U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–692 PDF 2016

VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATIONS AND 

CONNECTED ROADWAYS OF THE FUTURE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Serial No. 114–60 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 7 

WITNESSES

Nathaniel Beuse, Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration ............................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Peter F. Sweatman, Ph.D., Director, University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute ................................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Harry Lightsey, Executive Director, Global Connected Customer Experience, 

General Motors ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

David St. Amant, President and Chief Operating Officer, Econolite Group, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Barry Einsig, Global Transportation Executive, Cisco Systems, Inc. ................. 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

(1) 

VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE COMMUNICATIONS AND 

CONNECTED ROADWAYS OF THE FUTURE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Guthrie, 

Olson, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Upton (ex officio), Schakowsky, 

Kennedy, Ca ́ rdenas, Butterfield, Welch, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Barton. 

Staff present: Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Andy 

Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Graham Dufault, Counsel, 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, 

Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Kirby Howard, Legislative 

Clerk; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and 

Trade; John Ohly, Professional Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff Member, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Democratic Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Christine Brennan, 

Democratic Press Secretary; Elisa Goldman, Democratic Counsel; 

Meredith Jones, Democratic Director of Communications, Outreach, 

and Member Services; Adam Lowenstein, Democratic Policy Analyst; Timothy Robinson, Democratic Chief Counsel; and Ryan 

Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade will now come to order. Recognize myself for 

5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

And I do want to—Mr. Guthrie, you too. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

I do want to welcome everyone here this morning to discuss vehicle to vehicle communications. It is an innovative technology that 

is advancing vehicle safety, and has the potential to transform the 

future of our Nation’s roadways. Recently this subcommittee held 

a hearing on the Internet of things, and the growing digital economy. During that hearing, we broadly examined ways in which different markets, different industries are using the Internet, how 

they are using wireless connections and network sensors to create 

2 

products that gather information in real time to predict circumstances, prevent problems, and create opportunities. Vehicle to 

vehicle communications technology is a manifestation of that digital phenomenon. The ability of cars to communicate with one another, identifying their location, their speed, their brake patterns, 

their—and other positioning data, and share that information with 

other vehicles and drivers. This creates a transportation system in 

which crashes are avoided, mobility is improved, traffic congestion 

is avoided, and most importantly, lives may be saved. Given the 

life-saving benefits alone, I am very anxious to see if this technology takes shape and supports our country’s efforts to build a 

safer and more secure transportation system. With over 32,000 

motor vehicle accident deaths a year, vehicle to vehicle communications promises to significantly reduce those fatalities, and further 

harmonize roadway activity. 

It all sounds great, but the only way this saves lives is to make 

it real. I am looking forward to examining how vehicle to vehicle 

technology will work on today’s roads, at a time when we face an 

aging vehicle fleet, where many cars are not equipped with the latest in groundbreaking technology, and where Americans, still facing an uncertain economic future, continue to hold off on buying 

big ticket items. We must understand how this technology will be 

accessible and available to everyone, and, in fact, accepted by everyone. 

In addition to understanding how we will make vehicle to vehicle 

communications a reality, I do look forward to discussing how to 

maximize vehicle to vehicle’s driver and vehicle safety benefits. We 

need to understand the costs and the expenses associated with devices, and what will be required to maintain that communications 

network. Other considerations are also necessary, including how 

current roadway infrastructure will impact the implementation of 

this technology, and what infrastructure is needed to support V2V, 

and the process for developing performance and safety standards, 

how the technology will be compatible and interoperable among the 

entire vehicle fleet, and how the technology will impact driver distraction and disruption, what kind of driver education is needed to 

operate vehicles equipped with this technology. These and many 

other factors will need to be considered as we move forward in this 

technologically advanced transportation era. 

As with all network connected products in our day and age, protecting personal information, and ensuring that the appropriate 

safeguards are in place to guarantee vehicle security will be an essential part of fully realizing vehicle to vehicle communications, 

and its economic and public safety benefits. In our examination of 

privacy and security issues, it is important that we understand 

what kinds of information are collected from vehicle systems to 

support this technology, and what other safety applications, and 

what kind of information can be shared between vehicles. In addition, we must understand the security of those connections, and 

how it will be impacted with aftermarket devices, applications, and 

services that are brought into vehicles. 

Last month the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

announced that it was taking steps to accelerate road safety innovation, including moving ahead with its proposed timetable of reVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
3 

quiring vehicle to vehicle devices in most new vehicles. I have said 

before, I am anxious to see this technology implemented on our 

roadways, and to begin demonstrating the life-saving benefits. 

However, we must make certain that the technology is ready, and 

that the implementation is done right. We must ensure that the 

appropriate level of expertise is available to oversee the entirety of 

the vehicle to vehicle system so that it functions and operates properly, and can speedily remedy any system failures without disruption. As we all know, lives will depend upon that. And I also want 

to parenthetically add that I am the chairman of the House Motorcycle Caucus, and I do see value in being aware of other occupants 

on the road, even if those other occupants are seemingly small and 

insignificant. Big trouble can result if you violate laws of physics. 

And, finally, I do want to note that there are multiple facets of 

vehicle to vehicle communications, and the committee as a whole, 

through its various subcommittees, is examining all of them. This 

hearing, however, is focused on what the technology could mean for 

safety, and what industry and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration need to do to bring the technology safely into the 

marketplace. I want to thank in advance the witnesses for their 

testimony, and look forward to an engaging discussion on this very 

important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

I want to welcome everyone to our hearing today as we take an opportunity to 

discuss vehicle-to-vehicle communications: an innovative technology that is advancing vehicle safety and has the potential to transform the future of our Nation’s roadways. 

Recently, this subcommittee held a hearing on the Internet of Things and the 

growing digital economy. During that hearing, we broadly examined ways in which 

different markets and industries are using the Internet, wireless connections, and 

networked sensors to create products that gather information in realtime to predict 

circumstances, prevent problems, and create opportunities. 

Vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology is a manifestation of that digital 

phenomenon. The ability of cars to ‘‘talk’’ to one another—identifying their location, 

speed, brake status and other positioning data—and share that information with 

other vehicles and drivers, creates a transportation system in which crashes are 

avoided, mobility is improved, traffic congestion is avoided and, most importantly, 

lives are saved. 

Given the life-saving benefits alone, I am eager to see this technology take shape 

and support our country’s efforts to build a safer and more secure transportation 

system. With over 30,000 motor vehicle traffic deaths a year, V2V promises to significantly reduce those fatalities and further harmonize roadway activity. 

It sounds great. But the only way to save lives is to make it real. I look forward 

to examining how V2V will work on today’s roads. At a time when we face an aging 

vehicle fleet where many cars are not equipped with the latest groundbreaking technology and where Americans, still facing an uncertain economic future, continue to 

hold off on buying big-ticket items, we must understand how this technology will 

be accessible and available to everyone, and accepted by everyone. 

In addition to understanding how we will make V2V a reality, I look forward to 

discussing how to maximize V2V’s driver and vehicle safety benefits. We need to understand the costs and expenses associated with V2V devices and what will be required to maintain the V2V communications network. Other considerations are also 

necessary, including: how current roadway infrastructure will impact the implementation of V2V and what infrastructure is needed to support V2V; the process for developing V2V performance and safety standards; how the technology will be compatible and interoperable among the entire vehicle fleet; how V2Vwill impact driver distraction and disruption; and what kind of driver education is needed to operate vehicles equipped with this technology. These and many other factors will need to be 

4 

considered as we move forward into this technologically advanced transportation 

era. 

As with all networked-connected products in this day and age, protecting personal 

information and ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are in place to guarantee 

vehicle security will be an essential part of fully realizing V2V and its economic and 

public safety benefits. In our examination of privacy and security issues, it is important that we understand what kinds of information is collected from vehicle systems 

to support V2V and other safety applications and what kinds of information is 

shared between vehicles. In addition, we must address the security of those connections and how they will be impacted when aftermarket devices, applications, and 

services are brought into vehicles. 

Last month, NHTSA announced that it was taking steps to accelerate road-safety 

innovation, including moving ahead of its proposed timetable requiring V2V devices 

in new vehicles. As I said before, I am eager to see this technology implemented 

on our roadways and begin demonstrating its life-saving benefits. However, we must 

make sure the technology is ready and the implementation is done right. We must 

ensure that the appropriate level of expertise is available to oversee the entirety of 

the V2V system so that it functions and operates properly, and can speedily remedy 

any system failures without disruption. As we all know, lives will depend on it. 

Finally, I want to note that there are multiple facets of vehicle-to-vehicle communications and the committee as a whole through its various subcommittees is examining all of them. This hearing, however, is focused on what the technology could 

mean for safety, and what industry and NHTSA need to do to bring the technology 

safely into the marketplace. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair recognizes the subcommittee ranking 

member, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Auto safety has 

been a particular focus of mine for years, and so I really look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this developing safety feature. More than two million Americans were injured in car crashes 

last year, with more than 30,000 deaths. Those accidents and lost 

lives are tragic, but there have been significant auto safety improvements made since 1979, when a record 51,000 auto-related fatalities were recorded. Safety technologies like seat belts, anti-lock 

brakes, rear visibility, which I was very involved in passing, 

though not implemented until—full until 2018, and airbags, despite 

the Takata recall, have significantly improved auto safety since vehicle deaths reached their peak almost 4 years ago. In order to continue that progress, we must enhance existing safety features, 

while at the same time considering new and innovative technologies. 

Dedicated short range radio communication, DSRC, seems with 

technology come new acronyms, which enable vehicle to vehicle 

technologies, have been researched for 15 years, and it shows serious promise in further reducing traffic accidents. V2V, as well as 

vehicle to infrastructure, V2I, allows for early detection of traffic 

risks, and provide advance warning to drivers in order to avoid accidents. Whether it is ensure drivers can make safe left turns 

across traffic, not knocking over our chairman on his motorcycle, 

knowing when a driver can safely pass another car on the road, or 

minimizing traffic congestion, these technologies have tremendous 

real world benefits. It has been estimated that DSRC technology 

could prevent as many as four out of five accidents. Let—I want 

to hear what you think about that. I know firsthand how beneficial 

5 

this technology could be—passenger in a little scrape that probably 

would have been prevented by V2V technology, with a bus, by the 

way. 

However, there are potential technical, privacy, and security 

vulnerabilities associated with DSRC technology. This technology 

could be interrupted by other communications traveling over the 

same spectrum band. We must ensure that geolocation information 

and driving habits are not able to be collected by auto manufacturers or subcontractors and used for purposes other than vehicle safety. Even more concerning is the vulnerability of advanced technologies in cars to remote access, which could cause vehicles to be 

breached and overtaken. Each of these threats needs to be fully 

vetted, and safeguards must be implemented to prevent them from 

occurring. 

Cars are already being manufactured with DSRC technology. As 

that technology continues to advance and is incorporated into more 

and more vehicles and infrastructure, we must establish rules of 

the road to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. NHTSA is 

working to develop standards and guidance to maximize V2V and 

V2I benefits, and I look forward to learning more about the rules— 

did you have something you wanted me to do? OK. More about the 

agency plans to advance and meet that objective. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) 

technology. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this developing safety 

feature. 

More than 2 million Americans were injured in car crashes last year, with more 

than 30,000 deaths. Those accidents and lost lives are tragic, but there have been 

significant auto safety improvements made since 1979, when a record 51,000 autorelated fatalities were recorded. 

Safety technologies like seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, and airbags—despite the 

Takata recall—have significantly improved auto safety since vehicle deaths reached 

their peak almost 40 years ago. 

In order to continue that progress, we must enhance existing safety features while 

at the same time considering new and innovative technologies. Dedicated shortrange radio communications (DSRC)—which enable V2V- has been researched for 

15 years, and it shows serious promise in further reducing traffic accidents. 

V2V, as well as vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) allow for early detection of traffic 

risks and provide advanced warning to drivers in order to avoid accidents. Whether 

it’s ensuring drivers can make safe left turns across traffic, knowing when a driver 

can safely pass another car on the road, or minimizing traffic congestion, these technologies have tremendous real-world benefits. It has been estimated that DSRC 

technology could prevent as many as 4 out of 5 accidents. I know first-hand how 

beneficial this technology could be: just the other day, I was a passenger in a little 

scrape that probably would have been prevented with V2V technology. 

However, there are potential technical, privacy and security vulnerabilities associated with DSRC technology. DSRC technology could be interrupted by other communications traveling over the same spectrum band. We must ensure that geolocation 

information and driving habits are not able to be collected by auto manufacturers 

or subcontractors and used for purposes unrelated to vehicle safety. Even more concerning is the vulnerability of advanced technologies in cars to remote access, which 

could cause vehicles to be breached and overtaken. Each of these threats needs to 

be fully vetted and safeguards must be implemented to prevent them from occurring. 

Cars are already being manufactured with DSRC technology. As that technology 

continues to advance and is incorporated into more and more vehicles and infrastructure, we must establish rules of the road to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. NHTSA is working to develop standards and guidance to maximize 

6 

V2V and V2I benefits, and I look forward to learning more about the rules the agency plans to advance to meet that objective. 

Again, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses to gain from their perspectives on how we can maximize the potential of V2V and V2I technology while 

minimizing potential risks. I yield back. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And with just a little over a minute, let me 

yield right now to Mr. Butterfield for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing. The 

safety potential of V2V communication is very significant. It is in 

everyone’s best interest to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. It 

is my belief that eventually this technology can be helpful to that 

end. I am also interested in how this technology can potentially 

benefit even pedestrians, and bicyclists, and those riding motorcycles. 

There are many issues to work out to make sure this technology 

can become effective. I am encouraged by USDOT, and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration for bringing 

all stakeholders to the table to work through issues, including reliability, interoperability, data security, spectrum, and deployment. 

Again, I appreciate the deliberative process that DOT has been taking with the rulemaking. I look forward to discussing the potential 

of these technologies to improve the safety of all Americans. Thank 

you for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butterfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD

Thank you Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding this 

hearing on vehicle-to-vehicle communication technologies. The safety potential of 

V2V communication technologies is significant. It is in everyone’s best interest to 

reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and it is my belief that eventually this technology can be helpful to that end. I am also very interested in how this technology 

can potentially benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and those riding motorcycles. 

However, there are many issues to work out to make sure this technology can be 

effective. I am encouraged that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration is bringing all stakeholders to 

the table to work through issues including reliability, interoperability, data security, 

spectrum, and deployment. I appreciate the deliberate process the DOT has been 

taking with this rulemaking, and look forward to discussing the potential of these 

technologies to improve the safety of eastern North Carolinians. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield back to you, Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I 

yield back to you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I yield. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. The Chair would note that there is a vote on the floor, 

but I believe we will have time to conclude opening statements, 

so—— 

Mr. UPTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of the votes happening 

now, I am going to submit my statement for the record, and yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

I often remind you all that I’m from the auto State. It’s because folks from Michigan take special pride in manufacturing vehicles that offer safety, comfort, efficiency, and superior driving experiences to consumers throughout the United States 

and around the world. We also take pride in being leaders and trendsetters in the 

development of automotive technologies that saves lives. 

Today we examine the advancement of a transformative safety technology: vehicle-to-vehicle communications. This is a safety technology that helps drivers avoid 

crashes before they happen by allowing cars to ‘‘talk’’ to each other and sense another vehicle’s movements. By alerting drivers to potential safety risks on the road 

and giving them an opportunity to proactively avoid them, it is projected that vehicle-to-vehicle communications will save thousands of lives and generate societal and 

economic benefits that extend far beyond the transportation sector. 

Last year, following the Department of Transportation’s Connected Vehicle Safety 

Pilot program conducted at my alma mater, the University of Michigan in Ann 

Arbor, NHTSA announced plans to pursue a regulatory proposal that would require 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications devices in new cars. As NHTSA moves forward 

with its rulemaking, there are plenty of questions to answer. 

Drivers will need to understand what the technology is, how it works, and why 

they should adopt it. Congress needs to know that NHTSA is in a position to do 

its job—by ensuring that this safety technology is safely and properly deployed. This 

is a technology that has a connectivity curve to it—the more cars and infrastructure 

that are connected the more benefits there are. This committee needs to understand 

the technology and the marketplace to ensure that the proper policies are in place 

to incentivize adoption—to achieve a connectivity critical mass. 

Ensuring that V2V is done right is a committee wide priority, and I want to acknowledge the important meetings that Chairman Walden has been leading with 

Ranking Members Pallone and Eshoo to address the question of whether and how 

Intelligent Transportation Systems can co-exist with unlicensed uses. Our O&I subcommittee has taken the lead in sending out letters to ensure that cybersecurity is 

front and center in everyone’s minds as we move forward. Today, however, we are 

not focusing on spectrum or cybersecurity. We are focusing on the safety aspects, 

deployment timelines, and NHTSA’s role. 

The deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle communications is right around the corner. 

This is a welcome endeavor that marks a revolutionary phase in the Nation’s transportation system. It represents the first ripple in what will be a torrent of new technologies. We all, as policymakers and consumers, need to be prepared for its implementation and I look forward to exploring those plans today. 

I am pleased that this panel reflects Michigan’s leadership with fellow Wolverine 

Dr. Peter Sweatman, who has helped oversee a pilot V2V program at GM. We look 

forward to your testimony and seeing these V2V equipped Cadillacs on the road. We 

have come a long way since the seat belt was a breakthrough safety device. Now 

Jetsons technology is becoming a reality in our cars. It’s an exciting time. I thank 

Dr. Burgess for convening this hearing and for the subcommittee’s continued efforts 

to improve driver and vehicle safety. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. In that case, Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. 

Mr. PALLONE. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you—are you trying 

to speed it up? Is that the idea? 

Mr. UPTON. I did. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I will—— 

Mr. UPTON. So I—— 

Mr. PALLONE. I will do the same, and—my statement, like Chairman Upton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Today’s hearing is a welcome opportunity to learn more about vehicle-to-vehicle, 

or V2V, communications—a technology with great potential to improve safety on our 

highways and roads. 

Despite the enormous progress we’ve made over the past several decades in installing air bags, seat belts, and other crash-resilient measures in our vehicles, faVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
8 

talities from car crashes still number in the tens of thousands each year, and preventable injuries number in the millions. We can, and must, do more to ensure the 

safety of our driving population. One way to do this is through crash avoidance technologies such as V2V communications. 

Over the past decade and a half, Government, industry, and the research community have worked together to help make so-called ‘‘connected cars’’ a reality. This 

cooperative effort has produced a system that allows cars to communicate with each 

other over a wireless network and a host of on-board features designed to provide 

warnings to drivers about potentially dangerous situations detected through those 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications. 

For example, a V2V system can warn a driver approaching an intersection if another vehicle is about to run through a stop sign, thereby avoiding a potential collision. V2V systems have also been tested to help drivers brake suddenly, avoid blind 

spot collisions, and safely change lanes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that this technology has the potential to reduce 

unimpaired vehicle crashes by 80 percent. 

While the progress and potential of this technology are clear, we in Congress must 

continue to ensure proper oversight as NHTSA moves aggressively toward its goal 

of finalizing its V2V rulemaking by the end of this year. While pushing for V2Venabled cars, NHTSA must also ensure drivers have the most beneficial crash avoidance and crashworthiness technologies in all cars, not just those supported by V2V 

communications. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications is just one component of an 

overall strategy to make our highways and roads a safe place to drive. 

Ensuring privacy and security should also a top priority for Congress. Safe vehicles must be resilient against hacking attempts and must ensure the anonymity of 

drivers’ data. Consumer groups and the Federal Trade Commission provided 

NHTSA with comments on how to ensure consumer privacy and security in its rulemaking proceeding, and my hope is that the agency addresses these concerns moving forward. 

The availability of spectrum is another important component of our discussion of 

V2V implementation. Congress has heard repeatedly from stakeholders in the intelligent transportation community as well as the unlicensed community about their 

legitimate concerns regarding sharing spectrum in the upper 5 GHz band. I am confident both sides can work together to resolve their difference so consumers see a 

two-fold benefit—V2V communications that improve vehicle safety, and an expansion of Wi-Fi networks that broaden access to the Internet. This committee recently 

initiated a series of bipartisan meetings to facilitate a sharing solution among all 

stakeholders in this area, and I look forward to continuing this worthwhile effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. As Transportation Secretary Foxx stated last month, our 

goal should be moving toward an era when vehicle safety isn’t just about surviving 

crashes; it’s about avoiding them. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. In that case, we will move on to the witness testimony part of the hearing, and I do want to welcome all 

of our witnesses. Thank you for taking the time to testify before 

the subcommittee. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing will include Mr. Nat 

Beuse, the Associate Administrator of Vehicle Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dr. Peter Sweatman, 

Director of the University of Michigan Transportation and Research Institute, Mr. David St. Amant, President and Chief Operating Officer of Econolite Group, Mr. Barry Einsig, Global Transportation Executive for Cisco, and Mr. Harry Lightsey, the Executive Director of Global Connected Customer Experience at General 

Motors. We do appreciate all of you being here today. We are going 

to attempt to get through as much of the witness testimony as we 

can before we must go vote. So, Mr. Beuse, you are recognized for 

5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you. 

9 

STATEMENTS OF NATHANIEL BEUSE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, VEHICLE SAFETY RESEARCH, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; PETER F. SWEATMAN, 

PH.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE; HARRY LIGHTSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CONNECTED CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE, GENERAL MOTORS; DAVID ST. AMANT, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ECONOLITE GROUP, INC.; 

AND BARRY EINSIG, GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE, 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL BEUSE 

Mr. BEUSE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you about vehicle to vehicle communications, its readiness for application, and its potential 

safety benefits. For more than 50 years the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s vehicle safety activities have enhanced 

occupant protection when crashes occur. But as Secretary Fox recently said, the Department wants to speed the Nation towards an 

era when vehicle safety isn’t just about surviving crashes, it is 

about avoiding them. To that end, USDOT and NHTSA have accelerated efforts to bring vehicle to vehicle communications, automated vehicle features, and the full complement of advanced safety 

technologies to the cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles that 

Americans drive. 

Our studies show that 94 percent of vehicle crashes are due to 

driver error, and we believe technologies can help reduce or eliminate it. NHTSA has been aggressively pursuing two complementary technology paths to address this issue. One path involves 

those technologies enabled by sensors, such as V2V, camera, and 

radar, that alert drivers of impending collisions. The second path 

involves those technologies, in some cases enabled the same technologies that I just mentioned, as well as additional ones that perform some automated vehicle function, such as automatic emergency braking when the driver doesn’t take any action at all. We 

have already included some warning technologies into the Government’s five-star rating program, also known as NCAB, and we have 

recently announced our intent to include automatic braking technologies into that influential program as well. When integrated, 

these connected and automated vehicle technologies represent the 

building blocks that will bring us the ultimate of full self-driving 

vehicles. 

V2V technology is based on vehicles—sharing their position, 

speed, and heading information with each other in near real time 

fashion. This anonymous exchange of data occurs over dedicated 

short range communications, otherwise known as VSRC, on the 5.9 

Gigahertz spectrum. This piece of spectrum is quite unique. It has 

been dedicated for a number of years, in large part thanks to the 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Safety Officials, and the 

FCC, which had the foresight to actually reserve the spectrum to 

assist in the development of this important technology. 

10 

By providing for enhanced 360 degree situation awareness, the 

kind that allows a driver to see around corners, V2V technology 

can assist a driver in many challenging crash scenarios that are 

very difficult for other sensors to do. For instance, V2V technology 

can help drivers avoid an intersection crash, one of the deadliest 

crash types on the roadway, where two vehicles may be on a collision path, but because of obstructions, are completely unaware of 

it. NHTSA’s testing and analysis of V2V technology indicates that 

it can address approximately 80 percent of all unimpaired crashes 

involving two or more motor vehicles. 

In 2013 NHTSA achieved a key research milestone when V2V 

technology was tested in the real world. The safety pilot model deployment tested nearly 3,000 vehicles from eight different manufacturers driven by regular citizens, and not engineers. For just over 

a year NHTSA and DOT monitored and collected data on the performance of the technology as these drivers went about their daily 

lives in the Ann Arbor, Michigan area. Data collected from that 

study helped shape NHTSA’s decision to move forward with V2V 

technology. 

In August of 2014, NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. That document initiated rulemaking for a DSRC vehicle-based communication system on all new light duty vehicles. 

NHTSA indicated that the regulatory approach could be to require 

the basic radio system, security features, and functionality to support inter-operability between vehicles, but we did not specify that 

we would require safety applications. NHTSA indicated that this 

approach would allow the market and automakers to innovate and 

compete in offering safety applications and a whole host of other 

applications of their choosing. Concurrent to the ANPRM, NHTSA 

also issued a comprehensive vehicle to vehicle communications 

readiness of V2V technology for application report. This report provided details on the technology, results of numerous testing programs, benefits, deployment challenges, as well as security, privacy, policy, and regulatory issues. 

In May of this year Secretary Fox announced USDOT’s intent to 

accelerate NHTSA’s V2V rulemaking activities, with the goal of 

issuing a proposal in 2016. Secretary Fox also announced our readiness to accelerate testing of potential sources of interference in the 

5.9 Gigahertz spectrum. USDOT, NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, 

suppliers, and technology companies have conducted extensive 

analysis, control testing, and real world field studies of V2V. Our 

conclusion, based on the body of work, and the observation of commenters to NHTSA’s ANPRM, is that vehicle to vehicle communications offers an important opportunity to dramatically improve highway safety in the United States. 

While my testimony has focused on the readiness of the technology, and its potential safety benefit, there are also mobility and 

environmental benefits that will also be enabled by this technology. 

Similarly, some innovative States have—who have been following 

the development of this technology have already started making 

plans to deploy vehicle to infrastructure, in anticipation of the Department’s efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to update this committee on the 

game changing potential of this remarkable safety technology, and 

11 

the agency’s progress towards accelerating its deployment. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beuse follows:] 

12 


97692.001
13 


97692.002
14 


97692.003
15 


97692.004
16 


97692.005
17 


97692.006
18 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair recognizes Dr. Sweatman. 5 minutes for a summary of your opening 

statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF PETER F. SWEATMAN 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today about vehicle to vehicle communications, or what—I will just call it V2X. My name is Peter Sweatman, 

Director of UMTRI. I am a past Board Chair of ITS America, and 

immediate past chair of its Leadership Circle. I want to tell you 

about our experience with V2X for safety. We conducted the 

USDOT’s safety pilot model deployment from August 2012 through 

August 2014. We deployed 2,843 vehicles, collected 115 billion messages from 35 million miles of driving. The community, including 

about 2 1⁄2 thousand volunteers, embraced V2X. Our volunteers reported receiving warnings that prevented crashes. The stoplight application, excuse me, where you are alerted to a vehicle stopping 

suddenly several vehicles ahead, was extremely popular. And analytics on the system testing data by USDOT confirmed V2X’s life 

saving potential, excuse me, on a large scale, hence NHTSA’s decision to proceed with rulemaking. 

This V2X experience compelled us to do more. An incredible 47 

companies have come to the table to expand the Ann Arbor mobile 

deployment and create larger real world deployments. The USDOT 

is still contributing, but this new ecosystem brings both funding 

and equipment. It includes automakers, T–1 suppliers, traffic control, and sensor suppliers, aftermarket suppliers, insurance, telecommunications, Big Data, IT, and mobility services. Excuse me, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. 

Mr. SWEATMAN. We are working with the Michigan Department 

of Transportation, the City of Ann Arbor, and numerous counties 

to equip the infrastructure. The UM invested in NTC to deploy a 

planned 20,000 vehicles over the next 2 years, building on the I– 

96 smart corridor created by Michigan DOT. This will be the first 

sustainable, production-ready U.S. V2X deployment. We are currently expanding the Ann Arbor deployment to 9,000 vehicles, and 

working with the city to make it sustainable, and that is the wish 

of the city. Our current V2X volunteers, many of whom are parents 

in the Ann Arbor public school system, are excited about students 

being connected into lifesaving V2X via smartphones. Mr. Chairman, we have also found that motorcyclists love the idea that with 

V2X they are more likely to be detected by other vehicles. 

There is no substitute for DSRC, and an entire ecosystem of companies is committed to V2X using 5.9 DSRC. They are all building 

product strategies around V2X, including automation. DSRC is the 

only technology that has been successfully tested for saving lives 

by both automakers and NHTSA. Infrastructure costs are very affordable. At the time of the safety pilot, each set of roadside equipment cost $15,000. We deployed 27 sets to equip roughly a quarter 

of the city. 3 years later, the cost of the radios is higher, so the current cost for a city of 140,000 people is under a million dollars. For 

our enlarged deployment, that works out at $90 per vehicle equivaVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
19 

lent. Most of the radios are installed at intersections. V2X turns ordinary traffic signals into adaptive traffic signals without additional cost, so services like Greenwave, which provide conspicuous 

value to consumers on a daily basis, may be provided by the city. 

Initial V2X deployments are being replicated. Our Southeastern 

Michigan V2X deployment is designed to be sustainable and expandable other locales around the country. V2X also creates innovation beyond its primary mission of safety. All of our automotive 

partners are developing DSRC products, and our traffic control 

technology partners are also using DSRC to include maps in traffic 

signal controllers. This is not about the auto industry or the tech 

industry. We are seeing what happens when the auto industry, the 

traffic industry, the infrastructure managers, and broader techbased and service industries come together. 

V2X also supports automated vehicles. Automation will transform our transportation system. From the perspective of an autonomous vehicle, V2X is the most powerful of sensors for a highly affordable cost. For example, it is hard to imagine the automated use 

case of platooning vehicles without V2X. Federal actions are needed 

to better define the playing field, and there is an important role in 

supporting ever larger deployments of V2X. 

In a few weeks the University of Michigan will M City, a safe 

off-roadway urban test environment for connected and automated 

vehicles. I invite you to the grand opening, Monday, July 20, on the 

University of Michigan campus. Thank you once again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweatman follows:] 

20 


97692.007
21 


97692.008
22 


97692.009
23 


97692.010
24 


97692.011
25 


97692.012
26 


97692.013
27 


97692.014
28 


97692.015
29 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Gentleman 

yields back. We are out of time on our vote. There are 280 members who haven’t voted yet. I think I can still move faster than 

about 100 of them, but, Mr. Lightsey, in order to give you fair consideration, let us go into a recess while we have this series of three 

votes on the floor, and we will reconvene immediately after the 

vote series on the floor, if that is satisfactory to you. So the committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Subcommittee will come to order, and Mr. 

Lightsey, I think we were at you when we adjourned for votes, so 

you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF HARRY LIGHTSEY 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. GM appreciates 

this opportunity to tell you about the progress that is being made 

with the rollout of vehicle to vehicle, or V2V, on our roads and 

highways. GM is strongly committed to V2V technology, as we believe it has the potential to revolutionize vehicle safety and intelligent transportation. Indeed, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration has estimated that V2V could, by itself, impact over 

80 percent of the over four million annual unimpaired light vehicle 

crashes, saving lives, and reducing the $871 billion cost to our Nation’s economy each year. There simply is no other safety technology available now, or that is on the horizon, that matches the 

promise of V2V. 

GM pioneered connected vehicle technology with its OnStar 

brand, and is also taking a leadership role with V2V technology. In 

September of last year our CEO, Mary Barra, announced that GM 

would be putting V2V in the model year 2017 Cadillac CTS, which 

will be available in the latter part of next year. GM is not only a 

preliminary adopter of V2V, but continues to work with the Department of Transportation, and other automakers, to research, develop, and test the technologies that form the basis of V2V. In fact, 

after years of extensive stakeholder collaboration, research, and development, GM is now substantiating the promise of talking cars, 

and fully supports the shift from the lab into the real world testing 

and implementation. 

GM is encouraged by the actual road testing that has already 

taken place, and by the Department of Transportation’s recent announcement that it will accelerate the rulemaking process for wide 

scale V2V implementation. GM seeks to build upon this positive 

momentum, and is confident that the industry and other stakeholders share our sense of urgency. With so much at stake for vehicle safety, now is the time to advance this technology as quickly as 

possible. 

I am excited for the opportunity to share more about GM’s commitment to V2V, and am happy to answer the committee’s questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightsey follows:] 

30 


97692.016
31 


97692.017
32 


97692.018
33 


97692.019
34 


97692.020
35 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentleman. Mr. St. Amant, you are recognized 5 minutes for your 

opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ST. AMANT 

Mr. ST. AMANT. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, it is my privilege to be part of this hearing. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David St. 

Amant. I am the Chief Operating Officer of Econolite Group, Inc., 

a nationwide company with headquarters in Southern California. I 

am also a recent past Board Chair of the Intelligent Transportation 

Society of America, and current member of the ITS America Leadership Circle. We have been in the traffic management business 

since 1933, developing signalized intersection technology to meet 

the needs of municipalities throughout the Nation. Specifically, 

during the last 10-plus years, Econolite has focused much of its attention on helping shape industry standards in collaborating with 

leading technology partners to advance the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Vehicle Infrastructure Communication Initiative. 

We believe that the connected vehicle technologies we will see 

when we are able to connect every vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or 

pedestrian and an intersection, and with that valuable information 

we will be able to help prevent crashes and move traffic much more 

efficiently and safely than with today’s technology. The main difference between the way we will detect—we actually detect today 

and how we will process information used in the V2V infrastructure data in the future is that instead of detecting vehicles at a 

fixed point in the roadway, for the first time the vehicle will be 

able to send this local—this location information in real time and 

let us know where it is going, and we can predict where it will be, 

enable signals to adjust their timing, and warn approaching vehicles when necessary for preventing crashes, and determine by modality why it should be a green light of priority. 

This new approach changes everything. Our system will be able 

to manage all traffic, not just a sampling of traffic. We will know, 

for example, the actual number of vehicles in the left turn lane 

queue, not just an estimate, and provide a slightly longer green 

light to flush traffic through the intersection, thus avoiding long 

waits and start and stop traffic, which causes traffic congestion, increases pollution and safety hazards. And most importantly, we can 

reduce the number of vehicles and pedestrian crashes at intersections, and help emergency vehicles reach the site of a crash faster 

and safer. We believe in this technology so strongly that we are already building V2I communications into many of our new traffic 

signal controllers. 

As we are implementing this revolutionary technology, we are 

also working to ensure that a connected vehicle and transportation 

network is designed to protect privacy and safeguard against 

cybersecurity threats. It is also critically important that the 5.9 

Gigahertz band of spectrum, which was set aside for the V2X communication, be protected from harmful interference that could result if unlicensed devices are allowed to operate in the band. DSRC 

in the 5.9 Gigahertz band is the only technology currently available 

that provides the proven high speed reliable communication necVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
36 

essary to support the V2X crash avoidance systems and intersections—at intersections and between vehicles. 

We are working closely with ITS America, the USDOT, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, and Institute of Transportation Engineers to bring all stakeholders together through a V2I deployment coalition that will advance the 

deployment of this critical safety technology. If we are ever going 

to realize or get close to our goal of zero deaths on America’s roads, 

this is our best opportunity. Thank you very much for allowing me 

to be at this hearing today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. St. Amant follows:] 

37 


97692.021
38 


97692.022
39 


97692.023
40 


97692.024
41 


97692.025
42 


97692.026
43 


97692.027
44 


97692.028
45 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Einsig. 5 minutes for a summary of your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY EINSIG 

Mr. EINSIG. Thank you, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member 

Schakowksy, and the members of the—I thought I was loud enough 

to begin with—and members of the committee for your—for the opportunity to testify this morning. Our Nation is at the cusp of the 

next great leap in automotive technology, one of which will revolutionize how we get from place to place, and how we protect ourselves and our children from deadly harm. The next great chapter 

represents the single greatest transformation since the advent of 

the assembly line. 

Vehicles today are engineering marvels, but their capabilities are 

not being fully utilized. It is like using a smartphone in airplane 

mode, amazing devices, but fulfilling only a fraction of their potential. So how do we fulfill the potential of cars coming onto the roads 

today? We need to ensure that every single new car designed for 

the U.S. market is equipped with radio technology known as Dedicated Short Range Communications, or DSRC, as we have heard 

here earlier. This will take our cars out of airplane mode and open 

the door to a constant stream of vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to 

infrastructure communications. That will save lives, reduce cost, 

improve traffic congestion, and eliminate tons of pollution. In doing 

so, we will usher in a new era of transportation safety, innovation, 

new business models and applications. Why is Cisco involved in this transformation? We are a $47 billion company formed on the simple idea that computer systems 

should be able to talk to each other. Cisco not only builds equipment solutions that route packets of data, but we provide data storage, cloud, wireless, security, and many other products and solutions that go in to customers around the globe. Our business is focused on developing the Internet of everything. That is the connection of people, process, data, and things, the Internet, and—the 

vast majority of which has never been connected before, including 

automobiles. 

The scope of this transformation is enormous. Cars, and eventually trucks and all vehicles, will be connected to each other and to 

the roadside communications network via the radio through a complex communications network. This network needs interoperability, 

standards-based technology, as well as tested architectures for delivering a highly secure, mobile, and high availability solution. 

That is what Cisco does. We will layer on it an advanced, secure 

IP network on the top of the physical network that consists of the 

vehicles and the roads. We will use a combination of DSRC and 

wired and wireless technologies. 

Surface transportation will become a connected system generating new data, and what that data can do will amaze you. Most 

importantly, data will have a dramatic impact on safety. Cars connected to each other will be able to help drivers avoid everything 

from a fender bender to a deadly crash. Cars will have the capability to warn motorists to brake immediately, or even to take evasive action when accidents are imminent. This will save countless 

46 

lives, and trillions of dollars in property damage and lost productivity. 

Just as importantly, by sending crash data to first responders in 

real time, we can direct police, fire, and EMS personnel to the 

scene without delay. We could improve traffic throw—flow through 

real time traffic lights and ramp metering systems. American commuters already spend 5 days per year stuck in traffic. This is a 

congestion penalty we all pay. It costs Americans over $1,400 per 

year per household, and that amount is expected to rise to $3,000 

per year by 2030. We could improve our ability to manage road 

maintenance and infrastructure systems by collecting and analyzing more specific data on the use of our roadways. 

But many of these benefits are today not available, or exist at 

much reduced levels because most of the vehicles are not yet 

equipped with DSRC technology. At the moment the private sector 

is poised to deploy DSRC, not just radios in cars, but the corresponding IP network that will connect our roadways in ways 

never before possible. Once vehicle to vehicle communications are 

widely installed in cars and light trucks as a safety measure, the 

private sector, and our public sector partners, will respond swiftly 

to bring full sets of DSRC benefits to the American consumers. 

The potential of DSRC is not some far off dream. It is within our 

grasp. This is the time for America to be leading, not to be left behind. Other nations, including Austria, the Netherlands, Canada 

are adopting intelligent transportation systems, including DSRC. 

These technologies should be on American roads. The future of 

transportation, and the safety of transportation, is bright. 

We thank you for your attention to these important developments in road safety, and look forward the NHTSA’s future adoption of the final rule for DSRC installation on vehicles. Thank you, 

and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Einsig follows:] 

47 


97692.029
48 


97692.030
49 


97692.031
50 


97692.032
51 


97692.033
52 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I thank all the 

witnesses for their testimony, and we will move now into the question and answer portion of the hearing. And I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

And, actually, I want to start, Mr. Beuse, with a public service 

announcement for people who are watching, in spite of all of our 

interruptions. If you do not know the Vehicle Identification Number of your car, you need to. It is located at the lower left hand of 

your windshield, or inside the driver’s side door post. You need to 

go to safercar.gov—correct, Mr. Beuse? You need to go to 

safercar.gov, put your Vehicle Identification Number into the database, and check it to make certain that you are not subject to an 

airbag recall, because the accident that could result could be devastating. So am I correct in offering that public service announcement? 

Mr. BEUSE. You are, and I thank you very much. 

Mr. BURGESS. You know, but that actually underscores one of the 

challenges ahead of us, and—to get people to bring their cars in, 

or to even acknowledge that there may be a recall notice out there 

that might affect them, and to get them to check. When you get 

to the third or fourth owner on a vehicle, I mean, this—a lot of 

times attention kind of drops off. So we are talking about some fantastic technology, and I believe we heard in some of the latter testimony that it is going to be—the technology is going to be so smart 

that if the other car is equipped, that the technology is going to 

smart enough to detect it, but still it might work better if people 

had aftermarket items installed. How are we going to get the word 

out to people that they may need to now consider an additional expense for their car? 

Mr. BEUSE. Mr. Chairman, we are doing a couple of things on 

that front. When we did the safety pilot in Ann Arbor, Michigan 

we actually tested aftermarket devices. And the reason that we did 

that was to see—could the communication protocol work for a device that wasn’t basically built into the vehicle, and what benefits 

would it serve? So we have to address kind of the technical performance first. 

The second part of your question has to do with getting just consumer awareness up in general about crash avoidance technologies. 

We agree with you that the secondhand market and the third-hand 

market is an area that needs focus, and, you know, we are working 

some issues on that front. It will be no different with this particular technology, especially because it is the one crash avoidance 

technology right now that actually has strong potential in the 

aftermarket to be deployed. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me just ask you, as we have heard across the 

panel this morning, these devices are going to be developed by multiple suppliers. What is the process by which your agency is establishing—is going to go about establishing performance requirements for the devices, and the types of safety messages that they 

are able to support? 

Mr. BEUSE. In the ANPRM we actually sought comment on how 

to do that. One of the things we learned, quite surprisingly, I 

think, in the model deployment was that the performance was actually really good for these aftermarket devices. So going forward 

53 

in our proposal, that is one thing we will have to specify, is how 

that performance level should be between aftermarket and sort of 

built into the vehicle. I think as proposed—or announced in the 

ANPRM, there would really be no desire to have a difference in 

performance between those two devices because, from a vehicle 

manufacturer standpoint, they have got to be able to know that the 

message that they are receiving, no matter where it came from, 

that is it is—and it is—actually has the same performance as they 

are building into those vehicles themselves. 

Mr. BURGESS. Dr. Sweatman, let me just ask you this, because 

we do see a lot of promise with these—with the ability for communicating between vehicles, and, you know, we also read about the 

driverless car. That is a pretty neat thing too. So how are these two 

technologies, how are they—they going to merge? Are there any 

issues where we need to be cautious because there can be conflicting constituencies there? 

Mr. BEUSE. So the integration question is very, very real. The 

way we look at the world is all these technologies will, yes, converge, that V2V, camera, radar sensors, and a whole host of others 

sensors that—will come about with automated vehicles will all 

merge together to sort of truly deliver that full self-driving vehicle 

that we all imagine, that we get in our car and go in the back seat, 

or it is a robo-taxi, or whatever the scenario is. There—in our view, 

there isn’t a competing technology. It is not one or the other, it is 

all of them working in concert together, and it really will be an integration issue on the manufacturing side, how they integrate 

those various sensors to make sure they are double-checking each 

other to be able to do the functions that they want to deliver to the 

American public. 

Mr. BURGESS. And Dr. Sweatman, did you have anything you 

wanted to add to that? 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we are 

very excited about the convergence of V2X and automation. So we 

know that autonomous vehicles work, but certain—I think most of 

us would take the attitude that if you have the V2X available, that 

adds a—brings a lot to the autonomous vehicle. And in a sense you 

can think about V2X as being the ultimate sensor, in terms of its 

capability, per dollar cost, so it is a very affordable cost, compared 

to radars and equipment like that that needs to be in every vehicle, 

and really does add a lot to an automated vehicle. 

So we are very strong proponents of bringing the two together. 

If you think about V2X as a sensor, not only is it the equivalent 

of a visual sensor, that it can see another vehicle, can see whether 

it is moving closer to your vehicle or further away, but if that other 

vehicle is broadcasting additional information, such as the anti-lock 

brakes are being activated in that vehicle, that information can 

come into your vehicle as well. So, in a sense, you can get information that you would not have in any other way. So by the time you 

converge all these pieces of information and technologies together, 

we have a very, very robust automated vehicle. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The 

Chair recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 5 

minutes for questions, please. 

54 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While test programs 

have shown that V2V has great promise in its ability to reduce 

fatal crashes, I remain very interested in non-V2V crash avoidance 

and crashworthiness technologies that are available to consumers 

in many cars today, and have been shown to make driving safer. 

So, Mr. Beuse, what, if any, impact with NHTSA’s future V2V 

mandate have on other safety technology, such as airbags, seat 

belts, and brakes, or other crash avoidance technology, such as rear 

visibility cameras, and what non-V2V technology is currently being 

considered by NHTSA that also has the potential to save lives on 

the road? 

Mr. BEUSE. So we are looking at any technology that can save 

lives. That is what we do. When you talk about how V2V will be 

leveraged inside the vehicle, I think it is not clear yet how that will 

be done by the vehicle manufacturers. Right now we are just focused on making sure that the communication protocol between 

those devices is secure, and that people can basically understand 

each other when they are communicating. 

As far as crashworthiness, there are lots of ideas floating around 

about how to further use these crash avoidance sensors to help improve crashworthiness. Think about adaptive restraints. So the vehicle knows it is about to get into a crash, and then leverages that 

camera and radar information to help prepare the driver for that 

crash by tuning the system, let us say. So there are opportunities 

there that have—haven’t been fully explored yet. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I would like to clarify some of the statistics 

we have heard today. The Department of Transportation estimates 

that V2V communications could prevent approximately 80 percent 

of crashes involving non-impaired drivers. So, Mr. Beuse, does this 

estimate reflect V2V systems that warn drivers of potential dangers and require them to take corrective action behind the wheel, 

or does it also include autonomous V2V technology, such as automatic braking and lane keeping? Or, put another way, do we see 

the 80 percent reduction from warnings alone? 

Mr. BEUSE. The 80 percent is the target population. So what is 

the universe of crashes that this technology can address? One of 

the things we did in the readiness report is we actually looked at 

two particular safety applications that have no overlap with existing on board systems, so the ones that you mentioned, lane departure, and things like that. And so, just based on those two applications alone, we estimated half—over a half a million crashes and 

about 1,000 lives that could be saved just from two singular applications. 

To do the detailed math to get down into overlapping technologies and things like that, we have not done that yet. We really 

just focus—to make it simple, to focus on the two applications that 

there is no overlap. So one maybe could argue that we are, in a 

sense, underestimating the potential of the technology by doing 

that, but that is what we did to make it clear and simple. And just 

based on those two safety applications alone, the benefits were 

pretty remarkable. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. And NHTSA estimates that approximately 

33,000 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2013. Of 

those, just over 10,000 were killed in crashes resulting from alcohol 

55 

impairment. That means that 23,000 people were killed in 

unimpaired crashes, is that correct? 

Mr. BEUSE. It is—yes, and—in a way, but to kind of break down 

the math to see how it applies to V2V, there is some double counting that happens because there are heavy vehicles in there. There 

was motorcycles, and things like that, so we haven’t done the math 

yet in the way that they question was phrased, but it is true, about 

10,000 or so people die on our Nation’s roadways every year from 

drunk driving. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I understand there are many variables that 

affect the statistics, such as whether a crash involved only one car 

without another to talk to, but could V2V technology eliminate 

close to 80 percent of those 23,000 fatalities, or 18,400 deaths every 

year? 

Mr. BEUSE. Our view is that, if you look at the two applications 

that have no overlap, it is about half a million crashes and over 

1,000 people. There is not a technology that we are looking at right 

now that even approaches that. Even the automatic braking technologies don’t approach those kind of numbers. And so we haven’t 

done the full math to go all the way up to the 80 percent applicable 

crashes. We really only focused on these kind of very—two narrow 

scenarios, which is an intersection kind of scenario, where there is 

no technology right now that can address that particular crash type 

that is particularly deadly. 

Mr. PALLONE. I am going to try to get one more question in. The 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which regularly tests and 

rates autos, considers vehicles equipped with automatic braking superior or advanced in terms of driver safety. On the other hand, 

IHS gives—gave systems that merely detect an approaching vehicle, and warn the driver of an imminent crash a basic safety rating. 

So the vehicles that IHS looked—I am sorry—yes, looked at in 

their ratings used technologies such as lasers, sensors, and radar, 

but as V2V is introduced in future vehicles, do you believe warning 

only systems will be sufficient to protect drivers from fatal crashes? 

Mr. BEUSE. It will be all of them. It will be all of them. We too 

are very, very excited about automatic emergency braking. Just 

earlier this year we announced our intent to put that into the New 

Car Assessment Program, otherwise known as NCAP, which is a 

same—similar rating system to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It is a very, very good technology. It gets even better 

when it has connectivity to other vehicles. 

Right now those systems have to make estimates on what the vehicle in front of them is doing. Imagine the power that can be unleashed if they actually know what the vehicle in front of them is 

doing. So no more do they have to worry about is that a Coke can, 

or is that really a car? They actually know that it is a car, and so 

it is not an either-or. It will be all of those technologies working 

in concert to really deliver real safety to the American public. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Congressman Pallone, and I recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Beuse, in a New York Times article earlier this month, on 

June 10, a law professor at the University of South Carolina said 

about V2V that, ‘‘Here is a technology that will significantly reduce 

56 

the kinds of crashes we know about. But, at the same time, it will 

lead to different behaviors, and it could lead to new crashes.’’ 

Would you please give us your expert opinion on that type of statement? 

Mr. BEUSE. Sure. The—I think the article is mostly referring to 

the idea of driver adaptation, and how do drivers adapt to new 

technology, and do they become too reliant on these new technologies, and do they then end up doing things in the vehicle that 

they probably normally wouldn’t do if they didn’t have these new 

technologies? 

Mr. LANCE. Rather like texting in a vehicle? 

Mr. BEUSE. Correct. We are still studying that. We have not seen 

it in any of the technologies that we promulgated. I had the opportunity to work on the electronic stability control mandate. There 

again, in that—context of that rulemaking, there was lots of discussion about—you are giving someone a technology that they can 

drive as fast as they want, and the vehicle will correct them. How 

do you think that that is going to work? 

And so far we have not seen it in the data where people are 

doing that, because you are in a near cash event, much like these 

technologies that we are talking about. Whether they are enabled 

by V2V, camera, or radar, these are near crash events. You do not 

want to be in these situations at all. My hope is you never actually 

even experience the technology, because then that means that you 

are being a safe driver. And so the driver adaptation issue—question is one that we continue to look at. We actually have a study 

going on right now looking at it again, but we haven’t seen it in 

the data. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. Mr. Lightsey, is V2V technology capable of ranking safety messages such that the most immediate safety risks are provided to the driver first? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Yes. Well, the—that is the—one of the remarkable 

things about the V2V technology. It has a very sophisticated set of 

algorithms and mathematical computations that it works on, and 

it delivers the most imminent threat alerts to the driver. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Dr. Sweatman, during the safety pilot 

cars were retrofitted with DSRC devices, even though the devices 

were not a part of the vehicle’s original equipment. 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. LANCE. Throughout testing did you observe vehicle make or 

model affecting its ability to use V2V technology, based upon the 

make or model? 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. We didn’t. We— 

so we had about 2 1⁄2 thousand vehicles from volunteers, who were 

parents in the Ann Arbor public school system, or working for the 

University of Michigan hospital, for example. And—so we—while 

there was some consideration to the makes and models of the vehicles that we accepted into that program, it was pretty broad, so it 

covered all the major makes. 

And we—so we fitted the aftermarket technology, and we didn’t 

notice any difference between the makes of vehicles when it came 

to the effectiveness. One of the things we were very interested in 

was the reliability over time. So we have been running now—those 

57 

vehicles for 3 years. A lot of them have been running for 3 years, 

so we also feel that the reliability is pretty good. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, and I yield back the remainder of my time, and I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Schakowsky. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recent investigations by ‘‘60 Minutes’’—this is directed to you, Mr. Beuse—have, 

and Consumer Reports have demonstrated that the threat of hacker accessing and controlling a connected car is real. In these reports, after vehicles have been accessed remotely, drivers are 

shown losing control of the horn, the brakes, steering wheel, windshield wipers, and more. And even though these videos were filmed 

in controlled environments, they highlight the potential dangers 

that are connected with—from hackers. 

So I wanted to know how real is the threat of vehicle hacking 

generally, not just with regard to V2V. Do you expect the nature 

of the threat to evolve as technology develops? 

Mr. BEUSE. We agree that cybersecurity is something that we all 

need to pay attention to. We actually have a very comprehensive 

program at the agency looking at all—at a layer of protection for 

vehicles. Harden the vehicle against attacks first. If an attack happens, what is the vehicle supposed to do? You know, store the attack, study it for later. And also to make sure that people are using 

the kind of latest and greatest in terms of protection, and then 

have a way to feed back into the system, such that, if an event happens, we understand why it happens, and we can understand 

whether the protocols that we had in place actually were effective 

or not. 

On the V2V side, it actually has its own unique set of security 

system, both inside the security management system that is responsible for giving credentials, but also in terms of how that communicates with the vehicle. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So has NHTSA been evaluating this threat of 

vehicle hacking in this V2V space, or more generally regarding connected cars? I mean, it is one thing to say the driver should do everything he or she can to protect the—so that they can protect 

themselves, but what exactly is NHTSA doing? 

Mr. BEUSE. We are doing a couple things. The Consumer Reports 

piece that you mentioned was actually filmed at our facility. We 

have been doing this kind of work before it became kind of in the 

news, right? It is on the ways that—we get a vehicle to do some 

things when we want to evaluate the upper limits of performance. 

What we are doing right now is kind of a four pronged approach. 

One is making sure that there is kind of common understanding 

in the industry. One of the ways that we are doing that is advocating for the formation of an ISAC, an Information, Security Analysis—if there is an event on a vehicle that manufacturers can 

share that information with each other in nearly real time and help 

develop solutions. On the vehicle side, we are looking at countermeasures, what I call countermeasures, things—how to harden the 

vehicle. 

So, in a simple way, let us say an attacker is trying to gain access to the vehicle. Well, one of the things we want to look at is, 

even if you hard the vehicle initially, the vehicle has to be smart 

58 

enough that it is being kind of—trying to get attacked. And so we 

are looking algorithms that can detect that event, and then take 

some appropriate action. Should the vehicle go into failsafe, should 

it take some other action to make it not seem like the vehicle is 

going out of control into a brick wall, which is everybody’s fear? 

The other thing we are looking at is best practices and standards. One of the things with cybersecurity is that is an involving 

area, and it is one that may have to lend itself to more of a best 

practices approach versus more of a regulatory follow this rule, because the rulemaking process does take time, but best practices are 

something you can update pretty quickly. And when we are looking 

at that, we are looking at FDA, FAA, and across Government about 

how other people are dealing with cyber security issues, and it 

seems to be that is the way that they are going. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So—explained that the DSRC technology we 

are discussing today does not go over the Internet, it is not stored 

in the cloud, so it isn’t at risk for hacking or snooping. However, 

since most cars contain other electronic systems, like my new car 

does, does DSRC talk to those systems, and thus make DSCR communications vulnerable, in fact? 

Mr. BEUSE. Thank you for that question, because that is one of 

the things I should have clarified in my previous response. One of 

the things we are also looking at is separation of functions. So 

should the radio talk to the brakes? And one of the ways we are 

going to look at that is should there be absolute separation, or is 

there a way that you can have them communicate, but it is through 

a very controlled gateway? And so we are very much looking at 

that. Now that gets integrated into the vehicle is something we are 

actively talking with the manufacturers about. Because right now 

there is not kind of a harmonious approach to that. 

We recognize that, and so we are doing the research now to determine is there a best way to do this? And the science is evolving. 

I mean, many of the gatekeepers that they have put on vehicles 

may or may not be effective, and that is one of the things we are 

looking at. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you for that, and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chairman for holding this very important hearing, and welcome to all of our witnesses. A few comments 

before my questions. As a former Naval aviator, I know about a 

system that is like V2V and V2I in aviation. It is called TCAS, for 

Traffic Collision Avoidance System. It tells aircraft on a collision 

course—that course, and B, suggests maneuvers to avoid a collision. It has been online for 21 years now. Last year, on April 4, it 

avoided a collision 200 miles west of Oahu, way out in the Pacific 

Ocean, out of range of radars. The system said collision avoidance, 

the plan pulled up, missed the collision. They saved lives. V2V and 

V2I promises to do the same thing with cars. And no one in the 

world wants V2V and V2I to work more than I do, because my life 

changed forever because of a car crash. 

April 1, 1990, Polashis, Texas, my wife and I were hit head on 

by another vehicle. Three people in that vehicle died. My first wife, 

59 

Ellen, died as well. We had been married for less than 3 months. 

V2V and V2I have the promise to keep people from going through 

what I went through in 1990. I want these systems to work. But 

I am concerned that there may be some derailments in the future, 

particularly with lawyers and lawsuits. 

So my first question is for you, Mr. Beuse. Have you considered 

liability in a crash? I mean, is it the manufacturer, the driver, the 

V2V, the V2I system? Has that been in your computations going 

forward here, sir? 

Mr. BEUSE. In the ANPRM we explored that issue very thoroughly, and actually asked comment on it. From our perspective, 

since this is a warning system, the current liability that exists now 

on current vehicles is the same. This system doesn’t add any new 

liabilities. We are still exploring the security credentialing management side of the equation, but there again, we don’t think that that 

is a big issue. 

Mr. OLSON. And—comment on liability and concerns about something popping up in the future that may derail this because you are 

held liable for the V2V, the V2I system being involved in an actual 

crash—any comments? I know—maybe—expertise. Going once, 

going twice, OK, let us move on. 

Another question, Mr. Beuse. You guys do a great job—every 

year you put out these safety standards for our vehicles, the gold 

standard, but for safety it is about active safety. You know, it is 

all about barriers, poles, impactors. Have you ever thought about 

considering passive safety mechanisms, like V2V, V2I is that—in 

the future, put that in rating systems? Add that, make it more 

safe, so people know what the vehicle can do to protect them? Instead of just collision, but—hey, guy is coming at you, veer off here. 

Mr. BEUSE. Yes. We are actually the first program to put crash 

avoidance technologies into a consumer information program. We 

did that when we did forward crash warning and lane departure 

warning. This year we announced a step to do more active safety, 

and announced that we were going to put automatic emergency 

braking into the program, and we are close to making a final decision on that. So we are very much focused on that. I can tell you 

the development of test procedures is a lot more difficult than it 

used to be because of these systems, but it is well worth the challenge, given their life saving potential. 

Mr. OLSON. And, Mr. Lightsey, would GM, as a manufacturer, 

like that on the side of the car? Hey, we have this vehicle—this device in our car. It is a safe car, protect you from a collision. Any 

concerns about that? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. No. I think the more we can inform the customer, 

the better off we are going to be. I think—of course, our customer 

is our highest—one of our highest priorities, and we want them to 

have the best experience that they possibly can. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, and one further question. And this one 

is for you, for GM. What do you think will be the life cycle costs 

of V2V and V2I in GM vehicles over time? Will that be a big cost, 

a small cost, no cost? Any idea what the costs will be over time? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Well, we plan for the V2V to be standard equipment on the Cadillac CTS model year set 2017, so the customer 

won’t see that as any cost. We look for the cost of the hardware 

60 

to come down. As was indicated by the other witnesses here, it is 

not a significant cost, even at the beginning of the early rollout, but 

we certainly expect, as production ramps up, for those costs to 

come even—to even lower levels. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you—I am out of my time. Yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. The Chair recognizes Mr. Ca ́ rdenas from California. 5 

minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity for—to be reminded about how serious and 

how personal these issues are, so thank you for sharing your testimony, Mr.—Congressman Olson. 

My first question to the panel is how many of you are engineers 

or scientists? OK. All right. There are a few of us in the room. The 

reason why I ask that question is because I just saw a movie on 

the plane where it was the scientist who was the good guy, and it 

was the non-scientist who was the bad guy when it came to, you 

know, robotics. And in that movie it had to do with robots becoming police officers and stuff, but anyway—so I just thought I would 

throw that out there. 

23 million connected vehicles were on the roads worldwide in 

2013. That number is expected to surpass 150 million within the 

next 5 years. Today each connected car contains about 100 million 

lines of code, a number that could triple in the coming years. Given 

the scale and complexity of this market, the rapid expansion of this 

technology presents a host of new technological challenges. 

Mr. Beuse, a consumer streaming a movie at home may be able 

to wait for a video to load, but they can’t avoid delays when two 

cars are rapidly approaching and attempting to communicate with 

each other. So what is NHTSA doing to ensure that the V2V standard guarantees zero latency, zero delays? 

Mr. BEUSE. That is a very important issue. The entire body of 

research that has been done today assumes that there is no interference in that spectrum band. Obviously, if that changes, then we 

are going to have to re-look at where we are, because our job is 

safety, and our job is to make sure that consumers get that safety 

that has been promised. And if, for some reason, the message is delayed, or not even received at all, and that leads to a crash, then 

that is not going to be a good situation for anybody. And so one 

of the things we are looking at is how much interference in that 

band can you tolerate? Again, the whole body of work, though, 

today has been done assuming no interference. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Mr. Beuse, how will NHTSA ensure that different manufacturers’ connected car technologies are compatible 

with each other, and can interact automatically, and without 

delays? 

Mr. BEUSE. One of the great things about this program is that 

we have been working collaborative with the manufacturers, with 

suppliers, and even across the globe. And one of the things right 

now is the U.S. is kind of leading the—kind of the worldwide deployment of DSRC. And what comes with that is standardized protocols for the communication, so we are working with voluntary 

consensus groups to make sure that those standards are done in 

a way that, if they—people use them, and if we codify them in a 

61 

regulation, that we will have interoperable communications not 

only between vehicles here in the U.S., but vehicles in Europe, and 

vehicles in Japan. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Then, sir—Mr. Einsig, how has the Dedicated Short Range Communications technology on the V2V technology depend—been deployed successfully elsewhere? 

Mr. EINSIG. So there are a number of test beds going on around 

the world. Some that we are aware of are in Austria, as well as 

in the Netherlands. Many countries are looking at this to differentiate themselves from a safety and from a quality of life perspective. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Um-hum. And who is overseeing the results or 

the validity of those results in those other test cases? 

Mr. EINSIG. I really couldn’t comment too far. It is really country 

by country. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. The reason why I ask that question is because, 

for example, how many people at the witness people are working 

for Government, and how many are working for—Government, 

one? Private industry? And university, so you are kind of neither. 

OK. The reason why I wanted to point that out is because I 

wouldn’t want—ever want to see Hollywood play out in real life, 

where profits, or those motives, override the objective of making 

sure that we are as safe as possible, as safe as possible. 

And I can’t pass up the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to remind 

the American public who might be viewing this, or individuals who 

might be—feel this is an important issue to pay attention to, is 

that when we talk about getting rid of Government, when we talk 

about Government being bad, this is a perfect example where, no 

offense to private industry, we need to have that balance. We need 

to have certifications. We need to have some checks and balance, 

where we know that when something comes to market, nothing is 

ever perfect to the degree that we would all like it to be, but it is 

as good as humanly possible. 

And those of us who are scientists, you learn as a freshman the 

number one cause of error in any system is the human being. If 

systems were 100 percent automated, and human beings didn’t 

touch it, that is about as perfect as you can get, and I just want 

to say thank you for those of you who are involved in making sure 

that we welcome those checks and balances, and we understand 

that we need to live with them. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentleman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. 

Brooks. 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am from—I represent 

Indianapolis, Indiana and counties to the north, and when I tell 

colleagues in Congress that I am from Indianapolis, or I represent 

Indianapolis, everyone thinks of one thing, the Indianapolis Motor 

Speedway, and cars, and automobiles, and trucks. And rightfully 

so, because automobiles, and the auto industry, and auto racing, 

have helped define who Indiana who, our Hoosier identity, and a 

good portion of our economy, actually. And certainly with respect 

to the greatest spectacle in racing, the Indianapolis 500, much inVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
62 

novation comes from the 500, and so we have—and Indiana actually enjoys the fourth highest number of vehicle miles traveled per 

capita. So we love our cars and trucks in Indiana. 

And so it only makes sense that automobile companies, like 

yours, Mr. Lightsey, have either started in Indiana or have grown 

recently, and house a large portion of your truck and car business. 

And we have become—Indiana actually has become the second biggest State in terms of automotive GDP, and we are the crossroads 

of America, with more than $500 billion of freight moving through 

our State on our highway systems. 

So I know and believe in our burgeoning technologies, and it is— 

important, in fact, the Indiana Department of Transportation already has plans in the works that will allow INDOT to utilize vehicle to infrastructure technology to design better snow routs and decrease congestion. And NHTSA, obviously, has estimated that it 

could save 1,100 lives every year with this vehicle to vehicle technology. 

But I am very concerned—having served on Homeland Security, 

having been a former United States Attorney, I am very concerned 

about security. And actually, as you probably know, in February 

‘‘60 Minutes’’ did an episode on hackers with respect to this technology, and I understand part of that has been addressed a bit at 

this hearing, but I want to talk a little bit more about those 

vulnerabilities. And, as colleagues have mentioned, it is our role, 

and NHTSA’s role, to ensure that the technology is the safest it can 

possibly be. And so we need to ensure that it will save lives, rather 

than, you know, those who have ulterior motives affecting this 

technology. 

So, Dr. Sweatman, I am curious, did the safety pilot test the security of the vehicle to—V2V system, and what were the results, 

and what were the vulnerabilities that were detected? 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Thank you. So the safety pilot used the prototype security system that was developed by the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. So we implemented that, and that was a system 

that—where the vehicles were all loaded with certificates, and the 

system played out the way it was supposed to. So we didn’t have 

any security issues in the 3 years—we are still operating the test 

environment in Ann Arbor. 

So we have not had any security breaches during that time, but 

we—now there is a new security system which is being developed 

by USDOT, and so we are about to implement that in the Ann 

Arbor test environment. So that will elevate the protection in the 

system, but we haven’t had any problems with the system we started with. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And I know there have been some questions with 

respect to hacking, but, Mr. Lightsey, can you talk with respect— 

from General Motors’ perspective, how vulnerable are the cars, are 

automobiles to the hacking or privacy intrusions, and will that vulnerability, if it exists, increase the implementation? How will it affect the implementation of this technology in our vehicles? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Thank you very much. Yes, well, speaking on behalf of GM, and on behalf of the industry, we take cyber security 

very seriously. It is certainly something that we are very aware of, 

and have devoted a lot of resources to that end. We created, in 

63 

General Motors, just late last year, an organization under a chief 

product—cyber security officer that is responsible for end to end 

cyber security of our vehicles, all the way through the telecommunications networks and to the back office systems. And they 

are constantly working to make our systems better. 

As noted earlier, it is a very dynamic area. It changes on a very 

rapid basis, but we try to stay abreast of it as best we can. And 

we have a lot of resources devoted to that. I will say that earlier 

in the week we committed to be a charter member of the auto industry ISAC that Mr. Beuse referenced earlier. So we look forward 

to that. I think that will increase communication amongst all the 

participants in the industry and make us all more aware of what 

threats are out there, and therefore are able to deal with them better. Thank you. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I think as Americans continue to be concerned 

about the extensive amount of hacking happening in all systems, 

this is yet something else we need to make sure the resource’s intention is given, so thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. The Chair is going to recognize the Ranking Member 

for a brief series of follow up, following which I will recognize myself for the same. So the gentlelady from Illinois is recognized. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to first 

apologize to three of the witnesses. I am sorry that we have so 

many things at one time that I didn’t hear. This question is for Mr. 

Beuse and for Mr. Lightsey, and that is regarding the timeline for 

automakers to integrate these kinds of technologies into the vehicles that are available. 

So GM’s announcement that its Cadillac CTS will be V2V enabled starting in model year 2017 is a positive sign for the technology, but an effective V2V communication system cannot simply 

be Cadillacs communicating to Cadillacs. So first, Mr. Beuse, how 

many vehicles does NHTSA estimate must be equipped with V2V 

communications systems to see really—to see safety benefits? Is 

there some sort of critical mass? 

Mr. BEUSE. Yes, there—vehicles can start to see benefits day one. 

I think, in our analysis that we did, rather than give you a model, 

you know, a number of vehicles, maybe it is better to think about 

it in terms of years. So basically 3 years after a final rule, in our 

analysis we showed you start to see benefits. And the reason why 

I mentioned you could see benefits day one is because in certain 

cities you might have a scenario where there are more new vehicles 

there than other places, and they might start to see some benefits. 

But on a critical mass, it is—it happens pretty quickly. 

I think the unique thing here is the aftermarket that will—we 

are not sure yet what role that will play, but that also has a potential to dramatically reduce how long we see benefits starting to 

occur. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The average car on the highway right now is 

12 years old, so it just seems to me—well, are there any considerations for offering incentives for current car owners to purchase 

aftermarket DSRC technology? 

Mr. BEUSE. That is a little bit out of NHTSA’s purview. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

64 

Mr. BEUSE. There was been, I think, some discussion before 

about that in the Congress on a variety of factors about crash 

avoidance technologies in general, but right now there is not a capability for NHTSA to give consumers some sort of money for crash 

avoidance technologies. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. Mr. Lightsey? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky. 

Yes, so this is a unique technology in that it is collaborative. And, 

as you indicated, our cars have to be able to talk to other cars to 

realize the benefits of the technology, and also to be able to talk 

to the infrastructure. 

As Mr. Beuse indicated, you know, you can start to see benefits 

day one, if you are in the right place, and you are encountering 

other folks with the technology. But we also know that the American public has shown a tremendous ability to adapt—adopt any 

technology very quickly if it sees a benefit. And I come from the 

telecom industry, and I spent 25 years in that industry during a 

time of very dynamic change, and I saw a very incredibly quick 

shift of the ability of the public to take up, like, a smartphone technology. I will assure you, I was AT&T in 2007 when we rolled out 

the iPhone, and nobody at AT&T or at Apple I think envisioned 

how quickly that technology would spread, and how pervasive it 

could become. 

So we are very encouraged. We know that other automakers 

have made plans, and will be rolling out plans to deploy this technology. We are encouraged by that, as Mr. Beuse indicated. We 

also believe that there is a tremendous potential for an aftermarket 

for this technology to spread very quickly. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair thanks the 

gentlelady. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma for 

5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you guys for 

being here. It is, you know, technology, sometimes you just want 

to reach back and scratch your head and think, where does it end? 

And I don’t think it does. Personally, I like the feel of driving the 

car, and the responsibility that comes with it, but I understand the 

technology is moving rapidly, and we need to embrace it. In any 

successful industry you have to embrace the technology. And so 

thank you for enlightening us. I am not saying I understand it, I 

don’t, but I really appreciate you being here. Mr. Beuse, are—do 

you know if the State DOTs are playing any role in this? 

Mr. BEUSE. The State DOTs are playing a huge role, and there 

are certain States that are forward leaning more than others who 

have been following the development of this technology, and are 

anxiously waiting for us to get on with the business of standardizing the protocols and communications so they can start making 

plans to deploy the technology in real time. Mr. Sweatman mentioned that the State of Michigan, and Ann Arbor in particular, are 

already deploying V2I infrastructure. The GM announcement, part 

of that was also on the corridor, on the highway corridor, that they 

plan to deploy some vehicle to infrastructure technology. So it is 

happening. States kind of do their planning, their looking at it. 

And also what has happened is the association—ASHTO has actuVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
65 

ally already put out—I wouldn’t call it a road map, but how States 

can make plans to deploy this technology. 

Mr. MULLIN. Is there any concern about it being a distraction to 

the driver, or becoming where they are more dependent on it? I 

mean, I say that because I recently bought my wife a new vehicle, 

and it honestly scared me when I got into it because I got a little 

too close to the lane, and my seat vibrated. And I was kind of 

shocked, but then you start looking around at all your instrument 

panels, and you are trying to figure out what just happened, I realized there is a button up there I have got to push to keep my seat 

from vibrating. Not that it bothered me that much, but there is so 

much going on in a car now that—is there concern about people 

being very dependent on the technology keeping them safe, where 

they are not actually focusing and doing it themselves? 

Mr. BEUSE. Certainly we want drivers to do the driving task. The 

information that is coming in through the V2V, in terms of the display, it is kind of invisible to the driver. What the driver will receive, it will be a warning, and it is not going to be a separate 

warning from what they receive now, let us say from a forward 

crash warning, would just be integrated into that same warning 

interface for the driver. 

On the distraction side, yes, we are very much concerned about 

distraction. Last year we put out some guidelines for the manufacturers to kind of provide a box of innovation for them to design 

these systems a little bit better for the consumer to kind of reduce 

that rest. 

We have not seen where consumers are becoming totally dependent on these crash avoidance technologies. The technology you 

mentioned is more of a lane departure warning, and yes, it kind 

of goes off—you experience it quite a bit. Some of the ones we are 

talking—— 

Mr. MULLIN. No, I am a good driver. I don’t—I just happened 

to—— 

Mr. BEUSE [continuing]. Didn’t mean to imply you or your wife 

are a bad driver. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, she is. No, I am kidding. Babe, I love you, I 

am just kidding. 

Mr. BEUSE. You do experience that technology quite a bit. I have 

that same technology as well. But some of these others ones, like 

forward crash warning, automatic emergency—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Um-hum. 

Mr. BEUSE [continuing]. Braking, this intersection movement 

stuff, it is—you are in a crash, you don’t want to experience that 

ever again. 

Mr. MULLIN. Sure. 

Mr. BEUSE. And so—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Been there. 

Mr. BEUSE [continuing]. The reliance, we just haven’t seen it on 

some of these really advanced crash avoidance systems. 

Mr. MULLIN. What about the cost to the States? Is—you mentioned Michigan is deploying some of this. Where is the money 

coming from? 

Mr. BEUSE. Well, we might have to ask the—maybe Mr. 

Sweatman, if he knows where they are getting the money from. 

66 

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Sweatman, do you want to take that? 

Mr. SWEATMAN. Sure. Let me say first that, you know, in Ann 

Arbor, the deployment we did, for equipping—for putting the infrastructure out throughout the city of Ann Arbor it is about a million 

dollars. So if we assume a certain number of equipped vehicles in 

the city of Ann Arbor, which is a city of 140,000 people, that works 

out equivalent of about $90 per vehicle. 

Mr. MULLIN. Here is my concern with this is—Dr. Sweatman, we 

see technology change so fast. I mean, Mr. Lightsey, you mentioned 

the iPhone. I mean, I am on my sixth one—or fifth one, I am losing 

count. But there—the technology changes all the time. And you see 

the stakes, and make this investment, then the technology 

changes, is the technology going to be adoptable as the technology 

increases? Because obviously, once we go live, there are going to be 

all types of improvements that are going to be needed, and there 

are going to be ways that we could make it better. 

Mr. SWEATMAN. So as far as the wireless communication is concerned, that is standardized, and has been for quite a few years. 

So the so-called DSRC is standardized, that is not going to change. 

So it is not like bringing out a new iPhone every 6 months—— 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. 

Mr. SWEATMAN [continuing]. Or something. The underlying principles will remain the same. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. Thank you. That does answer my question. 

Thank you so much, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair is 

going to recognize himself for a brief series of follow-up questions. 

And Mr. Olson is no longer here. I do want to thank him for sharing a very personal story with us. Mr. Mullin, with his experience 

with lane departure, reminded me that my son, when he was 20 

years old, and a young airman stationed at Clovis, New Mexico, 

and burned the candle at both ends, fell asleep at the wheel one 

night way out in west Texas. And I got that call that, you know, 

you just always dread as a parent getting. Dad, I fell asleep, I ran 

off the road, I don’t know where I am, and the airbag went off and 

I can’t drive the car. I said, well, stay where you are, I will come 

get you. But boy, wouldn’t it have been great to have had something that would have perhaps allowed him to avoid that accident. 

And it just really came home to me as I was hearing the discussion 

today. 

Also occurred to me—and Mr. St. Amant and Mr. Einsig, let me 

just ask you, because you are probably the ones who would be closest to this, but—I am a physician by trade. I spent a lot of time 

working in emergency rooms when I was a resident, working big 

city emergency rooms at Parkland, and boy, we had telemetry, and 

we had phones, but when you go out into rural Texas, you don’t 

have much. And somebody loads up and comes in, you don’t even 

know they are on the way, let alone any of the data about their 

accident. But now it seems to me that the possibility is there, that 

there could be the transference of a great deal of data to a receiving facility after there has been an automobile accident. 

Now, obviously, your goal is to avoid any accidents, but if one 

does occur, you know, we were always left with some pretty rudimentary tools. Did you hit your head? I don’t remember. Did you 

67 

lose consciousness? I don’t remember. And, in fact, it became a useful historical note to know that an airbag had deployed. That kind 

of gave you an idea of how much kinetic energy had to be absorbed 

in that accident. So what do you think, in the years to come is 

there going to be a way of transference of that amount of information to a receiving facility, and what are some of the kind of safeguards we have to think about surrounding that? So who else—Mr. 

St. Amant and Mr. Einsig, I would be interested in your responses. 

Mr. ST. AMANT. Thank you for the question. There has been a 

lot of work going on to understand how this technology can beast 

be—can best be deployed in rural areas, and there is a lot of research work. Part of it is being done in Michigan, and other places 

as well, where we are testing these and using cellular as a means 

to get that done. So we are—we know that we have to address that 

rural area. It can’t just be in the more urbanized areas. 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So GM has been 

a leader in this area. We have had OnStar on our vehicles, standard on all of our vehicles, for over 10 years now. And while that 

doesn’t use DSRC technology, it does use cellular technology. We 

do provide emergency services. And, in fact, very recently we are 

working with the American College of Emergency Physicians under 

a grant to train them because we now have the capability, if our 

car is in a crash, to know from the sensors that are on the vehicle, 

airbag deployment, as you mentioned, whether the vehicle rolled 

over or not in the crash, and we can relay that information in real 

time to emergency responders, if they have the ability to receive it. 

So we are working with the American College of Emergency Physicians to do training so that they will be in the hospital, they will 

be ready to receive it. As you know, that first few minutes are the 

golden 10 minutes, and if you can make getting to the accident 

quicker, it can save lives. And if you can tell the folks that are on 

the way in the ambulance that—to expect serious injuries, that can 

help with their dispatch and what equipment they dispatch out 

there. It can have an incredible impact. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very good. Mr. Einsig, did you have something to 

add? 

Mr. EINSIG. I don’t think I could have said it any more elegant. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. All right. Well, Mr. Lightsey, let me just ask you 

one last question. And I am going to ask you to look way over the 

horizon, but, you know, we hear these tragic stories of the child left 

in a car on a hot day in Texas, and it happens. And it is terrible 

when it happens, and frequently there is a loss of life. So is there 

anything over the horizon that would be able to detect human in 

the car, temperature reaching a point that is bad? Do you have 

anything on the drawing board that would look at that? 

Mr. LIGHTSEY. I think we can talk also to Mr. Beuse about that, 

but I think the industry is working on several technologies that 

could help in those situations. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very good. Mr. Beuse? 

Mr. BEUSE. Sure. Hypothermia is a terrible, terrible thing. If you 

actually—as you know, how that—how you actually, you know, die 

in those events, it is a very, very traumatic event. And, as we know 

all too well, many of these cases are children who are kind of deVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:49 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X60XV2V\114X60XV2VXPENDING WAYNE
68 

fenseless. We have been working the communications front on this 

issue for a few years, trying to raise awareness, and I am pleased 

to say I think we are making progress. The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers did a survey not too long ago showing the difference 

of opinion. Before, people would walk by a vehicle and see a kid 

in the back seat and not think anything of it, and keep walking. 

These days, now people are more apt to call 911, or take some sort 

of action, so we are making progress. But there is still more to do. 

On the technology front, we are getting ready to release sometime this year test procedures. One of the things we saw happening 

is people having good intentions, developing all sorts of technologies, but missing the mark on how to make them safe. And so, 

given that that is in our name, we felt we could serve a role there, 

and—not necessarily prescribing particular technologies, but just 

say, hey, if you are going to develop a technology, these are some 

things you should look at, in particular with these devices. You 

know, things like—should probably be resistant to water. Why? If 

you have kids, you know that seats get wet, things like that. And 

so we are going to be producing that report here in the coming 

months, and we hope that that will help advance the science a little more on the technology front. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you. I am encouraged by that. I want to 

thank all of our witnesses and our members today, as this has been 

a very instructive panel. We finished up right on time. That signal 

was the vote being called, so I achieved my goal of getting us 

through this before we had to have yet another interrupt. So, seeing no further members wishing to ask questions, I again want to 

thank all of our witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members they have 10 

business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I 

ask that the witnesses submit their responses within 10 business 

days of receipt of the questions. And then, without objection, the 

subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ