[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]