U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

85–609 PDF 2014

HOW AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WILL SHAPE THE 

FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

(113–42) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 5 

Kirk Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, on behalf 

of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . 5 

Michael J. Robinson, Vice President, Sustainability and Global Regulatory 

Affairs, General Motors ....................................................................................... 5 

Andrew Christensen, Senior Manager, Technology Planning and Strategic 

Technology Communication, Nissan Technical Center North America ........... 5 

Raj Rajkumar, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Carnegie Mellon University ...................................................................... 5 

Joshua L. Schank, Ph.D., President and CEO, Eno Center for Transportation 5 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee ............................................................................. 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. David L. Strickland, prepared statement ..................................................... 38 

Kirk Steudle: 

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

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska .................................................. 56 

Michael J. Robinson: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Don Young, of Alaska ...................................................................... 61 

Hon. Howard Coble, of North Carolina ................................................... 61 

Andrew Christensen: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Don Young, of Alaska ...................................................................... 65 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee .................................................. 66 

Raj Rajkumar, Ph.D.: 

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

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska .................................................. 72 

Joshua L. Schank, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska .................................................. 76 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Consumer Electronics Association, written statement ......................................... 78 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 85609.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 85609.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 85609.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 85609.004
(1) 

HOW AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WILL SHAPE 

THE FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing will focus on how autonomous vehicles will 

shape the future of surface transportation. These vehicles have the 

potential to offer incredible safety and mobility benefits to drivers 

and fundamentally transform transportation infrastructure as we 

know it. 

It is important to understand exactly what autonomous vehicles 

are. Some vehicles currently available to consumers have computer 

technology that performs some driving functions, such as automatic 

parallel parking and adaptive cruise control. These features are 

considered a basic level of autonomy, but the purpose of today’s 

hearing is to discuss the impacts of more advanced levels of autonomy that could be available to the public in the next 10 to 20 years. 

More advanced autonomous vehicles are capable of alerting drivers to danger and controlling of vehicles’ brakes and steering during certain situations where the driver reacts too slowly. These vehicles will blend human control with autonomous systems to make 

for a more convenient and a safer driving experience. 

The most advanced level of autonomous vehicle is capable of 

navigating roads with limited or no action from the driver by utilizing a variety of optical sensors, radar, and computer algorithms. 

The sensors deliver environmental data of the road and surrounding vehicles into the computer algorithm which then determines the appropriate driving maneuver. 

These vehicles do not suffer from intoxicated or fatigued driving, 

and are able to react to dangerous driving situations faster than 

can a human being. Many auto manufacturers have developed prototypes that one day could be offered to consumers. 

Carnegie Mellon University has developed and tested one such 

vehicle at the University Transportation Center, and we will hear 

from the director of their program today. 

Autonomous vehicles could significantly reduce traffic fatalities 

and crashes by reducing or eliminating driver error, which is a contributing factor to over 90 percent of all crashes. These crashes cost 

2 

the United States economy over $200 billion per year in medical, 

property and productivity losses. 

Crash reductions would also have the added benefit of reducing 

congestion since a high percentage of congestion is due to vehicle 

crashes. While safety is the most important benefit, autonomous 

vehicles could reduce congestion and improve fuel economy through 

better utilization of existing highway capacity and more efficient 

operation of the vehicle’s acceleration and braking control. 

Seniors and persons with disabilities could be afforded greater 

mobility options that are not available to them today. Some researchers think autonomous vehicles could be offered to consumers 

on a service-based contract, which would provide a vehicle whenever the consumer requests one, but these benefits can only be realized if Federal and State authorities carefully prepare for their 

arrival and adopt policies that help autonomous vehicles assimilate 

into the transportation network. 

States have just started to address some of these challenges 

through laws allowing autonomous vehicles to operate on public 

roads and their licensing procedures. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation is conducting a pilot program on connected vehicle 

technology which could one day play a role in the autonomous vehicle system by communicating safety information to other vehicles 

on the road. 

Liability and cybersecurity concerns are significant barriers to 

autonomous vehicle adoption. Who is at fault in a crash between 

a vehicle operated by a human and one operated by a computer 

system? 

Are proper encryption technologies in place that protects autonomous vehicles from unwanted intrusion? 

All of these concerns must be addressed before benefits from autonomous vehicles can be realized. Vehicles and infrastructure that 

they utilize are becoming increasingly integrated with computer 

technology, which has the potential to revolutionize highway safety 

and mobility in our country. In order to see these benefits come to 

fruition, Federal and State officials should begin planning for the 

benefits and the challenges that autonomous vehicles will bring to 

the future of our Nation’s surface transportation system. 

So I hope today’s hearing will provide our committee members 

with insight into this important issue, and before I conclude my remarks I would like to commend Staff Director Jim Tymon for his 

11 years of service and dedication to our committee. Jim is leaving 

the committee to join the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials as their director of management and 

program finance, and he has been a key staffer on the last two surface transportation authorizations and sacrificed countless hours 

away from his beautiful family to improve our Nation’s transportation system. 

So on behalf of the committee, I wish you the best luck in your 

future endeavors, and thank you for your service over the many 

years to this committee. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. PETRI. I look forward to hearing our witnesses, but before 

that I turn to my ranking member, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for any 

opening statement she might wish to make. 

3 

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly 

want to thank you for calling this hearing on autonomous vehicles. 

This is my first hearing as ranking member. I am honored to serve 

with you and look forward to working closely with you and with the 

other members of the subcommittee on the opportunities and the 

challenge facing the Nation’s infrastructure programs. 

I particularly look forward to today’s testimony. I want to learn 

how manufacturers and those who are involved in the research are 

working to develop and test autonomous and connected vehicle 

technology, and perhaps we will speak a bit about the role of the 

States and the localities on the Federal Government in regulation 

for the safety of all involved. 

I expect that this hearing will spur a robust discussion, perhaps 

the kind of discussion we are not yet having in the United States 

about the policy and economic and the legal challenges and the opportunities presented as we embark into increasing levels of automation in vehicles just as we have in other forms of transportation. 

Just last week I had the opportunity to ride in an electric car, 

but unlike Chairman Petri, who has ridden in a connected vehicle, 

and Chairman Shuster whose ride in a driverless car has been 

widely reported, I have yet to have a car drive me. I am looking 

forward to that opportunity. 

Technology, of course, is already common in vehicles today. So 

we should not be surprised that driverless vehicles are already envisioned. After all, we are living with driverless vehicles. The 

Metro here used by Members, staff, and Federal employees has 

long used automatically driven cars, and automatic pilots are common in both planes and on rail. 

It is worth noting, however, that after a serious Metro crash here 

in 2009 that killed nine residents, Metro has been riding manually, 

and that is the case, although that accident was not directly attributed to the driverless nature of the trains. Manual deployment now 

is used as a safety precaution. 

The technology for driverless cars, of course, must cope with the 

risks and the dangers and the congestion that are far more complicated on the road than in the air or on rail. Perhaps, however, 

and this is how I would like to envision the technology that will 

lead to driverless cars, perhaps the technology applied to our transportation infrastructure on the ground has the power to actually 

reduce our accidents and risks, and the chairman has spoken of 

some of them. I will not reiterate them. 

But mass deployment of technology is already ushering in dramatic gains in safety by significantly reducing vehicle crashes and 

saving lives. I have a strong interest in facilitating the use of technology-based solutions in a number of ways to address our surface 

transportation challenges. 

This hearing, therefore, is not futuristic. I believe that understanding and preparing for the future of our surface transportation 

system now is important so that technological advances can turn 

into benefits for highway users as they become commercially available. 

There are, of course, even more immediate issues this subcommittee must resolve in the near term. Our subcommittee must 

grapple with the looming insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund at 

4 

the end of fiscal year 2014. I hope that the subcommittee seizes 

every opportunity to find a solution to our Nation’s surface transportation funding woes, about which we hear so much daily. We 

can ill afford to wait until next year to solve that problem. 

I know you share my concerns, Chairman Petri, and I look forward to working with you to develop sensible solutions to keep our 

Nation moving forward as we begin to think through reauthorization of a new surface transportation bill. Then perhaps we will 

really be ready to move forward and utilize the new technology 

that we will hear about at today’s hearing. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses for joining us in advance and 

to thank you for your testimony, and I wanted to apologize, Mr. 

Chairman, to you and to our witnesses that a subcommittee hearing in another subcommittee of this committee is considering revitalization of a site near the Wall in my district. So I will be traveling by foot between this very important hearing and that hearing. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I am on that subcommittee and am playing hooky, but I certainly understand why you would want to be 

there. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses and to ask unanimous consent that their full statements be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The panel consists of the Honorable David L. Strickland, who is 

the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Mr. Kirk Steudle, director of the Michigan Department of 

Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials; Michael J. Robinson, vice 

president, Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs for the 

General Motors Corporation; Mr. Andrew Christensen, senior manager for Technology Planning, Nissan Technical Center North 

America; Dr. Raj Rajkumar, who is a professor, Electrical and 

Computer Engineering Department of Carnegie Mellon University; 

and Dr. Joshua L. Schank, president and CEO of the Eno Center 

for Transportation. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for attending this hearing and 

for the effort that you and your staff put into the prepared statements which will be made a part of the record, and I would invite 

you to summarize them in approximately 5 minutes and give the 

committee a chance to ask questions as well. 

We will begin with Mr. Strickland. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; 

KIRK STEUDLE, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; MICHAEL J. ROBINSON, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND GLOBAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS, GENERAL MOTORS; ANDREW CHRISTENSEN, SENIOR MANAGER, TECHNOLOGY PLANNING AND STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATION, NISSAN TECHNICAL CENTER NORTH AMERICA; 

RAJ RAJKUMAR, PH.D., PROFESSOR, ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CARNEGIE MELLON 

UNIVERSITY; AND JOSHUA L. SCHANK, PH.D., PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, ENO CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

I also want to thank and recognize Ranking Member Holmes Norton and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify 

on automated vehicles and the implication for the future of surface 

transportation. 

The future of the automobile is extremely bright. Increasingly a 

car’s capabilities are determined more by its electronics than by its 

mechanics. This is bringing countless innovations and improve 

driver comfort, provide useful information and entertainment, and 

most importantly, advanced safety. 

According to our estimates, there were 33,561 people that lost 

their lives on America’s roadways in 2012. In addition to the devastation that their crashes caused to these families, the economic cost 

to society reached into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Automated vehicles can potentially help reduce these numbers significantly. 

Traditionally, we have improved survivability by advancing the 

vehicle’s crash worthiness along with a number of people that are 

sitting with me at this table and other manufacturers across the 

globe. With those technologies, such as seat belts and air bags, occupants are more likely to survive a crash than they were more 

than 20 or 30 years ago. Today there are new, exciting prospects 

for advancing safety through new crash avoidance technologies that 

could prevent a crash from occurring in the first place. 

To that end, I am pleased to highlight the Significant and Seamless initiative that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently announced. The Significant and Seamless initiative 

addresses the areas in highway safety where industry can fast 

track existing safety technology. 

One major component is forward collision avoidance and mitigation, a sensor-based vehicle technology that can detect the imminent crash and alert the driver to take corrective action and automatically apply the brakes. 

We have greatly accelerated our efforts to initiate and complete 

research of the Connected Vehicles Program. V2V, which depends 

on the 5 gigahertz spectrum, is designed to give drivers situational 

awareness to improve safe decisionmaking on the road. 

Chairman Petri, I would like to thank you for taking time to visit 

our demonstration at RFK Stadium earlier this year. 

6 

I think the Connected Vehicles Program is a critical evolution of 

crash avoidance technology. 

Recently traditional and nontraditional auto companies have unveiled research projects to develop self-driving cars. 

Unsurprisingly, people find this fascinating. With all the discussion 

surrounding automated driving, we find it helpful to think of these 

emerging technologies as part of a continuing of vehicle control. 

To that end, NHTSA has issued a preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles where we define levels of automation starting from your basic 1957 Chevy at level zero with no 

automation at all, all the way to full automation requires no input 

or control from the driver. 

Automated driving is an exciting frontier for the industry, and 

we have identified three key areas for preliminary research: human 

factors and human-machine interface; initial system performance 

requirements; and electronic control system safety. Our research 

will inform agency policy decisions and assist in developing an 

overall set of requirements and standards for automated vehicles. 

Several States, including the great State of Michigan, have enacted legislation expressly authorizing the operation of autonomous 

vehicles within their borders under certain conditions. Generally, 

these laws seem to contemplate partially self-driving or fully autonomous operation. 

We offer recommendations to the States considering legislation 

or regulations governing licensing, testing and operation of selfdriving vehicles on public roads in order to encourage the safe development of automated vehicles. In general, we believe that States 

are well suited to address issues such as licensing, driver training, 

and conditions for operation related to the specific types of vehicles. 

We do not at this time recommend that State permit operation 

of self-driving vehicles for purposes other than testing. Any greater 

State regulation at this time may stifle innovation needed to improve safety, reliability, and the collection of data. 

The promise of advanced vehicles is very exciting. While certainly there is a risk with any emerging technology, I firmly believe 

that when the risk is properly identified, understood and mitigated, 

we can help minimize it and reap the potential benefits. 

One additional note, Mr. Chairman, as a point of personal privilege. I just also wanted to acknowledge Jim Tymon’s fantastic service. I had the opportunity to work with him on SAFETEA–LU, oh, 

so many years ago as I was working on the Senate side, on Senate 

Commerce Committee, and Jim was a fantastic colleague, occasional adversary, but overall a great friend, and one of the best policy minds in Washington, DC, and I just want to thank you for all 

of his years of friendship and expertise, and God bless you, and 

have all of the best opportunities at AASHTO. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

He is moving on up to AASHTO. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Steudle. 

Mr. STEUDLE. Good morning, Chairman Petri and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity, on 

behalf of AASHTO and the State departments of transportation, to 

7 

share our views on how autonomous vehicles will shape the future 

of transportation. 

I have three points for you. First, the ultimate goal is the safest 

and most efficient transportation system imaginable, and it may be 

possible to achieve this goal with accident free vehicles, vehicles 

that can drive themselves, and vehicles, drivers, and transportation 

infrastructure that safety, securely and reliably share real time information. 

Second, widespread acceptance and deployment of driverless vehicles and of interconnected vehicles and infrastructure will be 

challenging and evolutionary. 

Third, there are actions that you can take today to move forward 

with these technological advances and effectively prepare us for the 

future. 

Now, allow me to elaborate on these three points. First, the big 

picture. In reality, autonomous and interconnected vehicles, drivers, and infrastructure are a means to achieving our society’s larger goals of an accident free transportation system. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted in the beginning, the safety benefits 

are huge. They are enormous. You also noted that the driver was 

at error in most crashes. If we can take the driver out of the equation, we have the potential to reduce the severity of crashes and 

crash rates significantly. 

Some of the technology is already available, such as traffic signal 

overrides for emergency vehicles and buses, and automatic braking 

that reacts more quickly than humans can. Autonomous vehicles 

could significantly improve the mobility for those who are permanently or temporarily disabled and our aging population. 

Vehicles that can communicate in real time with other vehicles, 

drivers and infrastructure can enable vehicles to drive closer together, allowing the transport system to operate more efficiently. 

Ultimately the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles 

could fundamentally change the way we design and build roads 

and bridges. 

For example, with crashless cars the need for a 12-foot-wide lane, 

guard rails, rumble strips, wide shoulders and even stop signs 

could decrease and be replaced with the need for sensors and nextgeneration traffic signals. 

But achieving this vision will not happen overnight, which leads 

me to my second point. Additional research, development, testing 

and evolution will be needed before there will be widespread acceptance and deployment. This will take many years. 

This evolution will include the deployment of many enabling 

technologies ranging from sensor-based information to wireless 

communications between vehicles and vehicles with the infrastructure and even technologies that we have not thought of yet. During 

this evolutionary period, we do not want to limit our options or impede further significant advances in technology. We need to be very 

cautious. 

However, we have substantial deployment challenges that must 

be addressed, and here are a few things to consider. The hardware 

investment needed to equip vehicles and to retrofit roadways with 

new technologies and materials will add to the substantial roadway 

preservation deficit we already face. 

8 

Privacy concerns associated with data sharing could prove to be 

a significant hurdle in the development. Electronic security risks, 

as you noted earlier, such as viruses and hacking could threaten 

widespread acceptance. 

Our fleet turnover rate of vehicles is currently at about 20 years, 

meaning you introduce new technology today and it will take 20 

years for the full fleet to be completely converted. 

Connected vehicle technology must have a secure and fast communications network to work, faster than is currently available 

with traditional cellular communications. The FCC has reserved 

5.9 gigahertz bandwidth for this use. They are now considering 

sharing this use with other wireless communications providers, and 

we think that that needs to be done very cautiously. 

And lastly, there will be a range of operational challenges during 

this transition period when both autonomous and nonautonomous 

vehicles will be sharing the roadways. 

Finally, we have recommendations to advance autonomous vehicle technology today. First of all, encourage NHTSA to make its decision this year on requiring vehicle technology for all new passenger vehicles. 

Second, protect the 5.9 gigahertz bandwidth for the connected vehicle program. 

Third, fund research to more fully understand the breadth of possible operating scenarios and implications that autonomous and 

connected vehicle technology will have. 

And, fourth, support the continuing collaboration between the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, the State departments of 

transportation, and the global automakers and suppliers. This collaboration will be essential for the successful deployment of autonomous vehicles into the future. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the committee 

for taking on this issue and for your leadership to make sure that 

our Nation’s transportation system continues to be the envy of the 

world. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Robinson. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate this 

morning in this very important hearing. 

The idea or autonomous driving has captured our collective attention and imagination, but in reality many of the future building 

blocks upon which it rests are already here. The role technology is 

already playing to assist the drivers or our vehicles in managing 

the conditions and circumstances they encounter on the highways 

today is providing the foundation for future breakthroughs. 

It should not be surprising that GM is investing in technologies 

that ultimately will provide even greater levels of driver assistance 

and vehicle management, and importantly, we are working on systems that do not require dramatic upgrades or modifications to the 

national highway infrastructure network. 

To the greatest degree possible, our goal is to keep the systems 

we are talking about contained within the vehicles and between the 

vehicles. However, we do have one low-tech need: clearly marked 

lanes and shoulders. This will enhance the capabilities of these 

9 

technologies that we are already using to sense the road, such as 

radar, ultrasonic sensors and cameras, along with, of course, GPS 

location capabilities. 

Over the past 2 years, the media has devoted much time and attention to the idea of a self-driving car. For the most part, as the 

name implies, people assume that an autonomous vehicle will take 

you to your destination without any personal involvement after 

simply issuing a command, without any oversight by the driver. It 

is easy to understand why this captures our imagination. 

However, these types of driverless systems are a significant distance into the future. Realistically and for the foreseeable future, 

the driver will still need to be engaged and in control. Simply put, 

this is because driving is a very complicated business, and it will 

take some time for the computer driven systems to be capable of 

managing an reacting to all of the situations and road conditions 

that drivers do encounter. 

That said, we are quickly forging ahead in a very thoughtful way 

to enhance safety by reducing driver workload. We consider these 

systems to be like having an extra set of eyes available for the driver. For example, today GM offers adaptive cruise control, ACC, on 

variety of our vehicles, an example of the building blocks that I just 

mentioned that will move us to the more automated systems of the 

future. 

ACC is an intelligent form of cruise control that slows down and 

speeds up a vehicle automatically at pace with the traffic ahead. 

Like normal cruise control, the driver sets the speed, but also sets 

a distance gap setting. ACC is typically paired with a collision 

warning system that alerts the driver of a potential collision ahead 

and may also be equipped with a system that begins braking before 

the driver might have time to react. This system is already on various Cadillac vehicles and our new Chevrolet Impala. 

GM has talked publicly about taking this very type of system to 

the next level, for example, adding the ability of the vehicle to 

maintain lane control. We call this more advanced system Super 

Cruise and expect it will provide even greater driver assistance, including hands free capability on certain freeway drives. 

This system, too, though will require a driver’s supervision. We 

believe this type of technology can realistically be brought to market before this decade ends. 

Beyond that, the definition of what constitutes autonomous and 

automated vehicles and automated technology is being discussed 

and can be interpreted in various ways. The document that David 

Strickland referred to, ‘‘Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles,’’ really starts to frame that discussion 

and will provide a good basis for our collaborative work that needs 

to be done among the various players down the road. 

At the same time a number of States are also becoming involved 

in defining, guiding or even regulating autonomous technology implementation. We think this is a bit premature, but to the extent 

States do decide they need to be involved, quite frankly, the approach the State of Michigan has taken to carefully make sure current systems and the building blocks I mentioned are not in peril 

as we test these future vehicles. 

10 

In addition to the obvious highway safety benefits of more automated vehicles, wide implementation of these systems could offer 

potentially significant benefits for improved fuel economy and CO2 

reduction. Also eliminating or virtually eliminating crashes could 

have profound impact on how we engineer vehicles for future occupant safety and crash worthiness. It will give us the opportunity 

to take a fresh look at how we design body structures that manage 

crash energy. Fewer crashes means easier engineering. 

Consequently, there may be opportunities to further reduce vehicle mass. 

Finally, the ability to sense other cars, traffic congestion and 

even pedestrians would allow for smoother traffic flows, reduced 

noise and less pollution. Everybody wins in that scenario. 

So you may ask how can we get this technology to the road faster. What can you do as a committee. We have three suggestions. 

Let the market work. Let manufacturers like GM do what we do 

best and compete for customers with features that add real value 

to the drive today and to the future generations of vehicles tomorrow. 

Two, support a Federal approach to addressing these issues. We 

need a regular standard that can be adopted across all 50 States, 

not a patchwork of 50 different standards. 

And, three, I would suggest respectfully that we need to provide 

an environment that promotes the development and implementation of these technologies here in the United States rather than in 

other countries, for example, reasonable protection for automakers 

and dealers from frivolous litigation for systems that meet and surpass whatever performance standards are established by the Government. 

I have run out of time, Mr. Chairman, but in conclusion, I want 

to let you know that we are committed to these technologies. We 

are moving full steam ahead and look forward to your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Christensen. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Chairman Petri and members of 

the committee. 

I am the senior manager of Technology Planning at Nissan’s 

Technical Center located in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Nissan 

has established ambitious goals for the development of autonomous 

vehicles. So I am particularly honored to testify about how autonomous vehicles will shape the future of transportation. 

Carlos Ghosn, the CEO of the Renault-Nissan Alliance, recently 

announced the goal for Nissan to have an affordable autonomous 

drive vehicle ready by 2020. This timeframe is challenging, but we 

believe achievable. 

Autonomous drive technologies can be classified by the level of 

automation ranging from emerging active safety technologies, such 

as forward emergency braking, to more autonomous vehicles and 

ultimately driverless cars. While many advantages are often cited 

for each level of autonomous technology, the potential safety benefit is the most important reason to pursue its development. 

It is estimated that human error is involved in over 90 percent 

of the more than 6 million accidents occurring annually in the 

United States. Typically those crashes involve some level of driver 

11 

inattention. We believe that autonomous driving technology has the 

potential to successfully address these types of situations resulting 

in these accidents. 

Nissan’s work on autonomous drive is a continuation of over 10 

years of crash avoidance technology development inspired by our 

safety shield concept. This proactive development philosophy has 

enabled Nissan to introduce technologies designed to help drivers 

avoid a variety of risks from the front, side, and rear of the vehicle, 

including the world’s first backup collision intervention and predictive forward collision warning systems. 

It is the exact safety systems that will form the foundation of our 

autonomous drive technologies. Nissan’s efforts are focused on technology that operates within the available roadway infrastructure. 

In the future additional benefits could be achieved if autonomous 

technology is fully integrated with the transportation infrastructure, including traffic control and road systems. 

While some of the technologies that will act as the foundation for 

autonomous drive are already being introduced and we believe in 

their potential, the development of autonomous technology remains 

a challenging task which will require careful planning and resource 

allocation. 

From an engineering standpoint, Nissan is already investing in 

the future of autonomous driving. In the United States, Nissan has 

teams working at our Technical Center in Michigan, and we have 

also opened a research facility in Silicon Valley to integrate the 

rich IT knowledge available there. 

We are also creating a dedicated autonomous vehicle proving 

ground. Although Nissan is developing most of this technology in 

house, we will also partner with others as needed. For example, we 

will continue to collaborate with top level universities, such as Oxford, Stanford, MIT and Carnegie Mellon. 

However, a successful introduction of autonomous drive will require more than careful engineering development. Autonomous 

driving may significantly alter the way society views driving, making social acceptability an important factor that should be carefully 

managed in parallel with the technical development. An ongoing 

and open dialogue among stakeholders is critical to help address 

the social framework needed to support autonomous technology deployment. 

The necessary technical achievements and the maturing of social 

acceptance will be fostered gradually, step by step. Nissan conducted an autonomous driving demonstration at an event in California this summer and we are ready to conduct field operational 

tests in the United States and in other countries. 

Nissan has also received the first license plate for an autonomous 

vehicle in Japan, authorizing us to test vehicles on public roads. 

These demonstration events and field tests are important not 

only from a technology development perspective, but also to educate the public and help us understand social opinion. With the potential societal benefit that can come with autonomous driving, 

Nissan believes the United States can take a leading role in helping to promote safe and dynamic development of the technology. 

Such leadership may include the consideration of appropriate 

legislative action, funding for research and development, and 

12 

studying the need for investment in wireless communication infrastructure to support future advancements. 

We hope that road traffic safety in the United States will be dramatically improved with the advent of autonomous driving, and we 

believe Nissan’s commitment will contribute significantly to its 

progress. 

We look forward to working with Members of Congress as we 

move toward this challenging goal. 

Mr. Chairman and the committee, I thank you for your time and 

interest in this important issue. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Dr. Raj Rajkumar. 

Dr. RAJKUMAR. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Norton, for convening this important hearing. 

I am honored to share my views as a researcher working with 

my colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of 

Pennsylvania at our U.S. DOT National University Transportation 

Center for Safety which is dedicated to developing technologies that 

target the holy grail of zero traffic fatalities. 

Our work is also supported by the National Science Foundation 

through the Cyber-Physical Systems Program and by General Motors. 

There is tremendous excitement building around autonomous vehicle capability in industry, academia and among the public. Today, 

we can envision a future of driving that is dramatically safer, more 

energy efficient, more sustainable, more productive and less congested, all without abrogating the role of the automobile in American life. 

Autonomous driving is a prospective and realistic solution to the 

challenges of traffic fatalities, congestion and loss of mobility. Indeed, as Chairman Shuster recently showed by his willingness to 

experience a seamless driverless vehicle first-hand on a 33-mile autonomous ride on September 4 in Pittsburgh, autonomous vehicles 

have already been shown to be feasible in real-world street and 

highway traffic conditions. 

Autonomous driving is an emerging and welcome result of the 

rich foundation of Federal investments in basic research and engineering, computer science and robotics. The seminal turning point 

in the pursuit of a grand vision of autonomous driving was the 

Urban Grand Challenge sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA. This 2007 competition, won by our 

team from Carnegie Mellon University, clearly demonstrated the 

feasibility of autonomous driving in an urban, though restricted, 

setting. 

Continued basic research is required to address the challenges 

presented by bad weather, poor road conditions, different lighting 

conditions and to ensure safe recovery from any failures of subsystems. 

Fundamental advances are needed to successfully verify and validate the correct and secure operations of these cyber-physical systems. We at Carnegie Mellon University are addressing these core 

scientific challenges. 

One pivotal research thrust which will accelerate the safety and 

reliability of autonomous driving capabilities involves connected veVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\11-19-~1\85609.TXT JEAN
13 

hicle technologies. The accurate and reliable operation of autonomous vehicles will be significantly improved with the seamless integration of automation and connectivity. 

Carnegie Mellon has developed a 1.8-mile test-bed with 11 instrumented traffic lights near Pittsburgh. A much larger test-bed 

will be developed next year. 

We are also exploring communication systems for use by 

bicyclists and pedestrians. Similarly, the big data opportunities in 

this domain will yield innovations in mobility analytics to identify 

and resolve traffic bottlenecks, to help emergency responders and 

to better integrate different modes of transportation. 

The following are some considerations for policymakers. First, we 

should exercise caution in rushing to deploy technologies before ensuring that they can be fully trusted. For the foreseeable future, a 

human must continue to be in the driver’s seat even if the vehicle 

is capable of driving itself. 

Secondly, we must recognize that the pace of advances and adoption will depend on the level of support for continued research. Advances will still require serious R&D investments in both basic research and applied test-beds linking industry, universities, companies and communities. 

Thirdly, we must be sure that policy and regulatory innovations 

evolve along with this technology. 

Fourthly, we must ensure that adequate privacy and cyber-physical security safeguards are developed and integrated. 

Finally, these challenges should not deter policymakers from pursuing the goal of autonomous vehicles because this technology 

holds tremendous promise to reduce highway spending in the 

2030–2040 timeframe. 

In closing, I thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to speak to you on an area of research that can profoundly 

transform our economy, our highways, and our lives. These investments will keep our Nation as the global leader in intelligent 

transportation systems. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Dr. Schank. 

Dr. SCHANK. Good morning and thank you for having me here 

today. Thank you, Chairman Petri and members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about autonomous vehicles. 

I am Joshua Schank. I am the president and CEO of the Eno 

Center for Transportation. We are a nonpartisan, objective, neutral 

transportation policy think tank based here in Washington, DC, 

and we were founded by William P. Eno 92 years ago. Mr. Eno was 

stuck in a traffic jam at the age of 9 in a horse and buggy in New 

York City and devoted the rest of his life to dealing with traffic and 

safety issues and founded the Eno Center for Transportation. So 

we have been working on this for a long time. 

This paper, ‘‘Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles, Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations,’’ was authored 

by Eno Fellow Dan Fagnant and his advisor Kara Kockelman at 

the University of Texas, and the paper sought to look at the barVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\11-19-~1\85609.TXT JEAN
14 

riers that exist to integrating autonomous vehicles and to understand how Federal policy can smooth the transition. 

First we looked at some of the big benefits that could come from 

autonomous vehicle introduction. These include safety, reduce congestion, fuel savings, and greater mobility for those who cannot 

drive themselves. We found that over 40 percent of fatal automotive crashes involve some kind of alcohol distracted driving or 

fatigue. So we could save potentially at least 10,000 lives per year 

with just a 50 percent market penetration for autonomous vehicles, 

which is pretty substantial. 

We also found that a cooperative adaptive cruise controls could 

potentially increase lane capacity on our existing highways by 21 

percent, cutting fuel consumption by 224 million gallons per year, 

for a savings of approximately $37.4 billion annually. That is very 

substantial, and that is, again, with a 50 percent market penetration. 

And then, of course, these vehicles will provide increased mobility for the disabled, for children, for the elderly, segments of the 

population that did not previously have access to this level of mobility, and that could provide tremendous economic benefits for society. 

And so we estimate that with simply a 50 percent market pene- tration, comprehensive costs will save approximately $3,320 annually per vehicle, and of course, there are over 250 million vehicles 

in the United States today. So those numbers add up pretty quickly. 

However, there are substantial barriers to implementing autonomous vehicles and achieving that 50 percent market penetration. 

The cost is going to be the biggest one. We estimate an initial cost 

will be approximately $100,000 per vehicle upon market entry. 

That is obviously beyond the reach of the average America. That 

cost is going to have to come down for us to achieve these benefits. 

Second, there are no current standards in place for licensing and 

liability for these vehicles. We are going to have to get that done 

in order to achieve these benefits. 

And then, third, the security and privacy concerns need to be addressed. You need to make sure that no one can hack into the system and potentially create problems that way, and of course, privacy is always an issue for people who are driving or riding in autonomous vehicles. 

Therefore, we propose the following policy recommendations: 

One, we need to expand autonomous vehicle research in order to 

figure out how to get that cost down. That is probably the number 

one priority. 

Number two, we need to begin developing Federal guidelines for 

licensing of autonomous vehicles. That has to happen now because 

these vehicles could potentially be on the road by the end of the 

decade, and we want to be able to take advantage of them as quickly as possible in order to capitalize on these benefits. 

Number three, we need to being determining appropriate standards for liability, security and data privacy. That also is something 

that we can start on right away. 

So in conclusion, the benefits from autonomous vehicles are substantial, but the barriers that exist are also substantial. We do feel 

15 

that these can be overcome. However, even before full automation, 

there are substantial benefits that can be achieved from simply 

adopting many of these technologies that we have talked about 

today. 

And through expanding research and creating effective standards 

and regulations for autonomous vehicles, we have the opportunity 

to take advantage of these benefits sooner rather than later, but 

we must seize that opportunity or otherwise we could potentially 

let these economic benefits slip away. 

Thank you so much for having me here today, Chairman Petri 

and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you 

all for your testimony. 

I guess I will start off the questioning. One issue that I wanted 

Administrator Strickland to address, we engaged in a little correspondence earlier, and it has to do with the statutory authority 

of NHTSA to issue regulations. It clearly has the authority to issue 

regulations concerning the safety of autonomous vehicles, but I understand it is considering guidelines regarding portable electronic 

devices, such as GPS navigation systems and other smartphones 

and other mobile communication devices which are not integrated 

into the vehicle but are used in the vehicle and out of the vehicle. 

Do you have legislative authority to do that now or do we need 

to address that to figure out how that works within our congressional division of responsibility? 

Questions are being raised in the industry, and I wondered if you 

have a response or are preparing one to that. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. We are actually preparing a formal response for your letter, but I am happy to sort of give you an outline 

of the agency’s authority in this area. 

The core is through the Motor Vehicle Safety Act where we have 

the statutory authority to clearly regulate, you know, the full automobile on road, public road automobiles, as well you know, and including medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. 

But it also reaches to motor vehicle equipment. Now, that would 

cross a span of devices and technologies. More specifically, your letter asked the question regarding portable devices, things such as, 

you know, a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone, and our authority does 

reach to those applications on those devices that can be classified 

as motor vehicle equipment, and, Mr. Chairman, that is actually a 

very broad scope of issues. I mean things like, you know, navigation on an iPhone. 

If you see the iPhone application has three tabs. One has a person walking for walking navigation. One has one for transit for 

transit directions, but there is also one for a car. That is a piece 

of motor vehicle equipment. I think we have very strong precedent 

to be able to make that extension. 

In addition to that, there are applications that may not be specifically designed or intended for use in the vehicle, but can be reasonably expected to be used in a driving environment. Those are 

also motor vehicle equipment. While, you know, that authority is 

not limitless in that area, it is very broad, and we plan to work collaboratively not only with the manufacturers, which we already 

16 

have, but with those device manufacturers, application manufacturers through our work in guidelines in order to make sure that 

all of these things are working in the proper zone of safety. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, it is an interesting area that is a little bit new 

because of the way computer technology has evolved and things 

being small and multipurpose, and so on. We want to obviously be 

sensitive to this. The primary requirement is safety of the vehicle, 

but to have too broad a regulation where it is inappropriate because something might be carried on a vehicle raises issues as well. 

So I am glad you are taking an interagency approach and have 

to be doing a lot of consulting with the industry and other experts 

to figure out how to prevent us from snarling things up. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Just as one followon, I just want to actually thank not only some of the witnesses 

here at the table and their companies, but a lot of others. The goal 

for us ultimately in the fight against distracted driving in the opinion of the agency is a technological breakthrough, being able to 

identify the driver from the passenger, having the driver have to 

interlock their device or pair their device with the vehicle with a 

good, safe driving, you know, display that follows our in-vehicle 

guidelines, and allowing the passenger to play as many games of 

Angry Bird as they want. 

Once we get there, I think that we have the opportunity to have 

a tremendous safety breakthrough, but if it is achievable, we all 

need to work together on that, and I appreciate your support and 

your question on that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Robinson, you mentioned one concrete thing we could do is 

to make sure that to the extent we can, working with the States, 

that there is good marking on highways, and that is obviously of 

importance for safety in any event. But could you explain why that 

is important or how soon that needs to be done so far as these innovations are concerned? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

question. 

When you realize that many of these systems cue off of visuals 

that are provided by cameras, the lane markings become very important to your operation of these systems. So the better the markings, the more effective the systems are. 

And for that reason if you have older roads that do not have 

markings that have been painted in anyone’s recent memory or you 

have weather conditions that get in the way of being able to track 

the markings, you can have difficulty. That is why the driver is so 

important at all times. 

But it is a basic matter of being able to see the lines by the cameras that are on the vehicles. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I have other questions, but I think I will submit them for the 

record and call on Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

very interesting meeting. 

I have so many questions. First, it is hard for me to fathom a 

car in New York City being without a driver. I mean, it is hard 

enough with a driver. 

17 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIRES. So you know, trying to visualize this is very difficult. 

The other question that I had is, you know, I worked on the fixing up of the E–Z Pass in New Jersey, and people were concerned 

that they were being tracked. I assume that with this car it is a 

lot easier to be tracked, and I think that is one of the questions 

that you are going to have to address because it was big issue trying to deal with the E–Z Pass and finding this thing. 

The other thing is I am interested in the retrofit of the highways. 

Mr. Steudle, you said you would have to do some work there. Can 

you just talk a little bit about that? 

What does it entail? You know, how much money is it going to 

cost? You know, do we have to place signals on the highway? 

Mr. STEUDLE. Actually, there is an analysis underway. AASHTO 

is developing what is called a footprint analysis. What would the 

need for highway retrofit look like? Frankly, it depends on what 

the final technology looks like. 

If we had done this 6 or 7 years ago, the estimate would have 

been significantly higher because at that point they were talking 

about roadside units every quarter mile, which was, frankly, just 

not possible to do. 

So I think now you are looking at basically traffic signals that 

have some form of technology in them that can communicate with 

the vehicles as they are driving down the road. 

I think once the technology standard is set, some of the prices 

will come down. It is very difficult to tell you that it is going to cost 

this much money today because the technology is changing so fast. 

We are learning through the model deployment safety pilot, which 

the U.S. DOT has underway in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is about what 

the infrastructure needs are really, how far these traffic signals 

can actually communicate, and we are finding that they actually 

are more efficient at a distance twice as far as what we originally 

intended them to be. 

So it is a work in progress, but I suspect that where you are 

going to see the initial technology is in traffic signals where you 

have a communications backbone that links back into our traffic 

management systems. 

Mr. SIRES. Are these any sensors that you are going to have to 

put on the highway? Do you know what I mean? 

Mr. STEUDLE. The traffic signal is a dedicated short-range communication radio. It is a transmitter that would receive. It is the 

same frequency that vehicles-to-vehicles use, but then it is from the 

vehicle to the infrastructure and back to the vehicle. So, it basically 

is a receiver and a transmitter in the traffic signal. 

The reason you select a traffic signal is because that is where the 

collision points are located most frequently. 

Mr. SIRES. You know, I used to have a 1965 Mustang that I did 

a lot of work on, you know, many years ago. I cannot imagine anybody doing any work on these cars that are so sophisticated, and 

to me I think it is just going to put people out of work. You are 

going to have to send these cars back to the shop. I cannot see anybody doing work on these things. I mean you have to be so sophisticated, and I guess that is where we are headed. 

Can anybody tell me if we are going to put people out of work? 

18 

Mr. STEUDLE. Well, I definitely would defer to the OEMs on the 

panel—— 

Mr. SIRES. You can pass that around. 

Mr. STEUDLE [continuing]. To speak to the ability of shade tree 

mechanics. However, the one great thing about electronic systems, 

they do actually create efficiencies and improve safety in all vehicles. Yes, it may be beyond an individual shade tree mechanic 

today to change your oil and take a look at your braking system— 

the type of thing you could do on a 1965 Mustang. But, we do have 

the ability, frankly, to achieve improvements in fuel economy, improvements in safety, and reduction of costs for all of these things, 

which are enabled by new electronic systems. 

Mr. SIRES. All that stuff just tells me it will put more people out 

of work. But, you know, I get it. It is the future. That is where we 

are headed. You know, I am just trying to figure it in the next few 

decades what is going to happen. 

Can you just talk about it a little, Mr. Robinson? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Certainly, Congressman Sires. 

And, by the way, I suspend disbelief whenever I am in New York 

City, too. I close my eyes a lot in the back of a cab. It is not autonomous driving, but it is close. 

This is technology that, quite frankly, is going to be liberating, 

and I understand your concerns, but we are talking about a future 

state where I think the technology is actually going to have the reverse effect on the one you are concerned about. I think it is going 

to create jobs ultimately. 

I think all of these technologies are going to require technicians. 

They are going to require people capable of working on these systems, and it is different than the state we have today or with the 

old cars that I have worked on as well. But I think this is actually 

going to be a liberating thing in the final analysis. 

Mr. SIRES. Right. Thank you. 

I mean, I think this is very exciting the more I read about it, but 

it is just scary to me anyway. 

Thank you very much for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank everyone on the panel. This has been really interesting. 

Mr. Christensen, I just want to talk a little bit about Wi-Fi and 

the amount of demand that, as we picture this in the future, how 

much demand there is going to be. I understand that efforts are 

underway to find a compromise so that Wi-Fi consumers can share 

the unlicensed band of a spectrum with Government transportation 

agencies and auto companies. 

Since the DSRC technology is not yet on the road, there is an opportunity to develop both systems to allow efficient use of the band. 

Would you be open to accepting modifications to the industry’s 

plans if this flexibility were to allow efficient use of the band and 

avoid interference? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. So thank you for your question, Congressman. 

This is a key area. The ban that was set aside for DSRC is critical. It was set aside for vehicle safety. So we feel that is very imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\11-19-~1\85609.TXT JEAN
19 

portant to maintain that band. We understand that there are other 

uses out there, other individuals who would like to utilize that 

band. There may be a possible for some sharing opportunity, but 

that would require extensive testing and guaranteeing that there 

would be no interference or cross-talk across the band because, 

again, you are talking about Internet access for an individual or 

safety in a vehicle, and of course, we are prioritizing that safety. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, I mean, the FCC has identified 75 million hertz 

of spectrum, which is more than the amount used today by billions 

of Wi-Fi devices. It seems fairly large, and I am just curious if the 

automotive manufacturing industry is willing or interested in putting any ideas on the table to make the band use more equalized 

across all uses in the country. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. We have been involved with the discussion 

and are very interested to understand more and, again, do this 

testing and understand what the possibilities may be, but we need 

to be very careful in this area and truly understand what type of 

cross-talk or what type of issues we could have in this area, and 

again, weigh those priorities and really understand before we move 

forward or before we make any changes or give up some of that 

spectrum to make sure that, yes, it is a significant amount of bandwidth, but we also need those protections on either side of the band 

that we are working to guarantee that the system is functional. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Good. Thank you for those comments. 

Mr. Robinson, just a quick question for you. In your testimony 

you said that we need to provide an environment that promotes the 

development and implementation of these technologies in the U.S. 

rather than other countries. Can you expound on that a little bit? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Sure. What I am specifically referring to, Congressman, is creating an environment where the risk associated 

with putting these systems on the road is not so prohibitive that 

it becomes a disabler so that we are not forced to go first to Europe 

or China or some other location where we have a better environment. That is all we are concerned about. 

And I realize that presents some real challenges because it is 

new territory for all of us, but I think it really will be an enabler 

if we can find a balance with technologies that have been tested 

and regulated ultimately and that comply with those regulations to 

be used in this country without undue burden and risk associated 

with trying them here first. 

Mr. RIBBLE. You speak specifically of your concern about frivolous litigation for systems that meet performance requirements and 

relevant Government operating standards. Are you looking for 

some type of assistance there? 

If you build something that complies with the performance requirements and standards, that you want protection from the litigation; is that what you are looking for? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. I don’t have all the answers, Congressman, 

but I think that some balance that would recognize the compliance 

with the regulated systems that we are talking about ultimately 

and not having to worry about frivolous litigation. 

I do not want to sound cynical about this, but we are the most 

litigated industry you can find, and it should not shock anyone to 

know that that becomes a factor in the way we think about where 

20 

to deploy and learn out these systems. So we are not looking for 

a pass. We are looking for being responsible and stepping up to our 

obligations, but at the same time of having a reasonable opportunity to not be overexposed, if you will, for building systems that 

are compliant with Federal standards. 

Mr. RIBBLE. All right. Thank you. 

And you are testifying before Congress. So your cynicism is warranted here. I thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing and for all of our witnesses for helping us with 

this very critical issue. 

We have heard a lot about the benefits of this technology. So I 

would like to turn to the challenges that we face and how those of 

us here in Congress can be constructively part of addressing those 

challenges. 

Broadly speaking, I see two major challenges. One has to do with 

affordability, and the other has to with consumer acceptance, and 

some of you have referenced both of those issues. 

If consumers do not trust the technology, they will not adopt it, 

and if it is too expensive, they also will not adopt it. So we have 

some challenges around that. 

So for Mr. Strickland, NHTSA has introduced some preliminary 

statements about the timeframe to achieve vehicle automation, and 

if you could talk a little bit more about what it is going to take between level zero and level five, do you have the resources to proceed through these stages? 

What is going to be necessary for the timeframe to achieve the 

2020 or into the 2020s, depending on which of our witnesses you 

are talking about, to achieve the level of confidence that we would 

need to have on the public’s part? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Congresswoman, we have laid out a research plan over the next 4 years to talk about preparing for the 

automated future at the various levels. While we at this point see 

level five of automation, which is a fully autonomous vehicle being 

far off in the future, clearly there are lots of components, including 

things that are on the road today, which are the foundations which 

can improve safety. 

We do have adequate resources right now for us to do the research that is underway. Clearly, as more advances and, frankly, 

new innovations, new technologies come onboard, we will clearly 

have to always reevaluate our plans as to making sure that we are 

prepared, but the work plan, our new Office for Electronics that we 

have started at NHTSA, in addition to a number of other pieces of 

work that we are doing at the Vehicle Research and Test Center 

out in East Liberty, Ohio, we are very prepared to be able to work 

with the industry to be able to create a level playing field for safety 

and innovation so that we can see this automated future come to 

fruition. 

Ms. ESTY. Anyone else with thoughts on this? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Congresswoman, I guess I would like to address 

your observation about cost. It is true a lot of these systems initially are expensive. On our products, for instance, a lot of these 

21 

have been introduced in Cadillacs—adaptive cruise control, crash 

mitigation braking—but it has not taken long for us to now introduce those same technologies in a Chevrolet. The new Impala has 

these same technologies. 

These are the building blocks upon which the kinds of future 

state that we are talking about can be engineered. So I think while 

there is always initially a high cost with the introduction of these 

systems, I think over time, and by the way, the customers love 

these systems, they are very intuitive, and they work, and you do 

not have to learn over again how to drive a vehicle. 

So I think part of the socialization process that you are concerned about is going to take place naturally as these become more 

and more mainstream building blocks that allow for the ultimate 

state that we are talking about. 

Ms. ESTY. And I would like to turn for a moment, also having 

just come out of the Science Committee where we are spending a 

lot of time looking at cybersecurity. There has been a reference 

early already today about privacy concerns of which obviously we 

are hearing a great deal right now. If some of you could address 

the concerns about cybersecurity, what will we need to develop to 

ensure that no one can actually misdirect intentionally these systems? 

Because obviously that will certainly shatter consumer confidence if we are not simultaneously thinking about how these 

interactive systems can protect against cyber attack. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I will begin, Congresswoman. We at NHTSA 

recognize this has to be bedrock. In order for us to have a reliable 

system, it has to be rigorous against electronic attacks. It also has 

to be beyond Six Sigma reliable as the auto industry already does. 

We are working very hard internally to be able to work with the 

automakers to figure out what that level of protection needs to be. 

One issue which is new for us but clearly we are very capable 

of the task is that before we always set our performance standards, 

you know, here is the miles per gallon you have to achieve, you 

know, for the CAFE standard. 

For electronics and cybersecurity, we are likely going to be looking at process standards. What are the processes the manufacturers have undertaken to test their systems to the certainty and reliability of what an anticipated attack would be? 

And you know, while I would love to be able to say this is more 

of a futuristic notion, we are seeing it today. You know, there are 

automakers that now have the ability to actually change vehicle 

performance, you know, and actual mechanics through pushes from 

the Web, and so we have this today. 

So clearly, the manufacturers from a liability and reliability 

standpoint have to address it in their own business plans, but for 

us as an agency, we clearly have to have a process to make sure 

that those standards are, you know, best for the driving public. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. I have some other questions, 

but I will submit them, other than just to say to the doctor, please 

keep advocating for basic research and development, and I hope all 

of you will continue to sound the importance of that in order for 

these technologies to be able to be rolled out in the consumer sector. 

22 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

I have a basic question. I find all of this fascinating, and, Mr. Schank, you mentioned the $3,220 per car. You think maybe roughly $100,000. 

Mr. Robinson, the automobile no matter how less expensive it becomes through whatever means, mass production, et cetera, growth 

in demand, it will never be less expensive than a basic automobile 

without this. 

I guess I am interested in anybody’s answer about what those incentives might be for an individual to spend more money on a car 

in which they have to be—maybe I am mistaken in this—but at 

least equally alert and engaged as they would with their normal 

car that we drive today. 

I guess what I am asking you is: what are the demand dynamics 

in this? 

Societal costs aside because for the moment we are not buying 

people automobiles; they buy their own. So it is fair to say they are 

not a big part of the component. So maybe, Mr. Robinson, since you 

are in the business. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Well, Congressman, your observation that people 

buy what they need when they want is a fair one. You know, the 

average age of an automobile today is over 10 years. People, first 

of all, have high-quality vehicles for the most part, and so they are 

able to drive them longer, but the truth is, I mean, if we implement 

all of these technologies tomorrow, it would still take 10 or 11 

years for the natural process if people were able to buy these vehicles right now. 

I do not have the answer to your question about what the demand levels are going to be ultimately because, quite frankly, we 

are not smart enough today to know precisely in 5 or 6 or 7 years 

how these technologies are going to evolve and what the cost is 

likely to be. 

Dr. Schank gave you some numbers from his research. I am in 

no position to talk to those numbers other than to tell you that as 

we look at other systems that have been put on vehicles over years, 

the cost will come down over time if it is a system that people 

value. 

People have shown—— 

Mr. HANNA. Well, that is my point. What is your view of the 

value of this to anyone in this room? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I look at it in building blocks. We are trying to 

bite this thing off in pieces because we are not looking at what are 

we going to price 10 years from now. We are looking at what systems do we have today that add value, and that is why we talk 

about things like adaptive cruise control, crash mitigation, braking, 

those types of things, because people value them. We can do them 

at a cost and provide a value that people are prepared to pay for 

it, and we have had great customer experience. 

So I think that is the model on which we will build. 

Mr. HANNA. So that is a marginal thing, but this is actually a 

big leap to go to automated vehicle. 

23 

Mr. ROBINSON. Sure. It is a leap built on many steps. 

Mr. HANNA. Right. Mr. Schank is chomping at the bit there, I 

think. 

Mr. SCHANK. Yes. Well, I think there are some real benefits to 

drivers from spending a little bit extra to potentially reduce the 

chances of being involved in a fatal crash and potentially reduce 

their fuel consumption, but maybe a more obvious one that we 

have not talked about is the potential for these vehicles to go and 

park themselves, which is something that I think all of us would 

find convenient if you are going somewhere and you do not have 

to worry about parking because the vehicle will just go off and park 

itself. 

But then the second possibility is that the dependent populations 

that currently do not have access to automobiles will be very glad 

to adopt this technology, the elderly, disabled, and potentially even 

children. 

But I would like to point out, and I do not know what the manufacturers think about this, but some of our research indicates that 

it is possible that the total number of vehicles on the road may decrease as a result of the introduction of autonomous vehicles because so many vehicles will be available for use when there is no 

driver in them. So you can have greater sharing of vehicles and 

people will not necessarily need to own as many vehicles as they 

currently do today. So that is another interesting question to think 

about. 

Mr. HANNA. So I dial a number and the car shows up, and I get 

in and I leave it wherever I got out. 

Yes, sir. 

Dr. RAJKUMAR. It is very tempting to think of a driverless car as 

this revolutionary endpoint. It is an evolution when it happens. It 

is not a question of if, but when. But the progress towards the endpoint will consist of multiple intermediate milestones where a car 

is more aware of what is happening around it, and even if the driver is not paying attention for whatever reason, such as distracted 

driving, tiredness, sleepiness and so on, the car will basically be 

able to prevent an accident from happening rather than drifting off 

of the lane or going off of a cliff. All of those accidents will be prevented. So every driver will basically be able and willing to spend 

a few thousand dollars more to get those capabilities in place. 

Humans can be very smart, of course, but they can also be very 

stupid at times. Basically this technology will prevent humans from 

hurting themselves. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This has been an interesting hearing, and I kind of looked at it 

as ‘‘Star Wars’’ when I heard about it. I still think about it somewhat that way. 

I remember back in the 1980s I was in the Tennessee Senate, 

and a fellow came up to me and he told me that this man named 

Frank Gorrell was representing this company and they were going 

to have phones like Dick Tracy, and everybody was going to have 

one, and I thought he was absolutely out of his mind. 

24 

Thinking back upon that, yes, I envision the day we will have 

these vehicles, like the Flintstones or something, but—who, the 

Jetsons? Yes, that is the opposite. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

I did not watch those things. 

But I am kind of thinking about like you said it was great, you 

know, the car. I was thinking I go to Contral and you have to find 

a place to park, and you just get out and let the car go. How does 

the car know where it says ‘‘no parking from 4 o’clock to 6 o’clock’’ 

or all the myriad signs, Dr. Schank? How does the car know that, 

or which lot to go to? 

Mr. SCHANK. Well, presumably you could have the vehicle go 

back to your house depending on how long you are planning on 

being there. So you cannot think about the constraints of the existing system necessarily being that way. 

But also presumably we would have to change our parking policies to some degree in order to adapt to these technologies, and we 

are already moving in that direction. I mean, parking is becoming 

more automated. I usually pay for my parking by phone. I do not 

pay by coins at the meter anymore, and so as you continue to be 

able to do that, you are going to have more interaction between 

computers, and they are going to be able to communicate with each 

other about when you can park in a certain space. 

Mr. COHEN. So they will just have to have some kind of governor 

so that there will be a beep and will know that you cannot park 

here because it is the wrong time? 

How will it know an emergency vehicle? 

They will all be coded, I guess. 

Mr. SCHANK. Right. There is going to have to be a greater integration of these technologies with existing technologies so they can 

communicate with each other about that type of basic information. 

Mr. COHEN. And just as Representative Sires was concerned 

about the loss of jobs, what are municipal governments going to do 

without being able to manufacture funds from parking tickets and 

traffic offenses? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. You are going to ruin the basic structure of municipal government. It is just a thought I had. 

I got a ticket and I went to court on it, which was a mistake, 

I guess, for parking more than 12 inches from the curb, which I 

did not know was even the law, and I do not think I did it. But 

the car is going to know 12 inches? 

I mean, how is the car going to know the Memphis City code? 

Mr. SCHANK. These are all challenges that are interesting to 

think about, but certainly can be overcome. You could, for example, 

have the car to be programmed with the code. It could easily be 

programmed with the code of any city you might presumably go to, 

just like you have GPS systems that cover the entire country right 

now or the world, and you can drive your car anywhere and it 

knows exactly what the roads look like. 

So it is plausible to introduce that kind of information. 

25 

Mr. COHEN. I guess it is, Doctor, but when you suggest that the 

car would go home to park, that mitigates against the idea of saving fuel, you know. 

Did any of you all make Web sites maybe since you are working 

on this? Maybe you could kind of back off for a couple of months 

and help us with the Affordable Care Act. 

Mr. SCHANK. The car might go home to park though because 

someone else needs to use it at home to go somewhere while you 

are at the restaurant. So it could be an efficiency as well. 

Mr. COHEN. You mean I would give my car to somebody else? 

Mr. SCHANK. In your family. Let us say your wife wanted to use 

it while you were at the restaurant, you know, and she needs to 

go somewhere. 

Mr. COHEN. Who would I be at the restaurant with? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. You certainly have a futuristic society, Dr. Schank. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Congressman, if I could just interject real 

quickly, another area from a parking standpoint is with EVs and 

the proliferation of EVs. Obviously infrastructure is still going to 

be limited. We are trying to get more infrastructure for charging, 

but one of the areas we are looking at is having an EV be able to 

seek out that charging location and automatically charge itself in 

those conditions, again, with the limited funds that are going to be 

available for the proliferation of infrastructure. How can we make 

the cars seek out that infrastructure that it is looking at? So another area of research. 

Mr. COHEN. I can see a lot of benefits, and the thing about the 

drunk drivers, I mean, that is 40 percent of them. The problem is 

those people do not know they are drunk when they get behind the 

wheel, and we have already got like ignition interlock devices and 

difficulty of getting judges to require those to be put on the vehicle. 

I guess it would work, but some of these technologies will just 

help with driving in general. Do you not already have these braking systems and fuel saving mechanisms that would already work 

like on trucks now? Are they that compatible? 

Like in New York, I cannot imagine what will happen with the 

immigrant population if you have automatic driving all the cabs. 

They do a great job. I do not see how they could be any better. 

Anyway, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. How do you follow my good colleague, Mr. Cohen from 

Tennessee? There you go. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Thanks for being here, first of all. A very interesting 

discussion. I obviously agree with my colleague, Mr. Cohen, that 

some things that we may not be able to see as futuristic actually 

become reality like cell phones. I have some concerns representing 

a rural district similar to when cell phones became active in society. The rural areas fell behind. The rural areas did not have the 

new technology or access to new technology like we do now. 

I hope that through testing, research and development, autonomous vehicles can get to the point where they can understand the 

Memphis City Code. 

26 

Now, I do not think Mr. Cohen understands the Memphis City 

Code, but that is OK. That is OK, but I do have some concerns. 

First off, while I have you here, Mr. Strickland, I know it does not 

necessarily have everything to do with the autonomous vehicles, 

but just a few years ago electric vehicles were discussed as new 

and innovative, and I saw a story come out today in Bloomberg 

about Tesla and about three electrical fires with Tesla. 

I am concerned. I want to make sure that NHTSA holds Tesla’s 

accountability standards to the same standards they have done 

with Chevy Volt in the past instance and also with Fisker’s Karma 

plug-in. 

Can you tell me what the next step is in NHTSA’s investigation 

and process into Tesla’s three fires? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Oh, certainly, Congressman. First and foremost, NHTSA holds all of our manufacturers, tier one supplies, and 

equipment supplies equal before the law. So we follow the same 

process in our defects investigations in the same way every single 

time. 

This morning it was probably announced that we opened a formal investigation into the Tesla Model S. While there are three 

fires in total, there are only two that happened in the United 

States. One is in Mexico, and the reason why the agency moved 

forward to open a formal investigation is that we looked at, you 

know, the damage patterns and the issues for those two crashes. 

The first crash in Seattle, Washington, looked anomalous, and 

that is why we at that point were pre-investigatory and took no formal action. 

The second crash and fire in Tennessee had a number of similarities, therefore, two being a trend and we clearly saw some issues. 

We decided to open a formal investigation, which is we are going 

to look at whether or not the Tesla Model S countermeasures in 

dealing with road hazards are adequate, and whether or not it 

poses an unreasonable risk to safety. We are working very closely 

with Tesla. 

My understanding is that Mr. Musk has already said he will be 

very happy to cooperate with our investigation, which we always 

appreciate. When we come to our final conclusions, we will definitely report them publicly and be happy to report back to the committee on what we found. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Strickland. 

A question not Mr. Robinson. Do you anticipate that with the 

progress in automated vehicles, that they would be all electric, hybrid, gasoline, or would it just be a piece of technology that would 

put on any vehicle that would sell out of a dealership? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think it depends on how the vehicle is going to be used, quite 

frankly. To the point about being in a rural versus an urban area, 

a lot of the technologies that we have been talking about as building blocks, adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, those are on 

our new trucks. So it is not just urban vehicles that we are talking 

about here. 

And, two, I think to your point about what this enables from an 

engineering standpoint down the road, I do think ultimately if you 

get to a point where you can take out further weight on vehicles 

27 

because of the fact that the vehicles are not crashing anymore, it 

liberates the engineers to come up with all kinds of propulsion solutions to fossil fuels. 

So down the road, sure, there are all kinds of opportunity for 

that to come into play. I think it is probably something we have 

not focused on so much here. We talk a lot about safety, which is 

a huge issue, but I think it does create more options for all of us 

in terms of how the vehicles are propelled down the roadways. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. 

And I agree. I mean, I think we already have this technology in 

many of the large pieces of farm machinery. In Illinois where I live, 

they are out in our fields on a regular basis. So the potential is 

here. I just want to make sure that a lot of that potential is further 

researched and developed; that we take into consideration not just 

the congested cities. 

Because like my colleague, Mr. Sires, I, too, will be amazed when 

an automated vehicle goes through New York City, but I think we 

would all be more amazed for an automated vehicle to go through 

my home town of Taylorville, Illinois, or 11,000 people. 

So if we can continue to put a focus on the rural areas, too, during this discussion, I would sincerely appreciate it. 

And I do not have any time left, Mr. Chairman. So I cannot yield 

back. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to say that while some of my colleagues are amazed 

at this new technology and titillated by its possibilities, the State 

of Nevada is on top of this. We were the first State—often we are 

the first—to actually adopt a law to regulate these kinds of vehicles, the use of autonomous on our roads. We did that back in 2011. 

And then in the past legislative session, we passed Senate Bill 

313 that looked at some aspects of this technology like minimum 

insurance coverage and other key factors for those who want to 

permit a vehicle for testing. So we are already moving down this 

road, and I am glad to see that the Federal Government is taking 

an interest in it. 

In the past, we know that the Federal Government has regulated 

different safety aspects of both vehicle construction and vehicle use, 

whether it is seat belts or speed limits or DUI limitations, things 

that have saved lots of lives and lots of money. 

So I would ask you: what can we do at the Federal level to help 

States begin to plan for this technology because it moves very 

quickly? 

And also, as we move into looking at the next transportation authorization, are there any things we need to build into that in advance so that we are not playing catchup and trying to fix things 

after the fact as this technology moves ahead? 

And I would just ask any of you to address that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEUDLE. Congresswoman, I would be happy to address that. 

I think as you look forward to reauthorization of MAP–21 next 

year, one of the most important things is, as many of my colleagues 

have said, we need to continue the research piece. We are close in 

28 

some aspects, but we still have a long way to go. There is a lot 

more evolution needed for this whole initiative. 

Therefore I think that within MAP–21 we need a strong statement of continued research in this area. 

As far as actions that I think the Federal Government could take 

from a regulatory perspective, the model legislation that NHTSA 

has prepared is a great start. I would agree with my friend from 

General Motors that we can do this 50 States one at a time. We 

need to undertake this as one country. We need to say these are 

the requirements that we need as a country for autonomous vehicles, whether in the testing phase or in the operations phase so 

that everybody knows that when you are driving a vehicle from 

Michigan to Ohio and all the way to Nevada that you have the 

same requirements. That is going to be very, very important and, 

frankly, that could be part of the reauthorization component as 

well. 

I do think that reauthorization of MAP–21 needs to address the 

technology components, where we are going, and reserve funding 

for future research. 

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Strickland? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Actually, Congresswoman, I was the only one 

to actually thank your colleagues and the leadership in the State 

of Nevada because actually as they were preparing their work in 

2011, they asked NHTSA for technical advice, and we actually 

were able to provide a good amount of assistance for them in their 

process and path going forward. So we really do appreciate, you 

know, including the Federal-State relationship and be able to developing that. 

I think Kirk noted a couple of things that we are still in a research mode, and I think for all of us, in order to make sure that 

we have all of the components right, electronic reliability right, performance right, ultimately consumer acceptance, the foundation of 

research has to be solid because at the end of the day with a new 

piece of technology, the whiz-bang notion is the first line of headlines, and the second headline is unfortunately that one of these 

systems does not perform as expected and is part of a crash or is 

responsible for a crash. 

So for us, we need to make sure that the State as test-beds, you 

know, and the leadership of your State and the great State of 

Michigan, California and others in terms of creating the right testbeds and the right environment is an important aspect of it, but 

clearly being able to evolve and develop the policy underpinnings 

is important as well, as Kirk noted. 

Ms. TITUS. Anybody else? 

[No response.] 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Strickland, while I have you, I wrote a letter to you about 

the Focus Cities Program, since we are talking about safety and 

that is about safety and pedestrian safety. Could we get together 

afterwards or something so I can get a response back from you 

about my question? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. My pleasure, absolutely. 

Ms. TITUS. I will not take up time with this hearing, but since 

I have you here. 

29 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank all of you for being here today. 

And full disclosure, number one, I am from Texas. Number two 

is I am a car dealer. My family has been in the automobile business 39 and I have been in it for 43 years, GM, Chrysler, some 

other I do not would not tell you about, but so far back. Listening 

to this testimony, the first Biscayne I sold when I was a kid, the 

power steering was an option. So was a radio, and now here we are 

talking about this. 

But my first question would be to you, Mr. Strickland, just real 

quickly. You touched on Tesla. You know, Tesla has a checkered 

history in Texas, and one of the things I did not hear you say when 

we were talking about it, was this investigation that you are conducting, was it requested by Tesla? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. No, sir. Our investigatory process is independent. It is confidential as well. We go through a review of the 

data, and then we make a determination whether a formal investigation is needed. 

After we have made that formal determination, we then reach 

out to the manufacturer usually 48 to 72 hours before we post 

something on the public Web site to inform them that we are opening an investigation, and of course, we ask and hope that they 

would collaborate and they will work with us through the investigatory process so we can come to a determination which is right 

for the safety of the driving public and clearly fair to the automaker. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And it is important that everybody is on a level 

playing field. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wanted to bring that up. 

The other thing is, Mr. Robinson, I appreciate your comments. 

Being in the business, when you talk about let the market work, 

make what the customers and the dealers want to sell, and frivolous regulations, litigations are killing the industry in many cases. 

I appreciate your comments to continually remind the Government 

that those are big options to the free market. 

And I also would remind you and humbly ask you to make sure 

your captive finance company is willing to finance these vehicle. 

That is important. 

The other thing, too, I would ask you, Mr. Christensen, is we talk 

about insurance. What does the insurance company say about this? 

How are you going to get insurance? How are you going to rate an 

insurance with no driver? How are these cars going to be insured? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. That is a key issue moving forward, Congressman. I do not know that any of us really have the answer to that 

question at this point, but moving forward we want to work together and continue that dialogue and understand what this means 

for our customers, what the technology is able to do and what it 

30 

means for the insurance companies so we can work together and 

answer that question. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, that is a an important issue. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And then, Dr. Schank, thank for you testimony. 

I would just say this to you. A hundred thousand dollars is a lot 

of money for one car. The car business is a volume business. 

But I will also go back and we have seen cars from the early 1970s, $3,000 up to $60,000, higher now, but that is a scary number. So you are going to have to work on that. 

The other things is, too, where I come from in Texas, and we 

touched a little bit about this, in all seriousness, something like 

this is going to have to be able to pull a horse trailer, and it just 

cannot be moving around finding people parking spots. If it is going 

to work and the customer wants it, it is going to have to be able 

to serve and it is going to have to be able to have some towing capabilities, if you know what I mean. 

And the other thing is I was not happy with your testimony 

when you talked about it might put fewer vehicles on the road. 

That is not what Mr. Robinson and I want to hear I do not think 

when you are in the business. But I do think technology is growing 

and probably we are heading in this direction, but cost is going to 

be important, how we are going to insure it, and I do think we 

talked about earlier in the year there was concern for jobs, and I 

am all about jobs, but I believe that as we move forward this will 

actually add jobs because we have seen in the last 40 years more 

technology brings in a much newer level of technician. No longer 

are these people wrenches, as we used to call them. They are highskilled technology people, and I think it will actually add jobs. 

But from a person who is going to sell and get it right and make 

sure I can get them financed, would you do that, Mr. Robinson? 

But I appreciate your testimony and thank you for being here, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

One of the disadvantages of being chairman sometimes is that 

you have to stay at a whole hearing. One of the advantages is that 

you get to ask a few more questions at the end if you would like, 

and on this particular occasion I do. 

One observation first. You mentioned how this technology is 

gradually being layered in, and in fact, has been for a number of 

years, and I think evidence of that is that the number of deaths 

on the Nation’s highways has been dropping very significantly over 

the last 10 or 15 years. It used to be in the neighborhood of 40,000 

or 50,000 a year, and now it is in the neighborhood of 30,000 to 

40,000. So that is a long way to go to zero, but it is a huge improvement, as our population has been growing and all the rest of 

it. 

Secondly, we never really discussed the implications of this, and 

this may not be the place to ask about it, but for the commercial 

trucking industry, clearly this is technology that will make it easier 

for drivers. It will also help people driving commercial vehicles if 

it is deployed on them. 

We have been tightening up as a Federal Government on hours 

of service regulations. There used to be a little bit of an informal 

31 

fudge factor with those because people kept log books and so on, 

but now with technology it enforce it and people like Snyder trucking in my area and others that are major logistics companies say 

that it may have some benefit in terms of fatigue and safety, but 

on the other hand it is costing our economy as their figures are 

coming in in this new thing billions of dollars in lost efficiency because of how it works. 

And so I am curious. If the concern is safety and fatigue, and if 

technology reduces the stress on a driver and have, in effect, less 

than full time, well, he is driving long distances and so on; if they 

have some of the new technology on board, would that provide an 

opportunity for us to modify some of these one size fits all hours 

of service rules to be related more to the capabilities of the vehicle? 

Is there some way we can have our cake and eat it, too, have 

greater safety and maintain efficiency? 

I mean we could have zero fatalities by just banning cars and 

trucks, but that is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to make 

it safer and more efficient, and the hours of service make it less 

efficient as it turns out, and considerably less. I mean, it is going 

to lower people’s standards of living in the United States because 

that cost ends up being translated into higher prices for people who 

are already struggling. 

So it is not as though there is a free lunch in this world. I do 

not know if Mr. Strickland or anyone else would care to comment 

on that. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Certainly I will be happy to comment in part, 

Mr. Chairman. Clearly, in terms of the policy, the department and 

the specifics, it is better handled by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, Administrator Ferro. She is a person who 

knows this issue song, chapter and verse and would be better suited to speak to the policy specifics. 

I can be happy to speak to the technological specifics, which is 

that there is always an interplay and an interflow of technology between the light-duty fleet and the heavy-duty fleet. So things such 

as crash and braking system, forward collision warning systems, 

lane keeping systems, and you know, electronic stability control for 

heavy-duty vehicles which we are working on as part of a rulemaking right now are all things that we see in the light-duty fleet 

which could flow to the trucking fleet, which would improve the 

margin of safety. 

You know, we do believe that a number of the issues that beset 

the everyday driver of a vehicle would also be able to improve the 

abilities and, frankly, the success and safety of a commercial driver 

as well. It is something that NHTSA is working on specifically, but 

how that may sort of have an opportunity to modify current policies 

to make sure in terms of driver’s time of service and hours of service, that is a longer and larger policy question, and I would clearly 

have to defer to the agency of expertise. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes, sir. 

Dr. RAJKUMAR. I would make three more points, Mr. Chairman. 

First, my understanding is that fuel is the biggest cost factor for 

the trucking industry. With automation and connected vehicle technologies, trucks could be driving closer to each other on the highVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\11-19-~1\85609.TXT JEAN
32 

ways at a uniform speed that would save significant amounts of 

fuel. 

Secondly, those technologies will also allow trucks to drive safely, 

because they are taking driver distraction out of the equation. 

And thirdly, many insurance claims in the trucking industry are 

the result of accidents that happen in the loading dock. When 

somebody is trying to pull into the loading dock, they hit something. We can reduce those accidents as well with automation. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

One other thing struck me, and I do not know if Mr. Robinson 

would care to comment on it. Maybe other vehicle manufacturers 

provide this as well, but the technology is also helping to prevent 

theft and lower insurance costs in some regard, I guess. Onstar and 

others, you can call and they can turn your car off, and the police 

if they get your license number or whatever can call ahead and 

stop the car on the highway practically, as I understand it today, 

and that has to mean fewer auto thefts over time. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, that is true, Mr. Chairman. We have that capability with Onstar. You know, the lesson in all of this as we are 

talking about these technologies is the interface between the technologies that have been developed separately, but they have a relationship to one another, and as we get to the V2V types of 

connectivity that Mr. Strickland and Mr. Steudle are talking about, 

I think it is just going to enhance all the more these systems that 

have been developed separately that enhance safety, but collectively are going to do an even greater job. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

One final thing for me, and that is that Mr. Christensen and earlier Mr. Robinson and I were talking a little bit about how this is 

going, and, Mr. Christensen, you seemed to indicate a little more 

I do not know if you would say optimism or pace by saying you 

have a target of 2020 for autonomous vehicles. Is that as opposed 

to a building block approach or is that at a certain benchmark in 

a building block approach, or what does an autonomous vehicle in 

2020 type goal mean? 

We do not want to oversell that in 5 years or 10 years there is 

going to be this car that you tell it’s Garmin where you want to 

go, and then you hop in the backseat and go to sleep and it drives 

you off to Chicago or something. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, thank you, Chairman. 

So as I mentioned, our CEO set a very aggressive goal for 2020 

for this autonomous vehicle. Primarily by setting these ambitious 

goals, he feels that that is the best way to drive innovation. 

What exactly the vehicle potential is in 2020, honestly it has yet 

to be determined in terms of the exact capabilities and what will 

be available. We do completely agree that it is going to be a stepby-step approach. There will be features added to the vehicle, driver assistance features. The vehicle in a way you could say is 

partnering with the driver moving forward, but we feel that by 

2020 we will have a vehicle that has some level of clear autonomous capability that is recognized by the driver. 

But, again, there is going to be this balance between what the 

technology is capable of and what the customer is willing to accept 

at that point. So our direction is to strive for the best that we can 

33 

do, the greatest technology, the greatest performance, and balance 

that with the customer acceptance. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. My regrets that I have missed most of the testimony, but I will be interested in being briefed and reading the 

record. 

I met with some of you from GE. I understand that the auto 

manufacturers, of course, would be most logically developing or interested in developing this technology. Is this really practical? 

I asked if anyone had asked about the cost, and I understood 

that they had. Is this a practical way to approach the car of the 

future, or do you think that like—I do not know—electric cars or 

not electric cars, but hybrid cars, that the prices ultimately have 

come so that they are no longer out of reach? 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. 

I can respond to that a little bit. As we move forward, would you 

let me know your question? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. I want to know if these cars and I understand 

that someone did ask about the price of the cars, and it was like 

$100,000. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. So I am trying to find out with every kind of technology it costs a great deal in the beginning, and of course with 

more users the price goes down, and I am wondering how practical 

it is to even think about driverless cars given what the public expects to pay for a car. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. So looking forward to 2020, we think that 

working with our suppliers, we found I will call it a glide path 

down to an affordable type technology for the certain types of scanners that we are looking at. This has been talked about for many 

years. Autonomous vehicles have been talked about, and there has 

been different methods or ways to achieve this in terms of implanting magnets in the road and having the vehicle follow that and 

what have you, but we are finally to the point that the sensor technology has the capability to provide that recognition that is necessary, and we see that it finally has that glide path down toward 

an affordable cost, that we should be able to achieve that by 2020. 

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel basically, that the 

cost will be affordable within the next 5 to 10 years. 

Mr. ROBINSON. The way I would answer your question, Congresswoman, is that we will get there in bites, and we will get there because we are providing value to the customer that they are willing 

to pay for as these steps are taken. 

An example would be that some of the sophisticated active safety 

systems we are talking about, whether it is adaptive cruise control 

or automatic braking, initially they would be on premium products. 

We are introducing those same features on a Chevrolet. The Chevrolet Impala has those features. 

Now, we probably could not have visualized that 5 years ago. So 

my expectation is that we will get there in steps. The technology 

will be introduced in steps when we get the cost at a level where 

the customer is prepared to pay for that value and sees that value 

for the money. 

34 

Ms. NORTON. Would it be easier to do this on electric cars than 

on cars that use every kind of fuel? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I do not think the propulsion system has as much 

to do with it as the technology reliability and durability itself, regardless of whether it is an electric car or a diesel driven car. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, there are some advantages from a development standpoint, and we have used our Leaf as a development 

platform for autonomous vehicles because everything is already—— 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. I am sorry. I did not hear you. 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Our current Nissan Leaf, the electric vehicle, 

we have used that as our development platform. Being that it is 

an electric vehicle, everything on the vehicle in terms of the braking and acceleration is already electric. So it is an easy vehicle to 

adopt. 

But we see that the capability of autonomous vehicles can, as 

Mr. Robinson said, apply to any type of powertrain. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you want to? Yes, sir. 

Dr. RAJKUMAR. Yes. The autonomous car at Carnegie Mellon is 

an internal combustion engine vehicle, so you can add the technology to that platform or to an electric vehicle. You need electric 

power to power the sensors, the computers, and the actuators. It 

is easier to do that with an electric vehicle, but it can be done on 

any platform. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. Now, do I understand Google was also developing one of these autonomous vehicles? And what does that say 

about who is likely to be the leader in developing them? 

I mean, do you have to know something about cars in order to 

really do it? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ranking Member, yes, Google is one of the nontraditional companies that is entering into the automotive space, 

specifically with the software package to enable a self-driving vehicle in certain modes. 

And I think what you will likely see, frankly, in a number of 

spaces, and clearly the manufacturers can speak for themselves, 

auto manufacturers are sort of less being seen as auto manufacturers and seen more as just broad technology companies. So you will 

be seeing the manufacturers, frankly, entering into other spaces regarding to telematics and electronics and these other issues, just 

like Google is putting their systems onto, I think they are using a 

Toyota platform. 

So you may see, frankly, other nontraditional companies in the 

manufacturing space in the future years to come as well, but clearly, that also speaks to the fact of what NHTSA’s responsibility is 

as an agency for us to create a regulatory playing field that makes 

sure that any company that is entering the space is actually producing systems that are safe and reliable, both from electronics and 

from a performance standpoint. 

Ms. NORTON. Is there any place in the world that is ready to actually use autonomous vehicles on the road? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. From our work and analysis right now, there 

is no fully autonomous vehicle that is ready for mass commercialization. As Mr. Robinson and Mr. Christensen noted, each of 

the manufacturers actually are working on the building blocks now 

and active safety systems, and I think what you will see is an evoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:46 Jun 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2013\11-19-~1\85609.TXT JEAN
35 

lution of these technologies over the years as crashing and braking 

systems get better, as other sensors, lane keeping gets better and 

other, frankly, technological innovations, but you will see something approaching a car that is self-driving in certain modes of operation possibly in the future all the way to an automated vehicle. 

But at this point NHTSA is not aware of any, you know, vehicle 

that is fully ready for a commercialized use in a full autonomous 

mode. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the American manufacturers, and I should 

ask our American manufacturers, fell behind when hybrid cars 

came on the road. Where are our car manufacturers relative to the 

other manufacturers who sell very well in the United States on autonomous vehicles or is this an American thing? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Actually, Congresswoman, I think across the 

board, regardless of where their home base is, whether it is German companies, Japanese companies or U.S.-based companies, everybody is looking at these issues that I know of and have their 

own test programs. 

One of the things that we all have talked about is the need for 

flexibility because we think the marketplace will help determine 

the best technologies for the money. Customers have a great way 

of telling us what they want. 

Ms. NORTON. What do you mean by ‘‘flexibility’’? I am sorry. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Not to prescribe a specific approach to solving an 

issue, for instance, whether it is a crash mitigation system or automated braking system or anything else that we have talked about. 

I think it is a great thing to have standard expectations in terms 

of performance, but let the market decide who has created the best 

mousetrap, if you will, to solve that problem at the best cost, and 

so we are all about the marketplace, winning in the marketplace, 

letting customers decide. 

I think the way NHTSA has laid out its framework or its outline 

for the future, I think, it provides for adaptability. It provides for 

flexibility in achieving these goals, and I think that is wise. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Strickland, do you agree with that approach? 

I mean, is that how you are approaching? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely, Congresswoman. NHTSA has to basically do its work on performance standards because we cannot 

anticipate the next great innovation. If you pick a design standard, 

which is ‘‘you have to build this particular car or this particular engine this particular way,’’ you are, frankly, stifling the ability for 

some future improvement that you cannot anticipate. 

As I said, in an earlier question about this, the one evolution in 

the work in automated driving is performance standards work well 

in terms of how well a car avoids a crash, how much fuel a car 

should use, but when you are talking about electronics, where you 

are basically dealing with hundreds of thousands, millions of lines 

of code, being able to take in thousands of variables a second for 

the car that is essentially making a decision, we are likely going 

to have to move to something like a process standard. What is the 

way the manufacturers tested and developed their system to be 

able to take into account all of these things that we expect for proper roadway safety? 

36 

And that is going to be a slight difference from what the agency 

has done in the past, but we think it is, again, what Mr. Robinson 

alluded to, an even-handed, balanced way to not stifle innovation, 

but have certain guarantees that there is going to be safe performance of all these systems. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. Build the car, and then we will learn what we 

have to do to regulate it. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Exactly right. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony and 

those who worked to prepare it. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, 

and unanimous consent that the record will remain open for 15 

days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

If no one has any further comments or questions, this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 5 here 85609.005
38 


Insert offset folio 6 here 85609.006
39 


Insert offset folio 7 here 85609.007
40 


Insert offset folio 8 here 85609.008
41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 85609.009
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 85609.010
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 85609.011
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 85609.012
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 85609.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 85609.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 85609.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 85609.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 85609.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 85609.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 85609.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 85609.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 85609.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 85609.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 85609.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 85609.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 85609.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 85609.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 85609.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 85609.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 85609.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 85609.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 85609.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 85609.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 85609.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 85609.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 85609.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 85609.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 85609.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 85609.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 85609.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 85609.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 85609.041
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 85609.042
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 85609.043
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 85609.044
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 85609.045
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 85609.046
79 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 47 here 85609.047