the hardware is already on all new cars, 
enabling this existing tech is a one-time software change, the 
incremental cost to enable ADAS Systems to prevent drunk and impaired 
driving is $0.
Driver Monitoring Technologies
    The second category is driver monitoring technologies. Many new 
cars--Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover, Subaru, Lexus (in certain places around 
the world), Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, etc., are already equipped with 
driver monitoring technologies. These technologies are based on cameras 
that focus on the condition of the driver. Usually these systems are 
programmed just to detect drowsy or distracted driving. But these 
technologies also have the capability to accurately detect the dilation 
of eyes, and the distracted perspectives of drunk and impaired drivers. 
Currently, this adds about $200 per car. If mandated on all cars, 
industry sources say the cost will drop to about $100 per vehicle. Once 
again, if already installed on cars, this is just a one-time software 
change so the incremental cost would be $0. The drunk driver who killed 
my family was served 22 drinks and had a BAC that was nearly four times 
the legal limit. I believe this technology would have prevented the 
drunk driver from killing my family.
Passive Alcohol-Detection Technologies
    The third category is passive alcohol-detection technologies. I'd 
like to make a clear distinction between ``active'' alcohol-detection 
technology and ``passive'' alcohol-detection technology. Active 
technology means the driver must actively breathe into a tube in order 
for the device to register BAC. This is the how ignition interlock 
technology works. In this way, it is considered an ``active'' tech 
because it requires an action. The industry has perfected ``passive'' 
technology that has the same capabilities as interlock technology but 
doesn't require an action on the part of the driver. Therefore it is 
``passive.'' This technology consists of tubes installed in the 
steering wheel which sucks in the breath of the driver and analyzes it 
for alcohol content. This tech is not currently installed on any 
vehicles, but we have been told it is production-ready. If mandated on 
all cars, industry sources say that it will cost about $100/vehicle. 
The BAC of the man who killed my family was four times the illegal 
limit. This technology would have stopped him. My family--five 
beautiful souls--would still be here.
    We have the tools and technology to change the world, and we also 
have public support. It's time to ACT. Americans support Congressional 
action to require drunk driving prevention technology as standard 
equipment in all new vehicles, according to a new nationwide poll 
conducted by Ipsos for MADD. The survey found that 9 of 10 Americans 
support technology that is integrated into a car's electronics to 
prevent drunk driving (89 percent say it is a good or very good idea), 
while 3 of 4 (77 percent) back Congressional action to require this 
technology in all new vehicles. More broadly, 8 of 10 (83 percent) 
believe that new auto safety features should be standard in vehicles as 
they become available, not part of optional equipment packages.
Equity and Enforcement: Technology Is Part of the Solution
    As we examine the auto industry's tremendous technological 
capabilities, I'd like to take a moment to recognize what's happening 
in our Nation with law enforcement and communities of color. And how 
technology solutions can also play a role in reducing the role of 
implicit bias in traffic enforcement. As a woman of color, I am very 
sensitive to the challenging issues that lay before us as a nation. 
Systemic racism impacts every facet of life for people of color, and 
traffic safety enforcement is no exception. MADD recognizes the need 
for traffic safety enforcement reform and we want to be a part of real 
solutions. We are committed to finding short-term, medium-term and 
long-term solutions to prevent enforcement practices that unjustly 
target black and brown people.
    We are better positioned today than ever before to eliminate risk 
posed by drunk drivers in an equitable manner by using technology. 
While advancing fair and just traffic safety enforcement remains vital 
and urgent, advanced drunk driving prevention technology does not 
notice a person's race or ethnicity. Impairment prevention technology 
has no implicit bias.
    In addition to saving lives, these innovative technologies could 
reduce the need for traffic safety enforcement. MADD believes that fair 
and just traffic safety enforcement is crucial, and we have been 
saddened and outraged by the killing of unarmed Black men by police. We 
look forward to working with the Committee through the reauthorization 
of NHTSA's programs, with the goal of promoting best practices, and 
encouraging reform.
The Beginning of the End of Drunk Driving
    Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on this 
important issue. Your leadership and the leadership of this committee 
is to be commended. We can work together to save thousands of lives 
every year.
    For 40 years, MADD has given a voice to millions of crash victims 
and their families. We have taken our collective pain and turned it 
into action, with the goal of no more victims. We have made tremendous 
progress, reducing drunk driving deaths by over 52 percent. But this 
isn't good enough.
    I am here today, in honor of my family, hoping to continue the work 
to which my baby sister committed her life: saving lives. Rima was a 
formidable force. She was my hero. But even heroes--especially heroes--
hurt from the pain that they witness. Very few were fortunate enough to 
know the vulnerable side of Rima. She maintained a fierce and stoic 
facade, and she took very seriously the fact that her strength is what 
everyone, including her family, relied on. It was her practice to phone 
me on her drives home from a difficult day at work; especially on the 
days she would have had to diagnose a patient with a terminal illness 
or, worse yet, when she had lost a patient. It was ALWAYS personal to 
her. During those conversations, she would unpack her pain with me. It 
was her way of seeking help to carry it, so that she could be what her 
family needed her to be by the time she had made it home. Today, I 
speak before you, in my humble attempt to continue my promise to 
unpack, and carry, and help heal for Rima.
    My family should not have died. If Congress and the auto industry 
can get technology into vehicles that can keep drunk people from 
driving, we can make sure that others don't ever have to experience the 
horror that we did on January 6, 2019.
    Let us prevent further tragedies before they come home for many 
others. The opportunity to save lives is not only afforded to those, 
like Rima, who choose the noble profession of medicine. It is an 
opportunity we ALL have, and it is within immediate reach. I look 
forward to working with the Members of this respected Committee to save 
10,000 lives a year by passing S. 1331, the RIDE Act. I hope you will 
join Senators Lujan and Scott in moving this forward. Thank you.

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Rana. Thank you for your 
powerful testimony and your courage and please know, I think I 
speak for all of us here, you're in our thoughts and prayers.
    Our second witness is John Bozzella, President and CEO of 
the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.
    Mr. Bozzella is a veteran of the auto industry, who spent 
time as an executive at multiple companies before joining the 
Alliance for Automotive Innovation and its predecessor 
organization in 2014.
    Mr. Bozzella's organization is also known as Auto 
Innovators and represents companies that collectively produce 
almost all cars and light trucks sold in the United States and 
who together employ millions of Americans.
    Welcome and you may proceed with your 5 minute opening 
remarks, Mr. Bozzella.

  STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR 
                     AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION

    Mr. Bozzella. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and 
Distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf of the 
members of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear today to discuss how the American 
auto industry is driving innovation toward a cleaner, safer, 
smarter future for personal mobility.
    Today, we stand on the cusp of a transformative moment for 
the industry. Through substantial long-term investments in 
electrification and advanced safety technologies, including 
automation, the industry is poised to redefine motor vehicle 
transportation.
    Maintaining and enhancing U.S. innovation leadership, 
however, is not just about the auto industry and its future. 
It's about the Nation's global competitiveness and economic 
security.
    Nations that choose to lead the development and adoption of 
innovative technologies will potentially shape every aspect of 
transportation from supply chains to the global marketplace.
    Across the globe, nations are backing bold commitments with 
government support. China has established itself in the EV 
battery supply chain and is moving aggressively to lead in 
safety technology advancements. Likewise, Europe is developing 
its own battery supply chains.
    A failure to encourage advanced vehicle technologies in the 
U.S. presents long-term risks to the U.S. economy and its 
workforce.
    My submitted testimony highlights four key areas that I 
believe hold the greatest promise for modernizing and 
transforming government policies and programs to unlock 
significant American innovation. These are supply chain 
resilience, electrification, vehicle automation, and enhanced 
safety technology development.
    It's clear this committee understands expanding and 
securing industrial supply chains, including semi-conductors, 
is a key factor in whether the U.S. will control its economic 
aspirations.
    Developing new supply chains with additional investment 
from the government and industry will also assist the adoption 
of electric vehicles.
    Today, I would also like to focus on opportunities for 
vehicle automation and advanced safety technology. Automated 
vehicles have the potential to increase roadway safety, provide 
increased mobility for older adults and people with 
disabilities, and reduce traffic congestion and emissions.
    Last year, we released the AV Roadmap, which includes 14 
recommendations that can be implemented by Federal policymakers 
to guide AV development and deployment, preserving U.S. 
leadership in this important technology.
    Technology and innovation create new opportunities to 
address critical issues. We have just heard today of 
unimaginable loss that befell Ms. Abbas Taylor's family. I 
can't imagine it. It could have happened to any one of us.
    Innovative technologies offer real opportunities to address 
drunk driving and we look forward to working with MADD and 
policymakers to help eliminate this tragedy.
    If the U.S. is to remain a global leader in automotive 
safety innovation, our policies and programs must keep pace. 
Earlier this month, we released the plan to advance safety at 
the speed of innovation, outlining our vision for a 21st 
Century new car assessment program, including five 
recommendations to provide meaningful information for 
consumers.
    Our plan encourages an immediate kick start that would 
incorporate five proven crash avoidance technologies into NCAP.
    In addition, today, I am proud to announce new safety 
principles to proactively address driver monitoring systems for 
Level 2 vehicles in which both lane centering and adaptive 
cruise control are simultaneously engaged. Through these 
principles, automakers representing nearly 99 percent of new 
vehicles sold in the United States have made a clear and public 
statement on the importance of effective driver monitoring and 
preserving the life-saving potential of Level 2 automated 
systems.
    The principles focus on driver monitoring to determine or 
infer when a driver is not paying sufficient attention to the 
driving environment. The principles address consumer 
information. Driver monitoring is a standard feature for Level 
2 systems, driver warnings, re-engaging the driver, misuse and 
abuse, and camera-based systems. They incorporate important 
recommendations from the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety, Consumer Reports, the NTSB, and Euro NCAP.
    While the auto industry has long been an economic engine 
for the Nation and it is poised to remain the bedrock of U.S. 
innovation and manufacturing, we cannot be complacent. For the 
millions of workers depending on our industry for their 
livelihoods, we must seize this window of opportunity.
    We look forward to working with you both, with the 
Committee, Members of Congress and the Administration.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:]

        Prepared Statement of John Bozzella, President and CEO, 
                   Alliance for Automotive Innovation
    Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer and distinguished members 
of the Committee: on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation 
(Auto Innovators) and our members, I thank you for the opportunity to 
appear today to share my perspective on how the auto industry in the 
U.S. is driving innovation toward a cleaner, safer, and smarter future 
for personal mobility.
    The Alliance for Automotive Innovation was formed last year to 
serve as the singular, authoritative, and respected voice of the 
automotive industry in the United States. Our 17 manufacturer members 
produce nearly 99 percent of the cars and light trucks sold in the 
U.S., and our 21 supplier and value chain members are responsible for 
integral parts and technologies in these vehicles. In total, our 
industry employs roughly 10 million Americans, in addition to those who 
are employed in the technology and mobility sectors directly.\1\ We 
account for nearly six percent of our country's gross domestic product 
and represent our country's largest manufacturing sector.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Auto Alliance multi-industry contribution analysis: the 
economic impact of automotive manufacturing, selling, repairing, 
renting, and additional maintenance modeled using IMPLAN economic 
analysis data software, 2017 data year.
    \2\ Id; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Output by Industry, 
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1, Last accessed 
June 1, 2020; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Output by 
Industry, https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/industry-employment-and-
output.htm, Accessed June 1, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, we stand on the cusp of a transformative moment for the 
automotive industry in the United States. Through substantial, long-
term investments in electrification,\3\ as well as advanced safety 
technologies, including automation, the industry is poised to redefine 
motor vehicle transportation for decades. Likewise, government 
policies, investments and programs must be modernized and transformed 
to reflect changes in the global marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For the purposes of this document, the term electrification 
includes all zero emission or electric vehicles (``ZEVs'' or ``EVs''), 
including plug-in and plug-in hybrid EVs as well as fuel cell 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The industry's commitment to leadership comes at a unique and 
challenging time as the auto industry--and the nation--navigates near-
and long-term uncertainty due to the ongoing COVID-19 public health 
emergency. This time last year, for the first time since World War II, 
all motor vehicle manufacturing in North America ground to a halt for 
eight weeks and vehicle sales plummeted over 50 percent. Amid the 
turmoil, Auto Innovators' members continued innovating, putting decades 
of experience in precision manufacturing, supply networks, logistics, 
and purchasing to work in helping combat the public health emergency. 
As vehicle production resumed, that same innovative spirit helped the 
industry mitigate the combined hit to production and the workforce and 
rebound far more quickly than many predicted, with overall sales 15 
percent lower than in 2019.
    Despite the industry's resiliency over the past year, there is no 
question that lingering uncertainties associated with the ongoing 
public health emergency, including supply chain stresses and consumer 
trends, will strain the capital resources necessary to invest in future 
technology development. While our commitment to a cleaner, safer, 
smarter future is unwavering, the pathway to realizing that vision will 
be far more challenging.
    Maintaining and enhancing U.S. leadership in innovation, however, 
is not just about the future of the auto industry--it is about the 
Nation's global competitiveness and economic security. The nations that 
lead the development and adoption of innovative technologies, such as 
electrification, connectivity, and automation, will also shape supply 
chains, define global standards and, potentially, reshape the 
international marketplace.
    I believe that Senators in both parties understand this reality. 
Expanding and securing existing supply chains, while developing new 
ones, is a key factor in whether the U.S. will remain a leader in 
innovation. Our industry is currently facing a semiconductor shortage 
that has forced several automakers to halt production and cancel shifts 
in the U.S., with serious consequences for their workers and the 
communities in which they operate. In fact, this semiconductor shortage 
could result in the lost production of as many as 1.3 million vehicles 
in the U.S. this year alone. The current supply chain crisis has 
exposed overall capacity limits in the development and manufacturing of 
these chips and has also revealed significant risks in the current 
automotive semiconductor supply chain. There is an undeniable need to 
expand semiconductor capacity in the U.S. to meet the growing demand 
within the auto industry, as well as other sectors across the economy. 
This Committee and the Administration have shown tremendous leadership 
in addressing the semiconductor shortage, but Congress can also take 
action on policies that would incentivize this additional capacity in 
the U.S. Auto Innovators recently sent a letter to congressional 
leaders supporting full funding for programs based on the bipartisan 
CHIPS for America Act authorized in the FY 2021 National Defense 
Authorization Act which would increase the resiliency of automotive 
supply chains through the construction of new facilities that produce, 
or have the ability to produce, automotive grade chips.
    New foundries, however, take years to build, and Congress can also 
support policies that facilitate increased chip capacity in the mid-
term. In that same letter, we also called for the enactment of a 
semiconductor manufacturing investment tax incentive. Such an incentive 
can help companies offset the cost of creating new lines within 
existing facilities or reallocating current production to meet evolving 
needs.
    Semiconductors, of course, are just one example of the type of 
investments needed to support U.S. leadership and job growth. But the 
challenges and opportunities before us are bigger than any one 
component part, policy, branch or level of government, or industry 
sector. For the U.S. to remain a leader in the development and adoption 
of transformational technologies, we need a comprehensive national 
vision and strategy rooted in economic, social, environmental, and 
cultural realities. That comprehensive strategy must address several 
pertinent and pressing questions:

   What supply chains are available, and will they need to 
        change? What are the challenges to developing the U.S. supply 
        base for specific new technologies?

   How are we preparing or repositioning the U.S. workforce, 
        including auto workers, suppliers and related workers for these 
        new technologies?

   What are the impediments to consumer adoption and 
        affordability of advanced vehicle technologies, including 
        electrification and automation?

   How do we address the challenges and barriers unique to 
        certain communities, such as rural and disadvantaged, and 
        ensure advanced vehicle technologies are accessible and 
        beneficial to all Americans?

   What other industries, sectors or stakeholders will be 
        necessary to realize the potential of these important 
        transformations?

    These are but a few of the challenging questions at the core of 
maintaining U.S. competitiveness and enhancing U.S. leadership in 
automotive innovation. Strategies must account for these realities, 
otherwise they could, inadvertently, harm the Nation's workforce, limit 
consumer options, and jeopardize our Nation's economic future and 
global competitiveness. Our goal is to avoid such outcomes by 
continuing to work collaboratively with policymakers and other 
stakeholders to maintain the U.S.'s global leadership in automotive 
innovation.
    Auto Innovators believes that realizing this future requires a 
sustained holistic approach with a broad range of complementary supply-
and demand-side legislative and regulatory policies. To that end, we 
have developed a series of proposals that match dynamic public policy 
with significant private investment and engagement. The foundational 
piece to all of these proposals is our Auto Innovation Agenda which 
recognizes the key realities and factors necessary for the U.S. to 
remain the leader in automotive innovation. We have subsequently 
released more specific policy recommendations, which are outlined 
below, to highlight critical technologies and the importance of a 
predictable policy environment to preserve and enhance U.S. leadership.
The AV Policy Roadmap:
    Automated Vehicles (AVs) have the potential to increase the safety 
of our Nation's roadways by decreasing the number of motor vehicle 
crashes due to human error. They also hold promise to provide numerous 
social and economic benefits, including increased mobility for older 
adults and people with disabilities, reducing traffic congestion, 
reducing emissions, and fostering investment and economic growth.
    The U.S. has an opportunity to advance global leadership in 
developing these revolutionary technologies and new mobility business 
models through a national approach that reduces uncertainty and paves 
the way to long-term success. That is why last year we released the 
Policy Roadmap to Advance Automated Vehicle Innovation.
    The Roadmap outlines the auto industry's AV policy priorities and 
includes fourteen specific recommendations that can be implemented by 
Federal policymakers over the next four 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 DOT can provide on a case case-by 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.
    I agree with what Secretary Buttigieg said during his confirmation 
hearing before this
    Committee, ``. . . automated vehicle technology is coming, its 
advancing very quickly, it is something that holds a potential to be 
transformative and I think in many ways policy has not kept up.'' 
Indeed, it is past time to create a framework for the development and 
safe deployment of autonomous vehicle technologies that will unlock 
their tremendous potential in the U.S. It is our hope that this AV 
roadmap will help guide and prioritize policy development over the next 
few years to drive further safety innovation in this space and 
transform personal mobility.
Innovating for a Safer Future:
    Uncertainty with respect to safety priorities from both a 
regulatory and consumer education perspective can be an impediment to 
investment in advanced safety technologies. The New Car Assessment 
Program (NCAP) is an important tool used by NHTSA to educate consumers 
on vehicle safety through easily understood ratings. Unfortunately, the 
program has not been updated since 2011 and has failed to keep pace 
with innovations in crash avoidance technologies.
    NCAP modernization is long overdue. If the U.S. is to remain a 
global leader in automotive safety innovation, our policies and 
programs must keep pace. An effective and consistently maintained NHTSA 
NCAP, guided by mid-and long-term roadmaps, will leverage market forces 
to accelerate the development and deployment of advanced safety 
technologies.
    That is why, last week, Auto Innovators released the Plan to 
Advance Safety at the Speed of Innovation. This document outlines our 
vision for a 21st Century NCAP, including five recommendations to 
ensure that NCAP achieves its main objectives of providing meaningful 
information for consumers, accelerating the deployment of safety 
technologies, and supporting future regulatory activity.
    In addition to longer-term recommendations, our plan also 
encourages an immediate ``Kick Start'' that would incorporate five 
crash avoidance technologies into the NCAP program. These include:

   Forward Collision Warning/Automatic Emergency Braking (FCW/
        AEB)

   Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB)

   Lane Departure Warning (LDW)

   Lane Departure Warning with intervention/Lane Keep Assist 
        (LDW/LKA)

   Automatic High Beam Headlamps/High Beam Assist

    These are all proven safety technologies that are already helping 
to avoid costly crashes, while saving lives, on our Nation's roadways 
today. The key to building greater consumer acceptance and adoption of 
these foundational advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), and 
future safety technologies such as AVs, is consumer education that 
creates awareness about the lifesaving potential of these innovations.
    The value of an NCAP that has developed a process for continuously 
evaluating emerging safety technologies and folding them into a Long-
Range Roadmap for vehicle manufacturers cannot be overstated. It 
permits automakers to develop long-term safety strategies that are 
aligned with the identified NCAP safety priorities and expected 
updates. As a result, when updated ratings are implemented, 
manufacturers have had enough time to have products in place that 
provide the enhanced safety performance. This is a ``win-win-win'' 
scenario for government, vehicle manufacturers, and especially 
consumers.
The Safety Spectrum:
    While there are many opportunities for the U.S. to enhance its 
leadership in automotive safety, the world is not waiting for the U.S. 
to lead the way on automotive safety. In fact, in some areas, the U.S. 
is taking a step back while our global competitors are moving forward 
with purpose. This is no more evident than in our approach to vehicle 
connectivity and communication. Around the world, nations are working 
aggressively to expand testing, development, and deployment of vehicle-
to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications (collectively, 
V2X) technologies. Last year, however, the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) voted to reallocate 45 MHz of the 5.9 GHz spectrum 
band for use by unlicensed devices. This decision reduced--by more than 
50 percent--the spectrum available for V2X technologies. This reduction 
in spectrum means that critical life-saving applications, including 
some that would support automated vehicles, are no longer possible in 
the U.S. Further, the FCC's order has failed to adequately address 
harmful interference to safety applications in the remaining 30 MHz 
created by the use of unlicensed devices in the lower 45 MHz This is a 
serious concern to Auto Innovators, State DOTs, and road users across 
the country.
Accelerating Acceptance of Electric Vehicles:
    Electric vehicles are one of the best examples of why a 
comprehensive vision and strategy is crucial to building successful 
markets for the next generation of vehicle technologies.
    Automakers will invest $250 billion globally in vehicle 
electrification by 2023, and IHS Markit predicts there will be 130 EV 
models available in the U.S. by 2026. However, even with the collective 
efforts of the public and private sectors, of the 278 million light-
duty vehicles currently registered in the U.S., only a fraction--
approximately 1.7 million--are EVs, which include plug-in hybrid, 
battery, and fuel cell electric vehicles. And despite growing consumer 
interest and more than 50 EV models available today, EVs only made up 
about two percent, or roughly 300,000, of the 14.5 million new vehicle 
sales last year. A comprehensive approach is needed to incentivize 
wider-scale EV adoption through three key areas: Consumer affordability 
and awareness; Infrastructure build out; and Innovation, Manufacturing 
and Supply Chain development.
    Ensuring greater consumer acceptance of EVs means addressing three 
key barriers to adoption in ``cost parity,'' ``convenience parity,'' 
and consumer awareness. While the auto sector has made significant 
progress driving down battery and fuel cell costs, further research and 
development investments, along with consumer incentives, will be 
crucial in bringing greater price parity between EVs and their internal 
combustion counterparts. We can address ``convenience parity'' by 
ensuring access to abundant electric charging and hydrogen fueling 
infrastructure. Both public and private stakeholders must work together 
on public policy efforts, such as Federal tax incentives, grants, 
rebates, and other mechanisms to spur significant charging 
infrastructure development in three key areas: homes (both single-
family and multi-unit dwellings), workplaces, and highways and other 
public locations. Similar Federal investments and incentives should 
also be made available to rapidly build out hydrogen refueling 
infrastructure in the U.S. While these are just a few examples, 
additional demand-side policies, like building codes, public and 
private fleet purchase requirements, and a clean fuels policy that 
reduces carbon emissions while providing resources for charging and 
hydrogen refueling infrastructure are also critical to supporting 
additional growth of the EV market in the U.S.
    While demand-side solutions aimed at addressing consumer and 
infrastructure barriers can help address near-term challenges, they 
will contribute to sustained U.S. leadership in automotive innovation 
only if they are aligned with supply-side realities. In fact, the 
supply side represents one of the best opportunities to develop long-
term and sustainable U.S. leadership through manufacturing investments. 
Vital aspects of the EV supply chain require the manufacturing of 
batteries and battery components (critical minerals extraction, 
processing, battery cell production, end of life recycling) and fuel 
cell stacks. In 2019, Chinese chemical companies accounted for roughly 
80 percent of the world's total output of advanced battery raw 
materials. Investments in tax incentives for both R&D and 
manufacturing, expanding programs such as the Advanced Technology 
Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program to further encourage 
domestic manufacturing of EVs, and critical components like batteries 
and semiconductors, will be key factors that drive automotive 
innovation in the United States for generations to come.
Conclusion:
    Globally, the automotive industry annually invests more than $125 
billion in R&D, $20 billion more than the software and Internet 
technology industry.\4\ Roughly $26 billion of this annual investment 
occurs in the U.S., which supports 110,000 jobs and harnesses the 
innovation and ingenuity of major automakers and their workforce.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Strategy&, ``The Global Innovation 1000 Study,'' Data Download 
11/2/2020 https://www
.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/
innovation1000.html?utm_campaign=sbpwc&utm_medium
=site&utm_source=articletext
    \5\ National Science Foundation, Info Brief, ``U.S. Businesses 
Reported $441 Billion For R&D Performance In The United States During 
2018, A 10.2% Increase From 2017,'' Accessed 11/2/2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. China has already established EV 
battery supply chain and manufacturing dominance. Likewise, Europe is 
responding by developing its own supply chains. Japan has made a bold 
commitment to support fuel cell technology advancements.
    China is moving aggressively to lead in safety technology 
advancements--including AVs. As evidenced by experience in other 
sectors--such as information and communications technologies--as well 
as the current EV battery supply chain, falling behind global 
competitors presents longterm risks to U.S. competitiveness and 
economic security.
    For the millions of workers depending on the auto industry for 
their livelihoods, we must seize this window of opportunity. Working 
collaboratively to develop a coherent, national approach to automotive 
innovation opens the door to endless possibilities and avoids the 
unintended consequences of focusing on narrow policy objectives. For 
example, technology mandates without complementary supply side 
investments risk eroding the U.S. manufacturing base for innovative 
technologies. Likewise, a failure to embrace and encourage adoption of 
advanced vehicle technologies in the U.S. risks ceding technology 
leadership and supply chain dominance to global competitors. 
Fortunately, we have an opportunity to avoid those outcomes and 
recently we sent a letter to the Administration and Congress to outline 
such a comprehensive policy \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ ``Auto Industry EV Policy Letter to President Biden'', https://
www.autosinnovate.org/posts/communications/
Auto%20Industry%20EV%20Policy%20Letter%20to%20President%20Biden%20
March%2029%202021.pdf 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The auto industry has long been an economic engine for the nation, 
and it is poised to remain the bedrock of U.S. innovation and 
manufacturing for decades to come. Realizing this potential, however, 
requires collaboration, cooperation, and creativity among all 
stakeholders. This is an opportunity to open our minds to new 
possibilities and work together to take a fresh, comprehensive look at 
what it will take to realize a shared vision of a cleaner, safer, 
smarter future.
    On behalf of Auto Innovators and our member companies, I look 
forward to working with both Congress and the Administration to 
effectuate policies such as those discussed to realize the promise of 
cleaner, safer smarter transportation future while ensuring the U.S. 
leads automotive innovation for generations to come.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Bozzella, for your 
testimony.
    We'll now hear from Ann Wilson with the Motor and Equipment 
Manufacturers Association, also known as MEMA, about the 
incredible small and medium businesses that power the auto 
industry's supply chain.
    Ms. Wilson is the Senior Vice President of Government 
Affairs at MEMA and in that role Ms. Wilson works with MEMA to 
oversee Federal and state legislative and regulatory 
monitoring, reporting, and advocacy.
    Ms. Wilson, welcome. You may proceed with your opening 
statement.

    STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MOTOR & 
              EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

    Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Peters, 
Ranking Member Fischer, Members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Ann Wilson, and I serve as the Senior Vice 
President of Government Affairs for the Motor & Equipment 
Manufacturers Association or MEMA.
    Thank you for today's invitation to provide our views on 
the opportunities and challenges facing the auto industry.
    MEMA represents more than 1,000 vehicle suppliers that 
develop innovative technologies and manufacturer and 
remanufacture original equipment and after market components 
and systems for use in passenger cars and commercial trucks.
    The industry operates in all 50 states and directly employs 
almost one million Americans and is the largest sector of 
manufacturing jobs in this country.
    There's no doubt that a vibrant auto industry can provide 
this country with opportunities to lead in technology 
development, safety, environment, and employment, but we have 
many challenges ahead.
    First regarding technology development and readiness, over 
the past 5 years, the European Union, Japan, Korea, and China 
have moved forward championing the adoption and deployment of 
new vehicle electrification, advanced driver assistance 
systems, and automated technologies. The U.S. is in danger of 
losing our competitive edge due to a lack of clear national 
policies. Infrastructure legislation can provide that clarity.
    In addition, since the end of 2020, the U.S. vehicle 
industry has faced a significant supply chain crisis. Although 
the shortage of semiconductors has been the focus of this 
crisis, the issues are more widespread, include semiconductors, 
resins, foam, rubber, and steel, as well as delays in our 
Nation's ports.
    The current crisis reinforces the need to build more robust 
and steady global supply chains. These supply chains must focus 
on both domestic production and global availability. This is 
why the Endless Frontiers legislation is so important.
    MEMA also supports funding for the CHIPS Act as a way to 
address long-term challenges in the semiconductor industry 
while addressing the needs of additional capacity to produce 
motor vehicle grade chips.
    Next, I'd like to shift to vehicle safety. As the Committee 
has already recognized, in 2019, we did indeed lose over 36,000 
Americans in vehicle crashes in the United States. Preliminary 
data, as Senator Fischer indicated, for the first 9 months of 
2020 show that unfortunately the fatality figures are climbing, 
despite a downturn in vehicle miles traveled.
    MEMA believes greater deployment of crash avoidance 
technology, such as automatic emergency braking, lane-keeping, 
and blind spot detection, will improve overall motor vehicle 
fatalities. We believe an immediate upgrade to the New Car 
Assessment Program or NCAP is the most important first step in 
addressing this.
    The U.S. NCAP is a voluntary program and provides consumers 
with information regarding performance and equipment in new 
vehicles. The current program rates a vehicle's crashworthiness 
but does not fully address crash avoidance.
    MEMA urges Congress to require NHTSA to immediately 
implement a substantive and comprehensive update of the NCAP by 
adding crash avoidance and mitigation technologies and creating 
a roadmap for future technologies.
    Next, I'd like to talk about fuel economy and vehicle 
emissions. MEMA is committed to working with you toward a net 
zero carbon transportation future that includes the shift to 
electric drive vehicles.
    For the U.S. to be a leader in this transformation, we must 
work collaboratively to develop a comprehensive national vision 
and strategy to meet our goals, but to get to this goal, we 
must commit to a level of investment that we have rarely seen 
as a country. This includes investment in infrastructure, R&D, 
and retooling as well as consumer incentives.
    In addition, we must provide for continued investment in 
reaching the full efficiency potential of the internal 
combustion engine. We also must allow for greater use of 
hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and hydrogen fuel 
cell vehicles and provide the infrastructure for their usage, 
and a fully electric vehicle fleet will require significantly 
fewer supplier jobs with some experts arguing the supplier 
industry could lose up to 30 percent of their traditional 
workforce. Retooling of existing facilities and workforce up-
skilling will be necessary.
    And, finally, I would like to talk about workforce. 
Workforce development is one of the most significant challenges 
facing our industry. Our industry's workforce needs are 
evolving with the push to vehicle electrification and 
automation.
    In response to these changes, workforce development, 
apprenticeship, and up-skilling programs must advance to 
continue providing U.S. workers with the necessary skills to 
manufacture and service new technologies.
    Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, 
              Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
Introduction
    MEMA represents more than 1,000 vehicle suppliers that develop 
innovative technologies and manufacture and remanufacture original 
equipment (OE) and aftermarket components and systems for use in 
passenger cars and heavy trucks.\1\ This industry operates in all 50 
states, directly employs almost one million Americans, and is the 
largest sector of manufacturing jobs in the United States. Direct, 
indirect, and induced vehicle supplier employment accounts for over 4.8 
million U.S. jobs. Moreover, vehicle suppliers contribute 2.5 percent 
of U.S. GDP. The average U.S. wage for direct vehicle supplier jobs 
reached $80,300--exceeding the average of all U.S. manufacturing 
sectors.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ MEMA represents its member companies through its four 
divisions: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA); Heavy 
Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA); MERA--The Association for 
Sustainable Manufacturing; and Original Equipment Suppliers Association 
(OESA).
    \2\ U.S. Labor and Economic Impact of Vehicle Supplier Industry, 
MEMA and IHS Markit. February 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Across the entire range of new vehicle innovation--from automated 
to zero-emission technologies--vehicle suppliers are leading the way. 
Vehicle suppliers conceive, design, and manufacture the OE components 
and technologies that make up more than 77 percent of the value in new 
vehicles. Vehicle suppliers also manufacture aftermarket parts and 
materials for the maintenance and repair of over 290 million vehicles 
on the road.
    MEMA supports infrastructure legislation that accelerates the 
development, commercialization, manufacture, and deployment of new, 
advanced technologies in the United States.\3\ This includes the more 
rapid deployment of the critical building-block technologies needed to 
reach the targets for electrified and automated vehicles. The promotion 
of technology development will allow the U.S. to be more innovative and 
globally competitive and to lead the world on the path of enhanced 
mobility for all citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ MEMA will provide this committee with additional views on the 
commercial vehicles and freight transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEMA members have long led in developing innovative vehicle 
technologies that save lives, improve efficiencies, and reduce 
emissions. We believe infrastructure legislation must be part of an 
overall comprehensive, strategic, and meaningful plan to prepare the 
U.S. for a technologically advanced transportation future. For too 
long, the U.S. has not moved forward at an adequate pace to accommodate 
and prepare our Nation for these advanced technologies in a concerted, 
dedicated, and clear fashion.
    The vehicle industry has long product cycles; suppliers must plan 
for components and systems ahead of the curve and well in advance of 
deployment. Vehicle suppliers and our customers are being encouraged by 
policymakers to design, develop, and deploy these technologies in the 
U.S. and require a more substantive framework within which we can 
innovate and create jobs. While there is an array of guidelines, best 
practices, voluntary agreements, and incomplete or shelved rulemakings, 
a more structured, coordinated policy framework is critical to abating 
the uncertainty that persists in the U.S. There are other regions in 
the world that are closing these gaps. A structured roadmap is needed 
in order to keep our country on the leading edge as a manufacturing and 
innovation center and to provide Americans with greater mobility, 
safety, and environmental benefits. Yet, this vision is not without 
challenges.
    MEMA believes we must focus on five fundamentals:

  1.  Advanced Technology Readiness and Competitiveness--The U.S. must 
        provide the tools for our manufacturers to compete globally for 
        technology development and deployment. Our country has a strong 
        foundation to be the global leader in creating new innovative, 
        forward-leaning technology, including automated and electric 
        vehicles. This leadership will require significant investments 
        and incentives with an established roadmap.

  2.  Infrastructure--An infrastructure package must address motor 
        vehicle safety. With an increasing level of U.S. motor vehicle 
        fatalities, Congress must take this opportunity to provide the 
        impetus and attack this issue. MEMA strongly supports 
        implementing a substantive update of the U.S. New Car 
        Assessment Program (NCAP). The timeline to update the program 
        can be done in a shorter period, encourage deployment, and 
        provide consumers with more comparable information, 
        particularly about the benefits of crash avoidance 
        technologies. Updating NCAP will also help the U.S. keep pace 
        with other global regions in technological advancements. In 
        addition, MEMA supports improving our Nation's infrastructure 
        to prepare the U.S. for future mobility, including automated 
        and electric vehicles.

  3.  Fuel Efficiency and Emissions--MEMA supports a path to a net-zero 
        carbon transportation system including electrification. This 
        path must allow for multiple technologies including increased 
        efficiency of internal combustion engines, hybrid, plug-in 
        hybrid, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles 
        during this transition.

  4.  Equity in Mobility and Service--MEMA believes we must address the 
        issue of equity in mobility and vehicle service. Automated 
        vehicles (AVs) have the potential to enhance the mobility of 
        people in a variety of ways by providing more options. For 
        those many Americans that depend on a used vehicle for 
        transportation to work, school, and daily life, vehicles are 
        increasingly more durable and last longer because of 
        advancements in vehicle technology. With the average age of 
        passenger vehicles exceeding 12 years, there must be a focus on 
        assuring Americans that their vehicles can provide the greatest 
        degree of safety and fuel efficiency possible with regular 
        obtainable maintenance service.

  5.  Workforce--Workforce development is one of the most significant 
        challenges facing the industry. Our industry's workforce needs 
        are evolving with the push to vehicle electrification and 
        automation. In response to these changing needs, worker 
        development and upskilling programs must advance to continue 
        providing U.S. workers with the necessary skills to manufacture 
        and service new technologies. The industry will require a 
        diverse workforce with occupations across many industries with 
        varying levels of education, training, and experience. Most of 
        these occupations will require specialized training or work 
        experience.
Advanced Technology Readiness and Competitiveness
    The domestic motor vehicle industry is at a crossroads. Over the 
last five years, other countries have moved forward aggressively 
adopting, promoting, and mandating vehicle electrification, advanced 
driver-assistance (ADAS) systems, and automated technologies, 
threatening the leadership position of the United States.
    In short, the U.S. is currently without a comprehensive and 
definitive plan. We must adequately prepare and accommodate for not 
only the advanced vehicle technologies of today but the future 
transportation landscape of tomorrow. While the vehicle industry is 
always looking ahead and planning a range of vehicle technologies on a 
wide range of vehicle platforms, the uncertainty of the U.S. market can 
inhibit or discourage domestic development and deployment of 
technologies. Over the past decade, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) has lost forward momentum; there is a lack of 
definitive action by the agency on multiple fronts that has caused the 
U.S. to fall behind our global counterparts. While the European Union, 
Japan, Korea, and China move forward championing these endeavors, the 
U.S. is in danger of losing our competitive edge due to a lack of clear 
national policies.
    Global companies have a choice of where to grow their businesses 
and where to invest in the research, development, and manufacturing of 
new products. Companies choose new facility locations based on complex 
analysis including customers and suppliers, consumer markets, workforce 
capabilities, tax and regulatory policies, direct government 
incentives, workforce capabilities, and export potential. However, the 
reality is that vehicle suppliers are unlikely to invest in the 
production of advanced components in the U.S. unless there is strong 
regional demand for those technologies. If the demand is centered in 
European or Asian regions, then that development and manufacturing will 
be localized there.
    In addition, suppliers depend on policy certainty in order to 
direct investment. Suppliers assume a leading role in developing 
technology solutions for motor vehicles and take on the associated 
risks of developing these technological advancements. In some cases, 
these investments are necessary to comply with Federal and state 
standards that lower emissions or increase safety. In others, the 
investments are made because consumers and the industry are seeking to 
address the same challenges. The development of these advanced 
technologies requires substantial lead-time, major economic resources, 
and product planning that includes several stages. Importantly, 
suppliers do not get return on their capital investment until these 
technologies are deployed (see graphic below). The return on investment 
is estimated very carefully and amortized over several years. 
Therefore, policy certainty has enormous implications on the motor 
vehicle supplier industry. Definitive action by NHTSA and Congress will 
help provides the industry the needed certainty to develop and improve 
future products and systems.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    For the U.S. to remain a leader in innovative technological 
advancements, we require a competitive environment with access to 
skilled and educated workers, raw materials, financing, and 
transportation logistics. Suppliers rely on legislative and regulatory 
certainty to achieve steady progress toward sustainable objectives. 
Policies must be in place for the U.S. to continue leading in the race 
to develop and manufacture these innovations domestically or our 
Nation's manufacturing and employment bases will ultimately suffer.
    Finally, infrastructure legislation must be part of an overall 
comprehensive, strategic, and meaningful plan to prepare the U.S. for a 
technologically advanced transportation future. It must provide policy 
certainty such that advanced vehicle technologies--both safety and 
environmental--will have a clear and direct pathway to deployment that 
does not create unnecessary financial and regulatory burdens and avoids 
stranded domestic investments. Research and development coordination, 
tax incentives, and Federal support will provide greater progress than 
stringent or inflexible mandates. However, policy certainty does not 
necessitate the mandate of a single technological path. MEMA will work 
diligently with the Biden Administration and Congress to ensure that 
infrastructure legislation positively addresses each of these concerns.
Supply Chain Crisis
    Since the end of 2020, the U.S. vehicle industry has faced a 
significant supply chain crisis. Although the shortage of 
semiconductors has been the focus of this crisis, the issues are more 
widespread (semiconductors, resins, foam, rubber, steel, and many other 
materials and components), as well as delays at our Nation's ports. 
These shortages and delays lead to price increases on motor vehicle 
part inputs, cutting profits and funds available for research and 
development and other long-term priorities.
    Due to these supply chain-induced shortages, the industry is 
anticipating an overall decline in motor vehicle production for the 
first three quarters of 2021 with adverse employment impacts, both for 
vehicle manufacturers and vehicle parts manufacturers. One of our 
smaller supplier members reported that the port crisis alone is costing 
their company more than $500,000 a month in shipping costs. These 
shortages are diverting capital that cannot be used now to meet the 
demands of our industry's changing landscape.
    The current crisis reinforces the need to build more robust and 
steady global supply chains. These supply chains must focus on both 
domestic production and global availability. Over time, the U.S. must 
create greater sourcing of critical components and technologies for the 
domestic market. Additional sourcing from allies will also be helpful. 
Increasing and diversifying supplies of components and materials around 
the globe, including in the U.S., are vital to domestic motor vehicle 
parts manufacturers.
    MEMA supports two key goals to enhance global supply chain 
competitiveness. The first is to develop and enhance the domestic 
capability to produce cutting-edge technology. Additionally, it is 
vital to ensure supply chain resiliency that will support America's 
current manufacturing jobs as well as economic and national security. 
This will create a robust supply of critical established technology, 
including legacy chips. To that end, MEMA supports funding for the 
CHIPS Act and further appropriations for the necessary additional 
capacity to produce motor vehicle grade chips.
Infrastructure
    Surface transportation bills have long focused on the 
infrastructure needs of this country. Our industry relies on a robust 
infrastructure system of roads, bridges, and ports, but infrastructure 
needs are changing as motor vehicles are transforming. Congress must 
pass legislation that keeps pace with these needs.
    This means that we must deploy charging stations, including public 
DC fast charging stations, at the rate of the expected adoption of 
plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. This must include a mix of 
options located at nonworkplace and nonresidential sites. Additionally, 
we must provide road markings and signage that improve the performance 
of advanced vehicle safety systems. All these programs will require a 
new level of investment to both maintain existing roadways and expand 
access for the transformative vehicles of the future.
Vehicle Safety
    Motor vehicle parts manufacturers are key developers of the 
components and software for the safety systems in today's vehicles. 
Suppliers are committed to improving vehicle safety and are leading the 
way in developing the technologies necessary to reduce fatalities and 
injuries. Our industry embraces the culture, innovation, and direction 
that is necessary to advance the goals to significantly reduce vehicle 
fatalities, injuries, and societal costs.
    Recent complete crash data show that, in 2019, over 36,000 people 
lost their lives in vehicle crashes.\4\ Preliminary Federal data for 
the first nine months of 2020 show that, unfortunately, the fatality 
figures are climbing despite a downturn in vehicle miles traveled.\5\ 
The National Safety Council (NSC) recently estimated that over 42,000 
Americans died in motor vehicle crashes in 2020.\6\ This represents an 
8 percent increase over 2019 and is the highest year-over-year increase 
that NSC has calculated in 96 years. In comparison, preliminary 2020 
data from Europe show a significant drop in vehicle related fatalities, 
dropping 17 percent compared to 2019.\7\ We should all be alarmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in 2019,'' National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Publication No. DOT HS 813 060, December 
2020.
    \5\ ``Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Fatalities for the First 9 
Months of 2020,'' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Publication No. DOT HS 813 053, December 2020.
    \6\ National Safety Council indicated their preliminary data show 
that as many as 42,060 people are estimated to have died in motor 
vehicle crashes in 2020 in its recent announcement ``Motor Vehicle 
Deaths in 2020 Estimated to be Highest in 13 Years, Despite Dramatic 
Drops in Miles Driven,'' March 4, 2021.
    \7\ ``Road safety: 4,000 fewer people lost their lives on EU roads 
in 2020 as death rate falls to all time low'' European Commission, 
March 4, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEMA believes greater deployment of crash avoidance technologies 
such as automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane keeping, and blind spot 
detection will improve overall fatalities. Indeed, a study commissioned 
by MEMA and conducted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2015 
estimated that the U.S. could reduce fatalities on U.S. roads by 10,000 
per year if all vehicles were equipped with a suite of advanced driver 
assistance (ADAS) technologies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ``A Roadmap to Safer Driving Through Advanced Driver Assistance 
Systems,'' MEMA and Boston Consulting Group, Sept. 29, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Suppliers are the key innovators, developers, and manufacturers of 
these technologies. The evolution over the years has been 
transformational beginning with building-block passive systems to 
active, more automated systems. From anti-lock braking system (ABS) to 
electronic stability control (ESC), from forward collision and lane 
departure warning systems (FCW, LDW) to front and rear AEB systems and 
lane keeping assistance systems. These and other advanced vehicle 
safety systems, plus improvements in vehicle crashworthiness, are all 
technologies that help drivers avoid or mitigate crashes and 
drastically reduce fatalities, injuries, property damage claims, and 
societal costs.
    An array of ADAS technologies is currently commercially available 
and is proven to have safety benefits. Europe, which is a tangible 
counterpart to the U.S., has demonstrated the safety benefits and 
successful deployments of these technologies. There are many advanced 
safety features available in the vehicle marketplace ranging from 
passive to active systems that either warn and/or intervene to avoid or 
mitigate vehicle crashes. These advanced technologies have foundational 
systems upon which the more complex systems are built. Over recent 
years, computing power and sensor technologies have rapidly evolved and 
improved. Many of these systems and components are available on a 
larger scale and offered on a broader array of vehicle price points.
U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
    The U.S. NCAP is a voluntary program and provides consumers with 
information regarding the performance and equipment in new vehicles. 
The current program rates a vehicle's crashworthiness--in other words, 
how well it protects the vehicle's occupants in a crash. The NCAP is 
not keeping up with technology development and is not serving the 
American consumer well. It must be updated.
    MEMA urges Congress to specifically direct NHTSA to update and 
modernize the NCAP. MEMA supported language in the FAST Act in 2015 
that required NHTSA to include crash avoidance technology information 
on the Monroney Label. Although NHTSA has a substantial amount of data 
on the efficacy of these technologies, the agency never finalized the 
congressional mandate. The 2015 requirement is no longer sufficient to 
ensure that a consumer has enough information about crash avoidance 
technologies.
    Instead, Congress should take additional steps to require NHTSA to 
plan for a substantive and comprehensive update of the NCAP. NHTSA 
should immediately update the NCAP by adding a list of pre-determined 
crash avoidance and mitigation technologies that will be considered 
when determining the rating of a specific vehicle. Regarding crash 
avoidance, several technologies are ripe for immediate inclusion and 
address common crash scenarios. Much of the technical work, research, 
and test procedures have already been completed for many of these 
currently available technologies. As such, there are several that can 
be immediately included as part of an initial update to the NCAP.
    Therefore, NHTSA should be required to move forward quickly and 
finalize these new requirements without further delay. Equally 
important, NHTSA must establish a clear roadmap to allow for phased-in 
future updates by prescribed milestones, providing vital time and 
certainty needed for product development and planning of vehicle 
manufacturers and suppliers. These changes will assure NCAP keeps pace 
with new technologies and, more importantly, keep the U.S. on the 
leading edge of safety technology innovation.
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) Technologies
    Vehicle suppliers are critical in the ongoing development and 
implementation of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure 
(V2I), and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) technologies (collectively 
referred to as vehicle-to-everything, or V2X). V2X technologies are 
another innovation that promises to significantly increase 
transportation safety. These systems allow vehicles to communicate with 
other vehicles, infrastructure, law enforcement, and bicycle and 
pedestrian road users to avoid crashes, enhance safety, improve 
transportation efficiency, and reduce air pollution. NHTSA predicts 
that the safety applications enabled by V2X technologies could 
eliminate or mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non-impaired 
crashes, significantly reducing the nearly 37,000 lives lost and three 
million injuries that occur on U.S. roadways each year. V2X 
technologies will provide real economic savings as well by 
significantly reducing the more than $800 billion in annual costs 
associated with crashes on American roads.
    V2X technologies require dedicated spectrum to ensure uninterrupted 
high-speed communication; many years ago, the 5.9 GHz spectrum was 
allocated to intelligent transportation systems. Over the years, 
suppliers spent millions of dollars on research, development, and 
production of these technologies in anticipation of wide deployment. 
Suppliers have been directly engaged with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT), several state departments of transportation, 
regional and city agencies, and a host of industry stakeholders to 
support a wide array of deployment projects. All stakeholders have made 
significant investments in research, infrastructure, and planning in 
reliance on the 5.9 GHz spectrum band would be in place.
    Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has 
recently voted to reallocate more than half of the spectrum in the 5.9 
GHz band reserved for these technologies. Analysis suggests that this 
will not leave an adequate spectrum for many important V2X safety 
applications including V2P applications, which are designed to improve 
road safety for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. 
There also would not be adequate spectrum to deploy advanced safety 
applications that rely on Collective Perception Messages and Maneuver 
Coordination Messages, which support applications that will enhance the 
safety of automated vehicles.
    Additionally, the potential for harmful interference from adjacent 
channels threatens the ability of V2X to function in the spectrum 
remaining. Numerous technical assessments related to the FCC's 
proposal, including preliminary assessments released by the DOT, show 
that out-of-channel interference from unlicensed devices operating in 
adjacent bands would be likely to make the spectrum reserved for 
transportation safety communications unusable for such purposes. This 
interference would delay or block safety-critical messages where split-
second action is required to avert a crash. MEMA agrees with the 
overwhelming consensus of the transportation safety community that this 
spectrum reallocation undermines transportation safety, and that all 75 
MHz of the 5.9 GHz band should be preserved for V2X technologies.
Automated Vehicles
    As the committee knows, 94 percent of motor vehicle crashes are the 
result of human error.\9\ Legislation for AVs will go a long way to 
address this issue. Vehicle parts manufacturers are key developers of 
the components and software for automated driving systems (ADS) that 
enable AVs. As noted earlier, vehicle suppliers manufacture a wide 
range of ADAS technologies, as well as integrated active/passive safety 
systems, that lay the foundation for ADS-equipped AVs. MEMA strongly 
supports narrow, targeted AV legislation focused on creating a path 
forward for the development and deployment of ADS-equipped AVs and 
technologies for Levels 3-5 as identified by the SAE International 
Standard J3016. MEMA believes this can be done in a manner that 
protects the driving public while keeping pace with new and developing 
technologies. The AV START Act passed by the Committee during the 115th 
Congress would have been a first step to meeting these goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National 
Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey,'' National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Publication No. DOT HS 812 115, February 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEMA urges the Committee to act quickly this year to pass 
legislation that provides suppliers parity with the automakers on 
technology testing, affirming that motor vehicle equipment 
manufacturers can test and evaluate ADS on public roads. Suppliers are 
critical to the overall development and refinement of ADS technology. 
If suppliers are unable to carry out this work in an independent 
manner, then it will impede and delay the evolution of the critical 
systems, artificial intelligence, human-machine interface, and other 
advancements that are needed to bring the vision of automated vehicles 
to fruition.
    MEMA continues to urge Congress to craft legislation that clarifies 
the distinction between Federal and state roles in regulating AVs. A 
patchwork of state requirements may impede testing, deployment, and 
operating ADS-equipped vehicles. The Federal government must have 
primary oversight over vehicle safety, with state and local governments 
regulating registration and licensing requirements.
    Developing and evolving technologies for AVs will continue to 
remain ahead of government standards. To allow for this, MEMA recently 
recommended to NHTSA that the agency should create an ADS safety 
framework through the provision of guidelines, recommendations, and 
consumer information that are based on information and data that is 
currently available and take a technology-neutral approach.
    At the same time, suppliers rely on clear, concise rulemakings that 
provide certainty as suppliers are developing and working to deploy 
advanced technologies. A clear path to deployment, including updating 
existing safety standards, is necessary, and NHTSA must continue 
working on translations from existing rules to allow for AV deployment. 
These translations, which include updating FMVSS standards that specify 
a person or driver, are necessary to allow for ADSs to be considered as 
``drivers and operators.'' This will eliminate incompatible regulations 
to allow the development of AV technologies. NHTSA must continue the 
modification and development of FMVSS standards to support the 
development of AV technology. Suppliers remain part of the ongoing 
government-industry dialogue to address these complex issues.
Fuel Efficiency and Emissions
    MEMA is committed to working toward a net-zero carbon 
transportation future that includes a shift to electric-drive vehicles. 
This vision is shared by automakers, workers, and suppliers and has 
brought the auto industry in the U.S. to a transformative moment, one 
that will shape a cleaner future and redefine motor vehicle 
transportation for generations to come.
    For the U.S. to be a leader in this transformation, we must work 
collaboratively to develop a comprehensive national vision and strategy 
to meet these goals. This is not just about the future of the auto 
industry in the U.S., it is about our country's race to innovation, 
global competitiveness, economic security, and the evolution of the 
U.S. workforce. Nations that lead the development and adoption of 
innovative technologies will also shape supply chains and job creation, 
define global standards and, potentially, reshape the international 
marketplace. However, neither the current rate of consumer adoption of 
EVs nor existing levels of Federal support for supply-and demand-side 
policies, is sufficient to meet our goal of a net-zero carbon 
transportation future.
    For this reason, MEMA joined with the Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation and UAW in specifically defining the commitments that must 
be made to reach our common goals.\10\ In short, to get to this goal we 
must commit to a level of investment that we have rarely seen as a 
country. This includes investment in infrastructure, R&D, and retooling 
as well as consumer incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Joint Vehicle Industry Letter to President Biden re: Working 
Towards a Net-Zero Carbon Transportation Future, from the Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation, MEMA, and UAW, March 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEMA believes that regulatory requirements from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NHTSA must provide for 
continued investment in reaching the full efficiency potential of the 
internal combustion engine. This means vehicles purchased during the 
transition to full electrification will provide strong fuel efficiency 
and emissions reduction while working towards the net-zero carbon 
emission goal. These vehicles will likely be on the road for an 
additional 20 years, and our collective commitment to climate change 
will not be met unless the propulsion system containing the internal 
combustion engine continues to improve its efficiency through system 
optimization and electrification.
    We must also allow for the greater use of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, 
battery electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and provide the 
infrastructure for their usage. This will help both manufacturers and 
consumers alike in the transition.
    A fully electric vehicle fleet will require significantly fewer 
supplier jobs, with some experts arguing that the supplier industry 
could lose up to 30 percent of its traditional workforce. Engines, 
transmissions, aftertreatment systems, and other parts will simply not 
be manufactured for battery electric and fuel cell vehicles.
    The supplier industry and the American workers need assistance and 
support in the forms of incentives to retool existing manufacturing 
facilities, economic development incentives, and programs that foster 
domestic investment. In addition, we must heavily invest in workforce 
up-skilling programs. Americans deserve an opportunity to secure 
meaningful skills that will carry them through their careers. This will 
take time, making the transition even more important.
Equity in Mobility and Service
    For this testimony, MEMA is addressing equity in the broad context 
of mobility and vehicle service and maintenance.
    As stated earlier, AVs have many anticipated benefits to open up 
and enhance the mobility of many citizens in a variety of ways and 
provide more options. The vehicle industry and beyond are looking at 
various pathways and opportunities that could be realized in the 
future. While it is unclear which services and applications will become 
part of our future transportation network, it is clear that it has the 
potential to get more people safely moving to their destinations.
    Transformative, innovative vehicles should not only be available to 
the few. A robust, modern NCAP would provide our citizens with 
important vehicle safety information, no matter the size of their 
budget. In addition, we must provide electric charging opportunities in 
a wide range of locations to make ownership of new technologies 
feasible.
    Many people depend on a used vehicle for transportation. Congress 
must recognize the role that the automotive aftermarket plays in 
providing affordable, reliable, and safe transportation to many 
Americans. The average cost of a new car now exceeds $40,000, far 
beyond the ability of many Americans to afford. Indeed, used car sales 
in this country rose in the early months of the pandemic as many 
Americans were forced to look for transportation options and were 
unable to find an affordable new vehicle.
    Vehicles are increasingly more durable and last longer; the average 
age of passenger vehicles now exceeds 12 years. That means that many 
Americans keep their vehicles for 20 years or more, and often these 
individuals will be the second, third, or even fourth owner of a car. 
Vehicle suppliers develop and manufacture the aftermarket parts and 
materials needed to maintain and service over 290 million vehicles on 
the road. Regular service intervals for not only older vehicles, but 
also newer vehicles with advanced technologies, are critical to 
maintaining vehicle safety, efficiency, emissions, and performance.
    MEMA would encourage this Committee to consider the following:

   This is not the time to institute any fuel efficiency or 
        emissions consumer incentive program that requires the 
        destruction of a trade-in vehicle. These trade-in vehicles will 
        have value to other Americans. There are better ways for 
        Congress to ensure continued fuel efficiency and lower vehicle 
        emissions.

   MEMA would encourage the Committee to consider ways to 
        ensure greater safety of all vehicles on the road. In 2019, 
        unperformed and under-performed maintenance totaled $41 
        billion. MEMA has long been a strong advocate of vehicle safety 
        inspections. Yet only fifteen states have a periodic (annual or 
        biennial) safety inspection program, while Maryland requires a 
        safety inspection and Alabama requires a VIN inspection on sale 
        or transfer of vehicles which were previously registered in 
        another state. We urge Congress to set aside funding in an 
        infrastructure package to assist states in the creation or 
        maintenance of state safety inspections, including the 
        reduction of fees for some citizens.

    Finally, MEMA's automotive aftermarket division, AASA, has 
separately addressed the important issue of data access for the purpose 
of maintenance and repair. The significance of maintaining consumer 
choice, transparency, and affordability in auto repair cannot be 
downplayed. Consumers deserve to decide how and with whom they share 
their vehicle data. MEMA is committed to working with all parties, 
automakers, dealers, and consumers, to assure the continued ability of 
American to repair and maintain their vehicles in the manner and place 
of their choice.
Workforce
    Workforce development is one of the most significant challenges 
facing the industry. The skilled worker shortage continues to grow. 
Suppliers support programs throughout the United States that focus on 
all levels of the workforce and potential workers--middle and high 
school students, high school graduates, two and four-year college 
graduates, continuing education, and non-traditional students. Yet, 
these programs are not sufficient to meet the evolving needs of the 
industry or the American public.
    MEMA supports--

   Establishment of a broad National Institute of Manufacturing 
        (NIM) to encourage Federal coordination of policy and 
        streamlining of manufacturing programs;

   An assessment of current Federal workforce programs;

   Incentives for workers to enter and re-enter manufacturing;

   Adoption of policies that enhance the educated and mobile 
        workforce in the quickly changing automated manufacturing 
        world;

   Federal partnerships with state and local governments and 
        private industry to provide training and support for technical 
        colleges and apprenticeship programs;

   Restoration of open immigration and H1B and L-visa policies 
        to assist in workforce development and ensuring skilled 
        workforce needs are met; and,

   Preservation of market-oriented labor policies.

    MEMA urges Congress to consider the evolving workforce needs of 
suppliers to ensure that today's workers, as well as tomorrow's, are 
equipped with the skills necessary to manufacture these advanced 
technologies here in the U.S.
Conclusion
    This industry is in a transformative moment that can provide 
greater mobility, safety, and environmental protection for our 
citizens. MEMA is committed to being a part of the ongoing discussions 
on all aspects of the legislation facing Congress.
    As these discussions continue, MEMA urges Congress to consider the 
five fundamental needs outlined above to support the supplier industry 
and our workforce. Our nation requires these tools for the complex 
vehicle supplier industry in this country to remain competitive.
    For any additional information or questions, please contact Senior 
Vice President of Government Affairs Ann Wilson ([email protected]) or 
Vice President of Legislative Affairs Catherine Boland 
([email protected]).

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Ms. Wilson, for your testimony.
    Our final witness is Mr. Reuben Sarkar, who serves as 
President and CEO of the American Center for Mobility in 
Ypsilanti, Michigan.
    Mr. Sarkar also has a wealth of industry experience as well 
as public service experience. This includes Mr. Sarkar serving 
as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation at the U.S. 
Department of Energy where he handled issues relating to energy 
and the transportation sector.
    Mr. Sarkar is also a proud University of Michigan alum 
where he earned both his Bachelor's and his Master's degree.
    Mr. Sarkar, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with 
your 5 minute opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF REUBEN SARKAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN CENTER 
                          FOR MOBILITY

    Mr. Sarkar. Thank you. Subcommittee Chair, Senator Peters, 
Ranking Member, Senator Fischer, and other Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to speak regarding 
the Future of Vehicle Safety, Mobility, and Technology, and the 
ways in which Congress can help the U.S. mobility industry 
position ourselves at the global forefront of innovation.
    The American Center for Mobility or ACM is a nonprofit 
smart mobility test center that is serving to accelerate the 
mobility industry through testing, standards development, and 
educational workforce programming.
    Located in Southeast Michigan on over 500 acres at the 
historic Willow Run site, ACM has over 200 million invested 
into infrastructure, facilities, and technologies that make up 
ACM's shared use of Smart Mobility Test Center. This test 
center provides a safe platform for the testing and validation 
of mobility technologies.
    Advances in mobility technologies, such as automation, have 
the U.S. at the transformative edge of the way that people and 
goods will be moved through an emerging mobility ecosystem.
    The state of readiness for mobility innovation is dependent 
on the validation of these technologies to perform as intended 
in the real world based on measurable standards and regulations 
and supported by a properly trained workforce.
    Automated vehicles or self-driving cars have demonstrated 
millions of miles of operation on public roads and substantial 
improvements in the number of self-driven miles achieved 
without human intervention.
    While driving on public roadways provides the most 
realistic driving data, it can be prohibitive from a cost and 
development cycle perspective. Test AVs for deployment solely 
using public roads.
    Studies indicate that it could take hundreds of millions, 
if not billions, of miles of public road driving to validate 
these technologies without the use of more advanced validation 
tools and resources.
    Smart mobility test centers, such as ACM, have been 
established on the principle of leveraging a three-tiered 
approach to validation of new mobility technologies, which are 
based on virtual simulation, followed by testing in a 
controlled track environment, and a carefully managed public 
on-road testing as part of a comprehensive and iterative 
approach to validation.
    Simulation allows for millions of miles to be driven 
virtually to identify the limits of operation of systems before 
conducting vehicle testing, though track testing that is 
informed by simulation allows for targeted, controlled, 
repeatable, and safe vehicle testing. Public road testing, in 
turn, provides real-world data which can be used to better 
understand the edge cases around which self-driving cars must 
be trained and tested.
    This self-reinforcing process of validation can 
substantially reduce the cost and the development cycle for 
validating AVs. Many advanced validation capabilities have been 
a direct result of Federal investment.
    We recommend that Congress continue to invest in the 
development of capabilities that lower the cost in the 
development cycle to validate AVs through Federal research 
grants and government contracts, such as NHTSA's IDIQ Programs, 
and to encourage the use of smart mobility test centers for 
validation of new technologies.
    Standards and regulations serve as the measuring stick for 
determining the readiness of vehicle technologies for safe 
deployment.
    Industry standards are used as input into Federal 
standards. However, they are often developed concurrently with 
Federal standards.
    Furthermore, Federal test procedures are often not tested 
by industry before they get written into Federal standards. The 
ability for industry to test prospective Federal standards 
before they are written into law will help ensure the laws are 
informed and feasible with less rework.
    We recommend Congress to provide funding to accelerate the 
development of industry standards so that they can be 
appropriately referenced in Federal standards and to evaluate 
Federal test procedures used in standards before they get 
written into Federal law.
    With regards to workforce, long-term global competitiveness 
of the U.S. mobility sector is tied directly to the talent 
pipeline that feeds the American workforce.
    As with any new wave of innovation, there's a spike in 
demand for the most highly qualified people followed by a gap 
in supply. In many cases with the right training, middle skills 
jobs can fulfill critical in-demand positions in the automotive 
sector while helping create good paying high quality jobs.
    There's a projected increase in enhanced skills in 
software, data-related systems, and cyber-related work 
necessitating the need for up-skilling of the mobility 
workforce.
    We recommend Congress to make education and workforce 
development a key priority spanning the full talent development 
pipeline, starting with K-12 through professional development.
    The safe, timely, and successful deployment of new mobility 
solutions requires purposeful focus and investment by Congress 
and Federal agencies to develop capabilities for validation of 
technologies, industry standards to support Federal 
regulations, and a globally competitive workforce.
    The American Center for Mobility would like to thank 
Congress for allowing us the opportunity to share our insights 
with you today. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sarkar follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Reuben Sarkar, President and CEO, 
                      American Center for Mobility
Introduction
    Subcommittee Chair Senator Peters and Ranking Member Senator 
Fischer, Full Committee Chair Senator Cantwell and Ranking Member 
Senator Wicker, and other members of the Commerce Committee, I thank 
you for the invitation to speak regarding the future of vehicle safety, 
mobility, and technology and the ways in which Congress and 
stakeholders can help the automotive industry, which merges now with 
the mobility industry, to provide equitable access, create job growth, 
and position America at the forefront of global innovation.
    My name is Reuben Sarkar, and I am the President & CEO of the 
American Center for Mobility (ACM), a non-profit, public private 
partnership comprised of government, industry, and academic 
organizations. ACM is uniquely positioned for accelerating the mobility 
industry through research, testing, standards development, and 
educational workforce programming. Located in Southeast Michigan on 
over 500-acres at the historic Willow Run site, where 80 years ago 
Henry Ford led America in the Arsenal of Democracy by creating a new 
workforce and using innovative technologies to build one bomber an 
hour, an effort that helped win WWII. Today, the Willow Run site has 
over $200M invested into new mobility innovations including 
infrastructure, facilities, technologies, and equipment that make up 
the ACM's premiere global smart mobility test center. This test center 
provides a safe platform for the research, testing and validation of 
emerging vehicle and mobility technologies, environments for showcasing 
vehicle technologies and convening industry, government, and academic 
activities, and an innovation technology campus for the co-location of 
mobility companies. ACM is a neutral convener of mobility topics, led 
by an Industry Advisory Board comprised of automotive, communications, 
and technology companies that inform ACM on facility development, and 
form dedicated committees that focus and inform on a variety of 
mobility topics.
    My remarks today will focus primarily on ACM's core competencies in 
research, testing, standards development, and educational workforce 
development. Further, I will comment on the importance of the 
differentiation between closed track and open road testing, and the 
continued need for smart mobility test centers as leading-edge, 
controlled, and safe places to research, test and validate new mobility 
technologies.
Relevant Statistics
    According to NHTSA, there were 36,096 fatalities in motor vehicle 
traffic crashes in 2019, a slight decrease over 2018, the vast majority 
resulting from human error.\1\ Based on preliminary projections, GHSA 
estimates that the nationwide number of pedestrians killed in motor 
vehicle crashes in 2019 was 6,590, an increase of 5 percent from 2018, 
which in turn was up 3.4 percent from 2017.\2\ The average U.S. 
household spends over 15 percent of its total family expenditures on 
transportation, making it the most expensive spending category after 
housing.\3\ This can be up to 30 percent for lower income households. 
From an energy and environment perspective, the transportation sector 
accounts for approximately 30 percent of total U.S. energy needs and is 
the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the energy 
sector.\4\ However, advances in mobility technologies ranging from 
automation, telecommunications, data and compute have the U.S. at the 
beginning of a transformation of the way that people and goods are 
moved through an emerging mobility ecosystem--one that offers the 
promise to make transportation safer, more affordable, accessible, and 
cleaner. Transportation is also critical to the overall economy, from 
the movement of goods and people, to accessing food, jobs, education, 
and healthcare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/roadway-fatalities-2019-
fars
    \2\ Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2019 Preliminary Data / 
GHSA
    \3\ Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 37, ORNL, Table 10.1.
    \4\ Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 37, ORNL, Table 2.1 
U.S. Consumption of Total Energy by End-Use Sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Mobility Innovation
    The state of mobility innovation, as it pertains to ACM's areas of 
expertise, is dependent on the validation and readiness of vehicle 
technologies (e.g., automation), communications (e.g., cellular C-V2X, 
5G), data & computational infrastructure, cybersecurity, standards and 
regulations, and educational workforce development.
Smart Mobility Test Centers
    Smart Mobility Test Centers, such as ACM's, have been established 
on the principle of leveraging a three-tiered approach to AV technology 
development and validation. The use of virtual simulation followed by 
testing in a controlled environment and then carefully managed on-road 
testing is proven to be an effective comprehensive testing and 
development approach. It is acknowledged that autonomous vehicle (AV) 
technology companies cannot move directly to wide-scale on-road 
deployments by testing solely on public roads without incurring some 
level of risk and incurring prohibitive development costs and 
timelines. Also acknowledged is that it could take hundreds of 
millions, if not billions, of public road miles to encounter adequate 
scenarios and edge cases necessary to validate these advanced 
technologies. The ability to efficiently utilize the three-tiered 
methodology for testing has proven to be a more effective approach to 
advancing the technology and progress toward validation.
    It is a common theme in the AV industry that more advanced tools 
for modeling and simulation, coupled with better access to data 
management and analytics is needed to effectively support virtual 
testing activities. Leveraging virtual testing as a key component 
within the development cycle is one way to compress the overall 
development cycle. The ability to run millions of miles virtually in 
simulation to identify the limits of operating systems can save months 
or even years of development and data gathering time within the 
validation cycle. Modeling and simulation also allow for the 
integration of advanced features such as Augmented Reality and Machine 
Learning into the process, adding to the acceleration and rigor of the 
overall development cycle timeline. The more advanced the tools are, 
the more effective the virtual simulation is, resulting in less overall 
development cycle time and cost efficiencies. In many cases these 
advanced modeling and simulation tools are developed and enhanced 
through targeted research including federally funded research in 
partnership with U.S. National Laboratories and AV test beds that is 
leading to development of more of these advanced tools.
    Analysis of large public driving data sets is a necessary approach 
to identifying a more expansive library of edge cases that need to be 
run in simulation and validated in a closed track environment, prior to 
considering public road deployment. This supports the continued need 
for the availability of smart mobility test centers as leading-edge, 
controlled, and safe places to research, test and validate new mobility 
technologies. These controlled test beds require continued investment 
to provide state of the art capabilities and upgrades with evolving 
technologies necessary to enable the industry in the acceleration of 
advanced mobility solutions. Test activities and system validation 
accomplished in these controlled test beds are a necessary precursor to 
eventual testing and validation on public roads and to maintaining 
global leadership in new deployments.
    Controlled track testing is essential to the development and 
validation cycle as it allows for critical activities that are 
difficult to accomplish in a public road environment such as the 
following:

   Testing against true edge case with unsafe maneuvers, 
        erratic movements, incorporating multiple controlled vehicles.

   Validating interoperability between two or more 
        manufacturers, which would be time consuming and difficult on 
        public roads.

   Achieving reliability & repeatability for testing, necessary 
        to achieve validation.

   Accelerating the development cycle. By managing scenarios 
        and experiences in a controlled environment and leveraging 
        advanced tools it is possible to achieve an equivalent of 
        track-to-road mileage as high as 1-to-5000 miles. Public road 
        driving does not expose vehicles to challenging circumstances 
        often enough through normal driving.

   Scheduling controlled weather testing. Public road testing 
        would require you to wait for specific weather situations that 
        may need to be tested against. Certain weather conditions can 
        be created in controlled environment test beds.

   Offering unlimited configurations and technology 
        integrations. Testing new and variable infrastructure 
        technologies with vehicle technologies could be costly in a 
        public road environment due to bureaucracy and timing to 
        install and switch them in and out.

   Testing against variable communications and connectivity 
        levels. Controlled environments allow for the ability to 
        establish variability in connectivity and latency.

   Testing at night that is necessary to validate sensor 
        detection and classification.

   Engaging vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, 
        bicyclists, motorcyclists, and scooters into real world edge 
        case testing which is not advisable or in many cases allowed in 
        public road environments.

    Having national recognition and a level of Federal support for 
these AV test beds has taken a step back. In January 2017, the USDOT 
designated several facilities as national AV Proving Grounds (AVPG). 
This designation allowed for the facilities to coordinate, share best 
practices, and support the collective enhancement of these necessary 
resources. Following the designation of the AVPGs, Congress approved 
funding for which AVPG's could be eligible. The designations were 
rescinded in the fall of 2018 and the coordination and collaboration of 
these facilities has reduced significantly. There would be relevant 
value and national benefit for reestablishing those designations and 
establishing programs that support their growth and function.
Automated Vehicles
    Automated vehicles (AV's) or self-driving cars have demonstrated 
millions of miles of operation on public roads. In 2020, California 
Department of Motor Vehicles reported 1,955,201 of self-driving miles 
recorded in the state, down from 2,855,739 miles driven in 2019 due in 
part to COVID. Since 2017, California has demonstrated a 4-8-fold 
increase in the number of self-driven miles achieved without human 
intervention ranging between 28,000-30,000 miles driven between AV 
disengagements. This represents substantial improvements in self-
driving without human intervention from just a few years earlier.\5\ 
Industry leaders have demonstrated more than 20,000,000 AV miles 
including 74,000 miles without any safety-drivers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/
autonomous-vehicles/disengagement-reports/
    \6\ https://storage.googleapis.com/sdc-prod/v1/safety-report/2020-
09-waymo-safety-report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, according to NHTSA in 2019 on average there were 1.1 
traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled,\7\ meaning 
that the market leaders have only driven roughly 20 percent of the of 
the miles typically associated with a single traffic fatality. Studies 
have shown that to prove that an AV is 20 percent better than a human 
driver with respect to fatalities you would have to drive 5 billion 
miles. To demonstrate the same 20 percent improvement with regards to 
avoiding crashes or avoiding injuries it would take 28 million and 170 
million miles, respectively, which can take decades or more to 
accumulate through driving on public roads.\8\ While driving on public 
roadways demonstrates the real-world potential of these technologies 
and provides the most naturalistic driving data, it is prohibitive from 
a time, cost, and risk perspective to test AV's for commercial 
deployment solely on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/roadway-fatalities-2019-
fars
    \8\ Kalra, Nidhi and Susan M. Paddock, Next Stop, Neptune? Why We 
Can't Rely on Test-Driving Alone to Assess the Safety of Autonomous 
Vehicles, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, IG-128, 2017. As of 
April 08, 2021: https://www.rand.org/pubs/infographics/IG128.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
    Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) with lower levels of 
automation have been demonstrated to prevent or lessen the severity of 
crashes and are being commercially deployed with continued product 
development to enhance Level 2 automated performance. In 2019, research 
performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found 
that these systems can help to prevent and lessen the severity of 
crashes, with autobraking reducing front-to-rear crashes with injuries 
by 56 percent, forward collision warning systems reducing front-to-rear 
crashes with injuries by 20 percent, and blind spot detection reduced 
lane-change crashes with injuries by 23 percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-
3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/ADVA
NCED%20DRIVER%20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications and Connectivity
    Communications technologies that enable vehicle to everything 
connectivity (V2X) are still at the nascent phase of deployment. Recent 
FCC rulemakings on the 5.9 GHz spectrum have made dedicated short-range 
communications (DSRC) obsolete and require new upgrades to cellular 
CV2X technologies that are only now starting to be deployed for 
purposes of testing. 5G (or the fifth-generation technology standard of 
broadband cellular networks) has the potential to bring order of 
magnitude faster speeds (>10X), lower latencies and the bandwidth 
needed to connect many more devices than today's 4G technologies. We 
are seeing the roll out of 5G for personal devices such as cell phones 
today, but the full capabilities and infrastructure required to enhance 
vehicle control and operation through 5G connectivity are still years 
away.
    Connected vehicles and automated vehicles can be considered 
mutually exclusive technologies. AV's can be self-driven without being 
connected, reacting to what they can sense. However, to get the full 
benefits from cooperative driving, connected and automated vehicles 
(CAVs) require vehicle to vehicle and infrastructure (V2V and V2I) 
communication. There is still an open debate as to the degree to which 
connectivity is required for wide-scale deployment of level 4-5 AVs 
beyond specific operating design domains (ODDs) such as geofenced or 
low speed vehicle applications. If deployed properly, CAVs can greatly 
improve the safety, congestion, operational efficiency, and throughput 
of our transportation system, and further new streams of commerce and 
consumer experiences. CAV technologies require wide-spread, reliable, 
interoperable infrastructure networks, the timeline for deployment of 
which is still unknown. As such, AV developers are pursuing to deploy 
AVs in parallel with connectivity that will evolve over time.
Data Management and Analytics
    CAV technologies can generate terabytes of data per day per vehicle 
and petabytes even with very small fleets. The challenges to transfer, 
ingest, store, analyze, manage, and compute with such high volumes of 
data is one of the largest challenges related to AV's and CAV's, namely 
what to do with all of this data and how to pay for it. The data 
however, particularly from driving on public roads is extraordinarily 
valuable in its use for training artificial intelligence in self-
driving vehicles. Those who have access to ``naturalistic data'' from 
public self-driving are highly protective of the data as a major 
competitive advantage. It is very costly to develop and manage public 
road driving data that provides access to edge case scenarios that are 
currently not widely available. The infrastructure required to manage 
and to use this data both from AV development purposes and for AV 
operational purposes requires substantial investment. Optimizing data 
along with onboard, edge, and cloud compute is an open area for 
research and development.
Industry Standards
    Standards and Regulations serve as the measuring stick for 
determining the readiness of vehicle technologies for safe deployment. 
Industry standards are often used as inputs or referenced in Federal 
Standards and are actively being developed. However, in the case of the 
rapidly evolving mobility space they are being developed concurrently 
with Federal Standards and in some cases may be reactive to Federal 
Standards once they are released. Federal Test Procedures used in 
standards are often not tested by industry before they get written into 
Federal law or standards for U.S. DOT. The ability for industry to test 
to prospective Federal Standards and to provide objective input before 
they are written into law would help to ensure the laws are informed, 
feasible and further streamline both the process of enacting new 
regulations and the ability to test, validate and deploy new 
technologies, avoiding a lengthier and more reactive process.
    Providing equitable access to world class safety and mobility 
solutions will likely require creative fleet-operated/managed SAE Level 
4 and 5 ADS-dedicated vehicles (ride-hailing or product delivery). This 
is due to the high cost of these advanced systems, which make it 
unrealistic for them to be offered on entry level vehicle models and 
not able to offer equal access. The Industry is recognizing this 
challenge and has started defining best practices through organizations 
like the AVSC (Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium). AVSC issued a best 
practice on passenger-initiated trip interrupt systems, and most 
recently on safety metrics for fleet operated/managed vehicles. These 
types of best practice efforts regarding new mobility technologies will 
help provide a neutral platform to share information, lower costs of 
technologies and ultimately benefit consumers more equitably. Evolving 
the best practice guidance into testable standard requirements through 
work at sites like ACM will ensure adequate standardization of 
technologies and infrastructure.
    Standardization helps to ensure consistent design features for 
vehicles and infrastructure. This can streamline the testing process by 
limiting variability and improving interoperability. Testing currently 
being performed at AV test beds such as ACM require modifications to 
infrastructure at the test site to account for infrastructure 
variability. Currently, vehicles must be driven through multiple states 
to seek out unique infrastructure characteristics to ensure the vehicle 
is equipped to perform as intended. There is an opportunity to reduce 
this variability going forward through consistent industry standards 
and test requirements for new mobility technologies both within the 
infrastructure and vehicles.
Education and Workforce Development
    When the Willow Run WWII bomber factory was built in 1941, it 
included a workforce training and education center, because Henry Ford 
knew that an educated workforce is the only real differentiator. Just 
as it was then, a new era of automotive and mobility technologies 
brings to the surface the importance of building an inclusive and 
adaptive educational system, provides equity and opportunity. Long term 
global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive and mobility sectors is 
tied directly to the talent pipeline that feeds the American workforce. 
With any new wave of innovation, there is a spike in demand for the 
most highly qualified people followed by a gap in supply. On a global 
scale the ongoing growth in the technology industry has created a 
critical shortage of talent throughout all major business sectors. This 
coupled with the recent COVID crisis has intensified the already 
stressed talent and skills pipeline the automotive and mobility 
industries have.
    In 2019, ACM commissioned the University of Michigan Economic 
Growth Institute (UofM EGI) to research the skills demands related to 
the CAV middle skills sector.\10\ In many cases with the right training 
these middle skills jobs could fulfill several current in-demand 
positions in the automotive sector, while helping create good paying, 
high quality jobs that keep a large part of our workforce relevant in 
highly dynamic industries. As more CAV-related products move from the 
R&D space into production, the demand for middle-skills jobs in the CAV 
sector have correspondingly grown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.govrel.umich.edu/index.php/understanding-the-
middle-skill-workforce-in-the-connected-automated-vehiclesector/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Middle Skills report highlighted the forecasted needs for 
specific jobs, including CAV technicians, safety drivers, CAV 
maintenance technicians, and cybersecurity technicians through 2022. In 
addition to the base mechanical, electrical and electronic foundational 
skills required for these jobs, there is a projected increase after 
2022 for enhanced skills in software, data-related systems, systems 
thinking, and cyber-related work. Because this is a complex set of 
skills to obtain in a 2-year timeline, the report recommends that 
through strategic partnerships with OEMs and key industry organizations 
the ``development of experiential education programing could best 
supplement the institutional programing already developed.'' Course 
offerings that upskill and/or re-skill with hands-on, real-world 
experiences will play a critical role the success of the mobility 
workforce.
    The implications from this middle skills report require immediate 
and actionable attention towards curriculum development and technology 
integrations starting with K12 preparation, feasible high school 
certifications, hands-on high-tech universities, and lifelong 
professional development. The digital skills needed for the technology 
era are not just applicable to automotive and mobility-related jobs, 
but they mirror the overall growing skills needs in manufacturing, 
smart cities, smart technologies, electrification, infrastructure, 
healthcare, and general jobs of the future. The investments into 
curriculum to develop technology related skill sets will strengthen the 
American workforce and keep the Nation competitive globally.
Ensuring America Leads the Global Automotive & Mobility Industry
    The safe, timely, and successful deployment of will new mobility 
solutions such as connected and autonomous vehicles face ongoing 
challenges in the areas of research to develop new tools, testing to 
validate technologies, industry standards to support regulations, and 
education & workforce development to maintain a rigorous and globally 
competitive workforce. To move the current state of innovation forward, 
ACM recommends Federal policymakers to take action to address the 
following challenges:
Research & Testing
    Develop capability that lower the cost and lead time to validate 
AV's and CAV's.

   Invest through directed Federal Research and grants into 
        advanced methods and tools to help lower the mileage and cost 
        hurdle for validation AV technologies. This includes 
        development of more capable AV tool chains including modeling 
        and simulation tools that are validated against real-world 
        conditions, data management and analytic (DMAP) platforms, edge 
        case scenarios based on naturalistic data, and augmented 
        reality simulation tools which can compress lead-time, cost, 
        and lessen risk for public road validation.

   Invest into shared use smart mobility test centers and 
        closed tracks as test beds for safe, controlled, repeatable 
        testing and validation and interoperability testing of 
        connected and automated vehicle technologies.

   Provide more funding opportunities for directed Federal 
        Research through NHTSA Indefinite Duration Indefinite Quantity 
        (IDIQ) programs that leverage the capabilities of existing test 
        beds.

   Invest in R&D and demonstration for optimization of 
        communication and on-board vehicle, edge, and cloud compute.

   Establish a National Pilot Program through DOT for AV 
        testing and deployment that incorporates use of AV tool chain 
        and closed track testing ahead of public road demonstrations as 
        part of a simulation to track to road approach to ensure safe 
        deployment of AV pilots.
Industry Standards
    Accelerate the development of industry standards as inputs into 
Federal Standards.

   Provide funding to accelerate the evolution of best 
        practices and guidance documents into consistent repeatable 
        standards and test requirements will provide valuable 
        information that can be referenced by NHTSA in FMVSS rules. 
        Federal Rules that are based on standards help to ensure 
        harmonized system performance from the beginning, and limit 
        costly re-work or re-design. By accelerating and referencing 
        industry developed standards, alignment with industry can be 
        assured.

   Provide funding for testing to evaluate Federal Test 
        Procedures used in standards before they get written into 
        Federal law and standards for U.S. DOT. Industry to lead with 
        public standards available through standards (SAE Jdocs, UL, 
        AVSC) for Federal government to reference.

   Establish funding at the Federal level for efforts to evolve 
        the best practices being published by industry into standards 
        and test methods to ensure consistent, reliable, fleet managed 
        systems across state lines. This would ensure that OEMs and 
        Fleet Service Providers develop systems that are similar, 
        limiting confusion for the public users.
Education and Workforce Development
    The American education system needs to offer skills development for 
the fourth industrial revolution from a young age, provide new 
opportunities, and encourage lifelong learning to help American workers 
thrive for the next hundred years. From a Federal perspective the 
challenge of empowering the educational system and bringing new 
opportunities to the automotive and mobility workforce is complex, and 
the focus of the administration seems rightly aligned. ACM recommends 
the following areas of focus:

   Implementation of a National Automotive & Mobility Career 
        Awareness and Recruitment Campaign. Industry organizations 
        focused on talent perception and attraction continue to 
        identify the critical need for a lager talent pipeline. 
        Regional surveys show that students are not aware of new 
        opportunities in the emerging automobility workforce and/or 
        they are not encouraged by peers to seek careers in this sector 
        due to historic market volatility. There is a great opportunity 
        to generate interest for a new American workforce through a 
        coordinated national effort that showcases the diversity of 
        innovative, meaningful, and good paying jobs available today in 
        the automotive and mobility industry.

   K12 Foundations: The skills required for middle skills jobs 
        are complex and technical, education must start earlier with 
        focus on skills development for a technology focused world. 
        Acknowledge the critical need for and support K12 in providing 
        technology-focused, project-based curriculum for teachers and 
        students.

     Develop K through 12 curricula focused on evolving key 
            skills areas including mechanical, electrical, electronic, 
            software, data-related systems, systems thinking, design 
            thinking and cyber-related work, in addition to development 
            of critical soft-skills communication, task management, 
            collaboration, problem solving, ethics, and logic.

     Provide teachers with access to focused curriculum 
            using an agile approach that can evolve with the fast pace 
            of technology and industry needs.

     High School Certifications in high-demand middle 
            skills jobs such as: CAV technicians, safety drivers, CAV 
            maintenance technicians, software developers, and 
            cybersecurity technicians.

   Middle Skills Jobs: The automotive industry has a high 
        demand for middle-skills jobs including CAV technicians, safety 
        drivers, CAV maintenance technicians, and cybersecurity 
        technicians. The skills required for these jobs are highly 
        transferrable throughout the automotive lifecycle from 
        research, design, development, test, validation and through to 
        manufacturing, infrastructure, and service. With these skills 
        workers will have a foundation to build on, coupled with 
        ongoing training for lifelong employability. The gap will not 
        be filled quickly, easily or in a silo by one organization or 
        one state, but through a large-scale nationally coordinated 
        effort that acknowledges the shift in skills needs throughout 
        the automotive and mobility sectors. Success will be in the 
        long-term commitment from industry organizations to provide 
        internships, apprenticeships, and employment, and from 
        government for both academic and learning organizations, and 
        for the students who need time to build this complex set of 
        skills.

   High-Tech Talent: There is a need for high-tech talent, 
        including a variety of engineers including in software, 
        autonomous vehicles, and data science. Addressing outreach, K12 
        and Middle Skills topics will take time, but will set a base 
        for long-term growth of a high-tech talent pipeline and 
        ultimately, higher skilled and higher paying jobs. In the 
        current workforce there remains an immediate gap in high-tech 
        talent, where the lack of staff translates into slowed 
        technology development timelines. Continued efforts to 
        facilitate foreign support to fill talent gaps, will help 
        companies remain rooted to their American footprint and keep 
        work packages in an accelerated mode.

   Professional Development & Upskilling: With the fast pace of 
        evolving technologies, skills needed in the automotive and 
        mobility industries are quickly changing, too. To remain 
        employable, workers at all levels must adapt to a new learning 
        paradigm in which ongoing skills development is required to 
        stay relevant and in-demand. It is imperative that people have 
        the means and access to develop new skills as fast and as much 
        as they can. Providing incentives for targeted programs that 
        align with industry needs is a viable way to keep the talent 
        pipeline robust on a long-term basis, and American workers 
        best-in-class.

Conclusion
    The American Center for Mobility would like to thank Congress for 
its focus on and attention to the needs of the automotive industry. The 
ability to keep pace with technology innovations, facilitate their safe 
implementation into our society, and build a rigorous talent pipeline 
and a thriving workforce will succeed as much as they are enabled by a 
comprehensive and ongoing effort between all levels of government, 
industry, and academia. The ACM encourages purposeful Congressional and 
Federal engagement and investment into research, testing, standards, 
and education and workforce development to safely accelerate these 
enabling mobility solutions to market.
    This concludes the American Center for Mobility's statement. Thank 
you for the opportunity to share insights from the automotive and 
mobility industry. ACM looks forward to working with Congress in an 
ongoing effort to address critical issues that influence the ability to 
accelerate automotive and mobility technology innovations and 
implementations, and keep America globally competitive.

    Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Sarkar, for your 
testimony.
    I want to start this hearing with the questions by talking 
to you about your incredibly powerful testimony that you gave 
to open up this hearing. It was certainly very fitting to open 
it up with your personal experience.
    I'll just have to say that your advocacy, your relentless 
pursuit of a safer future, despite the very painful memories, 
is certainly getting Congress to focus on legislation that's 
going to help stop these drunk driving tragedies from 
occurring, and please know that I'm proud to co-sponsor the 
RIDE Act and I'll be with you every step of the way to get this 
done.
    I'd just like you to take a moment to tell this committee 
just why it is so important that the RIDE Act be taken up, what 
it means for your family, what it means for families all across 
America, and why we need to move this legislation forward.
    Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Chair Peters, and thank you again 
for your support and co-sponsorship of the RIDE Act. I cannot 
tell you how incredibly grateful we are for that support.
    You know, for those who know me and, Chair Peters, I know 
we've known each other for some years, political advocacy has 
always been something that has ran through my blood, but it is 
different when an issue comes knocking on your front door.
    The loss of my family upended my world and there are still 
very few words that I can find that allow me to articulate 
adequately the magnitude of this loss for me. It was just 
devastating for our family.
    As far as being involved, there's one thing that for me 
changed the game and that is when we attended the initial 
introduction of the RIDE Act in October 2019. There was a press 
conference held here in D.C. and during that event, MADD's 
Chief of Government Affairs shared with me how our family's 
loss changed everything and how we were familiar. We knew for a 
fact through a contact that we have who's been indispensable to 
us, Ken Snyder, who is the Head of the Shingo Institute at Utah 
State, that technology was and is available that could have 
saved my family.
    That was for me an awakening and I could not walk away 
knowing that my family's loss could have been prevented and it 
wasn't and I certainly cannot walk away today knowing that we 
can save 10,000 lives a year by putting this technology that's 
already available into vehicles.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Bozzella, as Rana mentioned, every day we have deaths 
on our highways. In fact, around a hundred people lose their 
lives on American roads each and every day. It's a horrific 
number and it represents one of our country's greatest policy 
failures in my mind, and when we talk about the hundred lives 
lost every day, there are hundreds of thousands of injuries, 
some of them debilitating, that occur on a regular basis, as 
well.
    We don't have to accept that status quo and certainly Rana 
Abbas Taylor articulated that very powerfully, that we need to 
take action, and we know a significant number of these deaths 
are not just drunk driving but it's also just simply human 
error, and we know that autonomous vehicles can eliminate that 
error significantly and literally save lives.
    You know, when we think of other technologies that have 
come along from air bags to seatbelts, they all had some 
challenges initially starting out, but we know the impact has 
been dramatic, and we know that this technology of autonomous 
technology has this power to save lives and every day that we 
delay implementing this technology and advancing the research 
and developing the technology further means more people will be 
dying on our highways. It's fairly clear.
    So my question to you, sir, is considering that this 
technology is the future of the industry, what do we need to 
ensure that they're built here in the United States, that the 
U.S. is the leader in this technology, and what are the 
consequences if we don't get it right?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question, and 
you are exactly right.
    We have to do better. We have to work with the sense of 
urgency to reduce highway fatalities and injuries on America's 
roadways.
    Automated vehicles hold tremendous promise. There is great 
opportunity here. We do need a national strategy. We do need a 
framework that gets us to a new type of regulation, regulation 
that recognizes the promise of highly automated vehicles that 
allows us to create an interim process right now to test and 
deploy AVs on public roads safely and to get the data necessary 
for the agency to rewrite the rules and to re-imagine Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards. That is absolutely critical.
    Here's what's at stake. Our competitiveness is at stake. 
Other nations that have automotive sectors aren't standing idly 
by. They are working every day to seize supply chains, to 
develop technology, and to write the rules of the road.
    We need to be in that game. We enjoy a leadership position 
now and we risk losing it if we don't create this national 
framework to deploy and test highly automated vehicles at scale 
safely and effectively.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you for that. A vote has been 
called and so I will recognize Ranking Member Fischer for her 
comments. I will also pass the gavel to her as I run to the 
Floor and, Senator Fischer, I will run back and be back in time 
for you to make sure that you can cast your vote, as well.
    Thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Taylor, I want to again thank you for being here today 
to tell your story, and I appreciate hearing your testimony.
    You mentioned that technology exists to identify driver 
impairment and stop a vehicle. Could you elaborate a little on 
that technology for us?
    Ms. Taylor. Yes, there are numerous technologies that are 
available and what we have come across, which is submitted in 
the RFI for record, are 241 available ones.
    Much of this technology is passive technology, driver 
monitoring, driving monitoring, and as simple--as I am not a 
tech expert and please know that I am here specifically on 
behalf of my family and the families of those MADD victims that 
have been working on this, but what I do know is the technology 
is available. It is passive. It is as simple as even a code 
switch to get it into vehicles, yet we are still holding on.
    I hope that from my perspective the Committee members can 
understand what I hear when I hear that either it's not time 
yet or I hear that more research needs to be done, I just hear 
that more lives need to be lost before we can do this and 
that's not OK and it's not enough for me and I know it's not 
enough for the many victims that have been advocating 
tirelessly to make sure no families go through what we have.
    Thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much for your powerful and 
impactful testimony.
    Mr. Bozzella and Ms. Wilson, in January NHTSA announced a 
final rule to update certain definitions in vehicle 
crashworthiness standards to account for automated and 
passengerless vehicles. However, NHTSA has not officially 
published that final rule, meaning the rule has not gone into 
effect.
    Do you believe NHTSA should publish that final rule and, if 
so, why? Start with Ms. Wilson.
    Ms. Wilson. We submitted comments to those rules. 
Crashworthiness is something we work on very closely with our 
customers obviously. We think there's a lot of data there. As 
Ms. Taylor recognized, there's a lot of data out there on 
passive technology.
    I would have to get back to you about whether we think it's 
time to publish that specific rule.
    But I would like to go back to a theme that Ms. Taylor 
talked about in her original testimony. It is not okay where we 
are. In our witness statement, we have said that NHTSA has lost 
a lot of its momentum and I want to be really clear about where 
the supplier industry is on the NCAP Program.
    The NCAP Program has sufficient data to move forward, to 
really talk to consumers about these passive technologies that 
she mentioned, like AEB, lanekeeping, blind spot detection, to 
give that information, and they can do this very quickly.
    At the same time, we can talk about these roadmaps or other 
things that can be done because, as we know, and you've sort of 
mentioned that in your question, these rulemakings take a 
substantial amount of time and we don't quite understand why we 
should hold still for that time for rulemaking when we can 
start to provide some consumers with at least the tools to move 
forward.
    It's not OK where we are. We're losing ground 
competitively, but we are also losing lives every day.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you.
    Mr. Bozzella, please.
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, Senator Fischer. I agree with Ann. I 
think there's an opportunity here to take a more strategic and 
more robust approach to this through NCAP. We haven't looked at 
NCAP and really addressed NCAP since 2011.
    We have an opportunity to use that really important tool to 
add crash avoidance technologies right now to kind of kick 
start the program as well as to lay out a roadmap to make sure 
that we're focused on the right technologies that stakeholders 
are contributing and that we identify the regulations of the 
future that are necessary to continue to improve safety.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you.
    I know both of your organizations have called for updating 
NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program, which provides vehicle 
safety ratings for public information.
    Why is updating NCAP important to your members, and can you 
briefly describe your recommendations?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, Senator. First, the first recommendation 
is to establish long-term and mid-term roadmaps, technology 
roadmaps, opportunities for regulators and technology 
innovators as well as other stakeholders to come together and 
lay out a long-term game plan. What that does is it creates a 
win-win-win.
    Manufacturers understand how the regulators are looking at 
these technologies and we can bring them into the fleet and use 
the New Car Assessment Program to create ratings. This produces 
consumer confidence.
    We think another important recommendation is to bring all 
of the stakeholders together, other researchers, other safety 
advocates and others who have opinions about the importance of 
safety ratings.
    And then, finally, we would suggest adding crash avoidance 
technologies to NCAP right now, things like automatic emergency 
braking and forward collision warning systems, lane-keep assist 
and the like, because we should be rating those technologies, 
as well.
    Senator Fischer. Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. And I think one thing to reiterate here is 
that--well, first of all, our NCAP Program is rated one of the 
worst, least effective NCAP Programs in the world.
    I'll get you for the record the list of technologies, but 
it is sad. You talk about a competitive disadvantage, it's 
right there in how they rate NCAP Programs. So, first of all, 
that's one piece of this.
    A lot of these technologies are already available on 
vehicles. Many times when you go buy a vehicle right now, 
you'll have AEB and other things. We need to get this 
information out there, and I think one of the refrains that we 
keep hearing is a lot of this information is already available 
to the Department of Transportation and to NHTSA. There is a 
full docket on NCAP.
    I think where we may disagree a little bit with our 
customers is I think we're willing to be a little bit more 
forward leaning and take a look and say to NCAP, look, can't 
you provide a forward-looking roadmap, too, so that not just 
talk about the here and now but how we move forward with 
things, and again we want to work with our vehicle 
manufacturers, with all of you, and with NHTSA, but there's no 
reason to delay.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
    Senator Klobuchar, you are recognized.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much, Senator 
Fischer, and thank you to our witnesses, and I really 
appreciate what you're doing, and I especially wanted to 
acknowledge you, Ms. Taylor, for your advocacy.
    I worked a lot with MADD in my former job as a prosecutor 
and actually passed our first felony drunk driving bill and the 
fact that you're willing to share such a horrendous story to 
save others' lives, I really appreciate. So thank you.
    And so I wanted to start out with really I think that as we 
look at this, we look at these innovations in technology, we 
know that in the right hands and with the right training, they 
can be good things.
    Mr. Sarkar, in your testimony, you note that automatic 
braking can reduce front-to-rear crash injuries by 56 percent. 
However, these features are usually optional, I know this 
having looked for cars recently, rather than standard, and 
they're an additional cost. So, you know, forget about people 
that can afford it trying to do it.
    How are we eventually going to make these big safety 
features available to lower-income populations?
    Mr. Sarkar. Senator Klobuchar, thank you for the question.
    I think in response to that, I mean, many of these 
technologies are still at the forefront of being deployed into 
the marketplace and like many technologies, the more deployment 
you get and the more scale you get, the lower the cost of these 
technologies and the greater the ability to deploy them in 
mass.
    And so our focus at ACM is to try to help accelerate the 
validation of these technologies across a wider spectrum of 
companies and suppliers making more readily available the 
technologies and with increasing competition and choices that 
also helps to drive down the cost of these solutions into the 
marketplace.
    So I think it's really about moving forward with purpose 
and trying to test more rapidly and validate these technologies 
for broader deployment across more cars.
    Senator Klobuchar. And what more do you think we can do to 
ensure that we have proper safeguards to prevent misuse of AV 
so that AV can live up to the promise of that enhanced safety? 
I think that's something that's on people's minds a lot.
    Mr. Sarkar. I do agree, and I think that validation has to 
be viewed from more than one dimension.
    Oftentimes we think of testing a technology to see whether 
the automation features work. For example, if a pedestrian 
walks in front, will the car stop? We don?t often think about 
what the human factor interactions are, the consumer behavior, 
how consumers interact with these technologies and understand 
the readiness and capabilities of these technologies, and so we 
see a lower level of trust because people are seeing the 
results of potential misuse of technologies or maybe over-
reliance on these.
    So I think that there needs to be an increased focus on 
validating not only what happens in the vehicle systems outside 
the car but what happens inside the car and to do more 
purposeful research and studies through NHTSA and other 
organizations to actually understand human factors and consumer 
behavior and then make sure that the designs represent, you 
know, consumer-centric usage of these technologies, not just 
technology-centric applications of these assist features.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Mr. Bozzella, in your 
testimony, you note that the ``key to building consumer 
acceptance is consumer education.''
    So in your view, what can we do to ensure that consumers 
are getting that education so that they can safely use this 
technology?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    A couple of things. One is I do think it's important, as I 
mentioned earlier in response to Senator Fischer's question, to 
update and modernize NCAP because that is an important source 
of information for consumers.
    Second, I think it's really important. You note questions 
about consumer acceptance of technologies on the road today. As 
you know, there are no highly automated vehicles on the road, 
only vehicles that require the driver to be engaged in the 
driving task and yet we see some concerns.
    This is why we announced today driver monitoring principles 
to go with ADAS systems, in other words, automated driver 
assist systems, to make sure that consumers have the confidence 
and the awareness of not only what these systems do but what 
their limitations are, as well, and these principles are 
comprehensive.
    They also address things like what we call these 
technologies and what we call them ought to be rationally 
related to how they work and what their limitations are and 
they address questions about dealing with misuse as we design, 
and abuses as we design the systems.
    So I think driver monitoring and the work that we're doing 
is really an important step in improving consumer awareness and 
consumer acceptance of technologies on the road today.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    And I've done a lot on distracted driving, passing 
legislation on this, care a lot about this. I'll ask those 
questions on the record in deference to my fellow Senator.
    So thank you all very much, and thank you for holding this 
hearing, Senator Peters.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Fischer, for taking 
over.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Blumenthal, you're recognized for your questions.

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

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Peters. Thank you 
for all your good work on transportation through this committee 
and in our Senate.
    As you know, earlier this month, a 2019 Tesla Model S 
crashed into a tree killing two men in Spring, Texas. According 
to the reports, investigators are, quote unquote, hundred 
percent certain that no one was in the driver's seat at the 
time of the crash. Minutes before the crash, the wives of the 
men were said to overhear them talking about the autopilot 
feature of the vehicle.
    In 2019, more than 39,000 people were killed in motor 
vehicle crashes. This most recent crash is the latest in a rash 
of accidents, 28, that NHTSA is investigating involving a Tesla 
car. That is not necessarily connected to the other 30,000 or 
plus crashes that have occurred, but Consumer Reports recently 
conducted a test showing that Tesla's vehicles can be easily 
tricked into thinking that there's someone behind the wheel 
even when there isn't.
    I was very disappointed that Tesla, through its CEO, took 
to Twitter to downplay the involvement of the company's 
advanced driver assistance system before both the NTSB and 
NHTSA have completed their ongoing investigation into the 
deadly accident.
    Tesla's crash highlights that there are many unanswered 
questions regarding the technology that purports to be 
automated and, sadly, there are no current regulations to 
provide the public with a lot of comfort that more automation 
without significantly upgraded consumer protection is the 
answer.
    So I'd like to ask all of the witnesses what steps should 
Federal regulators take to address the concern among consumers 
about the safety of advanced driver assistance systems?
    Mr. Bozzella. Senator, I'm happy to start and if that's OK.
    First, I think it's important to make clear that I know of 
no vehicles in the U.S. marketplace today that are self-driving 
vehicles. Every vehicle I know of in the U.S. marketplace today 
requires the driver to be completely engaged in the driving 
task at all times.
    Highly automated vehicles are important to our future and 
their regulation is necessary to develop new Federal motor 
vehicle standards.
    This issue that we're discussing now, and I agree with you, 
is one of consumer awareness and consumer confidence. This is 
why we outlined these driver monitoring principles today.
    Senator Blumenthal. And just to interrupt you maybe to 
clarify the question.
    You know, we're going through a process now with vaccines. 
The FDA certified them on an emergency use basis because we are 
in the midst of an emergency for wide dissemination and 
implementation, and then they reviewed the Johnson & Johnson 
vaccine when there was question about them. So confidence, 
trust, very important. Federal regulators there are imposing 
oversight and scrutiny.
    What should Federal regulators do here?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, Senator, these vehicles are clearly 
already subject to NHTSA's investigative and defect authority. 
That's really important. They are already on the road. Drivers 
need to be engaged in the driving task.
    We think an important next step, and I believe, based on 
legislation you've introduced recently that we share both a 
diagnosis of one of the challenges as well as potential 
solution, the driver monitoring is an important element of this 
and so we want to work with the regulators and with 
policymakers like yourself, my home state Senator, to move that 
initiative forward.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Others?
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Senator.
    We would actually like to work with our customers and with 
you on exactly that, but I think one of the things that we need 
to watch out for, and I think the vaccine case that you 
mentioned is a good example, these automated technologies also 
are building blocks of safety.
    So when you listen to Ms. Abbas Taylor's very moving 
testimony and she talks about the kinds of technologies we can 
put on vehicles now that could save lives, they are automated 
technologies, and so we really would like to see both them out 
there more, so why we support NCAP, and then a roadmap of how 
we work for either mandates or other ways that they move 
forward.
    This will allow consumers to get more understanding of 
this, but I share your concern. I had an argument over a dinner 
table with an owner of a Tesla who said he put it on autopilot 
and I said, well, that's not possible, and she did not believe 
me, but, you know, I think I share your concern about this and 
it is a real concern.
    So we think that NHTSA can do more and should do more. As 
we've said, they've lost momentum, but I know that we join with 
our customers and we'd be willing to work with you on the right 
steps forward.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to submit for the record the 
statement of Katherine Chase, President of Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety.
    Senator Peters. Without objection.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, 
                 Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Introduction
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of 
public health, safety, 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 respectfully request this statement be 
included in the hearing record.
    According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), 36,096 people were killed and an estimated 2.81 million more 
were injured in traffic crashes in 2019.\1\ NHTSA currently values each 
life lost in a crash at $11.6 million.\2\ The crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities impose a financial burden of well over $800 billion in total 
costs to society--$242 billion of which are direct economic costs, 
equivalent to a ``crash tax'' of $784 on every American.\3\ When 
adjusted solely for inflation, total costs reach nearly a trillion 
dollars annually. In 2018, crashes alone cost employers $72.2 
billion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Overview of Motor Vehicle 
Crashes in 2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2020, DOT HS 813 060. Statistics are from 
the U.S. Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted.
    \2\ John Putnam, U.S. 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.
    \3\ ``The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 
2010,'' NHTSA (2015).
    \4\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of 
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adding to this burden are serious and fatal crashes involving 
vehicles with autonomous capabilities which are occurring with alarming 
frequency. Only ten days ago, a crash involving a Tesla Model S in 
Houston claimed the lives of both of its occupants. Officials at the 
scene reported that it was traveling at ``a high rate of speed'' while 
``no one was driving the vehicle at the time of the crash.''\5\ In 
fact, investigators believe neither occupant was in the driver's seat 
at the time of the crash.\6\ Moreover, NHTSA recently disclosed that it 
currently has 23 active investigations of crashes involving Tesla 
vehicles, at least three of which are recent including the Houston 
crash.\7\ In addition, the recent fatal Tesla crash has raised yet more 
concerns about the worrisome pattern of incidents involving these 
systems such as the inability to ensure the human operator remains 
engaged in the driving task and proper safeguards to prevent misuse.\8\ 
With the tragic and notable exception of the fatal Uber crash, these 
crashes have not killed people outside of the vehicles.\9\ However, 
without needed safeguards, it seems only a matter of time until these 
vehicles crash not only into police cruisers and fire trucks, but also 
into actual first responders and other innocent road users.\10\ Rather 
than waiting for this fait accompli, Congress must enact legislation to 
require regulation of the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bryan Pietsch, No Driver in Tesla Crash That Killed 2, 
Officials Say, NY Times (Apr. 9, 2021).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ David Shepardson, U.S. safety agency reviewing 23 Tesla 
crashes, three from recent weeks, Reuters (Mar. 18, 2021).
    \8\ Rebecca Elliot, Congressmen, Consumer Reports Raise Concerns 
Over Tesla's Autopilot, Wall Street Journal (Apr. 22, 2013).
    \9\ NTSB, Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental 
Automated Driving System and Pedestrian Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018, 
Report No.: NTSB/HAR-19/03 (Nov. 19, 2019).
    \10\ Clifford Atiyeh, NHTSA Investigating Indiana Crash Where Tesla 
Model 3 Hit Fire Truck, Car and Driver (Jan. 11, 2020); Alex Kierstein, 
Tesla on ``Autopilot'' Slams Into Stationary Michigan Cop Car, Motor 
Trend (Mar. 17, 2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sharp contrast to the deadly Tesla crash was the crash involving 
Tiger Woods, a prime example of the lifesaving benefits of regulations. 
Mr. Woods' life was saved, at least in part, by a seat belt, air bags 
and roof crush performance standards, all of which are required as 
standard equipment in cars. As Auto Week succinctly explained, ``The 
details of Tiger Woods' crash are still being sorted out by 
investigators, but in general, the world's greatest golfer can thank 
more than 50 years of government-mandated safety advances that he is 
alive.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Mark Vaughn, Tiger Woods Owes His Life to Decades of 
Government Safety Standards, Auto Week (Feb 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates Consistently Promotes Proven Technology to Prevent Crashes 
        and Save Lives
    Advocates always has enthusiastically championed proven vehicle 
safety technology and for good reason--it is one of the most effective 
strategies for preventing deaths and injuries. NHTSA has estimated that 
between 1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives have been saved by motor 
vehicle safety technologies.\12\ In 1991, Advocates led the coalition 
that supported enactment of the bipartisan Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991\13\ 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ 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.
    \13\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
    \14\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018, A Compilation of Motor Vehicle 
Crash Data, DOT HS 812 981, NHTSA (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advocates continued to support proven lifesaving technologies as 
standard equipment in all vehicles in other Federal legislation and 
regulatory proposals. These efforts include: tire pressure monitoring 
systems;\15\ rear outboard 3-point safety belts;\16\ electronic 
stability control;\17\ rear safety belt reminder systems;\18\ brake 
transmission interlocks;\19\ safety belts on motorcoaches;\20\ 
electronic logging devices for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) \21\; 
and, rear-view cameras.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
    \16\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
    \17\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, 
Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, 
Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, Advocates has been a leading safety voice in the fight 
against alcohol-impaired driving. Our organization supported the 
development of breathalyzer technology which is essential to 
enforcement of impaired driving laws and keeping drunk drivers off the 
road. Additionally, together with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 
Advocates was a leading supporter in Federal and state efforts to 
reduce blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws from .10 to .08 percent 
and achieve a national law.\23\ Lastly, Advocates has long supported a 
.05 percent BAC threshold for drunk driving and the enactment of all-
offender ignition interlock device (IID), child endangerment and open 
container laws.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations, 2001. Pub. L. 106-346 (Oct. 23, 2000).
    \24\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 2020 Roadmap of State 
Highway Safety Laws (Jan. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS): Proven Technology that Can 
        Prevent Crashes and Save Lives
    Every day on average, over 100 people are killed and nearly 7,500 
people are injured in motor vehicle crashes. Compounding this tragedy 
is the fact that proven solutions are currently available that can 
prevent or mitigate most crashes. Advocates remains optimistic that in 
the future AVs may bring about meaningful and lasting reductions in 
motor vehicle crashes. However, that potential remains far from a near-
term certainty or reality. As Dr. M. L. Cummings, the well-known and 
well-respected Director of the Humans and Autonomy Lab, Pratt School of 
Engineering, Duke University, notes in Rethinking the maturity of 
artificial intelligence in safety-critical settings:

        While AI augmentation of humans in safety-critical systems is 
        well within reach, this success should not be mistaken for the 
        ability of AI to replace humans in such systems. Such a step is 
        exponential in difficulty and with the inability of machine 
        learning, or really any form of AI reasoning, to replicate top-
        down reasoning to resolve uncertainty, AI-enabled systems 
        should not be operating in safety critical systems without 
        significant human oversight.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Cummings, M.L, ``Rethinking the maturity of artificial 
intelligence in safety-critical settings,'' AI Magazine, in review.

    Yet, on the path to the future possibility of AVs, advanced driver 
assistance systems (ADAS) can prevent and lessen the severity of 
crashes now. 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.\26\ It is a transformational time in transportation innovation 
with the availability of new safety technologies in vehicles to prevent 
or mitigate crashes and protect occupants and road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently available proven collision avoidance systems include 
automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), blind 
spot detection (BSD), rear AEB and rear cross-traffic alert. The 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that:

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

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

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

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

   Rear cross-traffic alert can reduce backing crashes by 22 
        percent.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ IIHS, Real world benefits of crash avoidance technologies, 
available at: https://www
.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/
ADVANCED%20DRI
VER%20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf

    However, the widespread distribution of these technologies is 
hamstrung by members of the auto industry which are selling them as 
part of an additional, expensive trim package along with other non-
safety features, or including them as standard equipment in high end 
models or vehicles. This practice both slow walks mass deployment and 
inequitably provides access only to those who can afford an upcharge of 
thousands of dollars. Moreover, there are currently no minimum 
performance standards to ensure the technologies execute as expected 
and needed.
    Furthermore, an industry work-around to technology requirements 
which give an illusion of advancement is a voluntary agreement. Time 
and again these have been demonstrated to be ineffective as most 
recently evidenced by the March 2016 voluntary agreement among 20 
automakers to have AEBs in most new light vehicles by 2023. As of 
December 2020, two manufacturers, accounting for nearly a third of the 
U.S. auto market, demonstrate this lackluster response to the detriment 
of public safety. Only 46 percent of General Motors vehicles and 13.5 
percent of Fiat Chrysler vehicles were sold with AEB between September 
1, 2019 through August 31, 2020. Moreover, the performance requirements 
in the agreement are exceptionally weak and consequently can result in 
these systems not performing as well as they should. Additionally, at 
any time, an automaker could decide it no longer wants to comply with 
the agreement without any ramifications.
    It should also be noted that IIHS found that equipping large trucks 
with AEB and FCW could eliminate more than two out of five crashes in 
which a large truck rear-ends another vehicle.\28\ Considering that in 
2019 over 5,000 people were killed and 159,000 people were injured in 
crashes involving a large truck,\29\ Congress should take swift action 
to require the U.S. DOT to issue a safety standard by a date certain 
requiring this essential equipment in new trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Teoh, E, Effectiveness of front crash prevention systems in 
reducing large truck crash rates, IIHS (Sep. 2020).
    \29\ Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note; Overview of Motor Vehicle 
Crashes in 2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2020, DOT HS 813 060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, more than 990 children have died in hot cars since 
1990. Inexpensive technology is available today that can detect the 
presence of an occupant in a car and engage a variety of alerts in the 
form of honking horns, flashing lights, dashboard warnings or text 
messages. Such detection systems may have other useful applications. 
For example, this type of technology could detect whether occupants are 
properly restrained and may satisfy requirements for occupant 
protection. In fact, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
(MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141) directed the U.S. DOT to issue a rule 
requiring rear seat belt reminders in all new cars by October 2015. 
This regulation, which is long overdue, could be potentially met by an 
occupant detection sensor. In the future this type of technology also 
could communicate to an AV system that the car is occupied and if 
occupants are restrained properly.
    Legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July 
2020, the Moving Forward Act,\30\ would achieve the goal of providing 
lifesaving technologies as standard equipment on new vehicles. 
Additional legislation which also promotes these issues include: 
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act (116th Congress, S. 2700/H.R. 
4871)(cosponsored by Committee Member Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)); 
21st Century Smart Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6284); Safe Roads Act 
(116th Congress, H.R. 3773); School Bus Safety Act (116th Congress, S. 
2278/H.R. 3959)(sponsored by Committee Member Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-
IL)); Stay Aware for Everyone Act (116th Congress, S. 4123)(sponsored 
by Committee Members Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Ed Markey (D-
MA)); Five-Stars for Safe Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6256); and the 
Hot Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 2593), among others. These measures 
should be included in any surface reauthorization legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ The Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the path to AVs, requiring minimum performance standards for 
these foundational technologies will ensure the safety of all road 
users while also building consumer confidence in the capabilities of 
these newer crash avoidance technologies.
Impaired Driving is a Significant Threat to Public Safety, Yet 
        Available Technology Can Combat this Preventable Danger
    In 2019, over 10,000 people were killed in crashes involving 
impaired driving across the Nation.\31\ According to NHTSA, the 
estimated economic cost of all alcohol-impaired crashes in the United 
States in 2010 (the most recent year for which cost data is available) 
was $44 billion.\32\ When inflation rates are factored into this 
figure, the annual cost is $55.5 billion. In 2018, alcohol-impaired 
crashes cost employers $8.0 billion.\33\ Recognizing the serious danger 
posed to the public by drunk drivers, the NTSB included ending alcohol 
and other drug impairment in its 2021-2022 Most Wanted List of 
Transportation Safety Improvements.\34\ In addition, the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has decried the human and 
financial costs associated with impaired driving noting several 
commonsense preventative measures including the implementation of 
ignition interlock devices (IIDs).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Traffic Safety Facts: 2018 Data; Alcohol-Impaired Driving, 
NHTSA, Dec. 2019, DOT HS 812 864.
    \33\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of 
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
    \34\ NTSB, 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety 
Improvements.
    \35\ Centers for Disease Control, Transportation Safety, Impaired 
Driving, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/
impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem of impaired driving is far from a new issue for 
automobile manufacturers. In fact, the industry has been working on a 
technological solution to drunk driving since at least the 1970s.\36\ 
In 2007, a major manufacturer announced it was developing an alcohol 
detection system, but over a decade later the technology is still not 
in vehicles.\37\ This tortured history, replete with the preventable 
fatalities of 10,000 people per year on average, demonstrates that a 
system to prevent impaired driving will not be in new vehicles until 
NHTSA issues a Federal standard requiring such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Thomas A. DeMauro, A GM onboard experimental alcohol and drug 
impairment detection device of the 1970s, Hemmings (Jan. 16, 2019).
    \37\ Associated Press, Toyota creating alcohol detection system 
(Jun. 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technology for driver monitoring, eye tracking, hands-on-the-wheel 
detection, and other indicators is already being developed, and even 
installed by some manufacturers, to target many key crash causes such 
as impairment, distraction, and drowsy driving.\38\ In fact, a feature 
in MADDvocate, ``Tragedy Inspires a New Direction for Advanced Drunk 
Driving Prevention Technology,'' recounted information from industry 
sources that ``the technology has been available for six or seven 
years. But, . . . will only become available if the government mandates 
it.'' \39\ The IIHS conducted research showing that impairment 
detection systems could save upwards of 9,000 lives each year.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Andrew J. Hawkins, Volvo will use in-car cameras to combat 
drunk and distracted driving, The Verge (Mar. 20, 2019); Christian 
Wardlaw, How Subaru's Driver Focus Works, Kelley Blue Book (Sep. 25, 
2020); Lexus Introduces World's First Driver Monitoring System, 
Bloomberg (Sep. 7, 2007). Additional automakers are introducing driver 
monitoring systems as part of SAE level 2 and 3 automated driving 
systems.
    \39\ MADD, MADDvocate, Fight For a Future of No More Victims, pg. 
10 (Dec. 2020).
    \40\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Alcohol-detection 
systems could prevent more than a fourth of U.S. road fatalities (Jul. 
23, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We commend Committee Members Senators Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Rick 
Scott (R-FL) for their leadership and dedication to curb impaired 
driving by introducing the Reduce Impaired Driving for Everyone (RIDE) 
Act.\41\ This bipartisan legislation will ensure that verified 
technology to passively detect impairment and prevent driving is 
standard in new cars. We urge this Committee and Congress to advance 
this legislation.\42\ With each passing hour, another person is killed 
in an alcohol-impaired driving fatality, on average.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ S. 1331, 117th Congress, 1st Sess. (2021).
    \42\ NHTSA.gov; See also Pub. L. 91-605 (1970).
    \43\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2019, December). 
Alcohol impaired driving: 2018 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. 
DOT HS 812 864). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autonomous Vehicles: Unproven Technology that Must be Subject to 
        Government Oversight to Ensure Public Safety
    While AVs may someday in the future bring about benefits to society 
including reductions in motor vehicle crashes, these potentials remain 
far from a certainty. Congress must not continue a ``hands off'' 
approach to ``hands-free'' driving. Commonsense safeguards and 
regulations are essential.
The Artificial Rush to Pass Federal Legislation Enabling Mass 
        Exemptions from Safety Standards and the Use of Fear Tactics to 
        Propel It
    Federal safety standards have been established using thorough 
objective research, scientific studies and data. They are also subject 
to a robust and transparent public process and ensure the safety and 
security of all road users. No demonstrable evidence has been presented 
to show that the development and deployment of AVs requires larger 
volumes of exemptions from Federal safety standards which are essential 
to public safety. In fact, since the first AV bill was introduced in 
2017, AV development has not come to a grinding halt. For example, in 
December 2020, General Motors announced it was launching self-driving 
cars on the streets of San Francisco.\44\ In February 2021, Ford 
announced it was investing seven billion dollars in AV technology 
through 2025.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Faiz Siddiqui, Cruise putting driverless cars on San Francisco 
streets for first time, Wash. Post (Dec, 9, 2020).
    \45\ Roberto Baldwin, Ford Makes $29 Billion Commitment to Electric 
and Self-Driving Cars, Car and Driver (Feb, 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, current law already permits manufacturers to apply for an 
unlimited number of exemptions. For each exemption granted, 
manufacturers can sell up to 2,500 exempt vehicles. Advocates strongly 
opposes any change to this law. Allowing huge numbers of exempt 
vehicles on the road (potentially millions) de facto turn everyone--in 
and around these vehicles--into unknowing and unwilling human subjects 
in a risky experiment. Allowing a massive influx of new vehicles exempt 
from FMVSS will have serious, costly and potentially deadly 
ramifications, both those that can be predicted or some that cause 
unintended consequences.
    Responding affirmatively to an artificial rush to pass legislation 
that provides tens of thousands of exemptions from current FMVSS, 
fueled by AV manufacturers wanting to be the first to market and recoup 
their substantial investments which already surpass $100 billion, could 
significantly undermine safety as well as public acceptance and the 
ultimate success of these vehicles.\46\ Numerous industry executives 
and technical experts have stated that the technology is not ready now 
and may not be ready for years ahead. ``We've had multiple years of 
claims that 'by the end of the year it's going to be magically self-
driving by itself without a human in the car,' '' Ford's autonomous 
vehicles head, John Rich, said at a recent Princeton University 
conference. ``It is not helpful, OK? It is confusing the public. 
Frankly even the investor community is very, very confused as to what 
paths are plausible and what the capabilities of the different systems 
are.'' \47\ In June of 2019, Gill Pratt, Director of the Toyota 
Research Institute said, ``None of us have any idea when full self-
driving will happen.'' \48\ Bryan Salesky, CEO of Argo AI, said in July 
of 2019, ``Level 5 as it's defined by the SAE levels is a car that can 
operate anywhere--no geographic limitation. We're of the belief, 
because we're realistic, that Level 5 is going to be a very long time 
before it's possible. I'm not saying that Level 5 isn't possible but it 
is something that is way in the future.'' \49\ John Krafcik, CEO of 
Waymo, said in late 2018, ``This is a very long journey. It's a very 
challenging technology and we're going to take our time. Truly every 
step matters.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Cummings, M.L, ``Rethinking the maturity of artificial 
intelligence in safety-critical settings,'' AI Magazine, (in review), 
citing Eisenstein, P. A. 2018. ``Not everyone is ready to ride as 
autonomous vehicles take to the road in ever-increasing numbers.'' 
CNBC.
    \47\ Russ Mitchell, Two die in driverless Tesla incident. Where are 
the regulators?, L.A. Times (Apr. 19, 2021).
    \48\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless, 
N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019).
    \49\ Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'', says VW-Ford AV 
boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
    \50\ WSJ Tech D.Live Conference (Nov. 13, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some proponents of advancing the deployment of AVs contend the U.S. 
is falling behind other nations. However, this fear-inducing claim is 
misleading as other countries are taking a more calculated, careful and 
cautious approach. For example, Germany requires a human to be behind 
the wheel of a driverless car in order to take back control and has 
other important elements including requirements for vehicle data 
recording.\51\ 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.\52\ In Canada, several 
provinces prohibit certain types of AVs from being sold to the 
public.\53\ 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.\54\ In 
China, all AV operations remain experimental.\55\ In sum, no country is 
selling fully automated vehicles to the public and by many accounts, 
none will be for a significant amount of time.\56\ The U.S. is not 
behind other countries in allowing them to go to market, but we are 
behind in establishing comprehensive safeguards to ensure that this 
progress happens without jeopardizing or diminishing public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Kyodo, JiJi, Cabinet paves way for self-driving vehicles on 
Japan's roads next year with new rules, The Japan Times (Sep. 20, 
2019).
    \55\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
    \56\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dangerous Shortcomings of the Current State of the Technology
    Several serious crashes involving cars equipped with autonomous 
technology have already occurred, many of which have been subject to 
investigation by the NTSB. These investigations have and will continue 
to identify safety deficiencies, determine contributing causes, and 
recommend government and industry actions to prevent future deadly 
incidents. As stated by NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt during a November 
19, 2019, meeting, ``our entire purpose for being here is to learn from 
tragic events like this so that they can be prevented in the future . . 
. This investigation has the ability to have far reaching implications 
down the road.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ NTSB Board Meeting: Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by 
Developmental Automated Driving System and Pedestrian (Nov. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this meeting, the NTSB considered the probable cause of the 
tragic crash that occurred on March 18, 2018, in Tempe, Arizona, in 
which Elaine Herzberg was killed by an Uber test vehicle equipped with 
self-driving features. Among the key issues the NTSB identified was the 
glaring need for sensible safeguards, protocols and regulations for AVs 
which are not yet being sold but are being tested on public roads. 
Basic safeguards are urgently needed as the NTSB also emphasized that a 
dearth of a safety culture at Uber contributed to this tragic outcome. 
Although Uber may have taken some responsive actions following the 
Arizona crash, it is unclear whether they are sufficient to prevent 
another fatal crash. Additionally, there is absolutely no assurance 
about the adequacy of the safety culture of numerous other companies 
developing and testing AVs on public roads. Some relevant and 
compelling quotes from the NTSB hearing buttress the views of consumer 
and safety groups:

        The lessons of this crash do not only apply to Uber ATG 
        [Advanced Technologies Group] and they're not limited to just 
        simply something went wrong and now it's fixed. Rather, it's 
        something went wrong and something else might go wrong unless 
        its prevented . . . This crash was not only about Uber ATG test 
        drive in Arizona, this crash was about testing the development 
        of automated driving systems on public roads. Its lessons 
        should be studied by any company testing in any state. If your 
        company tests automated driving systems on public roads, this 
        crash, it was about you. If you use roads where automated 
        driving systems are being tested, this crash, it was about you. 
        And if your work touches on automated driving systems at the 
        Federal or state level, guess what, this crash, it was about 
        you.
        --NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Id.

        NHTSA's mission is to save lives, first and foremost, to 
        prevent injuries and to reduce economic costs due to road 
        traffic crashes through education, research, safety standards, 
        which we are lacking here, and enforcement activity but first 
        and foremost it's to save lives . . . In my opinion, they have 
        put technology advancement here before saving lives.
        --NTSB Board Member Jennifer Homendy \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Id.

    Advocates urges Congress to heed critical information from our 
Nation's preeminent crash investigators. Findings from all these 
investigations should be released and incorporated as applicable into 
any proposed legislation. The findings are essential to developing 
sound and safe public policies.
Safeguards Necessary to Protect Public Safety in the Deployment of AVs
    Advocates and numerous stakeholders have developed the ``AV 
Tenets,'' policy positions which should be a foundational part of any 
AV policy.\60\ It has four main, commonsense categories including: (1) 
prioritizing safety of all road users; (2) guaranteeing accessibility 
and equity; (3) preserving consumer and worker rights; and, (4) 
ensuring local control and sustainable transportation. Many promises 
have been made about AVs bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes 
and resultant 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. Without the 
commonsense safeguards in the AV Tenets, 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. Requiring 
that AVs meet minimum standards and that operations are subject to 
adequate oversight will save lives and boost consumer confidence in 
this burgeoning technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ The AV Tenets are attached as Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, federal, state and local roles in the oversight of 
motor vehicles and traffic safety laws should not be drastically 
altered by Congress. The statutory mission of the U.S. DOT established 
by Congress in 1966 is to regulate the performance of motor vehicles to 
ensure public safety, which now includes automated driving system 
technology and AVs.\61\ For more than 50 years, the U.S. DOT, through 
the NHTSA, has issued safety performance standards for passenger and 
commercial motor vehicles. The role of states is to regulate road 
safety by the passage of traffic safety laws. However, in the absence 
of comprehensive and strong minimum Federal standards and regulations, 
the states retain a legal right and a duty to its citizens to develop 
proposals and implement solutions to ensure public safety. Legislation 
should not attempt to prohibit states, in any way, from advancing AV 
safety in the absence of Federal rules. In fact, during the November 
19, 2019, NTSB hearing, Board Member Homendy said, ``If you have a void 
at the Federal level, the states are going to need to fill that because 
they have to ensure the safety of their citizens.'' It is confounding 
that certain proponents of AVs advocate for completely disregarding 
established law by flipping the concept of preemption on its head in 
order to limit the rights of state and local governments to protect 
their citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. 
89-563 (1966)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lastly, numerous public opinion polls show a high skepticism and 
fear about the technology, and for good reason. For example, a public 
opinion poll conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) 
last month found that that only 22 percent of people feel manufacturers 
should focus on developing AVs while a majority (58 precent) want 
safety systems such as AEB in their next vehicle.\62\ According to a 
January 2020 public opinion poll conducted by ORC International, an 
overwhelming majority of respondents expressed concern about sharing 
the road with driverless vehicles as motorists, bicyclists and 
pedestrians.\63\ In addition, an April 2019 Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll 
found that 64 percent of Americans said they would not buy a self-
driving car.\64\ Further, 71 percent of U.S. drivers surveyed by the 
American Automobile Association (AAA) in March of 2019 would be afraid 
to ride in a fully self-driving vehicle.\65\ Any legislation should 
take into account and be responsive to these critical findings about 
public attitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Ellen Edmonds, AAA: Today's Vehicle Technology Must Walk So 
Self-Driving Cars Can Run, AAA (Feb. 25, 2021)
    \63\ ORC International and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 
CARAVAN Public Opinion Poll, January 2020.
    \64\ Americans still don't trust self-driving cars, Reuters/Ipsos 
poll finds, April 2019.
    \65\ AAA Annual Automated Vehicle Survey, March 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Fully driverless cars may have a future potential to reduce the 
carnage on our roads and expand mobility, but commonsense, lifesaving 
solutions can and must be implemented now. During this transformational 
time in surface transportation history, we should pay heed to Benjamin 
Franklin's infamous quote from 1736, ``An ounce of prevention is worth 
a pound of cure.'' While motor vehicle crashes often involve human 
behavioral causes, it is essential to remember these same fallible 
humans are developing AVs. The solution to safety is not to replace one 
human-error problem with another. Safeguards, transparency and 
oversight are vital to enable AVs to achieve the promises that have 
been put forth.
                                 ______
                                 
                   Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           November 30, 2020


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. While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
has the authority to issue motor vehicle safety standards for all 
levels of automated vehicles, for the last four years, it has abrogated 
this responsibility by focusing its efforts on inadequate voluntary 
initiatives. When Congress considers legislation on AVs, it is 
imperative that the protection of all road users is the guiding 
principle and that legislation requires the DOT to commence rulemakings 
on safety standards and issue final rules by a prompt date certain with 
a reasonable compliance date. The rulemakings must address known and 
foreseeable safety issues, many of which have been identified by the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other research 
institutions, 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) in order to facilitate the 
        introduction of AVs must be preceded by and conducted in a 
        public rulemaking process and cannot be undertaken by internal 
        Agency actions. 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. A lack of performance 
        standards has contributed to instances of dangerous 
        malfunctions of this technology, highlighting the need for 
        rulemakings for collision avoidance systems and other 
        fundamental AV technologies. As collision avoidance technology 
        continues to improve and evolve, it should also be required to 
        detect and prevent collisions with all vulnerable road users 
        and objects in the operating environment.

   ``Vision Test'' for AVs: Driverless cars must be subject to 
        a ``vision test'' to guarantee an AV will operate on all roads 
        and in all weather conditions and properly detect and respond 
        to other vehicles, all people and objects in the operating 
        environment including but not limited to Black and Brown 
        people, pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users and people 
        with assistive technology, children and strollers, motorcycles, 
        roadway infrastructure, construction zones and roadside 
        personnel, and interactions with law enforcement and first 
        responders. Any algorithm that will inform the technology must 
        be free of bias. Risk assessments for AVs must ensure adequate 
        training data which is representative of all users of the 
        transportation system. Manufacturers and developers must be 
        required to meet basic principles in the development and use of 
        algorithms including: the use of algorithms should be 
        transparent to the end users; algorithmic decision-making 
        should be testable for errors and bias while still preserving 
        intellectual property rights; algorithms should be designed 
        with fairness and accuracy in mind; the data set used for 
        algorithmic decision-making should avoid the use of proxies; 
        and, algorithmic decision-making processes that could have 
        significant consumer consequences should be explainable. The 
        DOT must review algorithms and risk assessment procedures for 
        potential issues, and any identified problems must be then 
        corrected by the developer or manufacturer and verified by the 
        DOT. Coordination and oversight should be led by the Office of 
        the NHTSA Civil Rights Director in partnership with the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, NHTSA 
        Office of Vehicle Safety Research, and NHTSA Chief Counsel's 
        office. The Office of the NHTSA Civil Rights Director should be 
        given adequate resources, expertise and authority to accomplish 
        this role.

   Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement: 
        Research demonstrates that even for a driver who is alert and 
        performing the dynamic driving task, a delay in reaction time 
        occurs between observing a safety problem, reacting and taking 
        needed action. For a driver who is disengaged from the driving 
        task during autonomous operation of a vehicle (i.e., sleeping, 
        texting, watching a movie), that delay will be longer because 
        the driver must first be alerted to re-engage, understand and 
        process the situation, and then take control of the vehicle 
        before taking appropriate action. Therefore, an AV 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. This mechanism must be accessible to all 
        occupants, including people with disabilities and vulnerable 
        populations.

   Cybersecurity Standard: Vehicles must be subject to 
        cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure 
        mitigation and remediation of cybersecurity events. The Federal 
        Aviation Administration (FAA) has a process for the 
        certification and oversight of all U.S. commercial airplanes, 
        including avionics cybersecurity, although improvement is 
        needed according to a recent Government Accountability Office 
        (GAO) study.\3\ The DOT should be directed, in cooperation with 
        the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to 
        develop a cybersecurity standard for automated driving systems. 
        The DOT should then require the cybersecurity standard be 
        applied to all new vehicles. The DOT must be engaged in all 
        relevant discussions on artificial intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United States Government Accountability Office, Aviation 
Cybersecurity, FAA Should Fully Implement Key Practices to Strengthen 
Its Oversight of Avionics Risks, GAO-21-86 (Oct. 2020).

   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. An ODD includes elements such 
        as: the type of roadway, geographical area, speed range, 
        vehicle operating status, and environmental and temporal 
        conditions in which the vehicle is capable of operating safely; 
        any roadway or infrastructure asset required for the operation 
        of the vehicle, such as roadside equipment, pavement markings, 
        signage, and traffic signals; and, the means by which the 
        vehicle will respond if the defined ODD changes or any 
        circumstance which causes vehicle to operate outside of its 
        defined ODD. The rule shall also: specify requirements for how 
        the vehicle will safely transition to a minimal risk condition 
        as a result of a malfunction or when operating outside of the 
        ODD, including the necessity for human intervention that is 
        accessible to all occupants including people with disabilities 
        and vulnerable populations; and, the ability of the vehicle to 
        comply with local laws as part of whether the vehicle is 
        operating inside the ODD.

   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. Additionally, 
        NHTSA must validate that the manufacturer's certifications of 
        functional safety are accurate and reliable by conducting their 
        own testing as needed.

   Safe Fallback: Every driving automation system must be able 
        to detect a malfunction, a degraded state, or operation outside 
        of ODD and safely transition to a condition which reduces the 
        risk of a crash or physical injury. In the event of a failure, 
        it is essential that the occupants of a driverless car have the 
        ability to assume manual control to complete or command a safe 
        transition to reach a safe location and safely exit the 
        vehicle. This mechanism must be accessible to all occupants, 
        including people with disabilities and vulnerable populations. 
        Commercial vehicles, including those used for public 
        transportation or freight, present distinct challenges, such as 
        the need to identify qualifications necessary to operate, that 
        will need to be addressed separately.

   Crash Procedures Standard: Requires manufacturers to have 
        procedures in place, including proper shutdown protocols, 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. Limits the circumstances in which manufacturers can 
        update a vehicle OTA and provides requirements for OTA updates 
        that necessitate a recall or an additional demonstration of 
        safety. OTA updates that enhance the safety of a vehicle should 
        not be optional or require the consumer to incur any additional 
        expense. During the update process cybersecurity must be 
        maintained. In developing the OTA standard, NHTSA should 
        develop rigorous testing around the most effective way to push 
        out OTA updates to owners and operators of vehicles. Updates 
        must be accessible for all users, including people with 
        disabilities. In addition, information on OTA updates should be 
        available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with 
        Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), 
        and via video with closed captioning as appropriate, as well as 
        other means of communication to promote access. In a commercial 
        setting, it will be especially critical for there to be clear 
        protocols for how and when OTA updates are carried out.

    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. Vehicles on the 
road today are already producing enormous amounts of data, and the 
amount and type of data will only increase as driving automation 
evolves. There are many stakeholders who need that data for numerous 
and varied reasons, most importantly safety. The DOT must issue a FMVSS 
requiring all vehicles to be equipped with technology that captures all 
necessary data to understand and evaluate the safety performance of AVs 
on the road. Moreover, following best practices, data on disengagements 
and near-misses would help to identify flaws in the technology and may 
allow cities and states to proactively invest in infrastructure 
improvements or update the design of dangerous intersections and 
corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Real-time data on 
vehicle speeds, travel times, and volumes enables states, cities, and 
communities to manage congestion and speed, uncover patterns of 
excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street design projects, and 
ultimately improve productivity and quality of life. It could also 
facilitate emergency response by summoning and providing important 
information to emergency personnel, assist in the safe extraction of 
occupants, and provide a way for first responders to safely disable and 
secure the vehicle. Safety and performance data should be made 
available to relevant stakeholders such as state and local governments, 
Federal agencies, operators or dispatchers of the vehicle itself, 
independent research bodies, law enforcement, first responders, 
insurers, and the public, 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. 
Moreover, submissions should be substantive and include, but not be 
limited to the following issues: ADS control capabilities; ODD; other 
limitations and constraints; methods and timing of driver engagement 
(if applicable); data definitions; recording; and, accessibility. Miles 
accumulated by simulation, as opposed to on-road testing, cannot 
substitute for on-road testing or serve as the sole basis for the data 
included in the submission. (See section below on Proper Oversight of 
Testing.) If NHTSA finds information indicating further operation of 
these vehicles on public streets poses a danger, the Agency must be 
able to intervene and enforce the law\4\ effectively, which will 
require not just the greater use of its existing authority but also 
new, stronger enforcement authorities that should be enacted by 
Congress (See section below on Additional Resources and Enforcement 
Authorities for NHTSA). If the Agency determines that a submission is 
deficient, manufacturers must be required to submit any additional 
information requested. The legislation should clarify that the Agency 
has civil and criminal penalty authority for false, fictitious or 
fraudulent submissions under 18 United States Code (USC) 1001. This 
submission process cannot be a substitute for NHTSA promptly issuing 
minimum performance standards through a public rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub. L. 89-563 (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proper Oversight of Testing: AV testing is already underway in many 
states and 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. The 
IRB requirements established by the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46 should serve 
as a basis for the requirements for IRBs overseeing AV road testing and 
be modified as needed for this particular use. Test vehicles should be 
prohibited from providing a service for compensation. In Section 24404 
of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 
114-94), Congress excluded test vehicles from having to comply with 
Federal standards as long as those vehicles are not sold to the public.
    NHTSA actions required:

   Develop empirical data reporting standards and metrics for 
        such data;

   Mandate developer reporting of the metrics to the public to 
        enable comparison of AV safety performance among developers;

   Require manufacturers to provide data on the safety and 
        performance of test vehicles and systems and to report safety-
        critical events including crashes and incidents that occur 
        during testing that result in death, injuries or property 
        damage;

   Verify developer compliance with all applicable laws;

   Make safety-critical event information publicly available 
        with the rebuttable presumption in favor of disclosure, unless 
        it is deemed proprietary or confidential in accordance with 
        Federal law;

   Determine which safety-critical events must result in the 
        suspension of testing until a thorough review is completed and 
        additional safeguards are implemented and verified by the 
        Agency, as necessary; and,

   Prior to the introduction of the AV into commerce, review 
        and analyze testing for oversight and research purposes, 
        including but not limited to rulemaking.

    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. The Agency also 
should be given additional enforcement powers including imminent hazard 
authority, and enhanced authority to pursue criminal penalties and levy 
larger civil penalties to ensure industry accountability and thwart 
misconduct.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ If NHTSA is not to have authority over the commercial operation 
of an AV, these same oversight powers must be conveyed to the 
respective modal agency responsible for overseeing the deployment of 
commercial AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteeing Accessibility for All
    Access for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Adults: Nearly 
one in five people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57 million), 
and 16 percent of the U.S. population is over the age of 65. Yet, 
significant barriers to accessible, affordable and reliable 
transportation remain across all modes, and many people with 
disabilities are unable to obtain a driver's license and cannot afford 
to purchase an accessible vehicle. Autonomous driving technology has 
the potential to increase access and mobility for 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 can be realized by 
Congressional directive ensuring access for everyone, including 
accessible HMI, and ramps and securement for wheelchair users. 
Discrimination on the basis of disability in licensing for SAE 
International level 4 and 5 AVs must also be prohibited. In addition, 
the diverse needs of all members of the disability community and older 
adults must be accommodated for systems that require human engagement 
as well as when developing a safe fallback.
    Access for Underbanked Populations: Access to on-demand transport 
services is often predicated on the ability to make digital payments. 
Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked or underbanked, 
with higher incidence in working-age disabled households, lower-income 
households, less-educated households, younger households, Black and 
Hispanic households, and households with volatile income. AV-based 
transport services must consider a variety of ways in which payment for 
service can be made in order to ensure that this technology supports 
equitable access and the inclusion of all.
    Equity: Transportation is an imperative part of life. It is the 
connector for people's work, medical care, worship, recreation, 
essentials for life and all other tasks. 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: The 
safety of passengers is not a monolith, and the measurement and 
descriptions of safety differ for all people in particular for those 
who are part of marginalized communities. The use of public 
transportation safely is currently partially in control of the 
operators of the modes and vehicles. Human interaction remains 
essential even when there is an AV and no operators. There must be 
clear plans that coordinate the safe transportation for all people 
including the need for delivery of medical care as well as laws that 
embrace social equity to protect those who are marginalized (Black and 
Brown people, Indigenous people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 
queer, + (LGBTQ+) people, people with disabilities, women, older 
adults, and all other groups) 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, including 
publicly accessible electronic owner's manuals, 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. Additionally, similar to the user-
friendly safercar.gov website, 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 driving 
system including those resulting from OTA updates. The U.S. New Car 
Assessment Program (NCAP) was the first government program to provide 
the public with comprehensive auto safety ratings, including crash test 
results. It is vital that Congress require NHTSA to act upon consumer 
and stakeholder recommendations to modernize U.S. NCAP (See Claybrook/
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety paper) and include ratings on how 
vehicles perform in crashes with motorcyclists, pedestrians and 
bicyclists. This enhancement of NCAP will be especially crucial as AVs 
are introduced into the marketplace. Consumer information should be 
available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with Section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), and via video with 
closed captioning as appropriate, as well as other means of 
communication to promote access.
    Privacy: Passenger vehicles have the potential to collect 
significant amounts of data that could interfere with personal privacy 
rights. Therefore, all manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles, 
including AVs, should be required to comply with robust data privacy 
safeguards and policies. Any personally identifiable information (PII) 
should only be collected or shared for purposes of delivering the 
services a consumer has requested or affirmatively opted-in to, with 
appropriately tailored exceptions for essential public purposes, 
safety, data security, compliance with regulatory requirements, and 
analytics/performance monitoring, among other purposes. Companies 
should be required to be transparent with consumers and workers 
operating a vehicle about the collection and sharing of information, 
protect information associated with the vehicle and the vehicle itself 
from data breaches, obtain consumers' express permission to sell or 
disclose their PII to third parties, and provide consumers the ability 
to access and delete PII that is not needed to support essential public 
purposes, safety, data security, compliance with regulatory 
requirements, and analytics/performance monitoring. 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. In 
addition, radio spectrum needed for traffic safety purposes including 
vehicle-to-everything communications must be limited to non-commercial 
use.
    Workforce Protections: The deployment of AV technology will have a 
significant impact on our Nation's workforce. While these technologies 
will create new business and employment opportunities, they will also 
lead to displacement and major shifts in jobs and job functions that 
will not necessarily be linked to those new opportunities, especially 
for those same individuals who are being displaced. Policymakers have a 
major role to play in determining whether AV deployment will help or 
harm working people and whether the benefits from these technologies 
will be broadly shared. 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 affected stakeholders. Congress must ensure 
that workers and unions are partners in the development and 
implementation of AV technology and policy. It must recognize the 
projected negative effects of a transition to AVs, including but not 
limited to ensuring strong worker protections in Federal funding and 
procurements, and providing worker support programs for current and 
future workers including training and re-skilling to ensure that 
displaced and otherwise affected workers are able to move into middle 
class jobs created by technological change. In order to achieve these 
goals, Congress must also take action to require companies and 
government agencies that plan to transition to AV fleets to be 
transparent and honest with their workers regarding budgets, plans--
including training programs--and timelines for the implementation of 
new technology. In workplaces where the employees are unionized and 
thus bargain collectively, these issues should be negotiated.
    Whistleblower Protections: Employees or contractors of any 
manufacturer, supplier, or operator of software or hardware for AVs who 
want to report safety defects to NHTSA should not be prevented from 
doing so as the result of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The type of 
protections afforded whistleblowers in Section 31307 of the Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141) 
as well as Section 24352 in the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) must be 
extended in any AV bill. In addition, the Department of Labor prohibits 
a NDA that prevents an individual from providing information to the 
Federal government. However, only a limited number of cases have been 
filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Therefore, more must be done to inform employees as to their rights and 
responsibilities when such a situation arises.
    Consumer and Worker Rights\6\: 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. Nothing in this bill 
shall exempt a person from liability at common law or under a state 
law, or permit a consumer to be required to forgo their rights by a 
manufacturer or provider of AVs. Moreover, exploitative independent 
contractor relationships that shield AV companies from liability and 
deny workers basic workplace rights should be explicitly prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 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: The statutory mission of 
the DOT established by Congress in 1966 is to regulate the performance 
of motor vehicles to ensure public safety, which now includes AVs. 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. Even after 
Federal regulations are in place regarding AVs, existing federalism 
practices demand that states retain a legal right and a duty to their 
residents to develop proposals and implement solutions to ensure public 
safety. In addition, state and local governments have the authority to 
manage the operation of vehicles on their streets to address concerns 
such as safety, noise, local air quality, and congestion. Any action on 
the regulation of AVs shall not preempt states and localities from 
regulating the operation of these vehicles just as they do for 
traditional motor vehicles.
    In-Depth Study of AV Impacts on Transportation Systems and 
Environment: AVs could have direct and indirect negative impacts on 
safety, congestion, pollution, land use, accessibility, transportation 
infrastructure capacity and needs, energy consumption, public transit, 
jobs and job functions, mobility and equity. DOT must be directed to 
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. 
Implementation of infrastructure to support the safe operations of AVs, 
such as placement of electric vehicle charging stations, visible lane 
striping, and uniform and unobstructed signage, must be equitable for 
all communities to ensure equal opportunity for people of all racial 
and socioeconomic backgrounds.
    NOTE: The AV Tenets outlined in this document do not constitute the 
entirety of each supporting organization's policy priorities related to 
AVs.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Glossary of Acronyms
ADS--Automated Driving System

AV--Autonomous Vehicle

CFR--Code of Federal Regulations

DOT--Department of Transportation

FAA--Federal Aviation Administration

FAST--Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. 114-94

FMVSS--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

GAO--Government Accountability Office

GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HHS--Health and Human Services

HMI--Human-Machine Interface

IRB--Institutional Review Board

LGBTQ+--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, +

MAP-21--Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. 112-
141

NCAP--New Car Assessment Program

NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement

NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIST--National Institute of Standards and Technology

NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board

ODD--Operational Design Domain

OTA--Over-the-Air

PII--Personally Identifiable Information

SAE--Society of Automotive Engineers

USC--United States Code

VIN--Vehicle Identification Number

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator, for your questions.
    The Chair recognizes Senator Thune for your questions.

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

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
important hearing.
    In the late 1890s, the newly invented automobile was met 
with more than a little skepticism, even fear, by 
contemporaries, as new technologies often are, and at that 
time, the so-called horseless carriage was initially an object 
of ridicule and early inventors struggled to find businessmen 
who were willing to invest, but by the year 1911, thanks to the 
ingenuity of Americans like Henry Ford, nearly 150,000 
automobiles were being produced in the United States each year 
and that number swelled to 1.5 million by the year 1920.
    The United States not only led the world in automotive 
innovation but in automotive democratization, as well, and 
today, the United States auto industry, which still produces 
more than 11 million vehicles annually, is on the cusp of 
another transformation.
    Automated vehicles or AVs will once again radically alter 
the way Americans move and this will be especially true for the 
elderly and persons with disabilities whose current 
transportation options are limited, especially in rural areas.
    Moreover, it has the potential to greatly reduce the 
average of more than 40,000 traffic fatalities on our Nation's 
roadways each year, and while the U.S. companies are currently 
leading the world in AV technology, this advantage cannot be 
taken for granted.
    China is already acting boldly to take the lead in 
developing this technology and if they do, China, not the 
United States, would play a lead role in the development of 
standardization of AV technology.
    Allowing China to seize the mantle of innovation is 
unacceptable and the U.S. must also act boldly to maintain its 
position.
    The United States regulatory framework has got to catch up 
with the private sector innovation in order for these 
technologies to advance and literally tens of thousands of good 
paying jobs and billions of dollars of investment are at stake, 
which is why the Chairman, Senator Peters and I have worked 
together for the better part of 5 years to develop and enact AV 
legislation that is part of a broader legislative framework to 
bolster American competitiveness.
    I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Peters in 
a bipartisan manner on this critically important legislative 
framework.
    AVs have potential to once again transform the way 
Americans move and the U.S. must once again lead the world in 
this transportation revolution.
    Mr. Bozzella, in your testimony, you highlighted a policy 
roadmap that reduces uncertainty in the development of AVs. 
Could you describe why expanding the number of exemptions which 
are granted by NHTSA only when an equivalent level of safety is 
attained is so important to the testing and deployment of AVs?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, thank you, Senator. I appreciate the 
question.
    It really is important. We have to create a new regulatory 
framework for highly automated vehicles, these SAE Levels 3 
through 5. In order to do that, we need more data and to get 
that data, we need to have an interim regulatory process, so-
called exemption process, that needs to be robust and needs to 
be expanded.
    The small current process doesn't give us enough vehicles 
on the road or enough data over a long enough period of time to 
really get that insight and data and so the more data, the 
faster we can get life-saving highly automated vehicles on to 
roads.
    I think the other point I would make is this is a 
regulatory process that ensures safety. These vehicles have to 
be as safe as or safer than the vehicles that they would 
replace and so absolutely the exemption process is essential to 
our continued leadership in this space.
    Senator Thune. All right. Ms. Wilson, I don't know if you 
can hear me. My screen froze up. Can you describe how expanded 
exemptions for AVs would benefit your industry and the millions 
of people that are employed by your members?
    Ms. Wilson. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, for your 
leadership on this issue and yours and Senator Peters. It's 
made a great deal to us.
    I think one of the important things here that we've talked 
about is our members are responsible for creating and working 
with vehicle manufacturers to create these new technologies.
    To be successful as a supplier, you have to be able to 
provide technology to a wide range of vehicle manufacturers. So 
one of the things that I think is so important about this is to 
allow suppliers to test on public roads, current suppliers who 
have customers who are currently validated to manufacture 
vehicles, so that you do again, just as Mr. Bozzella was 
saying, provide more data into the system, and the more that we 
know, we know what won't work and what will work.
    I think one of the things that's really concerning when you 
mentioned competitiveness, years ago an engineer for one of our 
companies said, look, you need to understand this isn't like 
making brake products or lighting products where we can do it 
to a variety of standards. Because of infrastructure needs, 
because of cybersecurity, we will make these only to one 
standard.
    So if we allow China or another country to move ahead of 
us, then we will not be able to catch up because this industry 
just will not be able to do it. So having those abilities to do 
more testing is critical.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, my time has 
expired. Thank you.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Thune, for your 
questions, and thank you for your partnership as we continue to 
work on legislation to bring this safety legislation forward 
and this technology forward. As we talked about earlier, it's 
unacceptable that 40,000 people die on our highways. Every day 
that we delay, more people die. We can do better than this 
status quo. Hopefully we'll be able to move this forward.
    Senator Lujan, you are now recognized for your questions.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I'll pick up 
where you left off.
    I want to make sure that we're helping to stop needless 
deaths on the road as part of this, and I want to thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, because you told me today and your team told me 
that you're going to be co-sponsoring the RIDE Act, and I have 
the unanimous consent with me right here. I'm going to drop it 
off after this hearing to add you as a co-sponsor of it. So 
just want to say thank you, sir, from the bottom of my heart 
and from so many families across America who are still telling 
their stories of loved ones that they've lost or how they've 
been victims of drunk driving accidents, as well.
    I also want to recognize Ranking Member Fischer and say 
thank you for this important hearing.
    Now the bill that I introduced with Senator Rick Scott 
would require rulemaking for automakers to include drunk or 
impaired driving prevention technology in all new vehicles. The 
technology would detect when a driver is impaired and prevent 
the car from operating.
    Mr. Bozzella, have you ever been hit by a drunk driver?
    Mr. Bozzella. No, I have not.
    Senator Lujan. I have. I got hit head on by a drunk driver 
29 years ago and there were many nights that I'd be driving 
home after that accident or driving anywhere and all I would 
see were headlights coming at me and it scared me to death. 
Couldn't sleep many nights because as soon as my eyes closed 
and there was darkness, two headlights would light it up.
    Do you drive a car?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I do.
    Senator Lujan. So you may have this shared experience with 
me sometimes where you've been in a vehicle and you see a car 
driving a little erratically. You see the vehicle go across the 
middle lane and maybe they go back over and they hit the rumble 
strip and then they accelerate and then they brake and then 
maybe you've seen it, I know I have, where they go into the 
oncoming lane. You're nodding yes, you've seen that?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I have.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Bozzella, today, just today, the 
Alliance for Automotive Innovation announced, I quote, ``Driver 
Monitoring Principles.'' These standards clearly show that you 
believe the technology is there, that every new car should 
include driver monitoring as a standard feature, the capability 
to issue driver warnings and the ability to re-engage the 
driver, is that correct?
    Mr. Bozzella. That is correct.
    Senator Lujan. And just this week, your member companies 
were calling on this committee to pass an amendment that gave 
an exemption to autonomous vehicles, self-driving cars, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Now my question to you, Mr. Bozzella, if 
your members believe AVs are good enough drivers to be exempt 
from liability in some cases, how many warnings should a car 
make before taking the wheel on pulling over, on calling the 
Ride Share for help? How many driver warnings should a car give 
before it knows that something is wrong and the car should pull 
over?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes. So, Senator, thank you for your 
question.
    First of all, I can't imagine what it must have been like 
to have that experience and I said the same to Ms. Abbas 
Taylor, and my deepest sympathies to you and especially to Ms. 
Abbas Taylor for what she went through.
    That is why we're working as hard as we can to do a number 
of things. First, we're working on passive alcohol detection 
technologies. We should detect blood alcohol content in people 
before the vehicle ever even gets underway and we're working to 
commercialize that technology.
    In addition, we're working on, as you point out, 
opportunities for driver behavior monitoring and driver state 
monitoring to be able to add to that overall situational 
awareness. All of these technologies have an opportunity to 
address this, and we want to work with you, with NHTSA, and 
with MADD to get this done.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Bozzella, are you prepared today through 
the Alliance for Automotive Innovation to support the RIDE Act?
    Mr. Bozzella. We are looking forward to working with you, 
with NHTSA, with MADD to help address and ultimately help 
eliminate drunk driving in this country.
    Senator Lujan. So you're not a yes yet today?
    Mr. Bozzella. We want to work with you on----
    Senator Lujan. OK. I heard you. Look. I'm out of time now 
to ask important questions to Rana who has an incredible story 
to tell about the loved ones that she's lost. All of the other 
witnesses here, Mr. Chairman.
    The simple answer is yes. We're asking for exemptions to 
have cars drive themselves. That means that somebody thinks 
it's OK that those technologies are watching what the driver is 
doing because they don't have to do a thing. This is easy. This 
technology exists today.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can sit down soon. I hope we 
get to an answer to yes. There's no reason that the United 
States of America can't lead, that we can't save more lives. If 
that's what I'm hearing out there, that's what shareholders are 
being told, then let's tell those families that were victims, 
those of us that were in cars that were hit head on by drunk 
drivers that we can stop this and we can get to yes on the RIDE 
Act.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Lujan, for those 
questions, and thank you for your passion, as well, on this 
issue.
    As we continue to develop these technologies, it's 
important that it's tested very thoroughly before it gets out 
on the roads, and, Mr. Sarkar, I know that is something that 
you're intimately involved in at the American Center for 
Mobility, is making sure that these vehicles are run through 
their paces, data is collected before they get out on the 
roads, and then you continue to collect that data clearly once 
they're out on the roads.
    My question to you, sir, is could you tell us about the 
type of testing work that you're conducting, specifically how 
it relates to leveraging autonomous vehicles or other 
transportation innovations, and what are some opportunities for 
us that you see?
    Mr. Sarkar. Yes, Senator Peters. Thank you for the 
question.
    So ACM is a shared use smart mobility test center which 
means that it's a type of advanced proving ground which goes 
beyond the traditional automotive proving ground in that it 
brings forward tracks tied in with advanced infrastructure for 
communicating to vehicles along with a lot of equipment that's 
necessary to test both connected and autonomous vehicles.
    Auto companies and Tier 1 AV developers all the way down 
into small startups can rent use of the facility, come and run 
tests to verify the technical performance of those systems.
    In parallel with offering the facility to do validation, 
we're in the process of developing and supporting the 
development of industry standards which I mentioned earlier is 
the measuring stick by which you determine how a technology is 
performing.
    So we work also with automotive partners through the 
American Center for Mobility to help accelerate the development 
of industry standards which will ultimately lead into tests for 
Federal standards and a catalog of tests that companies can 
come and test against to determine how well they're comparing 
to the measuring stick.
    I think one of the key things that we wanted to emphasize 
for deployment of these technologies in consumer comfort as 
well as comfort of the legislature is validation, right, and 
that's the focus of what we do at ACM, and so we provide a 
facility that individually would be too expensive for any 
individual company to purchase, but as a shared investment 
makes it more accessible to a wider variety of companies and 
lowers the hurdle for developing and validating these types of 
safety technologies.
    And then related to the question regarding what happens 
inside the vehicle and the consumer interactions with the 
vehicle, we do see a large opportunity to increase testing, 
validation, and research in the area of human factors and 
consumer behavior, so that you're not just testing these cars 
with an engineer in the seat and seeing how the technologies 
perform but you're testing it with the consumer in the seat and 
seeing how they're actually going to use these technologies in 
practice.
    Senator Peters. Thank you.
    Next, I'd like to turn a little bit to workforce 
development which I know, Ms. Wilson, you brought up and, Mr. 
Sarkar, in your testimony, you also bring up the topic, and you 
reference a report from the University of Michigan that 
explained that connected and autonomous vehicles will have 
enormous job growth potential as they move from research and 
testing to full-scale production in the years ahead.
    First off, I'd like you to elaborate on that in terms of 
the job potential as a result of this technology and then how 
we need to make sure that workers have the right skills and 
training to be able to take advantage of those opportunities 
and after your response, Ms. Wilson, if you'd want to add 
further perspectives of your members, as well, would be 
helpful. Mr. Sarkar?
    Mr. Sarkar. Yes, thank you.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, whenever you have a wave of 
technology innovation, there's usually a great spike in demand 
for the most highly qualified resources, Ph.D.s and graduate 
degrees, followed by a gap in the supply of qualified resources 
to help companies effectively compete and staff their ranks.
    That gap usually happens in the area of middle skills and 
the middle skills job, just to be defined here, is a job that 
can be acquired with less than a 4-year degree, perhaps with 
some college education, greater than a high school education.
    However, as these technologies evolve and we get hit with 
more and more waves of innovation, there's an increasing gap in 
that middle skills arena that could be filled with proper 
training and up-skilling to teach technicians some of the more 
advanced skill sets, such as software development.
    As you know, today's cars are no longer just mechanical 
systems that, you know, the hobbyist mechanic can work on. They 
require advanced skills to understand how software and 
computers in vehicles work, cyber-related issues. These are 
increasingly becoming cyber-physical systems. They're connected 
and therefore they have to be protected.
    And then in the area of systems level thinking, there's 
really an opportunity to take technicians and train them to be 
almost frontline engineers and what we hear from auto companies 
is they would like technicians who are more capable of doing 
that frontline engineering work, that systems level thinking 
and that problem-solving, that then helps them develop the 
products.
    So again I think there's a great opportunity to up-skill 
the middle skills area and then we also need to define that 
feeder of K through 12 all the way into getting more people 
coming out of college or through apprenticeships with the right 
skills to work on not only the vehicles but the infrastructure 
that's going to be deployed throughout our transportation 
system network.
    Senator Peters. Thank you.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Yes, Senator. If you got a group of our CEOs in 
a room, they would tell you the two most critical issues they 
have right now to continue to operate in the United States are 
workforce and the supply chain, and these longer-range issues 
are of concern to them, but these are the things that they're 
dealing with on the day-to-day basis.
    So when we look at workforce, indeed, it's true. It's the 
technical skills area, whether we have sufficient number of 
those people, whether we can bring those people in to operate 
in the facilities and they can see a future in those. So this 
is a daily problem right now.
    I think what's really the real crux of the issues going to 
happen is that as we move toward electrification and if we move 
too quickly to a fully electrified fleet, we could lose 30 
percent of the supplier jobs in this country and as we are, we 
have about 907 direct jobs. That is a significant number of 
jobs and many of my members think it's going to be even more 
than that.
    So what we have to do is take this opportunity in this 
infrastructure legislation and say what works and what doesn't 
work? What can the Federal Government do to provide technical 
schools in states with money for up-skilling programs, for 
apprenticeship programs, working with the private sector so we 
have public-private partnerships on this? What skills will no 
longer be necessary? What skills can people then maybe 
translate to in a more automated world?
    Then we have to do retooling, too, because, as you know 
very well, retooling of a facility is no small feat, and we 
need to give those who might not have an ability to make a 
manufacture component or a system in a fully electrified 
vehicle a chance to retool their facility and retrain the 
workers.
    We know it can be done. I've heard many success stories in 
Michigan and I know as you have, too, where people have done 
the same thing to, you know, make other safety components or 
other more fuel efficient components. It can be done, but it's 
going to take a degree of effort and concentration that I don't 
think we've really witnessed before.
    The Federal Government is going to have to act in this 
because the state governments just don't have the resources to 
do it.
    I think the other thing that's really important, and I know 
you know this, too, our members are all over the country. So to 
sort of say we can isolate this issue to Michigan, Ohio, you 
know, South Carolina, we can't. We are oftentimes the largest 
employer in many counties, you know, employing 500, 750 people 
in a county, and those jobs are dependent on those suppliers 
and those supplier jobs are dependent on the well-being of that 
area. So there's a lot riding on the ability to be able to do 
this.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you for that answer.
    Senator Lummis, you are recognized for your questions.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
conferring so I could be in another hearing and now pop over to 
be with you. I really appreciate it.
    I want our witnesses today to know that, you know, 
sometimes Senators try to tease a narrative out of witnesses 
and sometimes they just genuinely don't know the answers to the 
questions they're asking, and I want you to know that for me, 
it's the latter. I genuinely don't know the answers to these 
questions. So I hope that you'll give me some guidance here as 
to your opinions.
    OK. Mr. Sarkar, as autonomous vehicles are deployed 
throughout the country, are there certain technologies that 
will rely on connectivity via the 5.9 safety band or will all 
the necessary safety technologies be contained in the 
autonomous vehicles?
    Mr. Sarkar. Yes, Senator Lummis, thank you for the 
question.
    So I think it's important to point out that there are 
connected vehicles and that there are automated vehicles and 
then you can have connected and automated vehicles. So they can 
be two separate things.
    It is possible to have an automated or autonomous vehicle 
operate without connectivity solely based on sensors in the 
maps that it uses to drive the car. However, many people will 
tell you that to have the full benefits of cooperative driving, 
you have to have some degree of connectivity in the car which 
allows the vehicles to talk to vehicles and the vehicles to 
communicate to the infrastructure. So the end game ultimately 
is connectivity plus automation.
    Now the timing for connectivity, some people will say, will 
take longer than the availability of automation right now. So 
the two will likely move forward together.
    With regards to the spectrum, obviously the change in 
direction from the dedicated short-range communications or DSRC 
has some reinvestment required to then leverage cellular V2X or 
CV2X technologies through the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum.
    However, those technologies should become available and do 
not require substantial upgrades to get there. So some portion 
of the connectivity will come through the 5.9 gigahertz 
spectrum and then, on top of that, the next layer of 
connectivity will come through the 5G stellular communications 
or 5G broadband, which is outside of the 5.9 gigahertz 
spectrum. So you have connectivity coming in two locations.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you.
    Ms. Wilson, what are the practical implications of the 
FCC's November Order on the safety band? Does your industry 
have concerns that certain technologies will not be able to 
operate on these 30 megahertz that were reserved for 
transportation technologies?
    Ms. Wilson. Absolutely, Senator. I think it's a great 
question.
    I mean, one of the things that we've got to think about 
here is, you know, they've shortened the band and one of our 
members' concern is can we really share the spectrum that's out 
there, and I have seen no evidence and have had no evidence 
presented to me by our members that actually seems opposite, 
that the band cannot be shared and also to be able to make sure 
that vehicles are safe at the same time. So there's that 
particular concern.
    The other piece is that there's an opportunity here that 
we've missed. So that, you know, the CRM signal which is 
relatively easy and relatively inexpensive to actually turn on 
so that when we move that with automated technology so you can 
say, oh, there's a car coming around the corner, my AEB needs 
to be taken into place.
    So those two together can dramatically improve safety in a 
relatively inexpensive way to do this. So this has been a real 
opportunity lost and we hope that there could be efforts made 
to have the Commission reconsider it.
    Senator Lummis. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Bozzella, if the full 75 megahertz of the safety band 
were preserved for transportation safety technologies, how 
quickly would the auto industry be able to deploy these 
technologies?
    Mr. Bozzella. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
    These technologies are ready for deployment right now, 
especially dedicated short-range communications, and also CV2X 
right along with it, and so if there are 75 megahertz, what you 
would see is deployment of both technologies with a band-
sharing plan that the industry has already worked out and a 
commitment to deploy over five million of these V2X radios 
right now.
    So we would have the opportunity to move forward right 
away. Unfortunately, the FCC Order reduces the band width to 30 
megahertz and doesn't respond to the interference questions 
that have been raised.
    Senator Lummis. Well, thank you all. I have additional 
questions, and I might just follow up with you personally since 
I'm trying to educate myself about this subject.
    Hey, thank you all for testifying and thank you again, Mr. 
Chairman, for allowing me to participate.
    Senator Peters. Senator Lummis, thank you for your 
questions.
    The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Fischer for your 
questions.
    Senator Fischer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just have one more question for Mr. Sarkar. In your 
testimony, you talked about virtual testing as a key component 
to compress the development cycle of AVs. Basically, virtual 
testing could advance the deployment of those vehicles.
    What are some of the limitations of virtual testing, and 
what should Federal agencies consider when reviewing data and 
analysis from virtual testing?
    Mr. Sarkar. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator 
Fischer.
    So virtual testing obviously has the advantage that you can 
run millions of miles and many thousands and tens of thousands 
of scenarios very quickly to determine kind of zones of where 
things are working well or not.
    However, virtual testing is obviously a representation of 
the real world. It doesn't reflect exactly the real world. So 
there's always some physical testing that's required.
    One area of limitation in virtual testing is access to edge 
cases or the data. You heard this mentioned earlier that you 
need more data to define the edge cases around which you need 
to test and train artificial intelligence for vehicles.
    So access to more data and more real world what they call 
naturalistic data is one limitation, and then a second 
limitation is that you can't test all of the physical 
environments within a virtual test and things such as 
interoperability may also require physical testing at a track, 
and so virtual testing gives you a tool that allows you to do 
rapid amounts of simulation quickly to kind of hone in on a 
zone for testing but we believe strongly that you then need to 
go and put that into a controlled track or test environment.
    The tools continue to get better. They continue to get more 
data fed back into enhanced capabilities and that's one of the 
key things that we want to emphasize is that there are more 
advanced tools available, things like augmented reality, which 
actually merged simulation with physical testing, so you can 
get kind of the best of an actual vehicle on a road combined in 
with the simulation tool, but those areas need more funding, 
more research to advance them forward.
    So I think the key thing is data on the front end to know 
what you're simulating and it has to be based on naturalistic 
real world data that you can only get from public driving.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Fischer.
    Before we wrap up this hearing, I have one more topic that 
I think it's important for us to raise and that's related to 
supply chains and what can happen when supply chains are not 
operating the way we would like them to operate, which is 
certainly happening in the auto industry.
    It's not something new. In fact, back in 2019, when I was 
Ranking Member at that time, not Chair but Ranking Member of 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, we put out a report 
on supply chains for medical supplies for the precursors of 
drugs, high drug prices, and it was pretty clear in that report 
that we were overly reliant on critical parts of our supply 
chain from foreign countries in terms of the precursors of the 
drugs that nearly all of our drugs are based on, primarily 
China, not to mention medical supplies that are critical for us 
here in this country.
    And that report, when I put it out, my conclusion was when 
there is a pandemic, this United States will find itself in a 
precarious situation. A few months after that report came out, 
it ceased to be an academic report and became real life as we 
saw that our supply chains are very efficient but they're not 
resilient, and when things go bad, bad things can compound 
dramatically.
    We're now seeing that when it comes to semiconductors and 
the impact that it's having with the auto industry.
    Ms. Bozzella, I want to start with you and I'll ask Ms. 
Wilson to add the impact with your companies, as well.
    Mr. Bozzella, tell us a little bit about what's happening 
right now with this supply chain for semi-conductors. How did 
we get here? What do we need to move forward so that we fix 
this situation?
    Right now in Michigan, I've got workers who are being laid 
off. That's all over the country, not just in Michigan. We're 
seeing employment disruptions and, of course, that spills over 
not just into the auto industry but other industries, as well.
    So tell us what happened. What do we need to do to fix it?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Mr. Chairman, you know, it is really 
important that we do have resilient supply chains. What we've 
seen with microchips, auto-grade micro-processors is in fact 
this issue that you've described.
    As a result largely of the pandemic and the supply and 
demand imbalance with the auto industry shutting down 
completely in North America for 8 weeks in the midst of the 
pandemic, this resulting supply and demand imbalance.
    What's happening is as a result we are idling automotive 
production right now in this country because of a lack of auto-
grade chips. So it is important that as we look forward we do 
have control, better control of supply chains for critical 
elements, like microprocessors, and also, I would add, things 
like rare earth minerals and components for electric vehicles, 
which are going to be also important, and where China has an 
advantage right now with those supply chains.
    Senator Peters. Ms. Wilson, I know the companies that you 
represent are definitely being hit. Why don't you tell us about 
it?
    Ms. Wilson. Yes. I think there are a lot of things that 
went into how it happened. I think there is exactly the 
industry shutdown. There was not an understanding among anybody 
about how quickly it would ramp up and that ramp-up required 
more of those semiconductors and more of those motor vehicle-
grade wafers.
    You know, I have learned more about semiconductors in the 
last 4 months than I ever thought I would need to, but the 
motor vehicle-grade wafers are different than those that are in 
our iPhones or some of our other technologies. So there's also 
the concern about the lag times that are necessary to actually 
manufacture them.
    I would say the other things that go on also have to do 
with imbalance of trade because we do have an imbalance of 
trade and that's really being seen at our Nation's ports right 
now.
    I know, Senator Fischer, you've got some concerns of your 
own about that and that is actually sort of feeding into this 
whole crisis.
    There's no doubt about it, what John is saying. You know, 
when a vehicle manufacturer goes down, our suppliers go down, 
too, and we have to do a couple of things. We have to look long 
term, like the CHIPS Act is trying to do, and try to address 
both the chips overall but also what's going to happen with 
motor vehicle-grade wafers, but we also need to work with those 
countries where we have semi-conductor production going on 
right now, so that we can make sure that we can heal this 
because what I'm hearing is this could well go into the fourth 
quarter of this year, if maybe not into next year, and that is 
extraordinarily concerning when you start to think about 
getting the economy back up and running.
    This is not just an auto issue. It is also happening in our 
commercial vehicle sector. It just happens to be that the autos 
are most affected.
    Since you gave me the opportunity to talk about supply 
chains, I would tell you this is only one piece of this, and I 
think the President should be congratulated for really bringing 
this to everybody's attention. We have participated in the 
conversations on electric batteries. We will submit comments 
tomorrow on rare earths and critical minerals.
    We're seeing the same thing going on right now in resins, 
on foam, on steel. I mean, it's compounding itself over and 
over again, and on the Nation's ports, one of our larger 
members, this is a global supplier, they spent $11 million more 
on logistics in the first quarter of this year because of the 
cost of logistics and what's happening at the ports. That is 
money that cannot be translated into retraining workers, into 
dealing with electrification or automation or all these longer-
term issues that we're dealing with.
    So we really have to double down and figure out how we do 
this. Otherwise, all the opportunities we're talking about 
today, we could lose very quickly.
    Senator Peters. Well, thank you for that, and please know 
that this subcommittee and this committee will continue to 
aggressively deal with all of the issues that you have raised.
    I'd just like to say as this hearing concludes that I would 
like to reiterate my appreciation for all of our witnesses, for 
your very forthright testimony today.
    I especially want to thank Rana Abbas Taylor for bravely 
sharing her family story.
    You know, the auto industry has been a bedrock for the 
American economy and the middle class for the last hundred 
years and I look forward to working with all of you to deal 
with the issues that have been raised today from safety to 
economic competitiveness and the future of our workforce in 
this country.
    So with that, the hearing record will remain open for two 
weeks. Any Senators that would like to submit questions for the 
record should do so within two weeks.
    Senator Peters. And with that, this hearing is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Intelligent Transportation Society of America
  American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
                                                  Officials
                                                     April 27, 2021

Hon. Gary Peters,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Deb Fischer,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Fischer:

    In anticipation of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, 
Freight, and Ports hearing entitled ``Driving Innovation: the Future of 
Automotive Mobility, Safety, and Technology,'' the Intelligent 
Transportation Society of America (ITS America) and the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 
jointly write to you to highlight the importance of the 5.9 GHz Safety 
Spectrum to transportation safety and express our significant concern 
with efforts underway at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 
reallocate spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band.
    Reducing the amount of spectrum available to Vehicle-to-Everything 
(V2X) technology undermines our shared interest in reducing the number 
of traffic injuries and fatalities that occur each year on U.S. 
roadways, improving motor vehicle safety and transportation equity, and 
improving the operational performance of roadways as well as reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion across the 
transportation system.
    We ask you to use the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation's authority over the FCC to:

  1.  Direct the Commission to reconsider its proposal to give away 45 
        MHz of the 75 MHz in the 5.9 GHz band for use by unlicensed 
        devices, such as Wi-Fi, cutting the spectrum available for V2X 
        safety technologies by more than half;

  2.  Direct the Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, 
        and FCC to determine whether the band can be shared with 
        unlicensed users in the lower part of the band without causing 
        harmful interference to V2X in the upper 30 MHz before 
        reallocation of the 45 MHz of spectrum to unlicensed devices; 
        and

  3.  Direct the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
        Commerce, and the FFC to analyze spectrum requirements 
        necessary to enable innovation in intelligent transportation 
        systems, including autonomous vehicles and applications to 
        protect vulnerable road users.

    As you know, the 5.9 GHz spectrum band is currently reserved for 
intelligent transportation systems. Commonly referred to as V2X 
technologies, these systems allow vehicles to communicate with other 
vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian road users, infrastructure, and law 
enforcement to avoid crashes, enhance safety, improve transportation 
efficiency, and reduce air pollution. The National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) predicts that the safety applications 
enabled by V2X technology could eliminate or mitigate the severity of 
up to 80 percent of non-impaired crashes, significantly reducing the 
nearly 37,000 lives lost and three million injuries that occur annually 
on U.S. roadways.
    This is particularly important given the sharp increase in roadway 
fatalities and injuries that occurred in 2020, while traffic volume 
itself was significantly reduced. Preliminary estimates from the 
National Safety Council (NSC) on roadway fatalities and crashes show 
that 42,060 people died on U.S. roads last year--an eight percent 
increase from the previous year. The fatality rate increased by 24 
percent, which is the highest increase in nearly 100 years. This loss 
of life is not only tragic--it is unnecessary and preventable. ITS 
America, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the 
transportation safety community have repeatedly demonstrated that V2X 
technologies are the best tool in our toolbox to dramatically reduce 
fatalities; no other presently available transportation safety 
improvement has the potential to so substantially reduce crashes on 
American roads.
    Furthermore, V2X technologies have the potential to significantly 
improve safety for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and 
bicyclists, increasing transportation equity by preventing collisions 
that occur in low income and minority communities in urban and rural 
areas. Pedestrian traffic fatalities have increased by 51 percent from 
2009 to 2019, accounting for 17.2 percent of all traffic deaths in 
2019. Additionally, cyclist fatalities have increased by 36 percent 
since 2010. These statistics are even more disturbing in low income and 
minority communities. Between 2009 and 2018, pedestrian deaths rose 69 
percent in urban areas, and cycling deaths increased by 48 percent. In 
2019, most pedestrian traffic deaths--82 percent--occurred in urban 
settings. Latino cyclists face fatality rates 23 percent higher than 
whites do, and for African Americans, they are 30 percent higher. Low-
income, Black, and Latino communities also have higher vehicular 
traffic volumes, trucking routes, major arterial roads, intersections 
that are unsafe or impassable by foot or bike, and an overall lower 
level and quality of walking and cycling infrastructure.
    Some of the most promising V2X applications are designed to address 
these problems and enhance safety for vulnerable road users. For 
example, V2X applications can provide a warning to a driver when 
someone is about to cross a crosswalk in their path and improves the 
operation of advanced safety features. It is important to note that 
analysis by ITS America's Future of V2X Working Group suggests that 
advanced Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) applications will be unlikely to 
fit within the 30 MHz remaining under the FCC's proposed spectrum 
reallocation, threating to eliminate these applications as tools to 
make roads safer for all users and to increase transportation equity 
within the United States at a time when the status quo has allowed 
fatalities in these groups to dramatically increase over the last 
decade.
    V2X technology will also provide real economic savings by 
significantly reducing the more than $830 billion in annual costs 
associated with crashes on American roads. Furthermore, this technology 
is uniquely capable of reducing traffic congestion through prioritized 
traffic signal timing, truck platooning, and crash reduction, reducing 
travel time and delays for commuters and commerce alike, delays that 
cost the Nation more than $166 billion annually according to USDOT. 
Non-recurring incidents are responsible for 55 percent of U.S. traffic 
congestion--if V2X is widely deployed and these incidents are 
eliminated or dramatically reduced, emission levels and congestion 
would dramatically decrease. Preserving the spectrum for V2X would 
provide greater economic and environmental benefits for the American 
people than reallocating the spectrum for unlicensed devices.
    The United States has led the world in creating V2X technology and 
in developing the standards that enable and support V2X technology. The 
FCC's proposal would cede American leadership as countries around the 
world are building out their V2X networks. There is no doubt that, if 
implemented, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would undercut 
the public and private investments that have been made in the United 
States, stifle further innovation, and challenge American global 
competitiveness. This approach is in direct conflict with efforts 
underway in other parts of the world. At precisely the same time that 
other countries are reiterating their commitment to V2X technology and, 
in many cases, looking to increase the amount of spectrum available to 
support V2X technology, the FCC is poised to take action that would all 
but ensure that the technology would not realize its full potential in 
the United States.
    The comments and reply comments submitted to the FCC in response to 
the NPRM overwhelmingly opposed repurposing spectrum away from 
transportation safety. In fact, more than 85 percent of the commenters 
opposed the FCC's proposal, including state and city departments of 
transportation, automakers, vehicle suppliers, technology companies, 
law enforcement, first responders, safety advocates, engineers, 
telecommunications companies, the drone industry, and many others. 
These groups asked the FCC to heed USDOT's warnings that this plan 
would not allow sufficient spectrum for V2X to function, threatening 
the significant safety benefits this technology provides.
    ITS America is the association in which transportation and 
technology intersect. Our members are state, city, and county 
transportation agencies, public transit, automakers, technology 
companies, infrastructure firms, and research universities--ITS America 
is the only transportation organization that brings all these 
stakeholders together. They are focused on research, manufacturing, and 
the safe deployment of intelligent transportation technologies to save 
lives, improve mobility, increase accessibility and equity, promote 
sustainability, and improve efficiency and productivity.
    AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing 
transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico. AASHTO serves as a liaison between state departments 
of transportation and the Federal government. It represents all 
transportation modes including: air, highways, public transportation, 
active transportation, rail, and water. Its primary goal is to foster 
the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national 
transportation system. AASHTO works to educate the public and key 
decision makers about the critical role that transportation plays in 
securing a good quality of life and sound economy for our Nation.
    ITS America and AASHTO stand ready to work with the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and Ports on preserving critical 
transportation safety communications in the 5.9 GHz band for today's 
transportation system, including vehicle safety communications that can 
reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation's roads, and tomorrow's 
transportation system, including transportation safety communications 
for autonomous vehicles.
            Sincerely,
                                             Shailen Bhatt,
                                                           ITS America.
                                                  Jim Tymon
                                                                AASHTO.
Cc:
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
The Honorable Brian Schatz
The Honorable Ed Markey
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin
The Honorable Tammy Duckworth
The Honorable Jon Tester
The Honorable Tammy Duckworth
The Honorable Jon Tester
The Honorable Raphael Warnock
The Honorable John Thune
The Honorable Roy Blunt
The Honorable Dan Sullivan
The Honorable Todd Young
The Honorable Ron Johnson
The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito
The Honorable Rick Scott
The Honorable Cynthia Lummis
Joung H Lee, Director of Policy and Government Relations, American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
[email protected]
Ron Thaniel, Vice President of Public Policy and Legislative Affairs, 
ITS America, [email protected]
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Chris R. Swonger, President and CEO, Foundation 
 for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility and Distilled Spirits Council of 
                           the United States
    The Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility 
(Responsibility.org) and the Distilled Spirits Council of the United 
States (DISCUS) are proud to support the Reducing Impaired Driving for 
Everyone (RIDE) Act (S. 1331), sponsored by Senator Lujan (D-NM) and 
Senator Scott (R-FL). This legislation has the potential to virtually 
eliminate drunk driving when installed as standard equipment in all new 
motor vehicles according to a study from the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety published in July 2020.
    Drunk driving deaths are preventable. Over the last 40 years many 
laws have been passed and countless programs implemented to 
successfully reduce drunk driving fatalities by 52 percent from 21,113 
in 1982 to 10,142 in 2019. However, progress has stalled over the last 
decade and those more than 10,000 deaths and many more injuries every 
year demand bold action.
    More than 15 years ago, efforts began to develop advanced vehicle 
technology to prevent a drunk driver from operating a vehicle. The goal 
was to create a passive technology to automatically detect impairment, 
that would be unobtrusive to sober drivers, accurate, reliable and 
affordable. Now, technology exists to achieve this goal. There are two 
types of technologies that hold promise:

   Driver monitoring can detect signs of distracted, impaired 
        or fatigued driving. For example, Volvo is adding sensors and 
        cameras to its vehicles aimed at enhancing safety by monitoring 
        drivers for signs of being drunk, impaired by drugs or 
        distracted and intervening to prevent crashes.

   Alcohol detection uses sensors to determine that a driver is 
        at or above the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit 
        of .08 and then prevents the vehicle from moving.

    The RIDE Act is a technology-neutral approach that mandates a 
rulemaking process at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA). This will allow the best technologies to be 
tested and to determine their feasibility, and ultimately help ensure 
installation of this lifesaving technology throughout new vehicles. 
Additionally, the RIDE Act allows NHTSA to request time extensions if 
needed. The House companion bill, the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to 
Terminate Drunk Driving Act, referred to as the HALT Act, already 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year as part of the 
transportation infrastructure bill and was reintroduced (H.R. 2138) in 
the 117th Congress on March 23, 2021.
    Americans support the use of this safety detection technology as 
standard equipment in all new vehicles to prevent drunk driving, 
according to a nationwide poll conducted by Ipsos for Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving (MADD) this March. The survey found that:

   Nine of 10 Americans support technology that is integrated 
        into a car's electronics to prevent drunk driving (89 percent 
        say it is a good or very good idea).

   Three of four (77 percent) back Congressional action to 
        require this technology in all new vehicles.

   Eight of 10 (83 percent) believe that new auto safety 
        features should be standard in vehicles as they become 
        available, not part of optional equipment packages.

    A federally mandated safety standard is needed to move this 
lifesaving technology from the research and development stage into an 
installation requirement for all new automobiles.
    In conclusion, DISCUS and Responsibility.org are dedicated to 
eliminating drunk and impaired driving from America's roadways. We know 
bold, innovative approaches are required to reduce crashes and save 
lives. New technology ultimately may help prevent drunk, drugged, and 
multiple substance-impaired driving, as well as distracted driving and 
fatigued driving. The RIDE Act would help bring this technology to 
American automobiles and is fundamental to preventing impaired driving 
fatalities in the future.
About Responsibility.org
    Responsibility.org is a national not-for-profit that aims to 
eliminate drunk driving and work with others to end all impaired 
driving, eliminate underage drinking, and empowers adults to make a 
lifetime of responsible alcohol choices as part of a balanced 
lifestyle. Responsibility.org is funded by the following distillers: 
Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.; Beam Suntory Inc.; Brown-Forman; DIAGEO; 
Edrington, Mast-Jagermeister US, Inc.; Moet Hennessy USA; Ole Smoky, 
LLC; and Pernod Ricard USA. For more than 30 years, Responsibility.org 
has transformed countless lives through programs that bring 
individuals, families, and communities together to inspire a lifetime 
of responsible alcohol choices. To learn more, please visit 
www.Responsibility.org.
About the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS)
    The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States is the leading 
voice and advocate for distilled spirits in the U.S., advocating on 
legislative, regulatory and public affairs issues impacting the 
distilled spirits sector at the local, state, Federal and international 
levels. DISCUS members are committed to responsibility and encourage 
adults who drink to do so in moderation.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Association of American Railroads
Introduction
    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the 
record. AAR members include the Class I freight railroads, many short 
line railroads, Amtrak and various commuter railroads. AAR unites these 
organizations in working toward a single goal: to ensure that railroads 
remain the safest, most efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally 
sound mode of transportation in the world.
    Unlocking the potential of automated technology to reduce or 
eliminate human error is just as important for railroads as it is for 
other transportation modes, and we encourage the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to include the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) and the railroad industry in such discussions. The development of 
new technologies, including autonomous vehicles, offers the unique 
opportunity to dramatically improve the safety of our Nation's roads. 
These, along with similar technologies, can also help to address many 
of the challenges our Nation faces in improving our freight-moving 
capabilities to meet the needs of tomorrow. It is essential that 
Congress and DOT facilitate the development and incorporation of these 
technologies with a focus on both goals.
Autonomous Vehicles and Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
    A highway-rail grade crossing is a location where a railway and 
roadway intersect at the same level. There are over 205,000 of these 
crossings in the United States, and, unfortunately, in 2020, there were 
more than 1,800 grade crossing collisions, resulting in 675 injuries 
and 202 fatalities.
    AAR and its members have worked diligently to improve the safety of 
motor vehicle drivers, passengers, and pedestrians at grade crossings, 
and the railroads remain committed to trying to eliminate grade 
crossing incidents. AAR promotes the 3 ``E''s of grade crossing safety: 
education of the public about the dangers around railways, including 
through public safety education and awareness campaigns conducted by 
Operation Lifesaver; enforcement of traffic laws related to crossing 
signs and property laws related to trespassing; and engineering 
research and innovation to improve the safety of crossings. The 
railroads' efforts have contributed to a 59 percent reduction in the 
number of annual grade crossing collisions over the last 25 years. 
Regardless of these efforts and advances in train control systems, the 
vast majority of these accidents are due to mistakes or poor choices 
made by motor vehicle drivers. As the FRA has indicated, nearly all 
deaths at rail-highway grade crossings are preventable, explaining that 
``94 percent of train-vehicle collisions can be attributed to driver 
behavior or poor judgment.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Policy and 
Development, Report No. RR-16-10 Analysis of Grade Crossing Accidents 
Resulting in Injuries and Fatalities May 2016; available online at: 
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15767/
RR_GX%20
Task%20Force_Data%20Analysis_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, in most cases, trains simply cannot stop in time to 
avoid vehicles or pedestrians at grade crossings, which is why motor 
vehicles are legally required to yield to trains at crossings. 
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to substantially improve grade 
crossing safety by reducing or eliminating human error by motor vehicle 
drivers. For this to happen, though, automated vehicle systems must be 
designed to recognize and respond appropriately to warning devices and 
approaching trains. In this regard, AAR encourages DOT and Congress to 
ensure that autonomous motor vehicles have the following capabilities:
    First, autonomous vehicles should be able to recognize when they 
are approaching any grade crossings, including private crossings, by 
identifying the various signs and pavement markings associated with 
crossings. Sufficient technological redundancies should be in place to 
ensure autonomous vehicles have the capability to make these 
determinations in all weather conditions, in all road conditions, and 
when signage is missing.
    Second, autonomous vehicles should be able to detect approaching 
trains and account for any variables that might obstruct their view. In 
addition to the visual detection of approaching trains, autonomous 
vehicles should be able to recognize other signs of the presence of a 
locomotive and/or train, such as locomotive headlights, horns, and 
bells.
    Third, autonomous vehicles should not begin crossing tracks unless 
they will be able to fully move through them. Stopping on tracks 
because of traffic queueing or other causes creates a dangerous 
situation that can be prevented with highly automated vehicle 
technology.
    Last, whenever practical, the autonomous systems controlling the 
vehicles must be designed to route the Autonomous Vehicle (AV) over 
grade separated crossings (where public roadways and railroad rights-
of-way are physically separated by underpass, bridge, or other 
infrastructure), or to avoid traveling over grade crossings altogether. 
This will eliminate the risk of a motor vehicle's potential collision 
with a train at an at-grade crossing.
    The DOT and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 
recently jointly released a follow-up to AV 3.0 entitled, Ensuring 
American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies: Automated 
Vehicles 4.0 (AV 4.0). Among other things, AV 4.0 establishes Federal 
guidelines for the development and integration of automated vehicles, 
with a focus on prioritizing safety and security, promoting innovation, 
and ensuring a consistent regulatory approach.
    The unified guidance contained in AV 4.0 will be extremely helpful 
in this effort, and the rail industry commends DOT and the NSTC for 
producing this important document. Railroads are disappointed, though, 
that AV 4.0--unlike AV 3.0--is completely silent on the critical issue 
of highway-rail grade crossings. Railroads hope this omission does not 
reflect a diminishment in the DOT's recognition that the above-
mentioned capabilities into highly automated vehicles will save lives. 
It is imperative that Congress and DOT encourage and foster the 
development of such technologies.
The Importance and Benefits of a Level Playing Field
    The promise of autonomous technology is not confined to just 
passenger and commercial vehicles, but offers opportunities for safety 
improvement in all modes of transportation, such as rail, aviation, and 
maritime.
    Competition in the freight transportation marketplace is fierce. 
Railroads welcome this competition because railroads offer a winning 
combination of price and service that freight customers want. To ensure 
that customers continue to reap the benefits of this robust competition 
for their businesses, however, government should not pick winners and 
losers by creating policies that artificially shift freight from one 
mode to another.
    This principle extends to the regulatory and policy framework 
surrounding the development and implementation of autonomous or highly 
automated vehicles. DOT's AV 4.0 guidance focuses mostly on motor 
vehicles and highways, however, and does not make reference to freight 
rail transportation. Nor does it mention FRA or list that agency among 
the DOT ``[k]ey modal agencies that are most relevant to surface 
transportation AVs.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Science & Technology Council and the U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Autonomous Vehicles 4.0: Ensuring American 
Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Railroads respectfully suggest that the same openness to the 
development of autonomous technology and regulatory modernization 
should apply to all modes of transportation and that FRA should be 
considered a key modal agency relevant to surface transportation AVs.
    For example, automation promises to significantly enhance other 
areas of rail safety beyond grade crossings. Automated technologies can 
detect a wider range of defects, respond faster, and provide a larger 
window for action than a safety system that is subject to the 
limitations inherent in human eyes, minds, and hands. Automated track 
inspections can reduce track defects, leading to fewer accidents. 
Likewise, automated inspection of locomotives and freight cars has been 
shown to reduce the occurrence of broken wheels and other mechanical 
problems.
    Unfortunately, though, due to the current limited regulatory 
framework, many new technologies can only be used in conjunction with, 
rather than as a replacement for, manual inspections required by 
existing FRA regulations. Railroads can sometimes obtain a temporary 
FRA waiver from existing regulations, but that process is often 
cumbersome and uncertain. These regulations discourage investment in 
innovative technologies.
    Because automation in the rail industry is new and unfamiliar, 
regulators will be pressured to identify and resolve every possible 
risk before allowing testing or early deployment. That pressure must be 
resisted because hesitation will come at a cost to safety. DOT 
recognized this in the context of autonomous vehicles in its initial AV 
4.0 guidance, when it claimed that ``delaying or unduly hampering . . . 
testing until all specific risks have been identified or eliminated 
means delaying the realization of global reductions in risk.'' \3\ AV 
4.0 also explains, ``the U.S. Government will modernize or eliminate 
outdated regulations that unnecessarily impede the development of AVs--
or that do not address critical safety, mobility, and accessibility 
needs--to encourage a consistent regulatory and operational 
environment.'' \4\ Unlocking the many potential benefits of automated 
technology is just as important for railroads as it is for other 
transportation modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Autonomous Vehicles 4.0, p. 4.
    \4\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Principles for the Regulation of Automated Technologies
    In formulating a regulatory framework that ensures a level playing 
field for all modes of transportation and that encourages the 
realization of the benefits of emerging technologies, railroads urge 
Congress and DOT to adhere to several principles.
    First, limited short-term waivers from existing regulations do not 
give industry sufficient confidence to invest in new technologies. 
Regulatory barriers must be overcome in ways that are more enduring 
than waivers. For example, Congress could direct DOT to make permanent 
long-standing waivers whose value has been proven through successful 
implementation. Additionally, DOT could issue waivers of indefinite 
duration and provide procedures for the expedited conversion of time-
limited waivers to permanent waivers or final rules if equivalent or 
improved safety has been demonstrated. Indeed, DOT already employs such 
a process in its regulation of hazardous materials transportation.
    Second, to the greatest extent possible, carriers and equipment 
manufacturers should be permitted to continue to create voluntary 
standards for safety technology. No one has a greater stake in the 
success of new safety technologies than carriers and their suppliers, 
and market pressures already incentivize them to create and implement 
safety technologies that work.
    Third, new regulations governing automated operations in the 
transportation sector should be performance-based, rather than 
prescriptive. This will focus industry attention and effort on the 
outcome, rather than on how that outcome is achieved. Performance 
standards would give the industry discretion to experiment with new 
ways to improve safety, while still being subject to DOT oversight, 
which would oversee goal setting, ensure that measures and data are 
accurate, and impose sanctions if carriers failed to meet their safety 
targets. As such, employees, customers, and the public at large would 
still be fully protected. Railroads commend AV 4.0 for recognizing the 
desirability of performance-based standards in the AV realm. AV 4.0 
states, ``When regulation is needed, the U.S. Government will seek 
rules . . . that are as performance-based and nonprescriptive as 
possible.'' Further, AAR commented favorably on National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's advanced notice of proposed rulemaking 
for automated driving systems, which took just such an approach.
    Fourth, regulation of automated operations should occur at the 
Federal level to avoid a patchwork of state and local rules that would 
create confusion and inhibit the deployment of key technologies. AV 4.0 
is correct on this point when it calls for regulators to ``. . . 
promote regulatory consistency among state, local, tribal and 
territorial, and international laws and regulations so that AVs can 
operate seamlessly nationwide and internationally.'' In the rail 
industry, state and local laws governing rail safety and operations are 
already (and appropriately) preempted by Federal law and regulation. It 
is especially critical to the efficient functioning of the national 
rail network that the principle of a uniform set of national 
regulations is not undercut by state or local laws targeting autonomous 
or highly automated technologies associated with rail operations.
    Finally, as with any new technology, public fear of the unknown is 
often unfounded but can prove to be a major obstacle. The public can 
and will read much into what DOT and FRA say, or do not say, on the 
issue of automated technologies. We urge DOT, FRA, and other 
policymakers--including members of this Committee and others in 
Congress--to support innovation and work to facilitate the realization 
of the benefits of these technologies.
Conclusion
    Autonomous vehicles and highly automated technologies can make our 
society safer and the movement of freight more efficient than it has 
ever been. These improvements must be accomplished by technology that 
recognizes when a vehicle is approaching a highway-rail grade crossing, 
responds appropriately to an approaching train and/or grade crossing 
warning device, then recognizes when it is safe to proceed over a 
crossing. It is essential that DOT and Congress set goals for the 
incorporation of certain essential capabilities, while also providing a 
regulatory environment that incentivizes industry to be constantly 
developing new, and improving existing, technologies.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Klobuchar to 
                           Rana Abbas Taylor
    Distracted Driving. According to the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), eight people die and more than one thousand 
people are injured every day in crashes involving distracted driving.

    Question. In your testimony, you highlight driver monitoring 
technologies in cars that use cameras to detect drowsy or distracted 
drivers. In your view, how significant could these new technologies be 
in combating drunk driving?
    Answer. Thank you for this question. One of the significant 
findings from our research into different technologies, as outlined in 
our NHTSA RFI document, is that many of the available automated safety 
technologies are applicable equally well to both drunk and drug 
impaired driving AND to drowsy and distracted driving. This is 
especially true of the driver monitoring camera systems, installed in 
the interior of the automobile. This technology can detect drunk and 
drug impaired drivers by measuring the dilation of the eyes, and by 
identifying the failure of eyes to focus on driving. This technology 
can also detect drowsy and distracted driving through measuring how 
long eyes are closed, how long eyes are distracted from watching the 
road, and how frequently the head bobs. If programmed properly, these 
systems are also capable of safely pulling the car to the side of the 
road in either case of drunk and drug impaired driving, or drowsy and 
distracted driving. These internal driver monitoring camera systems are 
standard equipment in many models today--including Volvo, Mercedes, 
Jaguar Land Rover, Subaru, Cadillac, etc.
    The effectiveness of the driver monitoring camera systems mentioned 
above can be enhanced through integration with the standard ADAS 
driving monitoring technologies that are now available on virtually ALL 
new cars. Common features of these driving monitoring systems are lane 
assist, emergency braking, blind spot alerts, rear cameras, adaptive 
cruise control, etc. These standard driving monitoring technologies can 
combine data from driver monitoring with driving behavior, such as 
improperly crossing lanes and, if programmed properly, thereby react 
more quickly and correctly. When combined together, these technologies 
can eliminate the vast majority of both drunk and drug impaired driving 
AND drowsy and distracted driving.
    Please see the NHTSA RFI document for details. Please see the Volvo 
video for an example of how this technology works. Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                             John Bozzella
    Research and Development. In Montana, the photonics industry 
supports jobs across sectors from basic R&D at Montana State University 
to companies like self-driving startup Aurora which is using cutting-
edge lidar technology developed in Bozeman. These technologies keep our 
military and commercial industries competitive internationally which is 
critical to our national security. American leadership in core 
automotive technologies needs to remain in the U.S. It is surprising to 
learn that at least three Chinese companies have been approved to test 
on public roads in California.

    Question 1. What do we need to be focused on to help AV companies 
succeed and build their businesses here in the U.S. instead of in 
Germany or China?
    Answer. Leadership in automotive technology has underpinned a 
century of U.S. economic growth, employing nearly 10 million Americans. 
The continuation of U.S. leadership is critical to the long-term health 
of our economy and to job creation in the future. Today, American 
companies are market leaders in AV development, but we must not lose 
sight of the fact that this is a global competition that will define 
the future of the automotive industry. Companies are reaching a point 
in their development where they need to make critical decisions about 
their future. The U.S. has led the development of these technologies 
but as companies and technologies mature, they need a pathway to scale 
their development. As I noted in my written testimony--The nations that 
lead the development and adoption of innovative technologies will also 
shape supply chains, define global standards and, potentially, reshape 
the international marketplace.
    Foreign nations, like China, have signaled their intension to 
capitalize on the economic impacts of COVID-19 to dominate the race for 
leadership in AV development--among other technologies. In this highly 
competitive, capital-intensive industry, market certainty will become 
even more critical for maintaining U.S. leadership in automotive 
innovation in advanced safety technologies, as well as vehicle 
efficiency and electrification.
    AV companies in the United States are safely testing vehicles in 
California, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and 
elsewhere, and are making significant investments to carry that 
forward. A Federal framework for the responsible, safe development and 
deployment of AVs in the United States is essential to support that 
effort and to ensuring the U.S. maintains its market leadership. 
Lastly, these related safety advancements also hold great promise in 
helping to reduce the 96 percent or vehicle crashes that are attributed 
to human error.
    Last year, Auto Innovators put out an AV Policy Roadmap, which 
included 14 policy recommendations that can be enacted at various 
levels of government, including the Federal Government, to facilitate 
the safe testing and deployment of AVs on our roadways. Enacting a 
Federal framework that provides for full-scale testing and deployment 
of highly automated vehicles on U.S. roadways is central to preserving 
U.S. leadership and competitiveness in the development, testing, and 
deployment of these life-saving technologies

    Auto Connectivity. In Montana, drivers deal with a number of issues 
including unreliable cell coverage, snow, and mountain and isolated 
roads.

    Question 2. How are you taking these challenges into account?
    Answer. When designing V2X and other advanced vehicle technologies, 
automakers and suppliers take many variables into account, including 
these challenges. To support consistent vehicle connectivity, our 
Nation's digital infrastructure should be updated and routinely 
maintained across diverse regions of the country. In the meantime, 
areas with unreliable cell coverage will continue to see safety 
benefits from advanced vehicle technologies, such as Advanced Driver 
Assistance Systems (ADAS), or in the future, fully automated systems. 
Such driver assistance systems, including V2X, will benefit consumers 
who are driving in any number of challenging driving environments, 
including snow.

    Question 3. How are you involving rural America in the development 
and testing of AV technology?
    Answer. Automated vehicle technologies will improve safety, 
mobility, and economic opportunity wherever you are: rural or urban 
settings. In our AV Policy Roadmap we also provide a number of 
recommendations, including updates to the Manual of Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices and associated grant programs to support the 
implementation of infrastructure that will benefit road safety and 
future technologies, including AVs. These grants could go to a wide 
range of communities, encouraging more widespread testing and 
deployments in more diverse locations--both rural and urban.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                             John Bozzella
    Connected Vehicles. Georgia is a leader in testing and deploying 
connected vehicle (CV) technology on its roads. The Georgia Department 
of Transportation (GDOT) is working with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 
Transit Authority (MARTA) and the Georgia Regional Transportation 
Authority (GRTA) to install CV technology on their buses to help 
transit vehicles operate more efficiently and stay on schedule. Not 
only does this technology help improve public transportation bus 
service, but it can enhance safety for all road users. Broad adoption 
of CV technology can be used to warn vehicles of impending collisions 
with other vehicles, as well as for other safety applications.
    As you know, connected vehicle technologies require dedicated 
spectrum to be effective, and that the 5.9 GHz band had long been 
reserved for transportation safety technologies, like CV. However, last 
year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), over the objections 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation and safety advocates, voted to 
give away the majority of the spectrum needed for these technologies, 
directly threatening the ability of these technologies to reduce 
fatalities.

    Question 1. Could you speak to your organization's view of the 
FCC's actions in this matter?
    Answer. Vehicle-to-everything (``V2X'') communication technologies 
promise to deliver significant safety and societal benefits to the 
American public, including reducing automotive crashes and fatalities 
and producing economic, environmental, and transportation efficiencies.
    Without access to spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band, the transportation 
industry will not be able to realize the full potential of this 
technology to save lives. The FCC's current proposal would not only 
reduce the amount of spectrum available, but there is also indication 
that it would result in harmful interference into the remaining part of 
the spectrum--making it essentially unusable for transportation safety.
    Last year, in advance of the FCC's decision, Auto Innovators 
announced an industry-wide commitment to dramatically increase 
utilization of the 5.9 GHz band by deploying at least five million V2X 
devices within five years. This buildout commitment clearly 
demonstrates that lifesaving V2X technologies are ready and can be 
deployed in significant numbers in the next five years and beyond.
    The automotive industry has also reached consensus on a proposed 
band plan for the 5.9 GHz spectrum. This landmark industry consensus 
resolves the debate over which communication protocol, DSRC or C-V2X, 
should support V2X in the United States. Our proposal permits both 
technologies to make beneficial and efficient use of the 5.9 GHz 
spectrum band in the near-term, while also ``future-proofing'' for next 
generation auto safety technologies that are already under development 
and nearing deployment.
    Both the buildout commitment and proposed band plan are premised on 
the FCC preserving all 75 MHz of spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band for 
V2X technologies.

    Question 2. Do you believe that this spectrum reallocation would 
undermine transportation safety?
    Answer. Please see above response.

    Interstate Highways. When the Interstate System was developed in 
the 1950s, the government facilitated a regulatory environment in which 
private entrepreneurs could financially benefit from investing in gas 
stations located off highway exits. As a result, drivers of gas-fueled 
cars rarely feel ``range anxiety'' due to an abundance of fueling 
options that are often paired with additional commercial offerings, and 
amenities.

    Question 3. Do you believe it is important to incentivize private 
businesses to invest in expanding EV charging capacity, ultimately 
mirroring the availability of gas stations throughout our 
transportation network?
    Answer. Collaboration between all stakeholders, both public and 
private, in support of a comprehensive, national vision and strategy 
will be critical in realizing the necessary conditions for a successful 
EV market. This national strategy should include a number of items that 
support building a robust market for battery, plug-in hybrid and fuel 
cell electric vehicles, including investments such as Federal tax 
incentives, grants, rebates and other mechanisms to spur significant 
charging infrastructure development in the following key areas: homes 
(both single family and multi-unit dwellings), workplaces, highway, and 
other public locations. Investments and funding to encourage hydrogen 
refueling infrastructure should also be considered.
    Incentivizing private businesses to invest in charging 
infrastructure is one component of an approach to spur charging 
infrastructure, which is important for both current and potential EV 
drivers. Studies have shown that consumers considering the purchase of 
an EV believe the technology to be ready now when they report seeing 
charging infrastructure and are more comfortable driving them knowing 
that there is a charging network in place. One effective Federal policy 
tool to support these types of investments would be the establishment 
of a grant program to build public charging and hydrogen refueling 
infrastructure along the Federal Highway System by expanding 
alternative fuel corridors. Ensuring access to abundant charging and 
hydrogen refueling infrastructure will serve the dual purpose of 
increasing ``convenience parity'' between EVs and the internal 
combustion counterparts, while also alleviating consumer concerns about 
``range anxiety.''

    Question 4. How can Congress engage the private market to help 
build out our national network of electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure at off-highway businesses and ensure safe access for all 
commuters?
    Answer. We recently sent a letter to President Biden, along with 
MEMA and the UAW, outlining the bold, comprehensive national strategy 
that will be required to establish the U.S. as a leader in the next 
generation of clean transportation innovation. Demand-side policies 
that incentivize wider-scale EV adoption, build out the necessary 
infrastructure, and facilitate consumer awareness are essential 
components to EV market expansion. Equally important to the long-term 
success of the EV market in the U.S. will be investments in supply-side 
policies that ensure greater supply chain availability and resiliency, 
increased availability of critical minerals, and expanded manufacturing 
capacity for EVs in the United States.
    On the question of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, 
as I noted above, investments such as Federal tax incentives, grants, 
rebates, and other funding mechanisms are needed to spur significant 
refueling infrastructure development in the following key areas: homes 
(both single family and multi-unit dwellings), workplaces, highway, and 
other public locations. There is a role for utilities, electric vehicle 
supply equipment providers, and private businesses to leverage funding 
opportunities and greatly expand EV charging availability throughout 
the U.S. As part of our March 29th EV policy letter to the 
Administration, we outlined several Federal policies that will help 
address the availability of charging and hydrogen refueling 
infrastructure. Of the policies outlined, examples which could 
incentivize off-highway infrastructure include:

   Extend the duration of and expand the 30C Federal Tax Credit 
        for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property (including 
        multiple charge points at a single location), which supports 
        electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and hydrogen fueling 
        infrastructure.

   Establish a grant program to build public charging and 
        hydrogen refueling infrastructure along the Federal Highway 
        System by expanding alternative fuel corridors. Additionally, 
        grant programs could also serve a similar purpose along 
        secondary roads and within metropolitan areas.

   Direct the Secretary of Energy to make loan guarantees for 
        EVSE and hydrogen refueling infrastructure.

    In addition, building codes will be important to ensuring that new 
and retrofitted construction is required to be EV-ready. This 
encourages installation of the necessary electrical infrastructure at 
the most cost-effective point of application and will leverage the 
opportunity for private businesses to quickly and easily install 
charging stations when needed.
    We look forward to working with Congress, the Administration and 
other public and private stakeholders to craft and implement a 
comprehensive plan that includes both the supply-and demand-side 
policies necessary to realize the transition to a cleaner 
transportation future.

    Semiconductor Shortage. As you know, there is a global 
semiconductor shortage impacting our automotive manufacturing industry 
and putting hundreds of thousands of American jobs at risk. West Point, 
Georgia, is home to Kia Motor's only American manufacturing facility. 
The factory normally runs 24 hours a day, employs more than 2,700 
staff, and produces 340,000 vehicles per year. In April, this Kia 
factory almost had to suspend production for two days due to the global 
semiconductor shortage. The Endless Frontier Act would increase 
research into semiconductor design and fabrication, as well as protect 
America's supply chains. For America to remain competitive, we must 
build public-private partnerships to invest in research and 
development.

    Question 5. How have your members been impacted by the 
semiconductor supply chain shortage and are there any ways to mitigate 
these impacts in the short-term?
    Answer. Semiconductors are currently used in a wide and growing 
variety of automotive electronic components that perform vehicle 
control, safety, emissions, driver information, and other functions. 
Many innovations that are underway in the automotive space will define 
the future of mobility--including electrification, automation, and 
connectivity--and are highly dependent on semiconductors. With the 
increased incorporation of new safety and further emission reduction 
technologies, there is no doubt that auto production represents a 
growth sector for the semiconductor industry.
    The chips that are generally used in vehicles are not the same 
chips used in consumer electronics devices. As with many defense and 
industrial control users, auto production largely relies on chips made 
using mature nodes. These chips are more robust and reliable than the 
advanced node chips that are used in consumer electronics devices and, 
as a result, can withstand the challenging environments in which 
vehicles operate and can last the life of a vehicle.
    The microchip shortage that the auto industry is facing is an 
outgrowth of the unprecedented shutdown in auto production that 
occurred in the early weeks of the COVID pandemic. During that eight-
week shutdown across all North America manufacturing plants (and 
similar shutdowns across the globe), silicon wafer foundries 
reallocated capacity away from auto grade chips to chips used in 
consumer electronics and other products. As you are aware, auto 
production has since resumed. However, the auto industry's demand for 
auto grade chips is not currently being met.
    The microchip supply shortage facing the auto industry has been 
further exacerbated in recent weeks by severe weather in Texas that 
impacted domestic suppliers, a fire at a major overseas chip supplier, 
congestion at West Coast ports, and the significant stoppage of global 
trade through the Suez Canal shipping route. These additional 
challenges have further strained the existing supply of auto grade 
chips and have bolstered industry concerns and economic impacts.
    The chip shortage has forced a number of automakers to halt 
production and cancel shifts in the United States, with serious 
consequences for their workers and the communities in which they 
operate. Our immediate priority, and one that we appreciate is shared 
by the Administration and Congress, is reducing the severity and 
longevity of the microchip shortage for the auto industry in order to 
protect American jobs and minimize the negative impact to the broader 
economy.
    We have been conducting anonymized surveys of our member companies 
since the onset of the chip shortage. The most recent survey was 
conducted within the last couple of weeks and, unfortunately, the high 
end projections indicate an even more significant impact to United 
States auto production than was projected in previous surveys. This 
survey, which is generally aligned with recent projections made by IHS 
Markit1 and AlixPartners2, revealed that the projected impact for 2021 
could be as high as 1.276 million fewer vehicles produced. While there 
is no consensus among our member companies on how long the shortage 
will continue to impact production, some companies are predicting up to 
6 more months of additional disruption.
    The current supply chain crisis has clearly exposed overall 
capacity limits in the semiconductor sector and revealed significant 
risks in the current automotive semiconductor supply chain. There is 
undeniably a need to expand semiconductor capacity to meet the growing 
demand for semiconductors in the auto industry, as well as other 
sectors across the economy.

    Question 6. Do you agree legislation like the Endless Frontier Act 
would help address the long-term concerns about semiconductor supply 
chain issues?
    Answer. Congress should explore any opportunity to provide the 
robust funding necessary to support the CHIPS for America Act 
provisions included in the FY2021 NDAA. Consistent with the authorizing 
language in the FY 2021 NDAA, these programs benefit all industries and 
sectors critical to U.S. national interests--not just those that rely 
on advanced node chips. As you may be aware, the chips that are 
generally used in vehicles are not the same chips used in consumer 
electronics devices. As with many defense and industrial control users, 
auto production largely relies on chips made using mature nodes. These 
chips are more robust and reliable than the advanced node chips that 
are used in consumer electronics devices because they must withstand 
challenging internal and external environments for the life of the 
vehicle.
    Semiconductors are integral to current auto production and future 
automotive innovation (including electrification, automation, and 
connectivity). To help mitigate the risks to the automotive supply 
chain evidenced by the current chip shortage, we suggest that at least 
some portion of such funding be used to build new capacity in the 
United States that will support the auto industry, as well as other 
sectors that rely on mature nodes--including defense, medical, and 
critical infrastructure. This could be accomplished by, for example, 
specifying that a particular percentage--that is reasonably based on 
the projected needs of the auto industry--be allocated for facilities 
that will support the production of auto grade chips in some manner.
    New foundries take years to build, so Auto Innovators also 
recommends that policies be implemented that support increased chip 
capacity in the mid-term. This includes enactment of a semiconductor 
manufacturing investment tax incentive. Such an incentive can help 
companies offset the cost of creating new lines within existing 
facilities or reallocating current production to meet evolving needs.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cynthia Lummis to 
                             John Bozzella
    Background. Over the past twenty years since Congress set aside the 
75 megahertz for intelligent safety technology, there have been few 
benefits to drivers from the deployment of this technology. The primary 
driver for the FCC's November order was the underutilization of the 
band during that time-period. Your organization has requested that all 
75 megahertz remain allocated to these technologies despite the 
underutilization.

    Question 1. What assurances can you provide Congress that this 
underutilization will not continue into the future?
    Answer. Recognizing the safety and societal benefits that V2X 
technology can bring, automotive manufacturers have already deployed or 
announced deployments utilizing the 5.9 GHz Safety Spectrum band in the 
United States and around the world. These commitments and efforts 
represent a clear desire and intent by the automotive industry to use 
the spectrum and highlight the progress that has been made towards the 
widespread deployment of V2X. In fact, the companies with deployed or 
announced deployments account for over 60 percent of the automotive 
market share in the United States. It is noteworthy that this activity 
has occurred despite uncertainty from U.S. regulators over the last 
eight years about the continued availability of the entire 5.9 GHz band 
for V2X.
    In April of last year, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation made 
a groundbreaking V2X deployment commitment to expedite further V2X 
deployments within the 5.9 GHz band. Auto Innovators members committed 
to the deployment of 5 million radios on vehicles and roadway 
infrastructure within 5 years if the Federal Communications Commission 
maintains all 75 MHz of spectrum for transportation safety and take 
action to permit cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) and dedicated 
short-range communication (DSRC) to co-exist in the 5.9 GHz band.

    Question 2. Many automakers have moved away from DSRC technologies 
in favor of C-V2X. Is it your position that both DSRC and C-V2X should 
be allowed to operate on the band?
    Answer. Some automakers have expressed a preference for C-V2X 
technologies and other automakers have expressed a preference for DSRC 
technologies. Last year, Auto Innovators released a consensus band plan 
to resolve the debate over which communication protocol should support 
V2X in the United States. The band plan would have allowed LTE C-V2X to 
operate exclusively in the upper 20 MHz of the 5.9 GHz band, DSRC to 
operate exclusively in the lower 20 MHz of the 5.9 GHz band, and the 
remaining 30 MHz in the middle of the band to be made available on a 
priority basis to Next-Gen DSRC and Advanced (5G) C-V2X applications as 
they are developed and deployed. After five years, a single technology 
(whether DSRC or LTE C-V2X and their respective future iterations) 
would be selected and, after a phaseout of the technology that did not 
prevail, have access to the entire 5.9 GHz band.
    This market-driven band plan would permit both technologies to make 
beneficial and efficient use of the 5.9 GHz spectrum band in the near-
term, while also ``future-proofing'' for next generation auto safety 
technologies that are already under development and nearing deployment. 
Through the selection of a single technology within a defined period, 
the plan will soon put the industry in position to maximize benefits 
for consumers and promote the most efficient use of the band going 
forward.

    Question 3. When Congress first dedicated the 75 megahertz for 
transportation technologies, it listed several functions that it 
envisioned occurring on that spectrum. However, many of the functions 
envisioned at that time are already occurring outside of the band such 
as lidar and other sensors. Do the remaining safety functions require 
the full 75 megahertz in order to operate as intended?
    Answer. Estimates from transportation safety stakeholders indicate 
that significantly more than 30 MHz of spectrum will be required to 
support V2X technologies. This includes applications that were not 
conceived of when the spectrum was first allocated, such as Collective 
Perception Messages and Maneuver Coordination Messages to support 
driving automation and applications to support pedestrians and other 
vulnerable road users. Research by the European Automobile 
Manufacturers Association and European Association of Automotive 
Suppliers demonstrate that at least 47 MHz of spectrum is needed for 
safety critical communications in typical urban scenarios and 
approximately 77 MHz is required in more complex urban scenarios. The 
5G Automotive Association also estimates that V2X applications will 
require between 70 and 75 MHz to support basic safety use cases and 
more advanced safety use cases.

    Question 4. In your testimony, you indicated that 5 million C-V2X 
devices could be deployed in the short term. However, with more than 
270 million registered vehicles on our roadways, does this 5 million 
device deployment constitute a significant advancement of this 
technology?
    Answer. 5 million vehicles constitutes a significant advancement of 
this technology and represents a significant number of new vehicles 
sales in the U.S. We believe that--following this deployment--consumer 
demand for V2X technologies will continue to grow. We also believe that 
there may be a role for aftermarket V2X devices to be installed on 
vehicles that are already in the market.

    Question 5. Is this technology dependent upon having all vehicles 
utilizing this technology together, or could a single vehicle reap the 
benefits of the technology even if adjacent roadway users are not 
similarly equipped?
    Answer. There will be an immediate benefit for any vehicle that is 
equipped with the technology that comes into contact with another 
vehicle equipped with the technology or with roadside infrastructure 
(e.g., a traffic light, etc.) that is equipped with the technology. 
But, V2X technology is a cooperative technology meaning that the more 
vehicles equipped, the larger the benefit. While deployment across the 
entire fleet is not required, as more vehicles and infrastructure are 
equipped, the benefits will increase.

    Question 6. How will this technology be deployed in rural areas 
where cellular service cannot be as readily relied upon as in more 
densely populated areas?
    Answer. V2X technology will be deployed in the same manner in rural 
and urban areas, and everywhere in between. It is a point-to-point 
communication technology and does not require continuous access to a 
cellular service to operate.

    Question 7. You indicated concerns in the hearing with out of band 
emissions interfering with the remaining 30 megahertz dedicated to 
transportation safety technology. Could you please provide additional 
information and examples of how the restrictions put in place during 
the FCC's November order would not be sufficient to protect the 30 mhtz 
from harmful interference?
    Answer. Many transportation safety stakeholders have raised serious 
questions about the adequacy of the limits set by the Commission to 
protect V2X from harmful interference. For example, Ford Motor Company 
submitted extensive laboratory, field, and simulation tests showing 
that unlicensed devices in the lower 45 MHz can cause harmful 
interference to V2X safety applications and concluded that much 
stricter limits were required to ``ensure reliable reception of ITS 
safety messages.'' These test results are consistent with other tests, 
including the Federal Communications Commission's own Phase 1 test 
results and testing by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                               Ann Wilson
    Connected Vehicles. Georgia is a leader in testing and deploying 
connected vehicle (CV) technology on its roads. The Georgia Department 
of Transportation (GDOT) is working with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 
Transit Authority (MARTA) and the Georgia Regional Transportation 
Authority (GRTA) to install CV technology on their buses to help 
transit vehicles operate more efficiently and stay on schedule. Not 
only does this technology help improve public transportation bus 
service, but it can enhance safety for all road users. Broad adoption 
of CV technology can be used to warn vehicles of impending collisions 
with other vehicles, as well as for other safety applications.
    As you know, connected vehicle technologies require dedicated 
spectrum to be effective, and that the 5.9 GHz band had long been 
reserved for transportation safety technologies, like CV. However, last 
year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), over the objections 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation and safety advocates, voted to 
give away the majority of the spectrum needed for these technologies, 
directly threatening the ability of these technologies to reduce 
fatalities.

    Question 1. Could you speak to your organization's view of the 
FCC's actions in this matter?
    Answer. MEMA was very disappointed when the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) decided to split the 5.9 GHz band. MEMA and many of 
our members commented extensively in the FCC Docket (ET Docket No. 19-
138). The decision gives the lower 45 MHz to unlicensed uses like WiFi 
and would transition the upper 30 MHz away from Dedicated Short-Range 
Communications (DSRC) service over to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything 
(C-V2X). MEMA argued that FCC's analysis in its draft report and order 
was not reasoned decision-making. MEMA further noted that additional 
capacity for Wi-Fi is not necessary, particularly in light of the 
recent FCC action in the 6 GHz proceeding to open an additional 1,200 
MHz of spectrum, which more than tripled the spectrum available for Wi-
Fi. Additionally, MEMA noted that the draft order fundamentally alters 
licenses for ITS applications.
    MEMA stated: ``In sum, the Draft Order is a fatally flawed policy 
proposal that offers no real benefits to consumers on closer 
examination, and it will prevent significant deployment of ITS 
technology.'' Moreover, MEMA added that, ``The Draft Order is 
overwhelmingly opposed by multiple Federal agencies, every state 
department of transportation, broad cross sections of industry and 
consumer protection groups, and raises serious international 
harmonization and trade concerns.''
    MEMA is planning to submit comments to the FCC's latest Federal 
Register notices.

    Question 2. Do you believe that this spectrum reallocation would 
undermine transportation safety?
    Answer. In short, yes. While the public docket on this subject was 
massive, it all boils down to the overwhelming majority of stakeholders 
in the proceeding agreeing that the Commission's decision will make ITS 
applications unusable because of harmful interference and will 
eliminate spectrum already necessary to handle existing applications. 
One of the consistent themes expressed by commenters is one of alarm: 
given the critical role ITS technology can play to drastically reduce 
the tens of thousands of traffic fatalities and millions of injuries 
annually, the Commission appears to be consciously avoiding the need to 
examine the consequences of its proposals or supporting it with actual 
data.
    Moreover, federal, state, and local governments have already 
invested billions of dollars in developing and deploying ITS technology 
under the Commission's rules. Not only would the Commission's rules 
wipe out these significant public investments, it would actually 
require state and local governments to incur an additional $645 million 
in costs to ``rip and replace'' existing ITS infrastructure to comply 
according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Interstate Highways. When the Interstate System was developed in 
the 1950s, the government facilitated a regulatory environment in which 
private entrepreneurs could financially benefit from investing in gas 
stations located off highway exits. As a result, drivers of gas-fueled 
cars rarely feel ``range anxiety'' due to an abundance of fueling 
options that are often paired with additional commercial offerings, and 
amenities.

    Question 3. Do you believe it is important to incentivize private 
businesses to invest in expanding EV charging capacity, ultimately 
mirroring the availability of gas stations throughout our 
transportation network?
    Answer. Public-private partnerships are an essential component to 
effectively building out EV charging infrastructure and integrating 
more EVs in the transportation system. Federal incentives for U.S. 
manufacturing are critical. The Federal government should provide 
funding and support for infrastructure but each state and locality will 
need to examine the policies and structures that best meets its unique 
needs. Federal programs should allow for flexibility in decision-making 
by states and localities. This will ensure that EV drivers have access 
to charging infrastructure no matter where they are traveling. There 
should be more processes for Federal and state governments to talk with 
U.S. manufacturers with technical capability and connect them to help 
build this infrastructure.
    The U.S. needs to develop well-connected and accessible system with 
many types of Direct Current (DC)Fast Charging options, whether located 
at public charging stations, nonresidential, or nonworkplace sites. DC 
Fast Charging Stations are a critical part of the U.S.'s shift to EVs.
    Congress should also consider medium-and heavy-duty fleet 
infrastructure needs, including charging depots, that will require 
significant up-front investments despite a long-term benefit. The 
medium-and heavy-duty EV market does not yet have the availability as 
with light vehicles, and Federal support will help early adoption and 
spur innovation and further private investment.

    Question 4. How can Congress engage the private market to help 
build out our national network of electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure at off-highway businesses and ensure safe access for all 
commuters?
    Answer. Congress should fund building out EV infrastructure. 
Expanding charging infrastructure will require collaboration across 
sectors and allow for the variety of public-private partnerships 
necessary to meet demand across different use cases and geographic 
regions. Coordination between end users of the EV charging 
infrastructure and their local energy company will maximize public and 
private investments and can improve cost-effective roll-out.
    MEMA recommends Congress consider:

  1.  Increasing economic development incentives to support the U.S. 
        manufacturers of DC Fast Chargers since the charger itself 
        makes up half the cost of DC Fast Charger deployment. 
        Government support will enable U.S. manufacturers to accelerate 
        innovation and production of charging systems domestically.

      a.  There needs to be more incentives that support domestic 
            manufacturing of DC Fast Chargers in addition to the 
            proposed updates to 48C tax credits. Currently, much of the 
            Federal funding is focused on property owners who install 
            EV Chargers.

      b.  Policies should encourage U.S. manufacturing of 
            infrastructure.

  2.  Providing resources and programs to assist vehicle industry to 
        upskill their current U.S. workforce. This is critical to the 
        future of EVs and EV infrastructure and should include 
        employer-driven workforce training programs. Some examples of 
        the training include a combination of mechanical and electronic 
        engineering and high-voltage training is needed.

  3.  Increasing property owner installation incentives and 
        implementing incentives, including grants and rebates, for the 
        manufacturing DC Fast Charging stations which would accelerate 
        the market adoption of DC fast Chargers. Direct Current (DC) 
        Fast Charging is critical to addressing barriers for mass 
        adoption and consumer acceptance of electric vehicles.

  4.  Supporting all levels of charging in order to achieve a critical 
        mass of charging stations could help the consumer acceptance 
        and achieve a faster market adoption of electric vehicles.

    Semiconductor Shortage. As you know, there is a global 
semiconductor shortage impacting our automotive manufacturing industry 
and putting hundreds of thousands of American jobs at risk. West Point, 
Georgia, is home to Kia Motor's only American manufacturing facility. 
The factory normally runs 24 hours a day, employs more than 2,700 
staff, and produces 340,000 vehicles per year. In April, this Kia 
factory almost had to suspend production for two days due to the global 
semiconductor shortage. The Endless Frontier Act would increase 
research into semiconductor design and fabrication, as well as protect 
America's supply chains. For America to remain competitive, we must 
build public-private partnerships to invest in research and 
development.

    Question 5. How have your members been impacted by the 
semiconductor supply chain shortage and are there any ways to mitigate 
these impacts in the short-term?
    Answer. The impacts of the semiconductor chip shortage have rippled 
throughout the U.S. motor vehicle supply chain. Lower than anticipated 
vehicle production is expected to continue into the third and fourth 
quarters of this year. This will result in closures and lower more 
episodic employment for motor vehicle supplier facilities.
    Motor vehicle suppliers are temporarily closing plants across the 
country for short or longer periods of time and then reopening. This 
uncertainty is exacerbating the shortage of skilled workers facing the 
industry as companies find it difficult to rehire workers after 
shutdowns. Instead, workers are going elsewhere for more consistent 
employment.
    The Biden Administration's efforts to encourage more rapid growth 
in production of motor vehicle grade chips globally include working 
with our allies and key producing countries as well as individual chip 
and wafer companies to encourage more rapid growth in production of 
motor vehicle grade chips. Additional motor vehicle chip production and 
short-term shifts from other types of semiconductor chips are 
necessary. However, effective short solutions are difficult in a strong 
economy with high demand for consumer electronics chips, motor vehicle 
chips and those for other sectors. We hope that recently scheduled 
government convened discussions between motor vehicle manufacturers and 
suppliers with semiconductor and wafter companies can yield progress.

    Question 6. Do you agree legislation like the Endless Frontier Act 
would help address the long-term concerns about semiconductor and other 
supply chain issues?
    Answer. The Endless Frontier Act with the inclusion of the Peters 
Amendment language on the CHIPS Act will help address long-term 
concerns about semiconductor availability for the industry. 
Additionally, other supply-chain needs may be addressed by the abstract 
research and development provisions and critical technology 
commercialization prioritized in the Endless Frontier Act.
    At the same time, great care must be taken in the allocation of the 
$50 billion in CHIPS Act funding. The full $15-20 billion to construct 
fabs for state-of-the-art chips is important to ensure our country's 
competitiveness. However, the overall industrial base must also be 
protected. The Peters Amendment to provide $2 billion for legacy chip 
fab construction will assist key sectors important to the U.S. overall 
and defense industrial base such as motor vehicle and aerospace 
production. MEMA urges the Senate to retain this language in the final 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                             Reuben Sarkar
    Distracted Driving. Distracted driving is responsible for more than 
58 percent of teen crashes. I introduced legislation to help more 
states qualify for grants to prevent distracted driving.

    Question 1. What has your experience taught you about the 
importance of educating drivers, especially teens, about the dangers of 
distracted driving?
    Answer. The American Center for Mobility (ACM) concurs that 
distracted driving, particularly with respect to teenage drivers, is an 
issue that must be addressed through more education. That is why ACM in 
partnership with The B.R.A.K.E.S. (Be Responsible And Keep Everyone 
Safe) organization, hosted two weekend Teen Driver Training events in 
2019 with 400 students in attendance along with their parents and have 
two additional weekend events to be held in May and October of 2021. 
B.R.A.K.E.S. is a non-profit 501(c)3 whose mission is to prevent 
injuries and save lives by training and educating teenage drivers and 
their parents about the importance of safe and responsible driving. 
Over the past 12 years, BRAKES organization has trained over 45,000 
students who are now less likely to be in a crash in their first three 
years of driving. ACM intends to continue to partner with B.R.A.K.E.S. 
and similar organizations.
    B.R.A.K.E.S. works closely with the Department of Transportation 
and the local and state police to determine which curriculum will be 
the most beneficial for teen drivers. The curriculum and training 
provided are reflective of the most current data on teen automobile 
crashes and fatalities. The B.R.A.K.E.S. Teen Driver Training is 
designed to train and educate teenage drivers and their parents about 
the importance of safe and responsible driving. B.R.A.K.E.S. training 
consist of five hands-on exercises one of which, the Distraction 
Exercise, is specifically targeted towards distracted driving. The 
distraction curriculum forces a driver to negotiate a tightly 
coned course while being distracted by the instructor. The 
curriculum is designed to demonstrate just how dangerous cell phones, 
text messaging, music, traffic, and friends in the car can be for 
drivers. The other four portions of the curriculum include exercises in 
crash avoidance/slalom, drop wheel/off road recovery, panic stop, and 
car control and skid recovery.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ About / B.R.A.K.E.S. Teen Driver's Training For Safe Driving 
and Accident Prevention (putonthebrakes.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to ACM's efforts on public education, ACM is focused on 
the development, testing and validation of advanced mobility 
technologies that aim to improve driver safety. ACM has worked with 
automotive companies at our smart mobility test center to evaluate 
driver engagement technologies that can be used to reduce driver 
distraction and improve vehicle safety. ACM has tested systems that 
detect for driver distraction and help to ensure drivers remain alert 
when behind the wheel. These test scenarios required a safe method to 
be established for operating a vehicle on a closed track facility while 
intentionally distracting a driver with tasks that are known to be a 
risky to perform while driving, such as texting. ACM also tested 
systems at night to monitor driver's ability to stay awake. These 
``drowsy driver'' systems help to ensure the operator is alert, while 
behind the wheel. In most cases the driver monitoring was accomplished 
with a vision system that used facial expression software to assess 
participants level of distraction or drowsiness.
    The American Center for Mobility supports Senator Klobuchar's 
legislation to help more states qualify for grants to prevent 
distracted driving.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                             Reuben Sarkar
    Connected Vehicles. Georgia is a leader in testing and deploying 
connected vehicle (CV) technology on its roads. The Georgia Department 
of Transportation (GDOT) is working with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 
Transit Authority (MARTA) and the Georgia Regional Transportation 
Authority (GRTA) to install CV technology on their buses to help 
transit vehicles operate more efficiently and stay on schedule. Not 
only does this technology help improve public transportation bus 
service, but it can enhance safety for all road users. Broad adoption 
of CV technology can be used to warn vehicles of impending collisions 
with other vehicles, as well as for other safety applications.
    As you know, connected vehicle technologies require dedicated 
spectrum to be effective, and that the 5.9 GHz band had long been 
reserved for transportation safety technologies, like CV. However, last 
year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), over the objections 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation and safety advocates, voted to 
give away the majority of the spectrum needed for these technologies, 
directly threatening the ability of these technologies to reduce 
fatalities.

    Question 1. Could you speak to your organization's view of the 
FCC's actions in this matter?
    Answer. The November 18, 2020 FCC decision to make the lower 45-
megahertz band within the 5.850--5.895 GHz spectrum available for 
unlicensed uses and to allocate the upper 30 MHz for Cellular Vehicle-
to-Everything (C-V2X), thereby obsoleting Dedicated Short-Range 
Communications (DSRC), appears to have been more of a judgement call 
based on perceived cost-benefit for allowing unlicensed use within the 
spectrum in comparison to a retrospective view on DSRC adoption over 
the past twenty-years. It does not appear to be a purposeful assessment 
as to the efficacy and adequacy of C-V2X to address vehicle safety 
related issues using only a 30 MHz band as in comparison to the full, 
dedicated 75 MHz band that allowed for DSRC. In other words, the FCC 
decision appears to have preceded a comprehensive study to validate the 
impact on V2X applications.
    The American Center for Mobility (ACM) is a leading, state-of-the 
art smart mobility test center for the research, testing and validation 
of industry standards for new mobility technologies such as connected 
and autonomous vehicles. ACM is equipped with an intelligent 
transportation system (ITS) network based on DSRC but not yet updated 
for C-V2X. ACM is now in the process of reinvesting into C-V2X based on 
the FCC ruling to enable such testing and validation by our automotive 
and government customers. To date, only very high-level conceptual 
demonstrations with industry partners have been performed at ACM on 
point-to-point communications using C-V2X. No Federally funded research 
has been completed using ACM as a test bed on C-V2X. While ACM is 
ultimately technology agnostic as to which V2X solution is employed, we 
can say that we have not performed any extensive testing or validation 
of C-V2X and therefore cannot provide an objective data driven 
perspective on the impact of the FCC decision. It does seem reasonable 
and prudent, however, that more exposure to the technology coupled with 
testing and validation should have been performed ahead of the FCC 
decision.

    Question 2. Do you believe that this spectrum reallocation would 
undermine transportation safety?
    Answer. It is the American Center for Mobility's view that more 
objective data through structured programs for purposeful study are 
required to fully understand the impact of the FCC spectrum 
reallocation decision on transportation safety. The approach that was 
taken by FCC places the study of the impact after the decision has 
already been made. As a result, transportation safety improvements 
enabled through connectivity could be a foregone conclusion if C-V2X 
falls short of delivering a comprehensive effective solution or if 
interference from unlicensed devices in adjacent bands disrupt safety 
critical messages.
    The two main issues with FCC's proposal are that it may not allow 
for the full suite of anticipated V2X applications and may not 
adequately protect the V2X spectrum from interference from adjacent 
bands. The Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) recent 
paper analysis of spectrum requirements in their preliminary 30 MHz 
application map found that while some V2X applications such as Basic 
Safety Messages (BSM) would likely be deployed in the 30 MHz band, 
other Message Types such as Collective Perception Messages (CPM), 
Maneuver Coordination Messages (MCM), and Personal Safety Messages 
(PSM) would likely be lost.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://itsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Application-Map-
Webinar-PowerPoint-Presentation-FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Smart Mobility Testing Centers such as ACM, on the heels of FCC's 
decision, are only now starting to implement C-V2X capabilities that 
can be used to evaluate their effectiveness in vehicle safety but have 
not started any major testing programs. Significant testing or 
validation of C-V2X technologies has not yet been performed at ACM 
except for limited high-level demonstrations. However, considerable 
corporate and federally funded work has been performed using DSRC 
technologies.
    For example, ACM conducted Federally funded research on the 
platooning of class 8 trucks in real-world conditions using V2V 
communications based on DSRC. Cooperative platooning of trucks is 
dependent on real-time V2V communications which enables close following 
distances that can enable considerable fuel efficiency gains while 
remaining within a safe operating envelope. The opening of the spectrum 
can cause disruptions to V2V communications that result in 
significantly decreased reliability of the real-time data needed for 
these types of cooperative driving applications.\3\ While it may be 
possible to update DSRC to C-V2X, it is unclear how the limitation to 
30 MHz would impact performance, and if results of this research would 
translate. Additional closed track and real-world testing is also 
needed to ensure that the 30MHz spectrum is not encumbered by 
interference from out-of-band emissions from adjacent spectrum bands, 
as evidenced from USDOT's Technical Assessment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Performance of DSRC V2V Communication Networks in an Autonomous 
Semi-Truck Platoon Application
    \4\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
research-and-technology/360181/oobe-energy-59-safety-band-final-
120619.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is ACM's view that there is not enough objective information 
from purposeful studies to assess the impact to transportation safety 
resulting from the from the FCC ruling, and that more purposeful work 
through NHTSA and other agencies is required.

                                [all]