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

23–110 2017

DISRUPTER SERIES: SELF-DRIVING CARS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–174 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

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, Missouri 

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) 

(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. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 3 

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

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 14 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 85 

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

New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................................................ 86 

WITNESSES

Mark Rosekind, Ph.D., Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ............................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ..... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Kirk Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation ....................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Laura MacCleery, Vice President of Consumer Policy and Mobilization, Consumer Reports ...................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association .............. 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Answers to submitted questions ......................................................................

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, submitted 

by Mr. Burgess ..................................................................................................... 88 

Statement of Global Automakers, submitted by Mr. Burgess ............................. 93 

Statement of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, submitted by Mr. 

Burgess ................................................................................................................. 98 

(1) 

DISRUPTER SERIES: SELF-DRIVING CARS 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

2122 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Burgess (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Burgess, Lance, Blackburn, 

Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Brooks, Mullin, Schakowsky, Kennedy, Ca ́ rdenas, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Elena Brennan, Staff Assistant; Karen Christian, 

General Counsel; James Decker, Policy Coordinator, Commerce, 

Manufacturing, and Trade; Blair Ellis, Digital Coordinator/Press 

Secretary; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Paul 

Nagle, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Dan 

Schneider, Press Secretary; Olivia Trusty, Professional Staff, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief 

Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior 

Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Caroline 

Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Matt Schumacher, Minority 

Press Assistant; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. The subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, 

and Trade will now come to order. The chair recognizes himself for 

5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning all, and welcome to today’s Disrupter Series hearing on self-driving cars, a groundbreaking technological development that has the potential to completely transform and redefine 

the vehicle and transportation system that we know and understand today. 

Because this may be the last time that we have the privilege of 

having Dr. Rosekind before our subcommittee, let me first thank 

him for his service. He has always cooperated with this committee 

and we have continued to improve the agency, the recall process 

2 

and, although it has been a big task, I believe improve safety. 

Thank you, Dr. Rosekind, for your service. 

Self-driving cars promise to be the most significant automobilerelated safety development in our lifetimes. This hearing will kick 

off what I expected to be a major focus of this subcommittee really 

for years to come and the reason is simple. Last year, automobilerelated fatalities were around 35,000 and rose for the first time in 

nearly a decade. My home State of Texas was about ten percent of 

that: 3,516. The vast majority of those fatalities are still related to 

human behavior. Already, we have heard that fatalities are up 

again for the first half of this year. Truly self-driving cars are not 

about to be deployed in any great numbers anytime soon but the 

sooner we can safely get them to market, the sooner we can start 

saving lives. I, for one, am not among those who are worried that 

the adoption of this new technology will outpace safety. It will not 

be broadly adopted before it is ready. Our job is to be really smart 

and identify a path forward where the government can provide a 

cop on the beat for the industry and respond quickly where safety 

incidents arise. But we cannot let the government paralyze the 

very innovation that promises to make us safer. 

I think National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recent 

guidance is well-meaning. We obviously worry greatly about its implementation. Waiting for the government to approve technology is 

never a good formula. That said, we must remain vigilant in areas 

like cybersecurity where industry must be held accountable if they 

are not taking reasonable measures. 

In addition to safety, self-driving cars promise a reduction in fuel 

emissions and energy consumption as a result of improved mobility 

and more efficient traffic flows. Self-driving vehicles may also allow 

for more efficient land use instead of wasting resources on parking 

in city lots. We can also expect to see an increase in transport and 

mobility opportunities such as ride-hailing and rise-sharing services; opportunities for labor cost savings; improved transportation 

access for disabled, elderly, and underserved populations; and other 

enhancements that improve the societal and economic welfare of 

communities across the country. This is what makes the development and deployment of autonomous cars so exciting: their impact 

will be virtually limitless. 

As Dean Kamen reminded all of us at our last Disrupter Series 

hearing, we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the 

good. That means allowing innovators to innovate, allow them to 

develop the technology and give them the flexibility to test its potential. Preemptive action on the part of regulators before gaining 

a full understanding or appreciation of self-driving cars may lead 

to unintended consequences that limit the capabilities of this 

emerging technology and its promised life-saving, economic, and societal benefits. 

I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to inform us 

about this technology and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion. 

[The opening statement by Mr. Burgess follows:] 

3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

Good morning and welcome to today’s Disrupter Series hearing on self-driving 

cars—a groundbreaking technological development that has the potential to completely transform and redefine the vehicle and transportation system we know and 

understand today. 

Because this may be the last time we have Dr. Rosekind before us, let me first 

thank him for his service. He has always cooperated with this Committee as we 

have worked to improve the agency, the recall process, and improve safety. Thank 

you. 

Self-driving cars promise to be the most significant automobile related safety development in our lifetime. This hearing will kick off what I expect to be a major 

focus of this subcommittee in the years to come. The reason for that is simple. Last 

year, automobile related fatalities were around 35,000 and rose for the first time 

in nearly a decade. In my home state of Texas, the number was 3,516. The vast 

majority of those fatalities are still related to human behavior. Already, we have 

heard that fatalities are up again in the first half of this year. 

Truly self-driving cars are not about to be deployed in any great numbers anytime 

soon. But the sooner we can safely get them to market—the sooner we start saving 

lives. I, for one, am not among those who are worried that adoption of this new technology will outpace safety. It will not be broadly adopted before its ready. So our 

job is to be really smart and identify a path forward where government can police 

industry and respond quickly where safety incidents arise. But we cannot let government paralyze the very innovation that promises to make us safer. 

I think NHTSA’s recent guidance is well meaning. But I do worry greatly about 

its implementation. Waiting for the government to approve technology is never a 

good formula. That said we must remain vigilant in areas, like cybersecurity, where 

industry must be held accountable if they are not taking reasonable measures. 

In addition to safety, self-driving cars promise a reduction in fuel emissions and 

energy consumption as a result of improved mobility and more efficient traffic flows. 

Self-driving vehicles may also allow for more efficient land use instead of wasting 

resources parking in city lots. We can also expect to see an increase in transport 

and mobility opportunities such as ride-hailing and ride-sharing services; opportunities for labor cost savings; improved transportation access for disabled, elderly, and 

underserved populations; and many other enhancements that improve the societal 

and economic welfare of communities across the country. This is what makes the 

development and deployment of autonomous cars so exciting: their impact will be 

virtually limitless. 

As Dean Kamen reminded all of us at our last Disrupter Series hearing: we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That means allowing innovators to develop the technology and giving them the flexibility to test its potential. Preemptive 

action on the part of regulators, before gaining a full understanding or appreciation 

of self-driving cars, may lead to unintended consequences that limit the capabilities 

of this emerging technology and its promised life-saving, economic, and societal benefits. I thank the witnesses for taking the time to inform us about this technology 

and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me yield back my time and recognize the vice 

chairwoman of the full committee for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Rosekind, 

I want to say thank you to you. I join the chairman in thanking 

you for your service and for taking the time to be here. 

The issue that we are looking at today and as a part of our Disrupter Series is something that is really important to my constituents in Tennessee because you have the General Motors Spring 

Hill Plant that is in my district. They are doing much of the green 

tech innovation. You also have the Nissan North America that is 

4 

located in my district and then on the outskirts of our district, we 

have the Toyota Bodine Engine plant. 

Now, as I talked to the innovators and the engineers that are 

working on these next generation concepts, they repeatedly remind 

me that automobiles are now driving computers and that we need 

to recognize that and be mindful of it. 

And as we look at the Internet of things, of course it is wellplaced but as we view this, we also view the necessity for safety 

and the technology that will make cars safer or help to make them 

safer will bring forward some of the driverless components, have 

those interface with the marketplace. Those are issues that are 

going to be important to us. Reducing fatalities on the road is 

something that we are very interested in. And when you hear that 

the self-driving or driverless-directed components can reduce, has 

the potential to reduce fatalities by 90 percent, that is something, 

as a mother and a grandmother, that really interests me because 

we all want to have those opportunities to make vehicles safer. 

So, I think you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for going 

ahead and moving forward with this hearing and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. Does anyone else 

on the Republican side seek time for an opening statement? Seeing 

none, we are going to depart from regular order. Dr. Rosekind, just 

I will ask you to go ahead with your opening statement. I will not 

interrupt you when members of the Democratic side arrive. They 

will then be recognized for opening statements but my intention is 

to allow you to deliver your entire remarks before we do that. 

We do want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today 

and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Today’s 

hearing will consist of two panels. Each panel of witnesses will 

have an opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a 

round of questions by members. Once we conclude with questions 

of the first panel, we will take a brief recess to set up for the second panel. 

Our first panel for today’s hearing is Dr. Mark Rosekind, the Administrator at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

We appreciate you being here today. We will begin the panel with 

Dr. Rosekind and you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARK ROSEKIND, PH.D., ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the committee, thank you for holding this 

meeting and for inviting me to testify. 

At NHTSA, our mission is to save lives on America’s roadways, 

and for 50 years we have carried out that mission by writing and 

enforcing regulations to make vehicles safer, fighting against drunk 

driving, building a national consensus about seatbelt use, and so 

many other efforts that have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans on our roadways but we have far more work to do and that 

work can be measured by some very alarming numbers. 

5 

In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. And at 

NHTSA we know that that is not just a number. Those are mothers 

and fathers, brothers and sisters, coworkers, friends, colleagues. 

And the problem is getting worse. Last month, we announced that 

roadway fatalities in the first half of this year are up over ten percent. 

And it is against this backdrop that the Department of Transportation, under the leadership of Secretary Anthony Foxx, has been 

working so hard on our efforts to accelerate the safe deployment of 

automated vehicle technologies. Because while automated vehicles 

carry enormous potential to transform mobility and reshape our 

transportation system, it is their awesome potential to revolutionize roadway safety that has us to motivated. 

And there is one more number that helps explain why. That 

number is 94. That is the percentage of crashes that can be tied 

back to a human choice or error. That is a choice to speed or drive 

drunk, to send a text message from behind the wheel, or misjudge 

the stopping distance. That 94 percent represents the untold potential of automated vehicle safety technologies. We envision a future 

where advanced technologies not only help reduce crashes but a 

world with fully self-driving cars that hold the potential to eliminate traffic fatalities altogether. 

The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, which the Department 

issued on September 20th, is the world’s first comprehensive government action to guide the safe and efficient development and deployment of these technologies. 

And the policy covers four areas: One, vehicle performance guidance for automakers, tech companies, researchers and other developers, testers, and deployers of automated vehicle technologies; 

two, a model state policy to build a consistent national framework 

for the testing and operation of automated vehicles; three, an exploration of the use of our current regulatory tools that can be used 

to advance these technologies; and four, a discussion of possible 

new tools that the Federal government may need to promote the 

safe deployment of advanced technologies as the industry continues 

to develop. 

I would like to share just a few thoughts about our approach. For 

50 years, our traditional approach has largely been reactive. 

NHTSA prescribed safety standards and then responds to problems 

as they arise. 

A traditional method of regulating these new technologies would 

be to engage solely in the rulemaking process, writing new regulations that prescribe specific standards, and typically, take years to 

take effect. Our view is that that approach would be slow. It would 

stymie innovation and it would stall the introduction of these new 

safety technologies. 

Our policy takes a different path built on proactive safety which 

will better serve both safety and innovation. This policy allows us 

to work with automakers and developers on the front end to ensure 

there are sound approaches to safety throughout the entire development process. 

This is a new approach and it is going to take some adjustment 

for everyone involved but we are confident that it will help us to 

accomplish two specific goals: first, to make sure that new techVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
6 

nologies are deployed safely; and second, to make sure we don’t get 

in the way of innovation. Our approach is not prescriptive. It does 

not tell developers how they must provide safety but, instead, 

builds a transparent and proactive approach to ensure that they 

are properly addressing the critical safety areas. 

But that future is not without threats. As President Obama 

wrote when announcing the policy, ‘‘the quickest way to slam the 

brakes on innovation is for the public to lose confidence in the safety of new technologies. Both government and industry have a responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen.’’ 

It is our view the best way we can build that public confidence 

is by working together, showing the public that the government is 

on the side of innovation and that the industry is on the side of 

safety. 

I will submit the balance of my statement for the record and I 

look forward to taking your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Rosekind follows:] 

7 


23110.001
8 


23110.002
9 


23110.003
10 


23110.004
11 


23110.005
12 


23110.006
13 


23110.007
14 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. Now, as I previously outlined, we will go back to member opening statements 

and Ms. Schakowsky is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really apologize 

for being late this morning and I thank you for accommodating 

that and I look forward to the questions that we can ask of our witness. 

I first want to take a moment to recognize a great loss in the 

auto safety community. On Thursday, Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety passed away after a battle with cancer. For 40 

years, Clarence led the Center for Auto Safety, where he was a 

tireless advocate for stronger and stronger auto safety standards. 

He fought for Lemon Laws to ease return of defective vehicles in 

all 50 states. And if you have ever had a recall on your vehicle, 

there is a decent chance Clarence was somehow involved in pushing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and automakers to take action. He provided tremendous insight to lawmakers over the years, including, as a witness before this very subcommittee. 

Clarence continued fighting for consumers until his final days. 

As recently as September, he was working with my office on reducing the number of used cars sold with open recalls. He even 

weighed in on today’s topic. In August, he wrote an op-ed on the 

importance of strong safety standards for self-driving cars. Clarence has an outstanding legacy but I know he saw much work still 

to be done. I can think of no better a tribute than to continue his 

fight to improve auto safety and I hope we can do so on this subcommittee. 

Protecting consumers must be the key focus as we consider today’s topic, self-driving cars. A car without a human driver could 

be an exciting development or a frightening proposition. Which one 

it is depends on whether we take the correct approach to the development of this technology. 

One of the key arguments in favor of self-driving cars is safety. 

According to NHTSA, 94 percent of car crashes are caused, in part, 

by driver error. Automation does have the potential to help, ensuring that autonomous vehicles improve safety requires thorough 

testing and oversight. We must evaluate not only how the vehicles’ 

features work but also the effect of those features on human behavior. 

I appreciate NHTSA’s efforts to be proactive in its approach to 

autonomous vehicles and I look forward to learning more about 

how its policy framework will work in practice. 

As we think about the long-term potential of safe-driving cars, 

we also need to consider the intermediate challenge. We are not 

going to shift to 100 percent self-driving vehicles overnight. Even 

if this technology is adopted relatively quickly, we will see a transition period where traditional semi-autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles share the road. All those vehicles and their pasVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
15 

sengers must be able to safely interact. We should also recognize 

the impact the self-driving cars have on those who drive for a living, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, delivery men and truck persons, and 

truckers. 

Automakers are still working through safety issues with autonomous vehicles. For example, two self-driving Teslas crashed this 

year. Cybersecurity is another critical area for autonomous vehicles 

to be successful. Hacking a self-driving car could put lives in danger. Developers must take the utmost precautions to prevent the 

cars’ systems from being compromised and providing failsafe mechanisms of security measures are ever ineffective. 

Accidents involving self-driving vehicles raise new questions. 

How safe must self-driving cars be before we are comfortable having them on the road? When something goes wrong, when is it the 

fault of the manufacturer and when is it the fault of the user? 

NHTSA is adapting its traditional approach to auto safety as it 

considers the design, use, and safety features of self-driving vehicles. I welcome this initiative but I want to ensure that safety remains paramount. 

I also want to hear a firm industry commitment to safety and cybersecurity. As I said, innovation in self-driving cars has tremendous potential. If done right, this technology could save lives, increase energy efficiency, and provide convenience for consumers. 

We must make sure that the right policies are in place to achieve 

the maximum benefit from this technology. And again, I appreciate 

your indulgence and I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentlelady. 

Is Mr. Kennedy likely to be coming back or can we proceed with 

questions? Very well. 

And Dr. Rosekind, we thank you for your testimony. We will 

move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I am 

going to begin the questioning by yielding to Leonard Lance from 

New Jersey for his questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to you, 

Dr. Rosekind. I thank you and the other distinguished members of 

our panels who are appearing before us today on this important 

topic. And certainly, I thank you for your distinguished public service, Dr. Rosekind. 

Automobile accidents accounted for over 35,000 fatalities in 2015, 

as you have indicated; 562 of those souls lost were from the State 

of New Jersey. By removing driver error, which accounts for the 

vast majority of these deaths, autonomous vehicles have the potential to be the single greatest achievement in auto safety in our lifetime, savings tens of thousands of lives each year. 

As the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this topic and over 

the automotive industry, it is our job to make sure that innovation 

is allowed to occur and is not hindered by burdensome and unnecessary regulation while, of course, ensuring consumer safety which 

is paramount. 

Dr. Rosekind, the guidance states that it is not intended for 

states to codify as legal requirements for the development, design, 

manufacture, testing, and operation of automated vehicles. That is 

16 

on page 11 of the guidance. Do you think that states should be 

codifying the guidance as some have signaled they intend to do? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. As you have already cited the specific quote, and 

that was intentional to put in there, was for states not to codify. 

What you have highlighted was everyone wants to see a consistent 

national framework. Nobody wants a patchwork. And so what is 

critical right now is to really distinguish the Federal role and the 

state role and making sure for the moment that people are focused 

on the safest possible deployment within those Federal and state 

rules. 

Mr. LANCE. What would happen, in your professional judgment, 

if one state were to deem a self-driving automobile to be safe for 

testing and deployment but another state chooses to go in the completely opposite direction? It seems to me that would be quite a 

challenge but having served in a state legislature, having been the 

minority leader in our state senate in Trenton, I am aware that 

there are state responsibilities as well. And how should we go 

through this challenging situation to make sure that safety is paramount and innovation occurs to make sure that deaths can be 

fewer than is now the case? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, that highlights the patchwork concern, which 

is all of us drive across this great country without worrying about 

what driver’s license you have from your state or that the car is 

even legal in that state. Just think if an autonomous self-driving 

car stopped at every state line because it wasn’t allowed there, or 

that every manufacturer or developer had to have 50 different approaches to dealing with, so again, that is why everybody wants to 

avoid that patchwork. 

Right now, I think the clarity of what the federal role is and the 

state role is the way to go. We have seen California wait for this 

policy to come out, make adjustments to try and be in line. We did 

the policy in collaboration with the American Association of Motor 

Vehicle Administrators, all 50 DMVs and we will continue to work 

with the states. But you have brought up an ongoing vulnerability 

here, as we move forward. 

Mr. LANCE. Are there certain states that are more likely than 

others to advance state initiatives, perhaps California, perhaps 

other states as well? And should we be discussing this with various 

state capitals or should our congressional delegations be discussing 

this with various state capitals? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We hope everyone is going to be discussing this. 

One of the things that you are highlighting is that there are some 

states that are really on the leading edge of this, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, District of Columbia actually has some 

work as well. And so there are a lot of ongoing discussions that are 

happening now. 

I think the intent is for people to make sure they understand the 

policies and guidance in this area. And one of the things for all the 

states to understand, we try to make explicit, is states actually 

don’t have to do anything in this area. There is no action needed 

for testing of deployment at this stage. If you are interested, as a 

state, then this policy outlines the Federal and state roles. 

17 

Mr. LANCE. Dr. Rosekind, you mentioned Michigan, Florida, and 

Pennsylvania. I have nothing bad to say about any of those three 

states this week, Dr. Rosekind. 

The Federal Automated Vehicle Policy mentions the possibility of 

convening a commission to study liability insurance issues. Do you 

have a view on that? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I think that is a great example of in the Secretary’s letter in the beginning he really highlights there are a lot 

of unknowns that have to become known. So that is a specific example of how do we handle liability. If we don’t come out with the 

answer, we suggest a commission that would deal with that for the 

states to understand the best way forward. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Dr. Rosekind, and my time 

has expired. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Dr. Rosekind, I first wanted to thank you for 

your service as Administrator of NHTSA. I appreciate being able 

to work with you. I don’t know but this may be your last time testifying before this committee as part of the Administration and I just 

want to thank you very much for the work that you have done and 

for consumers and working with this subcommittee. 

So, I have two questions. I am going to ask them together and 

then leave the time to you. 

While the expected benefits of automated vehicles have been 

widely discussed, so, too, have their technological shortcomings, reports indicated that potholes, construction, pedestrians, pavement 

covered in rain or snow may still flummox the vehicle’s operating 

system. So, the first question was can you describe what some of 

the real world testing is finding? What are the problems and do 

they tell you and the industry about when fully autonomous vehicles will be ready to safely carry passengers without human intervention? That is the first question. 

And the second one, recent controversies surrounding General 

Motors, Volkswagen, Takata air bags, and others show that the 

automotive industry doesn’t have always a great track record with 

the consumer trust in recent years. 

So, if the industry says trust us with autonomous vehicles, why 

should consumers take them at their word and what assurance, 

then, can the industry give consumers and give the regulators that 

their vehicles will be safe to operate? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, to your first question, I would say prior to 

January that was the number one issue that everyone raised. 

When will they be here? And what was interesting is in January 

we were pointing out at both DOT and NHTSA that frankly, these 

technologies are already on the road. We already have adaptive 

cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, 

Lane Assist, all these things are already on the road. So, one of the 

challenges we have had is actually helping people to learn about 

the different levels of automation. And just to be very, very sort of 

strict about it, the highest levels of self-driving vehicles is where 

the passenger, driver, individual in the vehicle, perhaps no individual at all, has no responsibility for monitoring the vehicle or the 

18 

environment. Those are the highest levels, basically, of a truly selfdriving vehicle. 

So, to your question, I am not sure anybody knows quite yet how 

far off we are. In fact, I would say in the last 6 months, we are 

starting to see people actually acknowledging how hard this problem is to get to a full self-driving car. 

On the other hand, we also have level 3 which is where the operator still has to be engaged, both in monitoring the vehicle and the 

environment. And there may be situations where that operator, 

that driver, would have to actually have the vehicle hand off to the 

operator in some situations that you were just mentioning, weather 

conditions, infrastructure that wasn’t known, et cetera, the driver 

has to still be vigilant in monitoring what is going on. People question whether that is even possible with this new technology. 

So, what you have just highlighted is when nobody knows. And 

the questions remain, do we still need that driver engaged? Can we 

go to full self-driving? Those questions remain open. 

And I would just say that the Department has really left open 

the answer to that by letting the data tell us whether or not level 

3 is possible, full self-driving level 5, how those will go forward. 

The data will tell us where we are. 

So, I think everything you just highlighted is exactly the very 

challenging sort of thread the needle issues we have. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, we may have implementation of different 

levels, though, in a different timetable. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Correct. And that is why I say your issue about 

transition, so I would love to point out that if there were a perfect 

fully self-driving car available tomorrow, right now, the average 

age of vehicles is 11 and a half years, it would take 20 to 30 years 

for the whole fleet to take over if we had full self-driving. 

So, to your point, for the next 20 or 30 years at least, we will 

likely have a mixed fleet of different levels of automation and different people actually out there driving. 

And I think that is also extremely well placed, which is a lot of 

folks have talked about the big era of recalls that just happened. 

That is not good. We have tried to move to a proactive safety approach. I would highlight that NHTSA has not given up and will 

continue to pursue all of our rulemaking and enforcement authorities. Anybody who has watched us over the last few years knows 

we will use whatever we need to to help keep people safe on our 

roadways. 

But one of the things I think we can highlight is a year ago in 

January the Secretary announced a proactive safety agreement 

with 18 global automakers. That wasn’t just words. In fact, we 

have already seen best practices come from the industry, basically 

on cybersecurity. We saw 20 of them come together and basically 

make a commitment to get automatic emergency braking on the 

road standard in all of their vehicles by 2022, beating regulation 

by probably 3 to 4 years. And we just recently had a Volvo truck 

recall that hit 100 percent completion rate for 16,000 vehicles, 

which is sort of groundbreaking with the speed that was done. 

That was part of that agreement, 100 percent completion rate. It 

is only the beginning but it is not just talk. We are seeing very concrete actions. 

19 

But to your point, we have to watch to make sure that they actually meet what the requirements are. 

So, I will just close. There is a 15-point safety assessment that 

people have to provide for us. There is a lot of discussion is it required or not. If you want everyone to trust what you are working 

on as a manufacturer, technology developer, we think you would 

want the most transparent, thorough public notice of what you are 

doing to address safety up front. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentlelady 

yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, 

Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Dr. 

Rosekind for being here today. We appreciate it a lot. 

I understand the importance of self-driving cars, as we look for 

ways to dramatically improve traffic safety. In Kentucky, alone, we 

have had 761 fatalities last year. So, I know we need to better understand this issue. 

But I had a chance to meet with the MTC truck driver training 

school in Elizabethtown. And of course, they are closely following 

the development of this new technology. And they brought this 

point up to me and I had never thought of it or considered it but 

I understand that there are homeland security issues, which have 

been raised in commercial transportation sector and it is this 15- 

point list on safety expectations for autonomous vehicles includes 

a point on digital security to prevent hacking into vehicle systems. 

I never would have thought of that until they brought that up. 

And has NHTSA considered the broader homeland security 

issues surrounding digital security of autonomous vehicles? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes, that issue has actually come up. We had two 

public meetings in our open docket for months while we were creating the policy and those issues were brought up already. So, 

frankly, not only are we looking at them but Homeland Security 

has already been informed because they have a lot of the issues 

and questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. That was my next question. Are you all coordinating with each other on this? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Absolutely. We have already had meetings. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thank you. Well, on a related note in your testimony, you mentioned that the guidance was developed in close coordination with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, individual states, and other stakeholders. Who were those 

other stakeholders mentioned in your testimony? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We have a long list. I am happy to send, there 

was a public docket. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, probably easier to just submit it. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes. Yes, we will submit that to you. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, good, if you don’t mind doing that. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Sure. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. How do you expect entities to certify compliance 

with each of the 15 areas or certify that they are at least addressed, each of the 15 areas? How are you going to ensure? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Yes and thank you because you just raised a really critical issue. We identified 15 safety areas that they have to adVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
20 

dress. That is what is included in the letter. But it is very important to realize we don’t tell people how to get there. You have to 

address this but there is no judgment about compliance or not because we don’t set a prescription there. And so our evaluation is 

whether they have addressed it or not, not whether there is a bar 

that they have passed. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, good. And what kinds of information do you 

expect to collect on each of the 15 areas? I guess my understanding 

from the letter is it is only expected to be two pages long. So, I 

think you might have answered that question. What do you expect 

them to do versus what you are asking them to do? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That is actually a good question. We haven’t addressed that yet. I will just say that we just last week had another 

public meeting and one of them was specifically on the letter. Right 

now what we are telling people is not a page limit but this is literally a C-suite. If a CEO had to get briefed on these 15, what information would you provide that individual so they could sign off 

on it? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, there has got to be enough to make a decision. 

If we need more information, we will ask for it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, good. And does NHTSA plan to make the safety assessment letters public and do you expect the safety assessment to include confidential business information that would need 

to be redacted? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, we absolutely do hope to have transparency, 

so it would be public. And NHTSA, for a long time, has great experience in protecting confidential business information. That is not 

the intent of that letter. It really is to focus on safety and letting 

manufacturers, developers, et cetera, let the public and us know 

how they are addressing it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you and I appreciate your thorough 

answers and in the submission of the other stakeholders was something we would request. You have answered my questions and I 

yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Ca ́ rdenas, 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman for 

having this hearing. It couldn’t be soon enough because this is 

moving very, very fast and hopefully we will have tremendous success not only to the manufacturers but to the consumers and everybody in-between. 

Dr. Rosekind, my first question has to do with the timing. There 

is so much out there. Some people are saying we are going to see 

these cars on the road soon in limited or mass production, et 

cetera. What does soon mean from what your vantage point is? Are 

we looking at 2017, 2018, 2025? And if so, what is the likelihood 

of us seeing mass utilization on our public roads? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We are already seeing certain safety technologies 

on the roads today. So, adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, these technologies are already available. And so when people say when will we see them, 

they are already here. When we look at fully self-driving, those are 

21 

years off. And in fact I was just commenting I think just in the last 

6 months or so, we are hearing from a lot of folks that they are 

understanding how hard a problem this problem really is. So, as 

much as people are giving us target dates, we will have to wait and 

see those coming. 

The final thing I would just say is what you are also highlighting 

is there will probably be several decades where we will have a 

mixed fleet of different levels of automation and people still with 

their hands on the wheels that all of us will be in for at least again 

potentially 20 plus years. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well, this is a very individual matter for those 

who would ever think of driving a fully automated vehicle. My father 40 years later used to tease my mom how the first time he 

drove up in a little Model T in the 1940s, she wouldn’t get in the 

car. This contraption; I am not going to sit in it. However, we are 

talking about today’s contraptions. Sorry for the rudimentary description but it is my understanding that because of the interest in 

ensuring that components of autonomous vehicles are safe from 

cyber intrusion, some have expressed concern about retrofitting existing vehicles with the technology that would help prevent that. 

Does aftermarket autonomous technology present cybersecurity 

risks? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Actually, all the vehicles create cybersecurity vulnerability. So, on our list of 15 safety issues, cybersecurity is one 

of them and, basically, the same concerns as you apply to new 

would have to be to any kind of retrofit as well. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Now, when it comes to the fully autonomous 

vehicles because I think that is the Holy Grail of what the industry 

is looking at and what I think quite a few people on this plant 

would love to see that happen for a lot of good reasons, but what 

concerns me is when people try to rush things through and push 

an organization like yours to just get it done, it is unfortunate, because there is no shortage of people on any given day that would 

go ahead and jump off of a mountain with a little tiny parachute 

and think that is the most awesome thing in the world. However, 

if that parachute doesn’t come out, one person gets hurt and they 

are in control of themselves, if they have the freedom to do so and 

they did so. 

But the issue that we are talking about here today, if somebody 

actually does something that they find is not risk-taking at all, we 

are talking about the public roads. We are talking about if something goes wrong it is not just the person who made the decision 

to be in that vehicle. It is other individuals out there and that is 

the demand and the responsibility of your department that I respect so much. 

So, with that having been said, how do you feel about the resources that you have and the ability for you to keep up with this 

tremendous demand that the world is saying hurry up, we need to 

see this happen. And with all due respect, being Americans, we always like to be the first. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Let me actually slightly expand that, which is 

when we did the press conference to issue the policy, the Secretary’s last question is, does DOT and NHTSA have the expertise 

and resources to get this done? And I love this Secretary’s answer 

22 

because basically we are the ones who created it. We have the expertise but you are bringing up a really, really critical element. 

And that is, with the explosion of innovation that we all want to 

see to help with safety, the agency absolutely will need to build on 

that expertise and expand the resources to make sure we can really 

timely meet the needs that are going to be out there to get safety. 

There are some things we have suggested that I think have just 

totally surprised people about our commitment to get interpretations out in 60 days, exemptions in 6 months. You need resources 

to pull that off. Even the letters we are saying 4 months, that is 

up to 4 months. If we want those evaluations done, we are going 

to need to make sure that the expertise we have grows and we 

have enough resources to meet the demand quickly but safely. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Because lives are on the line, right? Unfortunately, ultimately, that is what it is and we are not just talking 

about the person that chooses to be in such a vehicle. We are talking about people around them that gosh, I don’t know what the statistic is but I would imagine the average person passes up hundreds, if not thousands of people on any journey to and from work 

on either side of them. 

So, thank you for doing the job that you have. Hopefully, we will 

see Congress, who has the power of the purse, continue to give you 

the resources you need to keep up. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. 

Brooks, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As Congressman Lance just talked about New Jersey last year, 

there were 821 driving fatalities in Indiana alone, which was a 10 

percent increase from the previous year. But they, obviously, we 

talk about these big numbers but one particularly that happened 

in my district, Susan Jordan, who is the principal of Amy 

Beverland Elementary School served in Lawrence, Indiana, was 

killed tragically by a school bus that rolled in front of her, as she 

pushed children out of the way. And so for many families who have 

lost loved ones, I would say the auto industry and ensuring that 

cars, and buses, and other vehicles are as safe as possible, we need 

to not stand in the way of this innovation, whether it is pedestrian 

detection, lane warnings, pre-collision assist that can eliminate the 

human error that could save lives like Principal Jordan’s. 

I want to ask a question, though, with respect to NHTSA’s Federal Automated Vehicle Policy where you are requesting large 

amounts of data from the auto industry on the operation and the 

execution of the highly autonomous vehicle technologies that includes a lot of potentially sensitive information about businesses 

and consumers. But on the other hand, we recognize, and you have 

just talked about it in response to Congressman Guthrie’s question, 

multiple attacks from whether it is foreign or domestic bad actors 

attempting to get that data. 

Without going into great detail, what kind of protections does 

NHTSA plan to have to ensure that this sensitive information isn’t 

getting into bad actors’ hands? 

23 

Mr. ROSEKIND. First, thank you for telling Principal Jordan’s 

story. We talk about these big numbers but everyone is a person 

and a face. So, thank you for doing that. 

Mrs. BROOKS. You are welcome. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. It just is so critical. 

And you are bringing up a really interesting piece, which is, as 

we talked about earlier, our intent is to get literally a CEO summary of what information goes into the safety assessment and then 

the developer, automaker, et cetera, they keep all that other data. 

So, it is only if there is information that we ask for that they are 

going to have to give us more. And the other part is we only need 

to see confidential business information that helps to make their 

point. Everything else, they get to keep. And for decades, we have 

been protecting that. 

So, we are looking at the safety information. We just had a meeting on the letter to try and decide how to get information and you 

can keep all that confidential business information away and redacted as needed, we have been doing that forever. We will continue to do that here. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So, you are indicating that NHTSA is not going to 

be keeping the sensitive competitive information between the different automakers. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We are not actually interested in that. We just 

want to know here is 15 areas. Tell us how you have actually addressed it. Part of the way that we are actually supporting innovation is I hope everyone in the room would come up with a different 

way of handling each of those safety areas. And then we will let 

the data tell us which ones are actually going to be the best for the 

future. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And with respect to the auto industry’s information showing an analysis center, what role are they playing or 

should they play in addressing the cybersecurity issues? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. Critical. I mean basically with a lot of urging 

from NHTSA and a lot of work on the industry’s part, they have 

come up with this cybersecurity mechanism to really help deal with 

the vulnerability. They will be a core part of protecting these vehicles in the future. 

Mrs. BROOKS. It is my understanding that the safety assessment 

letter is requiring, when any significant update to a vehicle is 

made, that NHTSA requires the manufacturer to submit the safety 

assessment letter. Can you please explain what is meant by a significant update and the impact such a process will have on testing 

that the developer of the autonomous vehicle is forced to submit a 

new letter and if it is every 4 months on any changes made during 

testing? Can you talk more about what the meaning of significant 

changes means? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. This is why our interactions have been so critical 

because, basically, if you have a vehicle that has only been driving 

on the highway and now it is going to go in a city, that is significant. If you have a vehicle that yesterday hit a pothole and now 

hit has been programmed to miss the potholes, we don’t need to 

know about that. 

And when you submit your letter if of the 15 there are only 2 

that have been affected, you only need to send us those two areas. 

24 

Mrs. BROOKS. So, are you leaving it up to the manufacturers to 

determine the definition of significant or are there a number of examples that they are being provided to help them determine what 

is significant and what is not significant? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So we will be creating a template for the letter, 

so people have a sense of what we are looking for. 

Mrs. BROOKS. OK. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We will be having guidance on where to fit their 

level of technology and automation for them. We will have examples of what is significant for people as guides. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And what happens if a manufacturer doesn’t submit the safety assessment letter? Are there ramifications? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That is probably one of our biggest fears, frankly, 

which is that this is an opportunity for folks in this area, in a 

proactive way, at the front end to show us what you are doing 

about safety. We would hope, whether it was required or not, it 

doesn’t really matter, you want to show the public and NHTSA 

what you are doing to address safety in these vehicles. That is an 

opportunity. We hope everybody is going to take it and be enthusiastic about it. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But right now, NHTSA doesn’t have the authority, 

is that right, if a manufacturer chose not to submit a letter? Is that 

authority you would like to have? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, it is not required at this point. It is a policy. 

But to your point, one of the areas that we have actually identified 

as potential future regulations would be to require the letter, which 

is a great example of require the letter but stay nimble and flexible 

to what the categories are that are covered. In the future, there 

may only be ten areas that are needed. In the future, there could 

be 20. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 5 minutes for 

questions, please. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, good to see you 

again. Thank you for the work you are doing here. 

I want to kind of follow-up a little bit on what my colleague from 

Indiana was questioning about. I think clarity is, obviously, very 

important and we don’t want to be over burdensome on new technology. We don’t want to stifle the entrepreneur that is going to be 

out there that is going to be making the investment because this 

is investment. It is an investment in an unknown area knowing 

where the regulators are going to fall into. 

But I think we all are looking for just an idea of where the floor 

is. So, if they are going to be investing, they can be investing in 

the right direction. And so I would like you to speak a little bit on 

that. Where do you feel like the floor is going to be so we can move 

forward with this technology? I will be honest with you, I am not 

a big fan of it. I like driving. I mean my wife drives an SUV that 

has got the adaptive cruise. I can’t stand it. Every time I get close 

to a line, it vibrates on my back side because of the seat and it just 

scares the living daylights out of me but I get it. My wife loves it. 

25 

And so I see the need for it for those that like the idea. So, as 

the technology moves forward, if you could give us some direction 

on where you are moving so we can work with you on it. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I want to hit that point, though, I think which 

is—— 

Mr. MULLIN. The vibrating part? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. The fact that we are not going to take the steering wheel out of some people’s hands. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. I am from California. It is just the top is down 

and you are on Highway 1 with the Pacific Ocean on the side. It 

is like people are going to want to do that for a long, long time. 

And for all of our belief in the opportunity to save lives, this is the 

idea. We are going to have a mixed fleet for a long time. People 

who want to have their hands on the wheel, it is just going to be 

there for a long time. 

So, to your point, though, about what kind of guidance you get, 

the way the policy is set up is to identify specific areas within safety that have to be addressed without prescribing how. It is basically DOT and NHTSA’s way to support innovation. So, we would 

love to see as many different approaches to how to deal with that 

safety as possible. Show us what data you have. 

If you think about the future path, at some point, there will 

probably be best practices accepted by the industry. Those will be 

the ones that have data that have demonstrated this is the way to 

go. If there is future regulation, that should come from the best 

practices. 

Mr. MULLIN. Some of the manufacturers that I have heard from, 

though, they are fearful of sharing the technology. This is a race 

to the finish line. The only problem is, we don’t know where the 

finish line is. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And that is a great point, which is people have 

talked. We have suggested there about data sharing, for example. 

And people are very concerned because data means money. Our 

issue is all about the safety. So, just think about sharing that data 

so that one crash would be able to educate an entire fleet to improve everything literally overnight. That would be great. 

We are interested in the safety, not the solution that people use 

that could be proprietary. That is for them to keep confidential. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. I yield back. 

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

gentleman. The chair would remind the subcommittee that the 

chair allowed members to go first. So, I am going to ask my questions now at the end. 

And Dr. Rosekind, again, it has been a privilege to come to the 

subcommittee. Every time you are here, you and I talk briefly 

about the safercar.gov Web site so that people can check for recalls 

on their vehicles. And I just think it is extremely important, as we 

are coming into the Thanksgiving driving season. You ought to do 

it. You ought to do it for your spouse’s car. You ought to do it for 

your kids’ cars. You ought to just be sure. As we have learned over 

the last year and a half or 2 years, the recalls can change and what 

was not under recall a few months ago could be under recall today. 

So, I do encourage people to take advantage of the fact that you 

26 

will make that information available to them. And although it is 

not part of our hearing today, I wonder if you could give us just 

a brief update of where we are with the Takata air bag situation 

and what you see as some of the next steps. 

Mr. ROSEKIND. And I just have to say every time I have appeared 

before you, you make sure safercar.gov gets into the record, that 

there is a point on making sure people are thinking about this. And 

from an agency whose mission is all focused on lifesaving, we always appreciate that so much. 

For Takata, we are at about 29 million vehicles, about 46 million 

inflators. Maybe 20 percent have been repaired at this point. We 

are imminent for basically a new coordinated remedy that will 

have sort of the years of when supplies and fixes need to come. So, 

that will be out literally within weeks we hope of what sort of the 

next phase will be. 

I will say, tragically, 9 of the 11 lives that have been lost had 

to do with alpha inflators, ones that were actually from 2001-2003 

recalled 2008-2011. About 300,000 of those still exist out there. 

They have a 50 percent of rupturing in a crash. We are really 

working with Honda and Acura, in particular, to try and get those 

off the road. 

Mr. BURGESS. So that you are—— 

Mr. ROSEKIND. The 2001 to 2003 vehicles, and these were actually recalled in 2008-2011. So what happened was, because of the 

most recent activity going on, testing that was never done back 

then was recently done and that is how we discovered these alpha 

inflators have a 50 percent chance of rupturing. 

The Secretary came out and basically said don’t drive it unless 

you are going to a dealer to get it fixed. And so we are working 

with Honda to basically figure out every possible thing that could 

be done to find those people. Nine out of the eleven lives lost were 

those alpha inflators. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I am encouraged that you say that the solution or a solution is now within reach and I am grateful for that. 

Let me just ask you, and several people have asked you about 

the letters, the safety assessment letter on self-driving vehicles. 

And I appreciate why that information is necessary and, unlike 

you, I think more data is good. At the same time, from the manufacturers’ perspective, I can see that perhaps there might be some 

liability concerns about putting too much information out there. 

And then, of course, the tendency is to hold back because you don’t 

want to incur that liability. Have you worked through that issue 

at all? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We are working through it. And what we are 

doing, literally just last week, we had a meeting specifically, a public meeting with an open docket for people to tell us how they think 

that letter should be structured and what content there should be. 

We will create a template so people have a guide. And we are trying to be explicit that it is not the confidential business information 

that we are after. It is tell us how you have addressed these particular safety issues. 

And the agency has been dealing with confidential business information for decades. And so we already have experience working 

with the manufacturers to know how to protect them. So, we do 

27 

need to work that out but we are pretty confident that is an area, 

knowing it is an issue, we can figure it out. 

Mr. BURGESS. One of the things I really dislike about driving is 

to have to get a vehicle inspection every year but I do it because 

it is the law in Texas. You are talking about systems that are going 

into cars that likely are going to require some maintenance, some 

calibration, some checking from time to time. Do you see this as 

being included as part of a standard vehicle safety inspection? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That is a great question. And part of that is because one of the clear things out of Takata was time, that those 

inflators basically had a service life. And so that question is now 

being asked of the future. These sensors, radars, cameras, LIDARs, 

et cetera, clearly have a service life. How they will be maintained 

is an open question that needs to be addressed in this coming period. 

Mr. BURGESS. Every time I back out of my driveway and the little backup camera comes on and I, of course, think of Ms. Schakowsky because she is associated with that. But I have also 

learned, since having one of those backup cameras on my car, that 

every now and then I have got to get out and squeegee the little 

sensor or the little lens because it can get so occluded that I 

couldn’t see anything. If the neighbors’ cat was walking back there, 

it would be lights out. 

So, I understand that there is a modicum of maintenance that 

the operator must provide. The vehicle can’t do everything for you 

all the time. 

Again, it has been a pleasure to have you in the subcommittee. 

Oh, I beg your pardon. Mr. Kinzinger has showed up. So, let me 

yield 5 minutes to Mr. Kinzinger for questions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just when you 

thought you were going to go home. 

Thank you for holding the hearing today on autonomous vehicles. 

Next week is Thanksgiving or it is coming soon, I guess. Yes, next 

week. And as a country, we will put millions of miles on our vehicles. It reminds us that we need to do better as a nation to drive 

safer and reduce vehicle fatalities. As so many of our colleagues 

have pointed out, vehicle accidents are claiming too many lives 

and, as of late, that rate is growing in the wrong direction. 

In Illinois, 998 lives were lost last year in vehicle accidents. 

Tragically, it is an increase of eight percent from the year before. 

Like many in this room, I see great promise in how connected vehicles, assisted driving technology, and autonomous vehicle technology can play in reducing the number of vehicle deaths. I applaud NHTSA for laying out a framework that will allow automakers, software developers, and other stakeholders to blaze a 

path forward in transforming vehicles and making the roads in the 

future safer. I hope today’s hearing is a starting point for our committee, as we consider the wide-ranging policy issues that autonomous vehicle technology touches. 

But Dr. Rosekind, again, thank you for your service. Thank you 

for everything you have been doing. I would like to ask you about 

the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy released in September, as 

a few people have mentioned. 

28 

It mentions the possibility of convening the Commission to study 

liability and insurance issues and it also clearly states that insurance and liability apportionment are state responsibilities, as they 

are now and makes no argument for that change. 

What role do you see auto insurance playing in the future? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. That is to be determined. Great piece to bring 

out, which is there are a lot of unknowns here that need to become 

known. That was an example of since we don’t know that but we 

know the question, let’s have the states get their group together to 

figure out how this is going to go for the future. Big questions 

there. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And the AV guidance does a really good job 

defining the roles of the federal regulators in the states. NHTSA 

is responsible for overseeing the design and performance of motor 

vehicles, while states regulate things like driver licensing, insurance liability, et cetera. The goal is for manufacturers to be able 

to sell, obviously, across all 50 states. In fact, guidance says that 

states should not codify them. 

But would you agree that if a state were to require compliance 

with the guidance before an AV could be sold in the state, that 

would be the same thing as codifying the guidance and why or why 

not? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, the good news now is everybody is very interested in seeing a unified, consistent framework. And so to your 

question, what we are already seeing states basically challenge 

with is what language they use to describe exactly what you are 

talking about. So, if somebody says certify the letters there, they 

are worried there is a whole other evaluation going on when in fact 

the state may just say make sure we get a copy of the letter. But 

those were exactly the things we have to make sure there is consistency for everyone so that patchwork doesn’t get created. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And are you all monitoring what legislative 

proposals are coming out from the state, since the agency issued 

its guidance? And is NHTSA continuing to work with states on regulatory policy addressing self-driving vehicles? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. We are not only monitoring but we actually made 

an effort before the policy was released to put in a chart with all 

of that but it is moving too fast. So, we are going to continue monitoring. 

And we have just had two meetings, one about the policy, one 

about the template letter, and the third one is going to be with the 

states to talk about the state policies and other actions they might 

take. We are hoping that will come up this month or right after the 

new year. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Great. And the policy asks automakers and other 

entities to voluntarily submit a letter referred to as a safety assessment letter that outlines how the entity has addressed 15 areas 

prior to the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Can 

you explain what NHTSA will be doing with the safety assessment 

after it is received? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, that letter is intended to basically have whoever the manufacturer, developer, tech company, et cetera, communicate to NHTSA and the public how they have addressed those 15 

safety areas. And we are trying to make it very clear we are not 

29 

passing judgment. We are just ensuring that they have addressed 

all of those different areas. We are going to have a template for 

what that letter should look like. We are going to have a template 

for what our response could look like. And frankly, right now, the 

first response you might get would just be thank you or it could 

be send us more information about X. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. So, you kind of have a plan in place to determine if it is adequate or whatever. And then as or will NHTSA 

hire subject matter experts like software engineers to analyze and 

understand software updates submitted for review? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, when Secretary Foxx answered the last question when this policy was issued, that question was so does NHTSA 

have the right expertise. He pointed out that it was NHTSA that 

created this policy. 

We have got the expertise. We will be looking to expand that and 

resources because if this area grows the way we think it could, 

there are going to need to be more people with that expertise into 

the future. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Well, I just want to say again, thank you 

and thanks for answering my questions quickly and efficiently. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 

yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Bilirakis, 5 minutes for questions, please. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for their testimony. 

I understand that NHTSA is thinking about future regulations 

requiring manufacturers to submit a safety assessment letter. Do 

you think that the safety assessment letter, if required, would preempt state laws and regulations regarding design and performance 

of autonomous vehicles? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. It is really two different elements we are getting 

to there. One is the 15-item safety assessment is basically to let 

NHTSA and the public know that these 15 areas of safety have 

been addressed. It is, as a policy, not required. And what we have 

identified, if there were regulation, there might be a requirement 

to submit that letter but we would keep it nimble and flexible. 

That 15 could become 12 or 20, based on future innovations, basically. 

And really at this point, part of what we tried to do with the 

states to avoid the patchwork was clarify here is what the federal 

agencies will take care of; here is what the states should take care 

of. We have those vehicle standards to take care of. They should 

be handled by this letter. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. In your view, would inconsistent state 

laws and regulations, I know you addressed this somewhat. Would 

inconsistent state laws and regulations related to the design and 

performance of autonomous vehicles hinder innovation in this lifesaving technology? How do we ensure that state laws and regulations on self-driving cars are uniform and consistent? And is there 

a role for Congress to play? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So, you have just identified, and it has been 

raised previously, that is a vulnerability that remains. If there is 

a patchwork, that could really hinder not just innovation but the 

30 

opportunity to save these lives. And so right now, the policy outlined some very specific ways for states, if they choose to get involved, here are some errors they could start with. This is an area 

I think we all have to stay tuned as meetings and discussions go 

on to see whether or not everyone is going to actually deliver on 

that unified consistent framework. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. Next question. With regards to the 

safety assessment letter, does NHTSA anticipate suppliers would 

have to apply for exemptions to test vehicles with level two to five 

systems or would be the safety assessment letter be limited to 

manufacturers? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. If you look, the policy actually is really explicit. 

Anybody who is in this arena should be submitting a letter, potential, so that is manufacturers, suppliers, tech companies, et cetera. 

One of the questions we have been getting, though, is if you have 

a collaboration, say between the manufacturer, a ride-sharing, and 

a technology company, who submits the letter. And that is something where we will work with them to basically decide whether we 

get one letter or at least one integrated one that has all three of 

those represented. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. Have you worked with the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration in the development of these 

guidelines and have you been working with the trucking industry 

in developing self-driving policies? 

Mr. ROSEKIND. So we were, as part of the Department of Transportation, we are in touch with all of the department, but in particular the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration about this 

as well. 

We had two public meetings and an open docket. So, I can tell 

you the trucking industry, we had a least dozen interactions with 

them. And in fact, to the public docket, their trade association submitted comments. So, there has been a lot of interaction with them 

already and there will continue to be. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Very good. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

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

gentleman. 

There being no other members wishing to ask questions, I do 

want to thank our witness for being here today. This will conclude 

our first panel. Again, Dr. Rosekind, thank you for your service. We 

will take a brief, two-minute recess to set up for the second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Welcome back. Thank you all for your patience 

and I thank our panel for taking the time to be here today. We will 

move into the second panel for today’s hearing. We will follow the 

same format as the first panel. Each witness has 5 minutes for an 

opening statement, followed by questions from members. 

For our second panel, we have the following witnesses: Mr. Mitch 

Bainwol, President and CEO for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Mr. Kirk Steudle, Director at Michigan Department of 

Transportation; Ms. Laura MacCleery, Vice President of Consumer 

Policy and Mobilization at Consumer Reports; Ms. Ann Wilson, 

Senior Vice President at the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

31 

Association; and Mr. Gary Shapiro, President and CEO at the Consumer Technology Association. 

We do appreciate you all being here today. Mr. Bainwol, why 

don’t we begin with you? You are recognized for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement, please. 

STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; KIRK STEUDLE, 

DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

LAURA MACCLEERY, VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSUMER POLICY AND MOBILIZATION, CONSUMER REPORTS; ANN WILSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT 

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; AND GARY SHAPIRO, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL 

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

Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, thanks for having 

me back to testify today on behalf of 12 iconic automakers, who are 

engaged in a massive exercise in self-disruption. 

I spent 8 years in the music industry as a digitization of the 

music wrecked business model and devastated property rights. 

There was little that industry could do. Autos are in a very different spot, we are manufacturers and technology companies and 

mobility providers and we are innovating rapidly. 

Three converging trends are driving dynamic change. The first 

trend is the rapid emergence of crash avoidance technologies that 

will culminate in self-driving cars. 

The second trend is the evolution of ride and car-sharing starting 

with Uber, Lyft, Car2Go, and others, but swiftly moving to a wide 

range of other models. Sharing will reduce ownership rates to some 

degree but also shorten fleet age. 

And the third trend is the gradual evolution in power trains toward electrification that, in the present low gas cost context, is 

being driven more by policy mandates than by consumer demand. 

Combined, these trends are changing mobility profoundly and as 

mobility changes, the overriding goal of my members share is to 

ensure that consumers are able to afford these vehicles that offer 

a higher efficiency and enhanced safety features. The faster we can 

safely and affordably move to the future, the better. 

While the introduction of self-driving cars is just around the corner, the transition of full autonomy will take two generations. 

Moody’s predicts these cars will not be a majority of the fleet until 

2045 or ubiquitous until 2055. 

But the important fact is that benefits already are materializing. 

First, safety: 99 percent of road fatalities are the result of behavioral issues, environmental circumstances, and infrastructure limitations, rather than car defects. Technology addresses many of 

these challenges by helping to avoid crashes altogether. Elon Musk 

says that moving too slowly will kill people. I might say it less provocatively and Tesla is not a member but he has a point. We need 

to lean forward. 

32 

Second, technology can reduce carbon and strengthen the environment both by mitigating congestion and by facilitating more efficient use of the automobile. 

Third, technology can enhance access for the young, the old, the 

disabled, and the economically disadvantaged. 

Fourth, individuals and businesses will benefit from time savings 

and meaningful productivity gains, helping society and the economy. 

Fifth, the combination of lower per mile cost and higher cost utilization rates resulting from ride-sharing has the potential to reshape mass transit. For all of these reasons, most stakeholders believe accelerated deployment is highly desirable subject to ensuring 

a material net safety gain. But we also know that the traditional 

regulatory mechanisms can’t handle the space of innovation. 

Administrator Rosekind and Secretary Foxx put their fingers on 

this problem and deserve considerable credit for seeking a new approach, facilitating the proper mix of oversight and regulatory flexibility. It is not an easy puzzle and we understand that committee 

members will have different visions about what it means to be nimble and flexible while also offering predictability and stable roles. 

We are carefully examining NHTSA’s guidance and will formally 

respond a week from today at the deadline. That response will be 

shared with that committee. And we fully expect the Trump administration to put a stamp on this policy. Congress ought to as well. 

The feds have traditionally regulated the car, the states, the 

driver. With autonomy, the car is the driver and that, in essence, 

creates static between the Federal and state obligations. 

Perhaps the key objective behind NHTSA’s recommendation was 

to provide federal leadership to avoid a patchwork of state rules. 

Yet, the early evidence is it still might be necessary to further 

strengthen the federal leadership. Some even have suggested that 

a state-level time out might be warranted. 

A second key objective was to reduce federal regulatory rigidity 

and ambiguity. Some of the rigidity has been addressed with commitments to timely respond to requests for interpretations and exemptions but too much ambiguity remains. Policy often seems simple but when it gets to execution and compliance, that simplicity 

morphs into numbing complexity and complexity equals delay, 

higher costs and delayed social benefits. 

Finally, another key objective was to provide mechanisms to better share data and learning to class both OEMs and tech providers. 

It is a prudent goal. We are not certain, however, that all contemplated obligations are feasible and productive. 

Summing up, we appreciate this committee’s initiative to help accelerate the smart introduction of these lifesaving carbon-reducing, 

economy-enhancing technologies. This is guidance, voluntary for 

now at the federal level and mandatory, effectively at the state 

level triggers this conversation. We welcome it because the stakes 

are high and the opportunity is enormous. Government must pave 

the way for technology deployment and must not, despite good intent, become an obstacle to realize in the brighter future of mobility. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

33 


23110.008
34 


23110.009
35 


23110.010
36 


23110.011
37 


23110.012
38 


23110.013
39 


23110.014
40 


23110.015
41 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. Mr. Steudle is 

recognized for 5 minutes, please, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF KIRK STEUDLE 

Mr. STEUDLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. It is an opportunity to sit in front of you. I appreciate 

that opportunity to talk about something that is truly revolutionary 

in the transportation industry, that is, connected and autonomous 

and automated vehicles. 

At the Michigan Department of Transportation, safety is paramount. It defines everything the department does, from road and 

bridge design, to managing worksites, to overseeing the work of 

contractors. Some 35,000 people have died on America’s roads, as 

many of you have noted. In Michigan, that number was 963 last 

year. Today, it is 921. That is highest in the last couple of years. 

That is the equivalent of 350 airline crashes with 100 passengers. 

Imagine what the outcry would be if that was happening. 

As has been said, 90 percent of the traffic deaths could be reduced with this technology and I think for that alone is the reason 

we should be pursuing this at a very advanced pace. 

The exponential advent of technology shows no sign of slowing 

down. The technology both enables and demands multitasking. Despite the ever-evolving laws and prolific safety messages, distracted 

driving continues to cause more crashes and more injuries and 

deaths as a result of those crashes. Automakers have made tremendous strides in building safer vehicles, seatbelts, air bags, antilock 

brakes, lane control systems, adaptive cruise control, advanced 

braking systems, and the like. 

But even while the technology and research continues to save 

lives, the discovery of new distractions offset the gain. Today, more 

than 68 percent of U.S. adults have a smart phone. That is up from 

35 percent just 5 years ago and the use of electronic devices is just 

one of the categories in a growing list of driver distractions. 

But I am not here to preach about driving distractions. If we 

refuse to accept the increasing number of our friends and loved 

ones that needlessly die in automobile accidents, we need to look 

for a solution and the solution is automated vehicles, a vehicle that 

removes the driver and the driver error. 

While safety is the overriding imperative, there are other vital 

benefits to automated or driverless cars. Chief among them are the 

extension of the freedom that comes with personal mobility and 

personal mobility in our golden years. If any of you have had the 

misopportune or the unfortunate opportunity of being in a position 

to take the keys away from your parent or an elderly resident, you 

know how painful that can be. My state has one of the oldest populations in the country. According to the 2010 census, 14 percent of 

the residents were over the age of 65. Driverless cars offer us the 

opportunity to grant all this precious autonomy to our full range 

of residents, not just those between the ages of 16 and 80 or 85 or 

90. 

They also have the ability to fundamentally change the way that 

people and goods move. Ride sharing is already having an impact 

on urban life, as more people choose that option, freeing up their 

time and their disposable income. This presents many questions 

42 

about the future land use, parking, consumption of fossil fuels, the 

evolution of public transit and many others. 

I should emphasize some key things going on back in the state 

of Michigan. With overwhelming bipartisan support, the legislature 

last week adopted and sent to Governor Snyder a package of bills 

that will keep Michigan at the forefront of these developments. 

Chiefly, the bills do these things: they allow for complete autonomous operations on any road at any time, without a special license; 

they allow for truck platooning; they allow for on-demand automated networks, which are driverless Ubers, driverless Lyfts; and 

it creates a council on future mobility made up of industry participants from a broad range. 

As for NHTSA, I think the agency has done a good job of identifying and distinguishing between the state and the Federal regulatory roles related to automated vehicles. States would regulate 

the driver or the operator. Those regulators currently vary by state, 

much like graduated drivers’ licenses and the effects of penalties 

for impaired drivers. The Federal government has a long history of 

vehicle regulations for the OEMs, the original equipment manufacturers, and that should continue. But Michigan strongly disagrees 

with the proposed third-party certification process that would create a middle man, which would slow progress and the adoption of 

lifesaving innovations. It also would introduce a third party into 

the liability equations. 

This technology is best tested and validated by those that have 

developed it and understand the technology. They should be responsible for what they include in the vehicles and not get rid of 

that responsibility by hiding behind a third-party tester. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. 

I applaud you for taking up this and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steudle follows:] 

43 


23110.016
44 


23110.017
45 


23110.018
46 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. Ms. MacCleery, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA MACCLEERY 

Ms. MACCLEERY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Burgess, 

Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Laura MacCleery and I work for Consumer Reports, 

an independent nonprofit that works side-by-side with consumers 

to create a fairer, safer, and healthier world. 

I want to start by thanking Ranking Member Schakowsky in 

honoring the late Clarence Ditlow. As both a former board member 

of Consumer Reports and leader of the Center for Auto Safety, my 

friend and colleague, Clarence, made immeasurable contributions 

to vehicle safety and was responsible for countless lifesaving recalls. His dogged persistence was legendary. His accomplishments 

spanned decades. 

At Consumer Reports, we consider it a privilege to carry forward 

his and our shared dedication to safer cars. 

As we have heard, traffic deaths on U.S. roads are increasing, reversing a long-standing decline. We urgently must find ways to 

both prevent and reduce traffic deaths and injuries. It is critical to 

note at the outset that improvements to crashworthiness that 

would allow people to better survive crashes remain far from exhausted. For example, although the Research Safety Vehicle designed by NHTSA in the last 1970s was crash-safe at 50 miles per 

hour, today the minimum safety standard for frontal impact is only 

30 miles per hour with 35 miles per hour testing in the new car 

assessment program. This occupant protection standard is one of 

several NHTSA performance standards that are badly out of date 

and should be upgraded. 

If we know anything, it is that technology is imperfect. Making 

vehicles safer when they do crash should go hand-in-hand with 

making them smarter. 

We certainly recognize the potential for crash avoidance technologies to also reduce traffic deaths. Consumer Reports Auto Testing Team has driven thousands of miles in cars that can steer 

within a lane and adjust speed automatically using increasingly 

prevalent technologies like automatic emergency braking and lanekeeping assist. We also have seen that these technologies are not 

perfect and vary in quality among manufacturers and that some 

raise novel risks. What we hear again and again in this context 

about safety gains is we are saying clearly that the safety benefit 

of fully self-driving vehicles are simply, at this point, not known. 

There are real limits to current technologies. There is a handoff 

problem in communications with consumers and letting them know 

when they need to take over vehicle functioning. There is issues 

with user interface and with software updates that may or may not 

be clear to consumers who are using their vehicles. And there are 

profound and fully knotty ethical implications of algorithms. 

A reality check is provided by our testing, which shows performance issues with current technologies in sunny, rainy, snowy, or icy 

conditions. That is a lot of weather to challenge these systems. 

As this suggests, there is much work that needs to be done before cars drive themselves. Automated driving technologies cannot 

47 

and should not be oversold, particularly when consumers still must 

be prepared to take over the controls. Failing to appropriately communicate the limits or design systems with appropriate checks on 

foreseeable use and misuse of systems can give consumers a false 

sense of security and even cost lives. As more vehicles with automated driving technologies hit the market, we will carefully evaluate them and report to consumers on their safety. For its part, 

NHTSA should ensure that companies put consumers first by collecting and publishing data and what has collected sufficient evidence by setting robust safety standards. 

The agency has indicated the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy 

guidance is an initial regulatory framework. It covers a wide range 

of subjects but we think it is light on specific choices that companies should make to assure safety. We urge lawmakers to take 

three key steps. First, to recognize that NHTSA remains chronically under-resourced. To improve and ensure consumer trust in 

automated vehicles, the agency must receive its requested funding 

so it can independently and thoroughly assess the safety of these 

systems. 

Members should also recognize a few fundamental steps needed 

to assure effective oversight of automated driving. Here are three: 

We call on companies first to give their safety data to NHTSA and 

the public. Dr. Rosekind indicated that the data would show what 

is best. That makes sense but right now, the safety benefits of autonomous driving are speculative and based on data held entirely 

by the companies. Regulators and consumers both deserve to know 

the basis the companies use to determine that an automated technology is safe, particularly if they are making claims that this technology performs more safely than human drivers. 

Second, NHTSA’s enforcement capability should be strengthened. 

NHTSA has the authority to deem automated system risks to be 

safety-related defects but its practical ability to get unsafe cars off 

the road quickly has long been limited and is challenged in a world 

of instant software updates. Congress should give the agency imminent hazard authority so that it can take immediate action. 

Third, NHTSA and other relevant agencies must take a hard 

look at the risks of a lack of cybersecurity in vehicles. The recent 

Dyn attack raises the question of what must be done to safeguard 

consumers and this issue can’t wait. 

NHTSA has repeatedly requested imminent hazard authority, I 

will note, and it is part of Ranking Member Schakowsky’s Vehicle 

Safety Improvement Act, which we support. 

In conclusion, automated innovation is essential. It has included 

features with major benefits to consumer safety, such as automatic 

emergency braking. But our ambitions in this area must be balanced with accountability and a full view of how humans interact 

with this technology. Building public trust is critical. Public data, 

vigorous agency oversight, and attention to a total-vehicle and consumer-first approach will be needed to ensure that safety keeps 

pace with technological change. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacCleery follows:] 

48 


23110.019
49 


23110.020
50 


23110.021
51 


23110.022
52 


23110.023
53 


23110.024
54 


23110.025
55 


23110.026
56 


23110.027
57 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. Ms. Wilson, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ANN WILSON 

Ms. WILSON. Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Ann Wilson and I serve 

as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for the Motor 

and Equipment Manufacturers Association or MEMA. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on automated vehicles and NHTSA’s Automated Vehicle Policy. 

MEMA is the leading international trade association of the fastchanging mobility industry. By directly employing more than 

800,000 Americans and generating a total employment impact of 

4.2 million jobs, MEMA member companies are the largest employer of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. 

MEMA applauds NHTSA for developing the Federal Automated 

Vehicle Policy. Given the rapidly evolving advances in vehicle technologies, we believe this policy, as opposed to regulations, that 

clarifies a national framework with a clear role for the states sets 

pathways for all stakeholders to navigate the complexities of automated vehicle technologies. 

We are currently working with our members to provide NHTSA 

with specific comments by November 22nd and we will provide 

those comments to the subcommittee. 

We are also committed to a continuous dialogue with NHTSA on 

the AV policy. However, we urge NHTSA to clarify the policy in the 

near-term with the input received from the public listening sessions and the written comments. 

Today, I wanted to lay out a few challenges and opportunities 

MEMA has already identified. First, MEMA would strongly urge 

the agency to treat test vehicles covered by the AV policy separately from production vehicles. Typically, these vehicles are company-owned and operated only by trained employees and are not 

intended for production and sale to the general public. For instance, it is not clear in the policy whether NHTSA intends component manufacturers or other entities should apply for exemptions 

for test vehicles in order to test and evaluate Level 2 through 5 

systems on public roads. 

With the rapid evolution of these technologies, time is critical. 

The process outlined in the AV policy for test vehicles, including 

the exemption process, would delay innovation. 

We also have some serious concerns about the protection of manufacturers’ intellectual property rights during the testing phase. 

We are also seeking an additional clarification with respect to 

test vehicles. Under Section 24404 of the recently enacted FAST 

Act, OEMs can test and operate vehicles that do not meet Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provided they are not offered for 

sale. But this provision does not include component manufacturers 

and we would urge the committee to clarify this provision at the 

first opportunity. 

Second, in 2015, MEMA and the Boston Consulting Group released a report examining the safety benefits of Advanced Driver 

Assistance Systems or ADAS technologies. The study found that 

these technologies can provide immediate safety benefits and 

58 

formed a pathway, as you have heard, to a partially and fully automated vehicle fleet that could virtually eliminate traffic fatalities. 

But it is important to note that some of these ADAS technologies 

constitute the SAE Level 2 automated systems. These include technologies, as you have heard today, like AEB, adaptive cruise control, and others. Technology is currently available on a wide range 

of vehicles. MEMA urges NHTSA to further delineate the impact 

that the AV Policy has on Level 2 technologies. 

Third, as previously recognized, NHTSA’s AV Policy also applies 

to all vehicles. While much of the testimony you have heard today 

is directed towards the automotive industry, many of the opportunities and challenges apply to both passenger and commercial vehicles. The commercial vehicle component supplier members of 

MEMA are particularly concerned about the IP protection as safety 

systems and other new technologies are key differentiators for 

trucking fleets. There are many other parties in the commercial 

market who must be engaged in the development and implementation of AV Policy for all the challenges and benefits to be fully explored. We encourage NHTSA to continue interacting with those 

parties and we would encourage this committee to work with them, 

too. 

Fourth, original equipment component suppliers do not always 

have complete visibility into the full scope of issues to properly assess performance. Once a component or a system has been integrated into a protection vehicle, it is important that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of NHTSA’s expectations of the 

roles and responsibilities, particularly for OEMs and component 

manufacturers. These distinctions should be clarified and articulated in the context of the policy. 

And finally, MEMA encourages NHTSA to take the lead with 

their global counterparts to cooperate in developing an AV policy 

beyond the U.S. for the benefit of the global community. The earlier we get ahead of opportunities to align, the better it will be for 

all stakeholders, government, industry, and the driving public. 

In conclusion, the members of MEMA are committed to vehicle 

safety and are at the forefront of developing additional lifesaving 

technologies. 

We appreciate this opportunity to testify and I would be happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 

59 


23110.028
60 


23110.029
61 


23110.030
62 


23110.031
63 


23110.032
64 


23110.033
65 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Mr. Shapiro, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF GARY SHAPIRO 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I am Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman Burgess and Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of 

the subcommittee as well for inviting me to testify on this important issue. 

I also want to thank you for hosting these Disrupter Series. This 

is really important. You have brought attention to new technologies 

like 3D printing and drones, which are fundamentally changing the 

world. Actually, at CTA we created a Disruptive Innovation Council 

last year and it supports those companies that are developing technologies and services that are disrupting traditional business models, actually creating new markets, and, frankly, delighting consumers. So, this is a good thing. That is what this country was 

based on is positive disruption. 

And that is what we are talking about here. We actually represent over 2,200 American consumer technology companies. We 

own and produce the CES. It is the world’s largest business, 

coolest, funnest event. You are all invited to attend. If you come to 

Las Vegas next January you will see literally 3,900 companies, including 300 of them that are focused on connected vehicles, driverless cars. Most of the major auto companies are there as well. And 

you will see the future right there in one place. 

We also, as an association, represent much of the vehicle technology ecosystem. Our member companies are fundamentally revolutionizing the transportation network and are well on their way 

to making self-driving vehicles a reality. 

This comes about because the internet, wireless, and sensing 

technology are poised to revolutionize the auto sector, as they have 

other industry sectors. While these changes disrupt all business 

models, they lead to economic growth, a better standard of living, 

improved health and safety, and new opportunities to expand entrepreneurship, provide American leadership and solve real-world 

major problems. 

You have heard over and over today about self-driving cars that 

will save over 30,000 lives a year and prevent hundreds of thousands of injuries. They will also free up our time, enhance the travel business so more Americans will use cars to travel further and 

see America and actually change our view of cars so they will be 

a service, rather than a product. 

So, I think what we should do is set a goal of cutting American 

road fatalities by a certain date and challenge interested groups to 

gather and forge a path forward to solve the many legal, legislative 

and standardization uncertainties to achieve that outcome. 

One question that has already come up today and people are asking is whether this technology must be perfect before it deployed. 

Perfection may be an unreachable goal but any significant improvement over the status quo of 35,000 annual deaths should be welcome. In fact, though, as you have hard, driver assist technology 

is already saving lives, avoiding accidents, and paving the way for 

66 

driverless innovations. We welcome and need technologies that 

help drowsy or inattentive drivers stay focused or provide specific 

responses, such as automatic braking and lane drift avoidance, all 

of which are available in newer models today. 

Further, the aftermarket industry does provide a valuable service in allowing consumers to add lifesaving technology to vehicles 

they already own and that is important because if we wait for the 

whole fleet to turn over, we are waiting 20 or 30 years to save 

those thousands of lives of each year. 

Our research we have done with consumers confirms there is 

strong interest in the early stages of self-driving technology. We 

did a recent study with 2,000 consumers and three in four are excited about the benefits of self-driving cars. More than 60 percent 

are interested in replacing the car or truck they own with a completely self-driving vehicle. 

Of course, you have heard, transportation is a national system. 

We need uniformity to ensure a national single market, promote 

safety, and provide consistency. 

CTA was encouraged by NHTSA’s Federal Automated Vehicles 

Policy and its recognition of the need for self-driving vehicles. 

More, NHTSA recognized the importance of flexibility for the industry to continue to innovate with appropriate supervision at the 

state and Federal level. We appreciate the leadership, however, we 

do have several concerns with the policy, which we will be filing 

formal comments on. 

While DOT is a primary regulator for self-driving vehicles, other 

agencies also have a role. Representatives from the NTIA, the FCC, 

FDC, DoD, and others have asked how they can provide input for 

their needs, contribute their expertise on spectrum, interoperability, cybersecurity, and privacy, and simply stay informed. 

And I applaud the DOT for taking a leadership role and seeking 

broad input but consensus, national consensus on self-driving vehicles is so important that we need all the believers and the stakeholders together working towards a national goal of saving lives 

and resolving impediments to get there. This action requires government facilitation and leadership at the very top. We did this, 

and I was personally involved with our shift to high-definition television, and also did it as we created commercial rules for the internet. The U.S. led the world in both those endeavors because we had 

industry together, all the interested parties working with government. The result for both has been huge boots in U.S. leadership 

in content creation and commercial internet ventures. 

Self-driving vehicles would be our gift to future generations. 

They will result in fewer deaths and injuries, a cleaner environment, more freedom and greater mobility. If industry and government work together on a shared national goal, we can remove 

every impediment and stop the carnage on American roads. 

[The statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:] 

67 


23110.034
68 


23110.035
69 


23110.036
70 


23110.037
71 


23110.038
72 


23110.039
73 


23110.040
74 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentleman. And I thank all 

of our witnesses for their testimony today. 

We will move into the question portion of the hearing and I actually would like to go to the gentleman from Kentucky first for his 

questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you yielding. 

First, Mr. Bainwol, how soon can we expect self-driving cars on 

the road and what are the main obstacles facing the automakers 

to get self-driving cars on the road faster? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So, that is the big question. I have hear Dr. 

Rosekind respond and he ducked it pretty well and I will try not 

to. 

So, most of our members have talked about self-driving cars 

being on the road in the 2020, 2021 time frame but that is not 

going to be anytime anyplace. That is going to be either geofenced 

or a certain set of conditions. 

So, it is around the corner. But as I indicated in my prepared 

testimony, the deployment is going to take two generations. 

Moody’s says 2055 before it is ubiquitous, 2045, 30 years from now, 

before it is the majority of the fleet. And the fleet mix issue is absolutely huge. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thank you. 

And Ms. Wilson, what is the difference between the driver assisted systems and active safety features that we are seeing on the 

market today in self-driving cars? And how are those systems preparing consumers for the future of fully automated cars? 

Ms. WILSON. So, the driver assisted systems that you see right 

now can take over a function. For instance, AEB will take over a 

function but doesn’t take over control of the vehicle. So, as you look 

what the SAE and what is set as the stages of automation, this is, 

I won’t way the first stage, but it is the first stages of automation. 

And I think what you are seeing when they discuss this both at 

NHTSA and SAE is they know that this is going to be a gradual 

piece. I mean as Gary was mentioning, Mr. Shapiro was mentioning about the aftermarket, the aftermarket can provide valuable warning devices to a consumer. So, if you have a car that is 

a little older, it can warn you, maybe not take over control of the 

vehicle, but warn you of a safety hazards and things like that. 

So, again, those levels of automation are very important and we 

will see this gradually increase over years. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. I was just visiting my daughter in Chicago and I have a little older car. And I had to, which we don’t do 

in Kentucky too often, parallel park. And you are not in practice 

and then I was with a friend of mine who has a substantially nicer, 

more expensive car than I have that actually could guide him right 

in, parallel park. It got him right in. So, it was interesting. 

Ms. WILSON. We have some members who would love to show 

you that technology. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, I learned that I need it because we don’t do 

that. I don’t do that actually hardly ever back home. 

So, Mr. Shapiro, what kind of disruption do you think self-driving cars will have on jobs? I know that you have talked about it 

is going to increase economic opportunity but just anytime there is, 

75 

I guess you could say the tractor cost jobs. That is what the Grapes 

of Wrath is really about. But it also created productivity but it did 

displace people. 

So, how should we be preparing for that disruption? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. It is a great question. I think it will have an equivalent of what the car did to those who rode horses, basically. It will 

be big because you are not only talking about professional drivers, 

you are talking about also collision repair people, aftermarket parts 

people, collision repair shops, the insurance industry will dramatically be affected. But what consumers will get in return, obviously, 

is lower insurance prices and they will have fewer fatalities. The 

hospital rooms, there will be less people in emergency rooms. It 

will affect emergency room doctors. And it will be very disruptive. 

There is no question about that. And that is a very critical issue 

and I think we have to start talking about it. 

So, what happens in any segment of society? What happened to 

telephone operators? What happened to travel agents? What happened to all these things as we go to new jobs? And that is what 

this election may have been about. And I think we have an obligation, those in business and those in government to figure it out. 

And part of figuring it out is what are the jobs for the next century. 

Now, we advocate, look, already today there is about 60,000 or 

70,000 truck driver jobs that are open. They are not even being 

filled. So, we need truck drivers but that will shift over time. We 

have an aging population. We need people to take care of them. We 

don’t have enough people. 

We need programmers. We need STEM graduates. We need people that have technical skills. We need in this country to get people 

to get community college training and raise that so that not everyone has to go to a college. 

I could spend a lot of time talking about the future of jobs and 

we will be talking about it next year in 2017 at CTA because it is 

important and I think we have to focus on it as a country and as 

a society. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. My family is in the automotive supply business. 

So, we deal with some of the companies that are trying to develop 

the technology. And I didn’t have a chance to go to the demonstration earlier but they say, the engineers are talking about the biggest problem is that if everybody follows the rules, this works but 

if you get into those situations where it is traffic and you have got 

to like force yourself into, merge. Like you know you waive to 

somebody and they back up and they let you in, he said those are 

the things that they haven’t—it really is driver using like the 

way—you know how we all do that. Yes, can you come on in. And 

they said that is where they are really struggling to try to figure 

out how to get around those kind of situations. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. That is an addressable situation, increasingly addressable, especially with aftermarket products. It is a matter of 

what algorithms you create and how your car responds to other 

people who may not be following the rules. It is a solvable problem 

but it takes everyone getting together to talk about how to solve 

it. 

76 

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

gentleman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky, 5 minutes for your questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MacCleery, I was interested in your testimony. You said that 

in the late ’70s crash safety was considered at 50 miles an hour 

and today the minimum safety standard for frontal impact you said 

is 30 miles an hour with a 35 mile an hour test for new car assessment program. How did that happen and why? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. Yes, there was a challenge made to the engineering community by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Carter. And he went out and he said basically let the engineers solve this problem. So, they designed the 

research safety vehicle and it had a number of really interesting 

innovations, including a kind of plastic styrofoam that was inside 

the vehicle’s structure so that it would be very crash absorbing and 

it made the vehicle crash safe at 50 miles an hour. 

And really, that is a high water mark that has not—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, how did it get reduced? Why would it get 

reduced as the standard? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. Well, it wasn’t the standard. It was a test vehicle—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

Ms. MACCLEERY [continuing]. A prototype—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

Ms. MACCLEERY [continuing]. That demonstrated what would be 

possible from a vehicle design and engineering perspective. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And did that ever get implemented in the actual manufacturing? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. No. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. No. Oh, OK. 

Ms. MACCLEERY. The vehicles were mostly destroyed under the 

Reagan administration. There were two that were recently discovered and were brought to NHTSA for study. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask this, then. Does a 30 or 35 mile 

an hour standard make sense today that that is what we test for? 

Should we be looking at something more significant? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. Yes, there are a lot of complexities to raising 

occupant safety standards, including dealing with smaller statured 

individuals and how aggressive air bags would be. So, you have to 

factor in the whole vehicle approach. But if you can build the crash 

worthiness into the vehicle structure, the way that air bags do, it 

helps all occupants. And that is what the design of the research 

safety vehicle demonstrated was possible. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Now, clearly, we are talking about these new 

technologies and the cars driving themselves but you also mentioned that consumers would be far more likely to entrust their 

lives to crash safe vehicles and these improvements should be 

viewed as a necessary corollary to automated crash avoidance systems. Are we doing enough in that regard or has our focus shifted 

to the automobiles themselves being able to take care of it? Should 

we be continuing to emphasize and are we doing that enough, the 

crash safety methods? 

77 

Ms. MACCLEERY. I don’t think we are. NHTSA has a number of 

standards that are badly out of date and have not come pace with 

where vehicles are performing today. And we should be upgrading 

the safety standards. As we have heard, a mixed fleet is what we 

are going to be dealing with for the foreseeable future. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

Ms. MACCLEERY. And so, saving lives in the interim is really a 

priority. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. You know, Mr. Shapiro, you were talking 

about the Consumer Electronics Show that you have every year. 

And I am just wondering. There is both the convergence of driver 

reliance on semi-autonomous features but also the increased use of 

smart phones, and apps, and infotainment options in cars. And I 

am just wondering if there is some conflict here for distraction of 

drivers. At the same time, we are talking about more autonomy for 

the cars themselves, we are also providing more distractions, especially in this transition period. 

Is there a conflict there? And how do we resolve that? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, we resolve anything like that by getting to 

self-driving cars with more and more features towards self-drive as 

soon as possible because they do save lives. 

I don’t think you are going to be able to change the fact that— 

why did we go up from 30,000 to 35,000 deaths last year? And we 

keep asking ourselves. Well, cheap gas, more miles clearly added 

but there are others. There are more distractions and it is not only 

using devices. It is that there is people drinking coffee. And people 

are tired. They fall asleep a lot. They drink a lot. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, but they always did that. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. But they are still doing it and I think we are all 

more tired now for some reason. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, well. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. But the point is that it is going up. It is a bad 

trend. And the way to get out of it is, obviously, to do public education through strong laws on distracted driving but we have got 

to get to driverless cars and active collision avoidance and even, obviously, past collision. 

And we are getting there quickly. I already had an experience 

with an active collision avoidance where I was stopped hitting the 

car in front of me because the car took over. I think it is great. I 

think every American should have that and we should have it as 

soon as possible and we should also try to get it through the 

aftermarket. We can’t wait 30 years. That is about a million lives 

we will lose. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, I am just wondering, if I could, Mr. Chairman, ask Ms. MacCleery to comment on that. 

Ms. MACCLEERY. Well, we see an enormous variance among the 

effectiveness and consumer-facing features of various current performance technology. Some of them don’t work under certain 

weather conditions. Others of them may not be to the consumer’s 

liking in terms of how they are doing alerts. 

For example, in the Lane Assist technologies, we have done testing where you are trying to swerve to avoid a bicyclist or a pedestrian and the vehicle tries to correct that by pulling the steering 

wheel back out of your hand and keeping with the lane. That could, 

78 

actually, cause a collision and it is unnerving from a driver’s perspective to be steering into the object that you are trying to avoid. 

And so these technologies are in development. And some are better than others. They are not uniform. And that is why we think 

having the data sharing piece is so important because once the 

public and regulators can get access to the data about which systems work better than others, then you can see how to set the direction for the future of these technologies and which ones are really proving beneficial. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

If I could just ask Mr. Shapiro while all these technologies are 

developing, I hope you will develop one for hot cars notification of 

people who may leave a child in the back seat. We have all these 

bells and whistles now in our cars. Children die because they are 

left in those cars. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. There is something and I will follow-up with you 

and tell you what it is. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. And I might add to that example, I keep thinking 

of the fact that every one of us in this room has probably seen 

somebody and we have swerved away into a lane we didn’t even 

know someone was there. And the technology that we are going to 

will avoid that risk we are taking, all of us are taking in one on. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thanks all of you. 

Mr. BURGESS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes for 

questions, please. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel 

for being here. 

Ms. MacCleery, I couldn’t agree more that it does unnerve you 

a little bit when you are switching lanes, when you are in traffic 

and you have got to get over and you have to steer into it, which 

is why I absolutely cannot stand it on my wife’s vehicle. But I get 

the need, too. Look, it is about safety, to Mister—is it Shapiro? I 

am so sorry. I get the safety part of it but I am from a very rural 

part of the country. In fact, just to get to my house, you have got 

to go four miles down a country road and that is off of a two-lane 

road that is the nearest four-lane highway is I don’t know. It is a 

long way away. And we pull a lot of trailers. There are trailers behind a truck. If you are with me on a weekend, I have probably 

got a trailer behind me. 

How does this technology affect that? There are so many 

variances that go into place. I heard you talking about truck drivers. The way the trailer is handled behind a vehicle, the weight, 

it would depend on how they are loaded. It would depend on the 

bumper pull of if it has got a gooseneck on it. It would depend on 

if you are running cattle or if it is an RV. I mean it all changes 

and it all changes to feel the vehicle. 

How does an automated vehicle correct that and change that, not 

to mention you are going down dirt roads and country roads? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Those are great points and those are the kinds of 

things which will be plugged into equations so the car will know 

what it is pulling. It will know its weights. It will know the reacVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
79 

tion. It will know what kind of road it is on. It will know if you 

have been drinking or not, too, which is the point. 

Mr. MULLIN. Drinking what? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, the important part is that we have so many 

accidents today and so many people, there is drunk driving this obviously will have a big impact on and there is disabled Americans 

and older Americans that are waiting for this to happen. 

Mr. MULLIN. No, I agree. Look, in my district, 12 percent of my 

population is over 70. To go get groceries, it is typically a 30- 

minute drive because it is 15 there and 15 back. That is on average. That is in my district, average. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, we can also talk about drones to get some 

service to those people as well. 

Mr. MULLIN. They would be shot down if they flew around our 

place. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I am not winning with you, am I? 

Mr. MULLIN. No. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. But the bottom line is is we will resolve these problems. And the way to resolve the problems is to identify them and 

discuss them and come to a consensus. 

And what we have now with computer technology and machine 

learning technology, it will learn as it goes along. There will be 

deep learning of the situation but it won’t be perfect but it will be 

great. 

Mr. MULLIN. But the more of it comes—and I get that. I am not 

against technology. Look, our company, we are always investing in 

technology. It is great. It is wonderful but it can become a distraction. You can’t depend on a computer to understand when a horse 

falls in your trailer. You can’t. You can’t feel that. You are talking 

about the safety of the animal, at that point. And if you are not 

paying attention to it, it goes away. 

And I understand technology but I am not so sure that it is going 

to be a fix-all. In major metropolitan areas, OK, I get that. But if 

you put a mandate out there on it, you are going to take away the 

freedoms. You are going to take away the ability for the driver. You 

are going to take away the feel of the vehicle. 

My kids, my oldest one is 12 years old and we are literally already teaching him how to drive on a farm because in Oklahoma, 

at 14 you can get your driver’s license to drive on a farm. And you 

are going to be driving a trailer. You have got to feel that. You 

have got to know what it feels like. And you can’t, you are not 

going to get that through vehicles. I am going to have a hard time 

believing that a machine is going to be safer than me when I have 

got everything paying attention to it. 

Granted if I am drinking, which I don’t, but I am just saying I 

get that. I understand that. But I am not so sure this is going to 

be perfect and I don’t want to rush and put it out there. I think 

there is going to be areas to where it would be great. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, you did use the word mandate and that is not 

a word I have used. I would imagine in a many of the vehicle manufacturers, especially those aimed at the rural area would have a 

switch that would allow you to turn it on and turn it off, or give 

you a warning if you are about to hit a tree, and maybe only take 

over if you are hitting a tree or a deer, or something like that. 

80 

Mr. MULLIN. That is what a brush guard is all about because 

those things jump in front of you. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. We are evolving on this. Pardon me? 

Mr. MULLIN. I can’t predict when a deer jumps in front me. That 

is what a big brush guard is for. You just hit them and go one, I 

guess. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, maybe the car can. Maybe the car can. And 

that is the advantage of this. 

So, I think we have to let it play out but set the goals. And the 

goals are reducing human injury and death, the 94 percent of car 

accidents that are caused by human error. 

Mr. MULLIN. No, I get that. Look, I have got five kids coming up, 

too. I mean my oldest one, like I said, is 12 and I know how bad 

of a driver I was when I was 16. And we can all say that. 

And so I want to be as safe as possible. I don’t want anybody to 

lose their child. I don’t want anybody to have to go through that 

but I want to make sure we are cautious moving forward. 

So, thank you to the panel for being here. I appreciate you. 

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

gentleman. 

The chair would observe that we have been joined by the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, and I will be happy 

to go to him next to him for questions, 5 minutes, please. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Both the tech industry and the automotive industry have been 

working towards fully automated vehicles for years now but many 

consumers remain unaware of the technology and its potential to 

decrease fatalities, improve mobility for seniors and the disabled, 

and improve daily life for Americans. 

So, I wanted to ask Ms. MacCleery, there has been a lot of attention paid in Congress and in the media on autonomous cars. We 

have heard claims that these cars will be available for purchase 

soon but we have also heard that fully autonomous cars are decades away. What is the realistic time line for adoption and is this 

something consumers should be paying attention to now or is this 

decades away? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. So, we think that it is not probably decades 

away but it is really an unknown in terms of the exact time line 

when these vehicles could come on the road. And what we are most 

concerned about is that vehicles currently touted as self-driving are 

actually not there yet. And so that that is misleading to consumers 

who actually need to be able, and poised, and paying attention to 

take over the wheel at a moment’s notice. We know that human 

beings have a hard time coming in and out of paying attention to 

situations. And so we think that that kind of overselling of the 

technology represents a particular hazard. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thanks. 

It is my understanding that because of the interest in ensuring 

that components of autonomous vehicles are safe from cyber intrusion, some have expressed concern about retrofitting exiting vehicles with the technology. 

So, let me ask you, does aftermarket autonomous technology 

present cybersecurity risks and are there unique safety risks associated with aftermarket autonomous technology? 

81 

And I guess I will ask the third question. Is there a path forward 

for aftermarket autonomous technology or will consumers eventually be required to purchase a new vehicle to get the benefits? 

I will throw those all out. You can answer them together. 

Ms. MACCLEERY. On the cybersecurity question, I think we are 

very concerned. What we saw with the distributed denial of service 

attack just a few weeks ago was that there are lots of back doors 

and lots of products. And obviously, the prospect of having some 

sort of coordinated attack that would take over the wheel from 

American drivers is very concerning. 

We have a guidance that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration just issued. We think that is a good first step but 

it really needs to be pushed forward quite aggressively so that we 

all have a better view of what are the vulnerabilities and how to 

fix them, both with current vehicles and the current technologies 

that are already on the road, as well as future and anticipated 

technologies in vehicles. 

In terms of aftermarket solutions, I think some of the same security concerns would apply. And so you would want them to be compliant with whatever that new standard on cybersecurity is that 

gets established. 

As to your third question, in terms of the future of autonomous 

vehicles and aftermarket solutions, we haven’t really comprehensively evaluated these technologies at Consumer Reports. It is 

something that we are looking at. And so we really don’t have a 

view yet, driver reviews based on evidence in the testing and we 

would need to conduct comprehensive testing of some of the 

aftermarket opportunities. 

Mr. PALLONE. I had a third question but did you want to say 

something quickly? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, Administrator Rosekind testified on that very 

point and he said that the same risks you have with cars you 

would have with aftermarket as well. There is no additional risk 

that he is aware of. 

But I would say that even if there is an additional risk, I think 

you have to weigh that against the lives that will be saved. So, if 

we wait an additional 15 years so that the entire fleet turns over, 

as opposed to starting putting the products in in the next few 

years, then we have lost 15 years’ worth of lives at the rate of up 

to 30,000 a year. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thanks. Oh, I am sorry. 

Ms. WILSON. I was just wondering if I could. I represent component manufacturers, including aftermarket manufacturers. Our 

members are working very closely with the vehicle manufacturers 

right now on what is called a secure vehicle interface to try to look 

at things like this to see how we can provide this and provide the 

cybersecurity. We are hoping that an industry standard can be 

reached. 

And an SAE Committee has just recently been started and they 

are going to start to meet in December. So, we are very hopeful. 

There are a lot of challenges I think as the whole panel has indicated but the industry is really trying to work on this and get our 

arms around it. 

82 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thanks. Let me get in a third question 

here. 

Semi-autonomous vehicles, which utilize technology such as automatic lane-keeping, speed adjustment, and automatic parallel parking are already making their way to market. So the question, 

again, to Ms. MacCleery, there is likely to be a lag time between 

semi-autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles hitting 

the market, in addition to traditional driver-operated vehicles remaining on the road for some time. We can expect that, at some 

point, fully autonomous, semi-autonomous, and driver-operated 

cars will all be on public roads at the same time. So, can they exist 

safely on the road together and why? 

Ms. MACCLEERY. I think that is the heart of the question. We do 

have issues with social signaling, the kind of thing that was discussed a few minutes ago, with regard to drivers indicating to one 

another when they are going to enter a new lane and that sort of 

thing and there is real questions about whether fully autonomous 

vehicles can actually participate in that kind of social exchange on 

the roads and what happens to the technology if it can’t read those 

signals. 

You know there is also issues with a mixed fleet of the unpredictable and of variances in the technology in terms of how well the 

various safety performance technologies do for consumers and how 

much safety benefit they provide. 

We are, obviously, very keen to see innovations that enhance 

safety. We have been huge fans of some of those technologies, including advanced emergency braking and have tested a variety of 

those systems and think that they do provide a real safety benefit, 

alongside other systems, like electronic stability control that have 

already been made part of regulations. 

So, we are eager for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to do sufficient data collection. They can actually compare 

the benefits of these systems and look at them together. 

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

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

gentleman. 

I do want to point out to the gentleman from New Jersey that 

I did not take my time for questions and allowed the members of 

the subcommittee to go first. So, now I am consuming 5 minutes. 

I didn’t want you to think that I was giving myself an additional 

time. 

But I do want to thank all of you. This has been a fascinating 

discussion. Now, tomorrow, we are going to have another joint subcommittee hearing with the telecom subcommittee on this very 

issue of the denial of service attacks, not so much as affect the 

automotive industry but it does raise a rather odd specter for being 

a cyber carjacking and someone actually being able to take over 

your vehicle. I don’t know if you could actually access the Bitcoins 

from the dashboard or not but it is an interesting problem that 

when you think about it for the future and the ability to have security of the cybersecurity necessary in these vehicles is going to be 

critical. 

83 

And I assume right down the line that you all are focused on 

that with both your manufacturing, aftermarket, and the consumer 

electronics. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Absolutely. As we have talked about before in the 

subcommittee, the manufacturers have established an ISAC that is 

up and running. We have issued best practices. And both the establishment of the ISAC and the best practices have been well-recognized by NHTSA as very positive steps forward. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Steudle. 

Mr. STEUDLE. Yes, actually with the State of Michigan we have 

opened up a cybersecurity range and we are working with the University of Michigan on that exact topic. 

Ms. MACCLEERY. We are very concerned about this. We have 

been looking at the issues in terms of the vulnerabilities. There 

was a well-known July 2015 hack of a Jeep, and Tesla and 

Mitsubishi vehicles have also recently been hacked. There was a 

news reporter who also allowed his vehicle to be hacked and lost 

control. And we are incredibly concerned that any vehicle connected to the internet is potentially vulnerable and that this is a 

sort of a late-arriving issue in terms of vehicle design that needs 

to be addressed forthwith. 

Ms. WILSON. So, our Tier 1 original equipment suppliers, many 

of them are in the Auto ISAC with their vehicle manufacturer customers. And in addition, on the commercial space, we are working 

with NHTSA right now and the team on the Auto ISAC to come 

up with a commercial vehicle model, something similar like that. 

And then, again, as we talked about before with the aftermarket, 

the aftermarket is trying to work on some industry solutions for 

some of these concerns. So, yes, sir, we are very involved in this. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. Mr. Shapiro? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. In addition to the Auto ISAC effort and what 

NHTSA has done with best practices, we look at this more holistically as part of the internet of things because that is what this 

really is. And we have an effort ongoing internet of things to focus 

on and online self-assessment tools so that companies could figure 

out if they are using best practices and doing things correctly. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very good. And Mr. Shapiro, you referenced and 

Ms. Schakowsky had a question about addressing a child left in a 

hot car. And it does seem that automobiles are getting so darn 

smart that they ought to be able to tell if there is a life form contained within and if the internal temperature is incompatible with 

that life form continuing and somehow let someone know—I live in 

a part of the country where it does extremely warm in the summertime and then these types of accidents, unfortunately, they are 

prominent when they do occur because it is a very prominent tragedy and if there is a way to prevent that, I would just add those 

children who are lost in a hot car or even a pet who is lost in a 

hot car as to those lives that could be saved that you alluded to 

at the beginning of your discussion. 

I was talking to Dr. Rosekind before he left and I remember 

when my children became of driving age. That was a long time ago, 

but like any cheap dad, I was thinking well, we will get them a 

whatever kind of heap I can go find in the aftermarket or the used 

car market. And I think it was another physician who pointed out 

84 

to me that you know the kids just starting to drive is the one who 

needs to the antilock brakes. You have got them on your Thunderbird but you don’t really need it because you are not going to be 

in the same situation. 

So, it is a paradigm shift for parents to think in terms of putting 

that lane departure warning or automatic braking, putting their 

first car that their child drives ought to have the protection of 

those things, in my opinion. And my thinking has shifted on that 

over the years. But those are the lives that I think could be saved. 

We had a tragic accident back in my hometown. Two mothers 

and two daughters were in opposite cars or cars driving in opposite 

directions and there was a distracted driving situation, it was assumed, but all four died. And this is in a town that already has 

a prohibition on texting while driving. 

So, the law is already there. We are looking now, the city is looking at is there some way we can beef up the law. Is there some 

way that enforcement can be increased? But it is a terrible, terrible 

problem and I like the idea of technology being able to prevent 

some of those accidents. So, I am very much in favor of what you 

are discussing. 

In your written testimony, you do have the paragraph of most 

concern is a proposal to grant NHTSA preapproval authority for 

new vehicles. That concerned me also when I read that, that it 

would be a major increase in authority for NHTSA by allowing 

NHTSA to approve every new model in every model year before it 

comes to market. That was a pretty startling statement that you 

made there but I assume that is a concern that you have from the 

consumer electronics area. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes. So first of all, I do want to respond to the 

other things you said as well. 

The tragedy of the kid or the pet in the car, we should be able 

to solve that. I mean it is a tragedy and it is not like driving which 

sometimes things are unavoidable. We should be able to use technology to avoid that today. I know I have heard something about 

this in terms of technology that someone has proposed. I just don’t 

know how mature or realistic it is but I will provide that to the 

committee. 

In terms of the distracted driving, what more you could do, I was 

just driving in Canada recently and there were signs everywhere 

and it made me really think about it. I think there are some things 

other countries are doing we should be looking at as well. 

But ultimately, we have to get driverless cars and collision avoidance quickly. And your point about kids being the first is a great 

one, something I had not considered until you said it but you are 

absolutely right. I guess we have to convince parents they have to 

give their kids new cars. That is an official policy. 

Mr. BURGESS. I am sure the Automotive Alliance will. 

Mr. BAINWOL. We like that idea. 

Mr. BURGESS. And then did you have a comment about the 

preapproval? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Oh, yes, I am sorry. That was really your final 

question. 

Yes, so NHTSA has done, their attitude, their work, their everything has been fantastic. They have the right attitude of pro-innoVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
85 

vation, pro everything. However, there is a tradeoff between established car companies and companies that want to enter the marketplace. And the car companies also, they like to change things. They 

like to change it up. Everyone likes to have something new. We are 

innovators. We like to progress. And if you have to have everything 

preapproved, which NHTSA was suggesting, that would really slow 

things down, especially in the footnote that referred to the airplane 

model, which takes several years for approvals. And that was pretty terrifying for those of us with this rapid turnaround, rapid 

changes in technology. And you don’t want to deny consumers new 

benefits. 

So, I don’t think it is what NHTSA wants to do. I think they 

have done a fantastic thing it is just we want some areas clarified 

because of the ramifications and the barriers to entry, the barriers 

to innovation and new models. 

Mr. BURGESS. I do want to mention that Tesla, BMW, and Audi 

had vehicles available for subcommittee members to look at this 

morning out on the street. Time constraints wouldn’t permit me to 

look at all of them but I was struck in one of the cars. I won’t mention the name but the size of the screen in the middle of the console was bigger than my television at home. And we are talking 

about distracted driving. That car has to drive itself because you 

are going to be watching whatever video is going, the GPS, and everything else. Really it was a startling technological development 

but I am sure it can be overwhelming for people who get behind 

the wheel, particularly a youngster who is not used to driving. 

So, anyway, do you have a follow-up question, Mr. Ranking Member? 

Well, thank you to our second panel. Seeing that there are no 

further members wishing to ask questions of this panel, I would 

thank all our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent: a letter from the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, a 

letter from the Global Automakers. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. I ask the witnesses to submit their response within 10 days 

upon receipt of those questions. 

And we have one more letter from OTA to submit for by unanimous consent. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. We will insert it both today and tomorrow. How 

is that? 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today our Disrupter Series continues as we examine self-driving cars. Keeping 

Americans safe on the road has been a top priority for the committee. Being from 

the auto state, I know just how dedicated the auto industry and Michigan’s premier 

86 

research institutions are to developing a roadway system that is accident and defect 

free. 

This work is critical—especially when considering that traffic fatalities are on the 

rise for the first time in more than a decade. In Michigan, there were nearly 1,000 

fatalities last year alone. And I am told that, nationwide, the fatality numbers are 

up again in the first half of this year. 

Today’s hearing on self-driving cars gives us an opportunity to examine how the 

innovation in Michigan and across the country can literally save lives. 

The question is: how do we get there? How do we make sure that the software, 

maps, and sensors powering driverless cars are adequately researched and tested 

to guarantee that they’re ready for deployment and safe for American drivers? How 

do we ensure that policymakers, at both the state and federal level, are prepared 

for and understand the capabilities of vehicle automation technologies? The most 

important thing is to make sure that government, at any level, doesn’t hinder the 

development of this potentially game changing technology. 

NHTSA’s recently-released policy guidance was a constructive first step in starting this conversation but also gives way to new questions. Back home in Michigan, 

an effort has already begun to address these issues. Michigan’s proposed American 

Center for Mobility at Willow Run has the opportunity to offer policymakers and 

auto manufacturers across the nation, and around the world, a one-stop-shop for 

testing and certification for connected and automated vehicle technologies. 

Using over 330 acres of land, this proposed test facility accommodates a number 

of roadway and driving conditions that will be critical for development and deployment of autonomous car technology. With close proximity to Michigan’s vehicle-toinfrastructure corridor, University of Michigan’s Mcity testing facility, and home to 

many of our nation’s automakers, this represents a prime location for folks to test 

advanced automotive technologies and prepare for the future of vehicle transportation. 

As I have often said before: auto safety is a matter of life and death. Because of 

this technology’s life-saving potential, we cannot let the government get this wrong. 

I look forward to a valuable discussion on the positive and transformative impact 

that self-driving cars could have on the safety of the driving public. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Chairman Burgess. 

It’s easy to understand why self-driving cars have captivated the public, the 

media, and, of course, Congress. With 94 percent of car crashes being caused by 

drunk or distracted driving or other human errors, the future of fully automated 

driving is bursting with possibilities. 

Experts have said that if human error is out of the picture, collision rates will 

fall significantly from the more than 38,000 Americans killed in car crashes last 

year. 

Self-driving cars have the potential to improve lives as well as save them. Autonomous vehicles could give seniors and people with disabilities independence and mobility, and remove barriers to employment and social interaction. They also could 

possibly reduce traffic in our cities and revolutionize public transportation. 

Autonomous vehicles have great potential, but they must be deployed responsibly. 

Robust cybersecurity is essential. As with all new technologies, we must demand 

‘‘security by design,’’ where security is not an afterthought but is built into the product from day one. As we saw just a few weeks ago, attacks on our digital infrastructure are not hypothetical. And I look forward to the hearing tomorrow when we review those attacks in this Committee. But unlike that attack and some other cyber 

breaches, attacks on computer-driven and connected cars are a threat to human life. 

We also need to see ‘‘privacy by design,’’ with consumer privacy baked in from the 

start. Autonomous vehicles function by collecting and processing vast amounts of information from their surroundings. For example, most collect vehicle location data 

and many operate using cameras and sensors that can ‘‘see’’ inside and outside the 

vehicle. Such data should be property protected and only used for operation of the 

vehicle and not shared. 

Finally, safety must be the highest priority as autonomous vehicles have already 

begun to share our streets. The American public must know that these cars are safe 

before they are widely deployed on public streets. The companies manufacturing 

these vehicles cannot just say ‘‘trust us.’’ 

The challenge is twofold. First, we must ensure safety during the decades of transition time when autonomous cars share the road with human drivers. The interaction between humans and computerized vehicles present unique challenges. SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:14 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-174 CHRIS
87 

ond, the autonomous vehicles must be ready to deal with all foreseen and unforeseen scenarios before they are permitted to operate without a human driver in the 

driver’s seat. These scenarios include being prepared for wet, snow-covered pavement to confronting a policeman who is using hand signals to redirect traffic. Today’s hearing will focus on fully autonomous cars, but I will note that exciting semiautonomous technologies are already in the marketplace, such as automatic braking, 

which I am optimistic will become standard on all makes and models sooner than 

is currently promised. 

I am hopeful that during today’s hearing we will explore the great potential of 

fully autonomous vehicles but also appreciate that their benefits could be decades 

away from being realized. Whatever the timeline, I am confident that America’s 

greatest minds will be able to meet the technological challenges ahead while 

prioritizing safety, privacy, and security. But together we also must address the 

challenge of any job losses that result from automation, including that of autonomous cars and trucks. 

I would like to end by paying tribute to Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director of 

the Center for Auto Safety, who passed away late last week. Clarence was a tireless 

vehicle safety advocate who was known not just for holding auto manufacturers accountable, but also holding NHTSA and Congress accountable. He testified numerous times before Congress, and throughout his decades of auto safety advocacy, he 

worked on everything from the Pinto explosions and Firestone tires to most recently 

ignition switches and defective airbags. Cars, SUVs, and trucks are safer today because of Clarence, and he will be missed by the entire driving community. 

I yield back. 

88 


23110.041
89 


23110.042
90 


23110.043
91 


23110.044
92 


23110.045
93 


23110.046
94 


23110.047
95 


23110.048
96 


23110.049
97 


23110.050
98 


23110.051
99 


23110.052
100 


23110.053
101 


23110.054
102 


23110.055
103 


23110.056
104 


23110.057
105 


23110.058
106 

Æ 


23110.059