U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–518 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Serial No. 115–42 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virgina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

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

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

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Mitch Bainwol, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers ...................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

David L. Strickland, Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, and 

Partner, Venable LLP .......................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

William C. Wallace, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union ....................................... 45 

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

Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and 

Public Service Law, George Washington University Law School .................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Tim Day, Senior Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce ................................................................................ 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

John Bozzella, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Global 

Automakers ........................................................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft, the Let NHTSA Enforce Autonomous Vehicle Driving Regulations (LEAD’R) Act ........................................................................................... 135 

Discussion Draft, the Practical Automated Vehicle Exemptions Act .................. 139 

Discussion Draft, the Renewing Opportunities for Automated Vehicle Development Act ............................................................................................................ 141 

Discussion Draft, the Expanding Exemptions to Enable More Public Trust 

Act ......................................................................................................................... 143 

Discussion Draft, the Maximizing Opportunities for Research and the Enhancement of Automated Vehicles Act ............................................................... 145 

Discussion Draft, the Increasing Information and Notification to Foster Openness Regarding Automated Vehicle Matters to States Act ............................... 149 

Discussion Draft, the Disability Mobility Advisory Council Act .......................... 151 

Discussion Draft, the Improving Mobility Access for Underserved Populations 

and Senior Citizens Advisory Council Act ......................................................... 155 

Discussion Draft, the Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory 

Council .................................................................................................................. 159 

Discussion Draft, the Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with Everyone 

for Safety Act ........................................................................................................ 164 

Discussion Draft, the Highly Automated Vehicle Pre-Market Approval Reduces Opportunities for More People to Travel Safely Act ............................... 168 

Page

IV 

Discussion Draft, the Guarding Automakers Against Unfair Advantages Reported in Public Documents Act ......................................................................... 171 

Discussion Draft, the Managing Government Efforts to Minimize Autonomous 

Vehicle Obstruction Act ....................................................................................... 175 

Discussion Draft, the Designating Each Car’s Automation Level Act ................ 178 

Letter of June 27, 2017, from Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive 

Enterprise Institute, to subcommittee members, submitted by Mr. Latta ..... 180 

Letter of June 26, 2017, from Gary Shapiro, President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Consumer Technology Association, to Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. 

Latta ...................................................................................................................... 183

Letter of June 26, 2017, from Nathaniel F. Wienecke, Senior Vice President, 

Federal Government Relations, Property Casualty Insurers Association of 

America, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Latta ............ 184 

Statement of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, June 26, 

2017, submitted by Mr. Latta ............................................................................. 187 

Statement of the American Car Rental Association, June 27, 2017, submitted 

by Mr. Latta ......................................................................................................... 192 

Statement of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety by Jacqueline S. Gillan, 

President, June 27, 2017,1 submitted by Mr. Latta 

Report, ‘‘Self Driving Vehicles: The Threat to Consumers,’’ by Harvey 

Rosenfield, Consumer Watchdog, and Statement by John M. Simpson, Privacy Project Director, Consumer Watchdog, June 27, 2017,1 submitted by 

Mr. Latta 

Statement of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), et al., June 27 

2017, submitted by Mr. Latta ............................................................................. 196 

Letter of June 27, 2017, from Marc Rotenberg, President, et al., Electronic 

Privacy Information Center, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Schakowsky, submitted 

by Mr. Latta ......................................................................................................... 200 

Statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, June 

27, 2017, submitted by Mr. Latta ....................................................................... 204 

Report of the Center for American Progress, ‘‘The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Carbon Emissions,’’ November 2016, by Myriam Alexander-Kearns, 

et al.,1 submitted by Ms. Schakowsky 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ 

ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182. 

(1) 

SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Latta, Harper, Upton, Lance, 

Guthrie, McKinley, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters, 

Costello, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Clarke, Ca ́ rdenas, Dingell, Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly Collins, 

Staff Assistant; Jordan Davis, Director of Policy and External Affairs; Blair Ellis, Press Secretary/Digital Coordinator; Melissa 

Froelich, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; 

Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Giulia 

Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital Commerce and Consumer 

Protection/Communications and Technology; Zach Hunter, Communications Director; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Katie McKeough, Press 

Assistant; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; 

Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Hamlin 

Wade, Special Advisor for External Affairs; Everett Winnick, Director of Information Technology; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Rick 

Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim 

Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; and Andrew Souvall, Minority 

Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach. 

Mr. LATTA. Good morning. I’d like to call the Subcommittee on 

Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to order, and I now 

recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Good morning again, and welcome to today’s hearing on self-driving vehicle legislation. Driving is an integral part of American life. 

2 

When you think about who drives, you realize that it is pretty 

much everyone: urban and rural, young and old, and everyone and 

everywhere in between. 

Tragically, however, traffic fatalities are on the rise. Last year 

there were over 40,000 fatalities and over 2 million injuries on our 

Nation’s highways. 

Our goal today is to enact the right policies to encourage selfdriving technologies that can drastically reduce those opportunities 

to address this problem. 

One of the most important pieces is to define the right roles for 

the Federal, State, and local governments. The need for this framework was laid out by the Obama administration just last year from 

the front bumper to the back bumper. 

Whether it is a pickup truck, a car, or a van, how the vehicle 

works and its design should be the province of the Federal Government as the case has been for more than 50 years. 

The States and localities have an equally important role to play 

in determining insurance requirements, titling cars, requiring registration, and setting the rules of the road. 

They get to enact and enforce traffic laws and regulations, as 

well. States will also still be able to offer incentives to entities that 

are early actors in this field if they want to encourage testing in 

their States. 

We simply cannot have cars that stop at State lines. Just last 

week, we celebrated the 61st anniversary of President Eisenhower’s 

interstate highway system connecting families and people across 

the country. 

We also want to maintain leadership in the United States. Testing is now happening in Europe, Australia, Japan, and China. Remaining at the forefront of this innovation ensures that we do not 

delay safety advances while also having the opportunity to grow 

jobs and investment. 

Over the last year, we have seen 80 State bills introduced in legislatures across the country. We want to be sure that a confusing 

patchwork does not emerge that would hurt innovation and ultimately would be bad for the consumer. 

Earlier this Congress, we held a hearing on smart communities 

and had the opportunity to hear from many different communities 

about the new technologies they were evaluating to bring to the 

benefits in their areas. 

In my home State of Ohio, the city of Columbus won the Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge last year and is already leveraging new technology to gather information-approved 

services for the community. 

Technology to improve everything from safety to sanitation to the 

environment is going through a period of innovation and communities are looking for wise investments to improve the lives of their 

citizens. 

This innovation will be a focus of the committee for years to 

come, especially self-driving vehicles. We are at the early stages 

and as the technology advances so will the need for us to continue 

our oversight. 

3 

This first step is to set the broad outline to bring better safety 

and mobility to everyone. We want the Government to work actively with industry. 

It is important that we have these discussions in the early stages 

of innovation so that we do not limit the potential benefits. 

Our staffs have had constructive conversations with the Department of Transportation. They understand that the public will need 

to know an active watchdog is overlooking the industry as the administration continues to nominate candidates to join the department. 

I look forward to working together to advance these important 

goals. Finally, I always have had an open-door policy, and I know 

we cannot get this right without real-world stakeholder input. 

We will move forward under regular order with multiple opportunities to improve upon the staff drafts. We will meet with anyone— 

we are participating in bipartisan meetings. Pickups, cars, and 

vans are integral in the American way of life. 

When you revolutionize something so important to everyday life, 

you can greatly improve every day—you can always improve it. 

This isn’t the Government saying that you have to get in a selfdriving car. This is a Government making sure that the industry 

can innovate in response to our changing lives. 

I am ready to work with my colleagues to bring the safety investment and many of the benefits to the American people in Ohio and 

across the country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Good morning and welcome to the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Subcommittee hearing on self-driving vehicle legislation. Driving is an integral part 

of American life. When you think about who drives, you realize it is pretty much 

everyone. Urban and rural, young and old, and everyone and everywhere in between. 

Tragically, however, traffic fatalities are on the rise. Last year there were over 

40,000 fatalities and more than 2 million injuries on our Nation’s highways. Our 

goal today is to enact the right policies to encourage self-driving technologies that 

can drastically reduce those numbers. We have a real opportunity to address this 

problem. 

One of the most important pieces is to define the right roles for the Federal, State, 

and local governments. The need for this framework was laid out by the Obama administration just last year. From the front bumper to the back bumper—whether 

it’s a pickup truck or a car or a van, how the vehicle works and is designed should 

be the province of the Federal Government as has been the case for more than 50 

years. 

The States and localities have an equally important role to play in determining 

insurance requirements, titling cars, requiring registration and setting the rules of 

the road. They get to enact and enforce traffic laws and regulations as well. States 

will also still be able to offer incentives to entities that are early actors in this field 

if they want to encourage testing in their State. 

We simply cannot have cars that stop at State lines. Just last week we celebrated 

the 61st anniversary of President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system connecting families and people across the country. 

We also want to maintain leadership in the United States. Testing is happening 

in Europe, Australia, Japan and China. Remaining at the forefront of this innovation ensures that we do not delay safety advancements, while also having the opportunity to grow jobs and investment. Over the last year, we have seen 80 State bills 

introduced in legislatures across the country. We want to be sure that a confusing 

patchwork does not emerge that would hurt innovation and ultimately would be bad 

for the consumer. 

4 

Earlier this Congress, we held a hearing on Smart Communities and had the opportunity to hear from many different communities about the new technologies they 

are evaluating to bring new benefits into their areas. In my home State of Ohio, 

the city of Columbus won the Department of Transportation’s Smart City Challenge 

last year and is already leveraging new technology to gather information to improve 

services for the community. Technology to improve everything from safety to sanitation to the environment is going through a period of innovation and communities 

are looking for wise investments to improve the lives of their citizens. 

This innovation will be a focus of the committee for years to come, especially selfdriving vehicles. We are at the early stages and as the technology advances so will 

the need for us to continue our oversight. This first step is to set the broad outlines 

to bring better safety and mobility to everyone. We want the Government to work 

actively with industry. It is important that we have these discussions in the early 

stages of innovation so that we do not limit the potential benefits. 

Our staff have had constructive conversations with the Department of Transportation. They understand that the public will need to know an active watchdog is 

overlooking the industry. As the administration continues to nominate candidates 

to join the Department, I look forward to working together to advance these important goals. 

Finally, I have always had an open door policy, and I know we cannot get this 

right without real world stakeholder input. We will move forward under regular 

order, with multiple opportunities to improve upon the staff drafts. We will meet 

with anyone, and we are participating in bipartisan meetings. 

Pickups, cars, and vans are integral to the American way of life. When you revolutionize something so important to everyday life you can greatly improve everyday 

life. This isn’t the Government saying you have to get in a self-driving car. This is 

Government making sure that industry can innovate in response to our changing 

lives. I’m ready to work with my colleagues to bring the safety, investment, and 

many other benefits to the American people in Ohio and everywhere. 

Mr. LATTA. And at this time, I would like to yield to the vice 

chairman the remainder of my time. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing to continue the subcommittee’s important work on self-driving 

vehicles. 

Three weeks ago today I actually had my first opportunity to ride 

in a self-driving car with Audi and it was an incredible experience 

and I am very thankful because my wife and I are the parents of 

an adult child with special needs. He has Fragile X syndrome and 

for the disability community one of the top problems that you have 

is transportation. 

So my son works Monday through Friday but my wife is the one 

who has to get him to and from work. He can’t go anywhere without someone taking him. So this is something that opens up all 

kinds of possibilities. I want to thank each of the witnesses for 

being here. 

This is really a game changer, I believe, for our future and for 

our very special population. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back, and the Chair now recognizes for an opening statement the 

gentlelady, the ranking member from Illinois. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first acknowledge that in the audience today is Joan Claybrook, who is a 

pioneer and continuing advocate for auto safety, former head of 

NHTSA. I want to welcome you here. 

5 

The 14 bills before us today represent the starting point, by no 

means the ending point, for autonomous vehicle legislation. 

My Democratic colleagues and I are ready to discuss the majority’s ideas, bring our own to the table and work toward a single legislative package. I will need to see the additions and changes to the 

bill before I can give my support. 

But it is my hope that we can have a bipartisan negotiation and 

we will see, hopefully, and perhaps put us on a path towards safe 

adoption of autonomous vehicles. 

Safety must be the top priority of AV legislation. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives, reducing the number of accidents caused by human error. 

We can’t take those gains for granted, though. Safety improvements depend on rigorous testing, responsible deployment, and consumer confidence in the technology. 

While safety is my primary consideration, I just want to mention 

that autonomous vehicles, it is predicted, could displace about 4.1 

million driving jobs. We just have to think about those kinds of 

transitions and how will putting AVs on the road affect congestion 

and air quality. 

The key elements of the majority’s approach are exemptions and 

State preemption. Notably absent from the bills before us is any direction for a rulemaking by NHTSA on autonomous vehicles. 

Automakers’ requests for exemptions, which seems very premature to me, acknowledge that autonomous vehicles may not comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 

Exemptions are no substitute for updated safety standards as 

more AVs share the road. Exemptions should only be a stopgap as 

NHTSA determines how to update existing laws and what additional safety standards might be necessary for AVs. We need to figure out a responsible way to keep innovation moving forward while 

ensuring safety at every stage. 

State preemption is not a new concept in auto safety. States are 

currently barred from legislation—from regulating design features 

of cars once NHTSA adopts a Federal standard. 

The Republican draft proposes preemption without any requirement for a Federal standard. I believe we need a framework for updating Federal standards if we even have that conversation about 

preemption, which I am very skeptical about. 

I also don’t want to lose sight of the current potential for safety 

improvements. Some of the automakers pushing hardest for AV 

legislation have been the slowest in making automatic emergency 

braking, for example, which has proven to save lives—making them 

standard in all vehicles. 

The promise of AVs in the future should not cause us to ignore 

the safety gains that we can make right now. 

For example, rear seat reminders to prevent kids from dying in 

hot cars—and so we should be doing things like that right now, reminders to imminent hazard authority. 

Safety today, safety tomorrow—this legislation package should be 

a vehicle for both. Our panel today includes industry and consumer 

interest. However, I am concerned that no one from NHTSA is here 

to testify. Agency feedback is critical. 

6 

We need to be mindful of NHTSA’s current limitations and work 

to provide the data and resources it needs to be an effective consumer watchdog as the technology in our vehicles evolve. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on this 

legislation. I thank all of our witnesses for being here today and 

now I yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman Dingell. 

Ms. DINGELL. I thank you, Madam Schakowsky. 

I want to tell you how important I think this hearing is today 

because this is the new frontier for automobiles. It is not about if 

this technology is going to be developed. It is where it is going to 

be developed and by whom, and I am unwilling to yield United 

States and America not stand at the forefront of innovation and 

technology. 

This is about safety. I could not agree with you more. In 2015, 

over 35,000 people died on our roadways and early estimates indicate that this could rise to over 40,000 in 2016. That is a staggering amount of lives lost to auto accidents. 

NHTSA estimates that 94 percent of highway crashes are due to 

human error. This development of automated vehicles has the potential to lower that number very significantly. It is why it is so 

important that we come together around legislation that addresses 

AV deployment, always putting safety first. 

We have an obligation to examine the best ways to safely deploy 

these technologies, given the incredible amount of upside that they 

have. 

But as I have said, it is going to happen. Let’s make it happen 

here. Today’s hearing is an important step towards finding bipartisan consensus on what I hope will be a nonpartisan issue. 

The issues on safety do matter. Working with NHTSA does matter. I look forward to hearing our testimony from the witnesses, 

and I yield back my overtime. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time, 

and the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from 

Oregon, the chairman of the full committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, for your 

work on this and your staff’s work on this and members on both 

sides of the aisle as we try to find the right legislative concepts. 

I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentlelady 

of Michigan because we too join you in wanting to make sure that 

this innovation takes place in America first. 

We have been on the cutting edge. We can continue to be on the 

cutting edge. But the long and the short of it is this new technology 

has a great opportunity to save lives. 

I have seen it first hand in the vehicle my wife now has as you 

look at collision avoidance. We were driving down the highway 

with the cruise control. I was driving down the highway with the 

cruise control on. 

She was napping and a big blackbird flew in front and the vehicle automatically braked. She thought I was, like, drowsy driving 

and are you OK, I am fine. It was a bird. Sure, it was a bird. It 

was a bird. 

7 

My point of the story is it saw that and reacted long before I 

would have, and whether it is a bird or a child or another vehicle 

gone astray or something that radar is always watching. And the 

ability to save lives is huge and avoid accidents is tremendous and 

I just believe we are on the cusp of something big. 

I think the future generations will look back and say, ‘‘What a 

bunch of barbarians. You drove yourselves? And how did you text?’’ 

Well, that is part of the problem, because people are doing that 

today and that is costing us an increasing number of lives—35,000 

in 2015, maybe 40,000-plus in 2016. Millions of people being injured. 

You think of the loss of life, of limb, of property—everything that 

is associated with highway fatalities and accidents, the ability to 

move commerce efficiently through markets, the reduction in pollution that will bring if you are not stalled in a traffic jam because 

we found a better way to run a convoy of trucks through. 

Now, we don’t have commercial trucking in this committee. We 

stopped at light trucks. And so these are issues that will be addressed in the future. 

But we are on the cusp of something really big here. I am really 

impressed with what I have learned that the automakers are engaged in I have seen, as I say, first hand and once you have this 

technology, by the way, you have to reeducate yourself when you 

get in your old vehicle because it doesn’t beep and bark and the 

wheel doesn’t automatically keep you between the lines. 

The question, though, is do you want these cars to stop at every 

State line? Because every State would have a different system. We 

have never done that in America with autos. 

We certainly have common transportation systems with rail, I 

mean, and so we have to find that right balance between the States 

and localities and the Federal Government so that we can be the 

great innovators. 

We can save lives. We can improve the environment with this 

technology. I am just really excited to be on the committee that is 

going to lead the way. 

These are staff discussion drafts. This isn’t the end. This is the 

beginning. But it is the beginning of—we have done a lot up to this 

point. 

And so I just want to thank all the members of the committee 

on both sides of the aisle as we work forward to find the right balance here. 

With that, I want to yield to my friend from the great State of 

Michigan, former chairman of the committee, who I know has 

played a leading role in getting us to this point in prior Congresses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

First, I want to thank and commend Chairman Latta for today’s hearing and for 

the subcommittee’s diligent work on self-driving vehicles. 

Unfortunately, our Nation has seen a sharp rise in vehicle-related injuries and 

deaths over the past few years. In my home State of Oregon, traffic fatalities last 

year were the highest they’ve been since 2003—up 20 percent from the year before. 

While no one is claiming that these numbers can be turned around overnight, selfdriving vehicle technology has the potential to dramatically improve safety on our 

8 

Nation’s roadways and that is one of the most important reasons to advance the 

bills we have under consideration today. 

In addition to making our roadways safer, self-driving vehicle technology has the 

potential to offer many other benefits. 

I see real benefits in terms of cleaner cars with less of an environmental impact. 

The technological advances spurred by self-driving vehicles could ultimately make 

cars more efficient and create a positive shift in the industry. 

Additionally, this technology could help increase transportation access to underserved and rural communities and reduce traffic congestion in some of our largest 

cities. 

Self-driving vehicles could greatly improve mobility and accessibility, empowering 

senior citizens and those who suffer from disabilities. Simple things most of us take 

for granted, such as going to the doctor or to the nearby grocery store, may no 

longer present insurmountable hurdles for those who currently rely on others. 

However, for these benefits to be realized, we must create a regulatory framework 

that provides companies with the flexibility to test and generate data that will inform the continued development of these vehicles. We must also provide appropriate 

Government oversight to ensure that this is done in a safe and secure manner. 

It’s also time for Congress to clarify the roles of both Federal and State government with regard to this industry. Just as Congress ensured uniformity in railroads 

traversing America, we need to make certain that in the future our cars can take 

us from one State to another. For America to remain a leader in this field, we need 

to act. 

I want to thank our distinguished panel for being with us today to engage in this 

extremely important discussion and I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on this critical issue. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say 

forget about the Jetsons. The Jetsons are here, and as all of us 

drive, as we commute back to our districts in our home States, for 

me, Michigan, and we drive hundreds of miles often every day that 

we are there crisscrossing our district, we see other drivers. We see 

other drivers texting and using their phones and we see them 

weave and get sleepy. 

And just going to Detroit yesterday morning, I think I saw three 

trucks that weaved into my lane, trying to cross. This morning it 

took me more than an hour to get 7 miles, because of a brokendown car on the 14th Street bridge, another little accident on the 

GW Parkway, and took my best shortcut, that I am not going to 

unveil now so that other people don’t use it. 

But, you know, it took me, I think, 20 minutes to get from Southwest Airlines to American, just going through that arrival part of 

DCA, trying to get here and avoid some of that. 

This technology is going to save a lot of lives. It is going to save 

a lot of accidents. And years from now, we are going to wonder how 

was it that America let 35,000 people die on the roads in 2016, and 

maybe 40,000 this year. 

We are at the cutting edge and we need to do it right. We need 

to do it in a bipartisan way and I welcome the participation of all 

members of this committee as we try to figure this thing out right. 

Because at the end of the day, we are going to save a lot of lives. 

We are going to save a lot of casualty losses, as well, and it won’t 

take us an hour to get 7 miles back and forth to the office. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman 

from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee. 

9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This subcommittee has been reviewing automated vehicle technology for some time. As we have heard, there are a number of potential benefits both for safety and mobility in the deployment of 

self-driving cars. 

There are also challenges to the deployment such as increased 

cyber security and privacy exposure risks and safety issues regarding the interaction between human operated and computer operated vehicles. 

We all share the goal of promoting the safest possible transportation options. Before us today are 14 separate legislative bills that 

deal with some of the deployment issues. 

I support efforts to help get new technology advances on the 

roads faster. But we must review each bill through our safety lens. 

Only if we keep safety first as our mantra can we get these initiatives to a place where they are ready to become law. 

Although the minority was not involved in the development of 

these 14 bills, I would like to hold you, Mr. Chairman, to your commitment to work to make this a bipartisan effort. My goal is 

crafting a single bipartisan bill that all members can support. 

Right now there is some challenges to getting there, starting 

with the leadership vacuum at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. We should not be moving bills out of committee before we hear from the administration about how the bills would or 

could be implemented. And yet, once again, we have nobody here 

today to testify from the administration. 

The little we have heard from NHTSA is troubling. The president’s budget estimate submitted to Congress this spring show 

NHTSA focusing on deregulatory actions that are in direct conflict 

with what Congress required it to do. 

Despite congressional mandates, NHTSA wants to stop important safety laws. Inexcusably, the agency is resisting critical safety 

measures designed to ensure blind pedestrians know a quiet car is 

nearby or that parents or grandparents do not unintentionally back 

over their little children. 

While the bills before us deal with a number of industry requests 

such as increases to the current exemption limit or how FOIA requests are handled, there are no directions to NHTSA. 

NHTSA must have an active role for self-driving cars to be successfully deployed on our roads. There also is not direction on the 

issues of cybersecurity, data security, or privacy. 

As we look forward to this new world of self-driving cars, we 

must also ensure that we promote safety which includes ensuring 

NHTSA fulfills its responsibilities both in the emerging area as 

well as with human-driven cars and we can’t focus on the future 

at the expense of today. 

As Ranking Member Schakowsky pointed out, a number of things 

can be done right now to make traditional cars safe. Most of the 

auto industry have committed to making automatic emergency 

braking standard in all cars. 

10 

This is a technology that we know promotes safety and some 

automakers have already met that commitment. But others are delaying such action. When we know a technology makes people 

safer, it should be put into all cars as quickly as possible. 

In addition, the legislation we discuss now should not be the end 

of the conversation. One recurring theme throughout the subcommittee’s disrupter series is that technology is advancing extremely quickly. 

Today’s new technology could be obsolete by next year. Self-driving vehicle technology is very much in the development phase and 

it is almost impossible to foresee all the issues that may arise. 

So we can’t allow the actions we take now to stop us from addressing new issues that come up later or from revisiting some 

issues that may change in the future. So in my opinion, this is a 

big moment for us. 

Automated vehicles have the potential to change everything— 

how we move, what communities look like, how we interact with 

each other, for example, and we need to be sure that we get this 

right and that safety is the first priority. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

This subcommittee has been reviewing automated vehicle technology for some 

time. As we have heard, there are a number of potential benefits both for safety 

and mobility in the deployment of self-driving cars. There are also challenges to 

their deployment, such as increased cybersecurity and privacy exposure risks and 

safety issues regarding the interaction between human-operated and computer-operated vehicles. We all share the goal of promoting the safest possible transportation 

options. 

Before us today are 14 separate legislative bills that deal with some of the deployment issues. I support efforts that help get new technological advances on the roads 

faster, but we must review each bill through our safety lens. Only if we keep ‘‘safety 

first’’ as our mantra can we get these initiatives to a place where they are ready 

to become law. 

Although the minority was not involved in the development of these 14 bills, I 

would like to hold you, Mr. Chairman, to your commitment to work to make this 

a bipartisan effort. My goal is crafting a single bipartisan bill that all members can 

support. 

Right now, there are some challenges to getting there, starting with the leadership vacuum at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We should not 

be moving bills out of committee before we hear from the administration about how 

the bills would, or could, be implemented. And yet, once again, we have nobody here 

today to testify from the administration. 

The little we have heard from NHTSA is troubling. The President’s Budget Estimates submitted to Congress this spring shows NHTSA focusing on deregulatory actions that are in direct conflict with what Congress required it to do. Despite Congressional mandates, NHTSA wants to stop important safety laws. Inexcusably, the 

agency is resisting critical safety measures designed to ensure blind pedestrians 

know a quiet car is nearby or that parents or grandparents do not unintentionally 

back-over their little children. 

While the bills before us deal with a number of industry requests, such as increases to the current exemptions limit or how FOIA requests are handled, there 

are no directions to NHTSA. NHTSA must have an active role for self-driving cars 

to be successfully deployed on our roads. There also is no direction on the issues 

of cybersecurity, data security, or privacy. 

As we look forward to this new world of self-driving cars, we must also ensure 

that we promote safety, which includes ensuring NHTSA fulfills its responsibilities 

both in this emerging area as well as with human-driven cars. 

We cannot focus on the future at the expense of today. As Ranking Member Schakowsky pointed out, a number of things can be done right now to make traditional 

cars safer. Most of the auto industry have committed to making automatic emergency braking standard in all cars. This is a technology that we know promotes 

11 

safety, and some automakers have already met that commitment, butut others are 

delaying such action. When we know a technology makes people safer, it should be 

put into all cars as quickly as possible. 

In addition, the legislation we discuss now should not be the end of the conversation. One recurring theme throughout this subcommittee’s disruptor series is that 

technology is advancing extremely quickly. Today’s new technology could be obsolete 

by next year. Self-driving vehicle technology is very much in the development phase, 

and it’s almost impossible to foresee all the issues that may arise. So we can’t allow 

the actions we take now to stop us from addressing new issues that come up later 

or from revisiting some issues that may change in the future. 

This is a big moment for us. Automated vehicles have the potential to change everything: how we move, what communities look like, how we interact with each 

other. We need to be sure that we get this right and that safety is the first priority. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I would like to yield the balance of the time 

to Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Pallone, for 

yielding me time. 

I would like to echo the ranking member. Without sufficient resources, NHTSA won’t be able to facilitate the safe and speedy 

adoption of autonomous vehicles. 

We all share the same goal: safely getting this lifesaving technology on the road. That is why I am disappointed with the process 

so far on today’s legislation. 

We ought to be working together on bipartisan comprehensive 

legislation rather than these piecemeal bills and these bills don’t 

do enough. 

California has been a leader in envisioning a pathway for the 

safe testing and deployment of AVs. If we are going to contemplate 

undoing this progress we ought to be focuses on giving NHTSA the 

tools to fill the void. 

Autonomous vehicles will be hear before we know it and I stand 

ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put 

in place a strong framework that includes the right regulatory safeguards while allowing flexibility for innovation. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back the balance of the time, 

and that will now conclude the Member opening statements. 

The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members’ opening statements will be made part of 

the record. 

We want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and taking time to testify before the subcommittee. Today’s witnesses will 

have the opportunity to give opening statements followed by a 

round of questions from the Members. 

Our panelists for today’s hearing will include Mr. Mitch Bainwol, 

the president and CEO at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; the Honorable David Strickland, counsel for Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets and partner at Venable; Mr. Will Wallace, 

policy analyst at Consumers Union; Mr. Alan Morrison, Lerner 

Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law 

at the George Washington University of Law School; Mr. Tim Day, 

senior vice president for Chamber Technology Engagement Center 

at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and John Bozzella, president 

and CEO of Global Automakers. 

We appreciate you all being here today. We are going to start 

with Mr. Bainwol, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes, and 

12 

if you would just pull that mic up close to you and turn it on you 

will see when your time is about ready to expire by the lights. But 

thank you very much for being here, and the mic is yours. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; DAVID L. STRICKLAND, COUNSEL, SELF–DRIVING 

COALITION FOR SAFER STREETS, AND PARTNER, VENABLE 

LLP; WILLIAM C. WALLACE, POLICY ANALYST, CONSUMERS 

UNION; ALAN B. MORRISON, LERNER FAMILY ASSOCIATE 

DEAN FOR PUBLIC INTEREST AND PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; TIM DAY, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT CENTER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND 

JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS 

STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL 

Mr. BAINWOL. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Mr. Upton, members of the committee, I am Mitch Bainwol from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

We represent 12 automakers. We are kind of the umbrella group. 

We have the Detroit Three. We have major manufacturers in Europe and three Japanese manufacturers—Toyota, Mazda, and 

Mitsubishi. I am really pleased to be here today. Your leadership 

moving this issue is critical. 

Rather than reading this statement, I am going to run through 

a quick slide deck—11 slides in about 4 and a half minutes—so 

bear with me. 

As we talk about the future—next slide—I think it is instructive 

to go back to 1961. I think it was 61 years ago tomorrow that Eisenhower signed the bill that created the highway system. 

That, obviously, was a critical assertion of Federal leadership. 

Ike said, our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication 

of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. That 

was true then and it is true today. 

Ten years later—next slide—LBJ signed the Highway Act and 

really triggered an enormous Federal focus on safety. It was a remarkable success. 

Then public works chairman George Fallon said, this bill continues the policy of meaningful cooperation between the States and 

the Federal Government on highway matters. 

It was a firm step forward in the effort to save lives, talking 

about a theme of Federal and State roles. 

Next slide. This is really kind of the critical data slide. This 

shows 1949 to 2016 the fatalities on the roads. The gray line, which 

is faint, is the absolute number of fatalities and you can see it 

reached just over 50,000 in the ’70s and is now roughly about 

40,000. 

13 

The green line is the line really to focus on. That is fatalities by 

VMT, vehicle miles travelled, and what you see is a phenomenal 

success story. 

We are not without concern about the task that remains. The 

last 2 years there is been a tick-up, and that is concerning. But the 

trend line over the 70-year period really is a powerful one. 

Next slide. That was the basis of the recognition by CDC that 

motor vehicle safety was one of the 10 great public health achievements of the century. 

So this is, I think, a statement—go to the next slide—that the 

Safety Act fundamentally works and the magic or the genius of the 

Safety Act is this scale and the scale—what we are trying to do is 

optimize the capacity to innovate and we do that with self-certification and protection of consumers, and that is a very, very crucial 

balance to achieve and we believe the Safety Act and the facts of 

the last 70 years demonstrate that the right balance has been 

struck. 

I would note that NHTSA has a huge backstop in terms of governing behavior—a strong defect authority, information-gathering 

authority—so it really is a powerful tool to govern behavior. 

You also have liability. You have reputational issues that condition behavior. The next slide drills down a bit on the 35,000 lives 

lost in 2015 and what you see is at the very tip of the inverted pyramid you have about 1 percent, really less than 1 percent, that relates to the vehicle itself. 

We need to get that 1 percent down as far as humanly possible. 

But the magic of what you are doing today is that you’re going to 

touch the 99 percent that is out there that we can make a difference on working together. 

Next slide. So there are clear hurdles here. We have got, you 

know, Government hurdles in terms of how Government manages 

to deal with the pace of innovation. 

We have got consumer acceptance issues, data risk, dislocation, 

technology itself—all the things that the opening statements have 

highlighted. 

The benefit stream is enormous. We have talked mostly about 

lives that have sustained injuries, access for the disabled, enhanced 

quality of life, less carbon emissions, more fuel efficiency, faster 

travel, more productive commerce, more flexible space utilization. 

The prize at the end of the rainbow here is enormous. 

So let’s look at what countries are doing around—around the 

world and what you see is countries are nationalizing their frameworks for self-driving. 

That is what’s going on globally, and there is a picture at the 

bottom of the Queen. She had a statement in May just a month 

ago, where even the Queen is getting into the act and is leading 

to the future. 

So this is the global context of—that defines the world in which 

you all are operating. And if we look at the next slide to the U.S., 

the U.S. is moving in a profoundly different direction. 

So rather than nationalizing our framework what we have been 

doing is establishing a patchwork and whether 70 or 80 bills in the 

last year, it is a ton of activity. 

14 

Not all of it is bad. Some of the State work is prudent and helpful. But when you have a patchwork it slows down innovation and 

that is a huge challenge. 

So the draft bills, we recognize, are a beginning and we are 

heartened by the call for bipartisan action and we are hopeful that 

a bipartisan bill can emerge. 

But we think it is a really good start. By increasing the number 

of vehicles eligible for temporary exemptions, the draft stimulates 

the generation of data that is necessary for later FMVSS. 

It provides the market incentive to drive the investment of industry research that ultimately will save so many lives and it enhances U.S. competitiveness in this space. 

The uniform national framework will accelerate testing and deployment and by adopting a forward-leaning approach you send a 

signal to States, to cities, and to the public that the future is worth 

accelerating. 

So I am down to my last slide and I am a little over. The point 

here is that this is a journey we are going to be on for a while. 

Moody’s projects that AVs will not be ubiquitous until 2055. 

Think of it: 1956, Eisenhower with the interstate highway system; 2055, nearly a hundred years later, ubiquity with AVs. It is 

a century of profound change for mobility. This committee has an 

opportunity to take the next great step to save lives and improve 

commerce and improve quality of life. 

This is the right time. We need to assert leadership and the 

question is ultimately will the technology be developed here in the 

U.S. or will it be imported. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:] 

15 


32518.001

AUTO ALLIANCE 

STATEMENT 

OF 

THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 

BEFORE THE: 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

JUNE 27,2017 

PRESENTED BY: 

Mitch Bainwol 

President and CEO 
16 


32518.002

Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on selfdriving vehicle technology and the role that Congress and this Committee can play to foster 

important safety improvements and other benefits for the American public. I am here on behalf of 

twelve iconic manufacturers who produced 80 percent of the cars now on American roads and are 

investing billions of dollars annually on R&D to improve fuel efficiency and enhance safety. Selfdriving technologies have the potential to do both. I would like to say from the outset that the 

Alliance and its members are deeply appreciative that this Committee has invested so much time 

on the policy questions relating to self-driving vehicle technologies. We support the concepts 

outlined in the staff drafts, particularly related to clarifying federal and state roles, as well as 

expanding exemptions, and we look forward to engaging collaboratively on both sides of the aisle 

in hopes of passing bipartisan legislation. 

As we prepare for the bright future ahead for mobility, it may be instructive to take a step back in 

time. This week we commemorate President Eisenhower's signing into law the Federal-Aid 

Highway Act in 1956- 61 years ago. Today, it seems like a clear decision- obvious even. Six 

decades ago, however, it was a bold piece of legislation that helped transform our country. It 

improved the safety of our roadways and the mobility of our fellow citizens. It also grew the U.S 

economy by facilitating the efficient movement of bulk goods and freight. 

A little more than 10 years later, President Johnson signed the Highway Safety Act into law. That 

legislation was a major Congressional achievement designed to address rising highway fatalities 

on our roadways. To set the context, in 1966 there were 50,894 fatalities on the roadways, more 

2 
17 


32518.003

than 20 percent higher than today in absolute numbers, despite the fact that the population was far 

smaller and vehicle miles travelled far fewer. Public Works Chairman George Fallon of Maryland 

said at the time that the bill reflected a " ... policy of meaningful cooperation between the states 

and the Federal Government on highway matters. I believe it is a finn step forward in the struggle 

to save lives, and I urge we act with strong voice to put it into effect." 

The Safety Act, which created what later became known as the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation, provided the agency with 

broad safety authorities to research, develop, and enforce vehicle safety performance standards. 

Today, that legislation forms the structural base the agency relies upon for its mission. 

Importantly, the Act struck a balance between giving the agency wide latitude to create and enforce 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and remaining flexible enough to allow car 

makers to self-certify their vehicles. This ensures automakers can continue to innovate and bring 

new technologies to market. Without question, this balance in the Safety Act helped reduce 

injuries and fatalities tremendously, even as there has been a near quadrupling of vehicle miles 

traveled on our nation's roadways since the 1950's. The CDC recognized this remarkable progress 

in 1999, calling the increase in motor vehicle safety one of the 10 Great Public Health 

Achievements of the Century. 

"The reduction of the rate of death attributable to motor-vehicle crashes in the United States 

represents the successful public health response to a great technologic advance of the 20th 

century--the motorization of America. Six times as many people drive today as in 1925, and 

the number of motor vehicles in the country has increased 11-fold since then to approximately 

215 million (I). The number of miles traveled in motor vehicles is I 0 times higher than in the 

3 
18 


32518.004

mid-1920s. Despite this steep increase in motor-vehicle travel, the annual death rate has 

declined from 18 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1925 to l. 7 per I 00 million 

VMT in 1997--a 90% decrease (Figure 1)."1 

While the safety improvements over recent decades are a tribute to policy and engineering, we are 

mindful that our work is not done. We are all familiar with government statistics regarding 

highway fatalities: 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 2

, an increase over 2014. 

Preliminary results for 2016 project another increase. This is a disturbing upward trend, especially 

when you consider that the rise in fatalities went beyond VMT growth. We have looked at the 

early numbers to better understand why this is happening. While it is too early to be conclusive, 

we know that the higher rate is NOT a function of the car itself. Motor vehicle defects as a cause 

appear to remain under I percent of the challenge. Other factors that did contribute to the higher 

rate include older cars, older drivers and more losses among pedestrians and motorcyclists. 

Distraction is a part of the problem, but the challenge is far broader. 

The 2015 increase in fatalities was a 7 percent increase from the prior year. The National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) early estimates for calendar year 2016 suggest a 

possible 10 percent increase, to about 38,600. While not adjusted for the significant increases of 

overall miles driven, this is nearly the same number of roadway fatalities that occurred when 

President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid to Highways bill into law. These numbers are 

concerning and warrant attention, especially since according to a NHTSA crash causation study, 

1 Centers for Disease Control, Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20'h Century (1900- 1999), 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4818al.htm 

2 NHTSA 2015 Quick Facts 

4 
19 


32518.005

94 percent of car crashes are attributable to human behavior or error. These figures are particularly 

relevant to today's hearing and the transformative role that self-driving technologies can play in 

possibly reducing overall crashes and fatalities. 

I would like to make five broad points to frame the issue and then close with three thoughts for the 

Committee to consider as it works to craft bipartisan legislation to help spur additional 

technological and safety advances. 

Point 1 - Four trends are merging to dramatically reshape mobility as we know it: increasing 

automation, connectivity, ride sharing and electrification. These trends are mutually reinforcing 

but not mutually dependent. The move toward autonomy during this past decade has accelerated 

significantly- with advanced driver assist systems that offer important features like adaptive cruise 

control and active lane keeping. Effectively, these technologies have a multiplier impact: the more 

consumers experience driver assist systems, the more excited they become about the prospect of 

self-driving technologies. 

The Alliance has conducted several public opinion surveys that show the generational shift that 

is emerging with acceptance of these technologies. A sample is provided below: 

5 
20 


32518.006

What best describes your view about so-called autonomous 

that drive you? 

Assists: 

All j\11 w @J:..Jl_~m 18,29 30,39 40·49 50-64 65+ !L_j__~ 

Can't wait for this awesome technology 16 23 9 

open mind 31 30 39 34 29 30 30 

Not sure, but wary of the technology 27 24 31 29 25 19 21 30 35 32 28 2~ 2l 

It's a terrible idea 24 24 24 27 ~1 14 18 30 27 3i 24 ia 

Not sure 

-11 -8 -13 -15 -6 +9 -26 -16 -10 +18 

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of those under 29 years of age are open to self-driving 

technology, including 23 percent who view the technology as "awesome." Only 5 percent of 

people over 65 years of age think the technology is "awesome," and almost a third believe selfdriving technologies are a "terrible idea"- twice the number than the views of those under 29 

years of age. But, importantly, experience with driver assists has a profound impact on attitudes. 

Drivers who have cars with at least two driver assists are dramatically more favorable (63-35) 

about autonomy than those who have none ( 43-54). Thus, as these technologies make their way 

into the national fleet, consumer acceptance will grow materially. 

Trend two is connectivity- characterized by growing technological capabilities that improve the 

driving experience, vehicle performance and safety. Trend three is ride sharing- and while we 

think of companies like Uber, Lyft, Car2Go, Chariot, Maven and ReachNow to name a few, there 

are a huge number of new entrants in this space, all predicated on the idea that in certain instances 

car sharing and ride hailing is a more efficient use of a high cost asset versus personal 

ownership. Finally, trend four is electrification. Adoption of electrification has been slower 

6 
21 


32518.007

than some predicted and other experts hoped -including in California. However, we expect that 

as range increases and battery costs fall, EV powertrains will become more competitive with 

internal combustion engines. Other coming market forces, like self-driving ride share fleets, may 

further spur electric vehicle deployment. We will sec a tipping point- we just do not know exactly 

when this will occur. 

Point 2 - For self-driving technologies, the future is here but will take a while to be fully 

realized. Few debate where we are headed. However, there is significant debate about the length 

and even nature of this journey. Keep in mind, even small introductions of self-driving 

technologies can reduce fatalities and traffic congestion. The first driving automation systemsso called SAE Levels 1 and 2 -are on sale today. Levels 3, 4, and 5 self-driving technologies, or 

Highly Automated Vehicles (HAYs), are currently being tested, but are not yet available in the 

market. Level 3 features, such as automated driving in freeway traffic jams, are expected to be 

introduced soon, perhaps within a year. Level 4 geo-fenced self-driving vehicles that can only be 

operated by an Automated Driving System will probably begin in the next few years. But, retail 

sales to consumers of so-called Level 5 vehicles that can operate anywhere a person can drive a 

conventional vehicle today is unlikely to happen for several more years. Given how much 

vehicles cost and how long they last - more than 20 percent of cars on the road today were 

produced before 20003 - vehicles equipped with Level 5 systems will likely not be a majority of 

the fleet for three more decades. Ubiquity is not projected to occur for at least four decades largely 

due to the fact that over 260 million light duty vehicles are registered in the U.S. It is also difficult 

3 IHS data compiled by the Auto Alliance 

7 
22 


32518.008

to predict the percentage of vehicle miles traveled in personally owned cars versus ride hailing 

services. But we do know this: change is coming- and it is coming rapidly. 

Point 3 - Self-driving vehicles will usher in a mobility era that offers profound social 

benefits. Self-driving technologies will potentially save thousands of American lives annually, 

addressing a large portion of roadway fatalities and crashes associated with human error. Cars 

with self-driving features also offer huge quality of life benefits -access for the disabled and 

elderly; time saved by being driven rather than driving so the commuting time can be spent on 

more productive activities; and the increased freedom that comes from quicker trips due to less 

congestion. Moreover, these technologies offer considerable economic benefits -less congestion, 

fewer injuries and medical claims, lower fuel costs, increased productivity, and better land use. 

The impact on cities may well be enormous. New communities and municipalities are eager to 

modernize their mobility patterns and learn where new mobility options are headed so they can 

begin the infrastructure build-out that could take a decade to complete. They want to prepare for 

tomorrow, today. Congress and the House Energy and Commerce Committee in particular has a 

long history of understanding the need for and benefits related to uniformity as a building block 

for innovation-just look at the railroad, aviation, telecommunication sectors and the Internet -all 

of which have spurred tremendous innovation, social benefits and U.S. leadership. 

Point 4 -The rate of technological growth is faster than the rate of regulation and also confuses 

traditional regulatory responsibilities. Self-driving vehicle technologies will generate disruptions 

and challenges; no transition is ever easy. However, this is a transition this Committee should 

seek to accelerate, because the societal benefits are clear. 

8 
23 


32518.009

The last NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, was fond of saying that government must be 

nimble and flexible because it is difficult for the regulatory process to keep up with the rapid pace 

of innovation. Furthermore, not enough data is in hand to initiate the rulemaking process to create 

new standards for self~driving vehicles. lfNHTSA were to prematurely set rules today, it would 

stifle innovation. The foundation of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (FAVP) that the 

Department of Transportation released last September is sound- relying on overarching guidance 

rather than rigid rules and seeking to clarify the division of responsibilities between states and the 

federal government Nevertheless, additional federal leadership is required here. 

With conventional vehicles, the states regulate the driver and the federal government regulates the 

vehicle. This division of responsibility still generally makes sense today for self-driving vehicle 

technologies, especially since a patchwork of differing safety and performance standards or other 

impediments from state to state, and even city to city, is a recipe for delayed deployment and 

realization of the safety and mobility benefits these technologies offer. Take for instance the fact 

that so far this year, there have been 70 different legislative proposals in 30 states that address selfdriving vehicles. As we meet today, the U.S. lacks a critical uniform national framework to 

advance these technologies as was established before in the development of other key innovations. 

In fact, as other countries are moving to create uniform national structures, the U.S. has been 

moving in precisely the opposite direction, and accordingly, risks falling behind in this highly 

competitive area. 

9 
24 


32518.010

Federal leadership and clear rules of the road are essential, especially to underscore NHTSA.'s 

authority to issue nationwide safety and performance regulations for motor vehicles. America is 

the true innovation leader in this field- at least for now. It is in the national interest to protect that 

advantage. More importantly, members of the Auto Alliance share the belief that lives could be 

lost and that safety improvements will be delayed without your help. 

Point 5- The key question this Committee must ask is how to use public policy to optimize the 

safe deployment of these vehicles and their promise of social good, while continuing to let 

innovation spur economic growth? 

Here are a few thoughts on the draft bills released recently: 

I. It is critically important to expand the number and duration of the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) exemptions that NHTSA can grant under the Safety Act. There 

arc existing safety standards that serve as direct barriers to the deployment of self-driving 

vehicles. Without providing NHTSA expanded authority to grant exemptions from these 

standards, traditional auto manufacturers and other developers will not be able to deploy 

the technology at a scale necessary to collect more robust real-world data to inform future 

regulatory action. Given the lengthy rulemaking process, NHTSA should also initiate 

rulemaking to update these standards to remove the barriers for self-driving vehicles. 

The existing FMVSS for conventional vehicles have served the public well. Because they 

were intended for vehicles with human drivers, however, they are ill-suited for vehicles 

with self-driving technologies. Alliance members also believe the process to modernize 

10 
25 


32518.011

conventional vehicle FMVSS for self-driving vehicles could be informed by the data 

generated from increased exemptions. 

2. By providing a uniform national framework to address concerns about the development of 

a patchwork of conflicting rules and regulations, the draft legislation seeks to better clarify 

federal versus state regulatory roles to facilitate innovation and the expeditious deployment 

of life-saving self-driving technologies. This will provide certainty for all stakeholders in 

this area and ensure that the United States remains the leader in self-driving innovation. 

We support federal clarity that will eliminate impediments to the testing, development, and 

deployment of self-driving vehicles- particularly any state laws or regulations related to 

the design or performance of these vehicles. We recognize and continue to support the 

important role states play in insurance, licensure, registration, and traffic laws and 

enforcement for such Highly Automated Vehicles. 

Providing federal clarity on rules governing automated motor vehicle design, performance 

and safety does not mean there will be a vacuum in oversight with respect to the 

development and deployment of the technology for both auto makers and new entrants. As 

discussed earlier in my testimony, NHTSA has broad enforcement authority under existing 

statutes and regulations to address current and emerging automated safety technologies. As 

evidence, look no further than the Enforcement Bulletin for Emerging Technologies that 

NHTSA published in concert with the FA VP last September. That document, which is still 

11 
26 


32518.012

operative, outlines NHTSA's authorities and how they apply to self-driving technology 

including software, hardware, sensors, GPS and vehicle electronics. For example, NHTSA 

recently used its extensive investigatory authorities with an aftermarket self-driving 

technology company named - Comma.ai - to ensure it was compliant with regulations 

before the product could be offered for sale. 

3. By adopting a forward-leaning approach to the development and deployment of selfdriving vehicle technologies, the draft legislation sends a clear signal that will help foster 

greater public acceptance. It also sends a clear and unambiguous signal to states and 

cities that will help trigger the planning necessary for adjusting to these new technologies. 

The fact that we are all here today having this conversation is tremendously encouraging. I would 

like to reiterate the Alliance's and its members' appreciation of the Committee's work and 

leadership to date and indicate our eagerness to continue being a collaborative, thoughtful partner. 

The Alliance and its members look forward to providing constructive feedback on your ideas with 

a view towards passing critically important bipartisan legislation. 

I began my testimony today by referencing the important bills that Presidents Eisenhower and 

Johnson signed, working with Congress on vital and transforrnative transportation and mobility 

policy. Those landmark legislative measures clarified state and federal roles and demonstrated 

that public policy can literally move a nation, improving safety and mobility in the U.S. for 

decades. We stand today at our own inflection point in history. I would suggest that this 

Committee and this Congress faces a similar moment- a chance to drive our nation forward in a 

12 
27 


32518.013

way that will generate enormous social and economic benefits for decades and generations to 

come. While there are challenges associated with this revolution in mobility, the net potential 

impact is so powerful that we are wise to push forward. 

The decisions this Committee will make later this summer hold the possibility to foster a second 

great revolution in American mobility and auto safety. Although analysts do not expect selfdriving vehicles to be ubiquitous until 2055, we can achieve a remarkable public good when we 

marry the brilliance of innovation with responsible and forward-leaning public policy. 

Thank you and !look forward to answering your questions. 

13 

32518.068

House Energy and Commerce Committe

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protec

Hearing: 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislatio

nee 

32518.069

lnterstat 

"Our unity as a nation is sustained 

by free communication of thought 

and by easy transportation of 

people and goods." 

h aySystem 

);> Highway Fatalities 

? Population 

? Miles Traveled ? Fatalities by VMT 

37,965 

168.9 million 

627.8 

6.05 

32518.070

Highway safety Act 

Y Highway Fatalities 

}i>/f>opufation 

)> Miles Traveled 

Fataliti~s by VMT 5.50 

11[This bill] continues the .policy of meaningf

cooperation between the States and the Federal Government on highway matters. I belie

it is a firm step forward in the struggle to save lives, and I urge that we act with strong vo

to put it into effect." 

32518.071

Profound Improvement in Fatalitie.s by VMT 

Promises 

.--------------------------------------------------------------~ 8 

Deaths - VMT - Fatality Rate 

--------~ 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

+>~~nn~,.~~~~,.~~~~,.~~nn~>T~~nn~"""nn~~+ 0 

(FARS) 

r-. en ,... M 1.1'1 0 0 ............ 

0 0 0 0 0 

N N N N N 

32518.072

1 at Publi h • I 

32518.073

Act 

1. Private sector Self-Certification 2. NHTSA retains broad enforcement authority 

(defect and recall) under the Safety Act both 

for conventional and highly automated 

vehicles 

Private Sector 

3. liability exposure also inhibits premature self-Certification 

deployment 

4. Rule development (FMVSS) is data driven -

after extensive objective testing - and LOCKS 

IN rather than TRIGGERS market innovations 

5. Enforcement authority and liability 

both always apply 

by temporary exemption 

NHTSA Broad Informa

32518.074

Source: 2016, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 

-

2.5% (862) 

35,092: 2015 Total Fatalities from 

Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 

Fatalities Related to Possible Defects or Maintenance in light Duty Vehicles 

• 68.18% of fatalities from a vehicle defect were the result of tire maintenance 

• 80% of the vehicles in this category are MY 2000-2004, 70% were older than 11

• 20 fatalities from defects were autos MY 2010 or newer (4 involved an impaired 

• More than 2/3 of the 862 resulted from maintenance fa

• Thus less than 1% of fatalities in LDV are defect related 

• Huge correlation to age of cars 

32518.075

Clearing Hurdles 

•!• 

uge Social Benefit

Saving lives 

Reducing injuries I 

Access for disabled 

Enhanced quality of life 

less carbon per mile 

More 

Faster travel 

More productive commerce 

32518.076

Other Nationalizing ra 

Queen paves way for autonomous cars in U.K. 

2016 
37 


32518.077

c 

0 

., ... 

Q 

......, 

c 

~ 

~ ·-

0 

ro 

c 

·-

bO 

c 

·s: 

0 

.. V') .. :::> 

OJ 

....c: 

......, 

......, 

::s 

co 

32518.078

Draft Bills are Critically I rtant 

./ By increasing the number of vehicles eligible for temporary exemptions1 the dr

.. Stimulates the generation of data necessary to later develop FMVSS 

" Provides the market incentive to draw significant investment in related technologie

" Enhances U.S. competitiveness in this space 

./ By providing a uniform national framework to address state patchwork, the dra

" Clarifies roles; accelerating testing and deployment 

./ By adopting a forward leaning approach, the draft 

" Sends a clear signal to the American people that 

" Sends a clear signal to states and cities that 

adjusting to this transformation 

enhance public acceptance 

trigger the planning necessary 

32518.079

100 Interstate Highways to Ubiqui 

2020 

2030 

2035 

2045 

2055 

Available 

Common 

Standard 

Majority 

Uljiq1J itQ us 

AV Penetration Projection Source: Moody's 

• 61 . years ago Eisenhower recognize

moment 

• Decisions this committee will make 

summer can foster a second g

revolution in safe mobility 

• Some say. full.ubiquity is almo$t.40 y

away~ but . the journey offers increa

benefits each and every year· 

• Once there, from Eisenhower to Ubiqu

lOOyears 

• 
40 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Strickland for 5 minutes. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. STRICKLAND 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity, and Ranking Member Schakowsky, nice to see you 

again. I am looking forward to working with you on this important 

legislation. 

I want to commend this committee for its efforts in taking a leadership in this important suite of bills. It is the first of its kind to 

address the major national legislative and policy challenges related 

to deploying self-driving vehicles and the coalition looks forward to 

working with this committee as this draft evolves. 

My name is David Strickland and I am a partner at Venable 

LLP. I am testifying here today as counsel to the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets. 

The coalition—which members include Ford Motor Company, 

Lyft, Uber, the Volvo Car Group, and Waymo—is focused on enabling the development and deployment of level 4 and level 5 fully 

self-driving vehicles. 

This cross-section of companies demonstrates the widespread interest in developing this technology across different sectors—technology, automobile, and transportation networking. 

Despite their different backgrounds, the companies came together to form the coalition because of their commitment to bring 

tremendous potential safety benefits of self-driving cars to consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible. 

The coalition believes that fully self-driving cars will play a key 

role in making our roads safer. The members have noted the importance of safety and the fact that we are going in the wrong direction. 

Not only did we lose 35,092 people in 2015, the trend line looks 

for 2016 it is going to get even higher, and as Ms. Dingell noted 

that 94 percent of these crashes have an element of human error. 

Self-driving vehicles have the ability to, frankly, cover those accidents. All of the variations of human error can be addressed by this 

technology, which is the reason why we think that it is so important to have this technology tested and deployed as quickly as we 

possibly can in the most safest manner possible. 

Self-driving vehicles also hold the promise to enhance mobility 

for the disabled and the elderly, reduce congestion and improve 

productivity. 

It would appear that the committee shares many of these goals, 

as demonstrated through the various bills under discussion today. 

I would like to take the opportunity to provide some comments and 

feedback on the discussion draft. 

First, we believe the LEAD’R Act is an important step in clarifying the appropriate Federal and State roles and responsibilities 

when it comes to fully self-driving vehicles. 

The Federal Government retains the authority to promulgate 

and enforce nationally uniform motor vehicle safety standards. We 

do not believe self-driving cars present a reason to deviate from 

that well-established precedent. 

41 

States should be discouraged from just creating a patchwork of 

inconsistent laws and regulations relating to such standards and 

have the potential to stifle this emerging industry. 

The LEAD’R Act would more clearly delineate the States continue to retain their traditional role in establishing and maintaining rules of the road, vehicle registration, traffic enforcement, and 

with respect to insurance while making it clear that it is the Federal Government’s exclusive authority to set the standards related 

to safety, performance, and the design of fully self-driving vehicles. 

We have suggestions, and we look forward to working with the 

committee to strengthen and bolster the technological neutrality of 

this language. 

I also want to highlight the collection of proposals related to the 

expanding vehicle exemptions to permit new safety features unique 

to fully self-driving vehicles—more specifically, the PAVE, ROAD, 

EXEMPT, and MORE Acts. 

Today, level 4 and 5 self-driving vehicles are subject to all of the 

criteria in the Federal safety standards, even though certain decades-old provisions were clearly designed with a human driver in 

mind. 

The numerical and temporal limitations on exemptions under 

current law present a concrete obstacle to achieve the goal of rapid, 

safe, and robust deployment necessary to attain the safety and mobility benefits we believe the fully self-driving vehicles promise. 

The coalition supports these four bills as they would expand 

NHTSA’s authority to permit a greater number of vehicles to be allowed on the road for testing and deployment of highway automated vehicles and because they would authorize exemptions for 

two well-intentioned purposes—first, to promote the public adoption and acceptance or facilitate meaningful commercial deployment of a new motor vehicle safety feature system, or two, to promote transportation access to individuals with disabilities. 

We think these two new purposes for exemptions, along with the 

requirement for equivalent safety, strike the right balance to encourage the safe innovation of level 4 and level 5 vehicles. 

While we suggest some wording changes such as using the same 

test for equivalent safety that presently applies to the safety features, we think that this is the right direction in terms of increasing innovation. 

While we appreciate the committee’s draft legislation all across 

a number of advisory councils, we believe it also too, making sure 

we thank the committee for its widespread and inclusion of a number of constituencies of stakeholders in this field that believe will 

have a great important ability to fuel, I guess, debate and a more 

thoughtful approach to the committee’s work. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. I am looking forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:] 

42 


32518.014

Testimony of: 

~~'\ SELF-DRIVING \~J"': C 0 A ll Tl 0 N ~£/"' fORSAHRSTREHS 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 

David L. Strickland 

Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets 

Partner, Venable LLP 

Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, good morning. It is an honor to appear before 

you today to discuss the future of fully self-driving cars. 

This Subcommittee now stands at the intersection of the digital economy, the internet of things, 

and consumer safety all matters we will discuss today. I want to commend the committee for 

its efforts in developing the self-driving vehicle discussion draft legislation that is the topic of 

today's hearing. This important suite of bills is the first of its kind to address the major national 

legislative and policy challenges related to deploying self-driving vehicles, and the Coalition I 

represent looks forward to working with the committee in refining the draft as we move through 

the legislative process. 

My name is David Strickland and I am a Partner at Venable LLP. I am testifying here today as 

Counsel to the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets. The Coalition, which was founded in 

April of last year by Ford Motor Company, Lyft, Uber, the Volvo Car Group, and Waymo 

(formerly Google's self-driving car project), is focused on enabling the development and 

deployment of Lcvel4 and Level 5 fully self-driving vehicles. 

This cross-section of companies demonstrates the widespread interest in developing this 

technology across different sectors-technology, automobile, and transportation networking. 

Despite their different backgrounds, the companies came together to form the Coalition because 

of their commitment to bring the tremendous potential safety benefits of self-driving cars to 

consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible. As examples of their efforts, Google's 

self-driving car project completed the world's first fully driverless ride on public roads in Austin 

in October 2015, Lyft has set itself a public goal that half the rides on its platform will be in a 

self-driving vehicles by 2021, and Ford intends to have a fully self-driving vehicle "for 

commercial application in mobility services in 2021." 
43 


32518.015

The Coalition believes fully self-driving vehicles will play a key role in making our roads safer 

and improving mobility. In 2015, 35,092 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes and 2.44 

million were injured. Early estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) from the first half of2016 suggests a 10.4 percent increase in roadway fatalities 

compared to the same time period last year. Since an estimated 94 percent of all crashes are the 

result of driver error, fully self-driving vehicles are very likely to significantly reduce fatal traffic 

crashes because they remove human error from the driving process entirely. Self-driving 

vehicles also hold the promise to enhance mobility for the disabled and elderly, reduce 

congestion, and improve productivity. 

It would appear that the committee shares many of these goals, as demonstrated through the 

various bills that arc under discussion today. I would like to take this opportunity to provide 

some comments and feedback on the discussion draft. 

First, we believe the LEAD'R Act is an important step in clarifying the appropriate federal and 

state roles and responsibilities when it comes to fully self-driving vehicles. The federal 

government retains the authority to promulgate and enforce nationally uniform motor vehicle 

safety standards. We do not believe self-driving cars present a reason to deviate from that well 

established precedent. States should be discouraged from creating a patchwork of inconsistent 

laws and regulations relating to such standards that have the potential to stifle this emerging 

industry. The LEAD'R Act would more clearly delineate that the states continue to retain their 

traditional role in establishing and maintaining the rules of the road, vehicle registration, traffic 

enforcement, and with respect to insurance, while making clear that it is the federal 

government's exclusive authority to set standards related to the safety, performance, and design 

of fully self-driving vehicles. We have some suggestions and look forward to working with the 

Committee to strengthen and bolster the technological neutrality of this language. 

I also want to highlight the collection of proposals related to expanding vehicle exemptions to 

pennit new safety features unique to fully self-driving vehicles -more specifically the PAVE, 

ROAD, EXEMPT, and MORE Acts. Today, Level4 and Level 5 fully self-driving cars are 

subject to all of the criteria in the federal safety standards, even though certain decades-old 

provisions were clearly designed with a human driver in mind. The numerical and temporal 

limitations on exemptions under current law present a concrete obstacle to achieve the goal of 

rapid, safe and robust deployment necessary to attain the safety and mobility benefits we believe 

fully self-driving vehicles promise. 

The Coalition supports these four bills as they would expand NHTSA's authority to permit a 

greater number of vehicles to be allowed on the road for testing and deployment of HA V s, and 

because they would authorize exemptions for two additional well intentioned purposes: (1) to 

promote the public adoption and acceptance, or facilitate meaningful commercial deployment of 

a new motor vehicle safety feature or system, or (2) to promote transportation access to 

individuals with disabilities. We think these two new purposes for exemptions, along with the 

requirement for equivalent safety, strike just the right balance to encourage the safety innovation 

of Level 4 and 5 vehicles. We will suggest some wording changes, such as using the same test 

for equivalent safety that present law applies to new safety features (see 49 U.S.C. 
44 


32518.016

§30113(b)(3)(B)(ii)). 

We appreciate that the Committee's draft legislation creates a number of advisory councils 

comprised of non-governmental experts to assist the Secretary and NHTSA in their 

considerations of self-driving vehicles and their societal impacts. As the Secretary and NHTSA 

endeavor to update the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, the agency will continue to benefit 

from the perspective of outside stakeholders, innovators, and members of the public that have 

expertise in this dynamic new market. We are encouraged by the Committee's recognition of the 

diverse relevant topics, but we also suggest the Committee consider consolidating the efforts into 

one advisory council (which could address each specific subject through sub-groups) for greater 

efficiency and to streamline and coordinate the advice provided. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee for its leadership on these important issues. The Coalition 

looks forward to serving as a resource concerning both technical and policy questions and 

working with you to make fully self-driving cars a reality. 
45 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Wallace, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. WALLACE 

Mr. WALLACE. Good morning, and thank you for the chance to 

testify. 

At the independent nonprofit Consumer Reports, experts at our 

auto test center have rigorously evaluated cars that can steer within a lane, adjust speed and brake automatically. 

Based on this work, we see the potential for self-driving vehicles 

to make our roads far safer. There is a smart safe path to realizing 

this promise that we encourage automakers, regulators and Congress to follow. 

Companies and policy makers should set a clear expectation. As 

highly automated vehicles improve mobility, these cars also must 

significantly improve safety for their occupants and others who 

share the road. 

Today, we urge the subcommittee to embrace both technological 

innovation and accountability. Innovation has brought about numerous practical and lifesaving features. But any accelerated deployment of automated vehicle systems should be evidence based 

and should include sensible and mandatory measures to protect 

consumers against new hazards that may emerge. 

First, with these principles in mind, we make several recommendations that are explained further in our written testimony. 

The first one is that exemptions from Federal safety standards for 

highly automated vehicles should be limited to equipment where a 

vehicle’s automated driving system can fully, effectively, and safely 

replace a human driver’s role. 

This would be consistent with NHTSA’s governing statute. Further, because any vehicle should provide sufficient protection in a 

crash, no exemption should be granted for crashworthiness or occupant protection. 

Congress also should direct NHTSA to define specific criteria 

that must be followed by both companies and the agency. This 

could help bring some light to exemptions and make them more 

data driven which could, in turn, enhance consumer confidence. It 

also could promote business certainty to define a more specific 

process for exemptions. 

Second, new measures should be in place for vehicles that have 

level 2 or 3 driving automation which can give consumers a dangerously false sense of security and increase the risk of driver inattention. 

Humans have a limited ability to return to driving and monitoring the roadway after having disengaged from those tasks. Accordingly, additional NHTSA research into human-machine interface should be fully funded. 

Disclosure to consumers about these vehicles should be improved 

and NHTSA should take a look at whether it would improve safety 

to set performance standards for emerging systems and monitor 

whether the driver is paying attention and is able to take the 

wheel when alerted. 

46 

Third, automakers should make their safety-related data public 

and share it with regulators in a timely manner. Right now, industry claims of the safety benefits of highly automated vehicles appear to be speculative or based on data held internally. Greater disclosure would help companies build trust in their products, which 

right now is lacking. 

For example, preliminary survey results released by MIT AgeLab 

in late May indicated that only 13 percent of respondents would be 

comfortable with a fully autonomous car, down 10 percentage 

points from the previous year. 

Fourth, preemption of State and local authority should be narrowly tailored and limited to areas where NHTSA has set strong 

Federal safety standards. 

It would be inappropriate to displace States’ authority to protect 

their citizens without also having strong Federal safety standards 

in place. 

But if the subcommittee does preempt the States, it should be 

with a far narrower provision that does not inhibit traditional approaches States have used to protect their citizens. 

Fifth, the FTC and NHTSA should be given the authority to 

jointly set baseline enforceable privacy and security standards for 

cars. A nationally representative Consumer Reports survey found 

last month that 70 percent of U.S. adults lack confidence that their 

personal data is private and safe from being shared without their 

knowledge and, as multiple Federal agencies have documented, a 

breach of car systems can come with a risk of deadly consequences. 

Consumers should know what data their car is collecting and 

who has access to this information and should be able to trust that 

companies are legally obligated to protect their privacy and security. 

Sixth, NHTSA’s research, enforcement, and other capabilities 

should be strengthened significantly for both increased funding and 

authority. 

NHTSA remains chronically under resourced and needs expanded funding and personnel as well as a greater practical ability 

to get unsafe cars off the road quickly. 

For the agency to be the kind of watchdog consumers deserve, 

Congress should give it the authority to take action without delay 

on defects that presents an imminent hazard as has been proposed 

in the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act. 

In conclusion, we see great safety potential in self-driving cars. 

But that promise should be realized by following a smart safe path 

like the one we propose today. 

As it continues its work, we stand ready to help the subcommittee ensure that these principles are upheld in the law. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallace follows:] 

47 


32518.017

Consumen Union~ 

POLICY & ACTION FROM 

CONSUMER REPORTS 

Statement of William C. Wallace, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

Tuesday, June 27,2017 
48 


32518.018

Summary 

• Self-driving cars have enormous potential to make our roads safer by significantly reducing 

crashes attributable to driver error. There is a smart, safe path to realizing this promise. 

• As highly automated vehicles reach market and improve mobility-including for seniors, 

underserved populations, and individuals with disabilities-companies and policymakers 

should set a clear expectation: these cars also must significantly improve safety. 

• It is not clear what the actual safety impacts will be as companies extensively introduce 

automated driving systems to our roads. This stands in contrast with proven advanced active 

safety systems, such as automatic emergency braking. 

• Automotive innovation is essential, and has brought about features with major benefits for 

consumer safety. But any accelerated deployment should be evidence-based and should 

include sensible, binding measures to protect consumers against any new hazards. 

• Our more detailed recommendations are: 

o Exemptions from federal safety standards for highly automated vehicles should be 

limited to equipment required exclusively for the driving task which may be fully 

replaced by automation, and granted only if backed by evidence provided through a 

publicly defined National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) process. No 

exemptions should be given for crash worthiness or occupant protection aspects of safety 

standards under these proposals. 

o Additional research, disclosure, and mitigation measures should be in place to protect 

consumers in vehicles that have Level 2 or 3 driving automation, which can provide a 

dangerously false sense of security, increasing the risk of driver inattention or error. 

o Automakers should make their safety-related data public and share it with regulators in a 

timely manner. 

o Preemption of state and local authority should be narrowly tailored and limited to areas 

where NHTSA has set strong federal standards. 

o The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and NHTSA should be given the authority to 

jointly set baseline, enforceable privacy and security standards. 

o NHTSA's capabilities should be strengthened significantly through increased funding 

and authority-not just for self-driving cars, but also so it can better save lives and 

prevent injuries due to chronic problems, like drunk and distracted driving, seatbelt nonusc, and automakers' failure to make the best new safety features standard on all vehicles. 

• !\s the Subcommittee crafts legislation, we stand ready to assist in its efforts to ensure auto 

safety and accountability. 
49 


32518.019

Testimony 

Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is William Wallace. I am the safety policy analyst for Consumers 

Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, an independent, nonprofit 

organization that works side by side with consumers to create a fairer, safer, and healthier 

world. 1 

At Consumer Reports, we consider it a responsibility and a privilege to work for safer 

cars. We push for policies that advance safety, and we help consumers make informed choices 

that help them stay safe on the road, through testing, journalism, survey research, advocacy, and 

consumer mobilization. 

We evaluate safety technologies every day at our Auto Test Center. The experts on our 

team are methodical and rigorous, testing about 60 vehicles per year and driving them a total of 

about 900,000 miles annually. They drive each vehicle Consumer Reports rates for 2,000 breakin miles before even starting formal testing, which includes more than 50 tests using state-of-theart tools. 

The safety features we evaluate range from scat belts and the fit of child car seats to 

driver-assistance technologies, which we have identified in more than a dozen models for sale in 

the United States. Our testers take cars that can steer within a lane, adjust speed, and brake 

automatically and assess them thoroughly. As more features hit the market, our testers will be 

carefully evaluating them for safety, and reporting our findings to consumers. 

Looking to the future, we see the potential for self-driving cars to make our roads safer 

1 As the world's largest independent product-testing organization, Consumer Reports uses its more than 50 labs, 

auto test center, and survey research center to rate thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936, 

Consumer Reports has over 7 million subscribers to its magazine, website, and other publications. 

2 
50 


32518.020

by significantly reducing crashes attributable to driver crror.2 There is a smart, safe path to 

realizing this promise, one which we encourage automakcrs, regulators, and Congress to follow. 

As highly automated vehicles reach the market and improve mobility for consumers, 

including seniors, underserved populations, and people with disabilities, companies and 

policymakers should set a clear expectation: these cars also must significantly improve safety. 

This means that they should meet all crashworthiness and occupant protection aspects ofF ederal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), while also demonstrating that enhanced driving 

automation further reduces deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes. At present, it is not 

clear what the actual safety impacts will be as companies extensively introduce automated 

driving systems to our roads. This stands in contrast with proven advanced active safety 

systems, 3 such as automatic emergency braking with forward collision warning. 

The advent of self-driving vehicles represents the single biggest change in the 

relationship between cars and their passengers since the invention of the motor vehicle itself. In 

considering legislation on driving automation, we urge members to embrace both technological 

ambition and accountability. Automotive innovation is essential, and has brought about 

numerous features with major benefits for consumer safety. But any accelerated deployment 

2 In this testimony, "self-driving cars" or "self-driving vehicles" refers to motor vehicles with Level 4 or Level 5 

driving automation, as defined by the standards-setting organization SAE International. These levels include only 

vehicles for which the automated driving system must be capable of performing not just the dynamic driving task 

but also the fallback function, as well as achieving a minimal risk condition, as defined by SAE International. ln 

other words, the system must perform the driving task even ifthe human driver does not respond appropriately to a 

request to intervene. Additionally-and once again in line with definitions established by SAE lnternational~~the 

term "automated driving system" refers to SAE Level 3, 4, or 5 vehicles. Just as the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the discussion drafts refer to them, we usc "highly automated vehicles" in this 

testimony to refer to motor vehicles equipped with an automated driving system. Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice, SAE J30 16, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Automated Driving Systems, issued January 

2014, revised September 2016 (hereinafter, "SAE J30 16 _ 201609") . The term "car" refers to any motor vehicle, 

except a commercial motor vehicle, as those terms are defined in Subtitle VI of Title 49, United States Code. 

3 Per SAE International, "active safety systems" are "vehicle systems that sense and monitor conditions inside and 

outside the vehicle for the purpose of identifying perceived present and potential dangers to the vehicle, occupants, 

and/or other road users, and automatically intervene to help avoid or mitigate potential collisions via various 

methods, including alerts to the driver, vehicle system adjustments, and/or active control of the vehicle subsystems 

(brakes, throttle, suspension, etc.)." SAE J3016_201609 at 3. 

3 
51 


32518.021

should be evidence-based--requiring manufacturers to demonstrate how highly automated 

vehicles improve safety-and should include sensible, binding measures to protect consumers 

against new hazards that may emerge. 

With these principles in mind, we make the following more detailed recommendations 

related to the draft bills that are the subject of the hearing: 

• Exemptions from federal safety standards for highly automated vehicles should be 

limited to equipment required exclusively for the driving task, such as steering, braking, 

and mirrors, which may be fully replaced by automation, and granted only if backed by 

evidence provided through a publicly defined National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) process. No exemptions should be given for crashworthiness or 

occupant protection aspects of federal safety standards under these proposals. 

• Additional research, disclosure, and mitigation measures should be in place to protect 

consumers in vehicles that have Level 2 or 3 driving automation, which can provide a 

dangerously false sense of security, increasing the risk of driver inattention or error. 

• Automakers should make their safety-related data public and share it with regulators in a 

timely manner. 

• Preemption of state and local authority should be narrowly tailored and limited to areas 

where NHTSA has set strong federal standards. 

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and NHTSA should be given the authority to 

jointly set baseline, enforceable privacy and security standards. 

• NHTSA's research, enforcement, and other capabilities should be strengthened 

significantly through both increased funding and authority. 

4 
52 


32518.022

First, exemptions from federal safety standards for highly automated vehicles 

should be limited to equipment required exclusively for the driving task, such as steering, 

braking, and mirrors, which may be fully replaced by automation, and granted only if 

backed by the evidence provided through a publicly defined NHTSA process. No 

exemptions should be given for crashworthiness or occupant protection aspects of federal 

safety standards under these proposals. 

Collectively, several of the draft bills would greatly expand the ability ofNHTSA to 

grant exemptions from FMVSS for highly automated vehicles. NHTSA's governing statute 

requires, among other things, that the agency may grant only those exemptions that arc 

"consistent with the public interest" and with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, whose overarching purpose 

is "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents."4 To 

comply with these requirements, exemptions should be limited to equipment where the sensors 

or actuators of a vehicle's automated driving system can fully, effectively, and safely replace a 

human driver's observations or actions related to a particular driving task or FMVSS. Only under 

such circumstances could the vehicle's manufacturer show that it is not necessary for the vehicle 

to meet a federal performance standard for a part of the car has been replaced because the human 

driver never needs to use it. 5 Because a vehicle should provide crash protection regardless of 

whether it is driven by a human driver or automated system-and because exemptions must be 

consistent with the pub! ic interest-no exemptions should be provided for equipment required 

for crashworthiness or occupant protection. 

In the current versions of the draft bills, it is unclear what statistics or analyses support 

4 49 U.S.C. §§ 30101 and 30113. 

5 For this reason, we are skeptical that there are any appropriate automation-related FMVSS exemptions that could 

be granted to vehicles with driving automation systems of only Level 3 or lower, since these cars require fallback 

perfonnance by a human driver. 

5 
53 


32518.023

the dramatic expansion of exemptions available for highly automated vehicles. In particular, no 

specific safety-related justification has been presented for increasing the maximum annual 

number of a manufacturer's exempted vehicles from 2,500 to 100,000, for increasing the time 

period of exemptions from two years to five years, or for determining that it is necessarily 

consistent with motor vehicle safety and the public interest for NHTSA to grant exemptions with 

the goal to "promote the public adoption and acceptance or facilitate meaningful commercial 

deployment of a new motor vehicle safety feature or system." 

To determine appropriate statistical backing and whether exemptions truly are justified 

by the body of the evidence, Congress should direct NHTSA to define a specific process and 

criteria for granting exemptions using official notice-and-comment procedure. This process and 

criteria should be followed by manufacturers in seeking exemptions, and by the agency in 

determining whether to grant them. Asking NHTSA to develop a formalized process would not 

only make the agency's review of exemptions more robust, but also ensure that highly automated 

vehicles only receive exemptions from FMVSS appropriately, when they would not risk the 

protection to consumers that the relevant standards are intended to provide. Such a process likely 

also would enhance consumer confidence in the safety of any exempted vehicles, and promote 

business certainty compared to an exemption process that operates entirely on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Second, additional research, disclosure, and mitigation measures should be in place 

to protect consumers in vehicles that have Level2 or 3 driving automation, which can 

provide a dangerously false sense of security, increasing the risk of driver inattention or 

error. Based on Consumer Reports' first-hand experience testing cars with advanced driver6 
54 


32518.024

assistance systems, we are very concerned that the significant potential for driver confusion over 

automated driving system capabilities will lead to crashes, particularly of cars with the SAE 

International Level 2 and Level 3 driving automation systems whose capabilities can most 

readily be overstated by the automaker or overestimated by the driver. In these vehicles, it may 

seem to consumers that the car can drive itself, when in reality these consumers need to be 

prepared to take over the controls at a moment's notice, always keeping their eyes on the road 

and their hands on the wheel. By contrast, Level 4 and 5 vehicles must perform the driving task 

even if the human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene. 

In Level 2 and 3 vehicles, we are particularly concerned about safety issues related to 

human-machine interface (HMI), which is the combination of hardware and software that allows 

a human to interact with a machine to perform a task.6 NHTSA, too, has taken seriously the need 

to better understand how HMI factors affect safety. The agency has noted that drivers' ability to 

return to the task of monitoring and driving is limited by humans' capacity for staying alert and 

re-engaging after having disengaged their attention, and that it may be appropriate for companies 

to consider incorporating driver engagement and responsiveness monitoring in the vehicles and 

stepping up consumer education and training related to HMI factors. 7 We agree with these 

recommendations; however, we understand that the agency proposed significant additional 

research into HMI that has yet to be funded. 8 This research is an urgent necessity for NIITSA so 

that it can better understand HMI-related safety issues and propose steps necessary to protect 

safety-including any possible performance requirements for driver monitoring. We urge the 

6 NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy at 84 (Sept. 20, 2016) (online at one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa!av/pdf/Federal 

f.gtgmated Vehi_cles Policv.pdD. 

7 ld at 22-24. 

8 See. e.g. NHTSA, Budget Estimates- Fiscal Year 2017 (Feb. 2016) (online at \Vww.nhtsa.uov/staticfilesl 

administrationipdf1Budgets1FY20 17-NHTSA CBJ FINAL 02 20 !6.pdD. 

7 
55 


32518.025

Subcommittee to push for additional funds for this research, and to direct NHTSA to seek 

preventive solutions. 

We also urge the Subcommittee to improve disclosure regarding vehicles with Level 2 

automated driving systems. One of the draft bills, the DECAL Act, is a sensible proposal that 

would help prospective buyers better understand highly automated vehicles as long as the 

information provided on the Monroney label clearly and simply explains the car's capabilities. 

This bill's disclosure coverage should be extended to Level 2 vehicles so that consumers 

interested in those cars-which are becoming increasingly available-can readily understand 

what types of driving tasks those cars are capable of doing, and what they are not capable of 

doing. 

Third, automakers should make their safety-related data public and share it with 

regulators in a timely manner. Right now, auto industry claims of the safety benefits of highly 

automated vehicles appear to be speculative or based on data held internally by the companies. 

Regulators and consumers should know the basis that companies use to determine: ( l) that an 

automated driving system is safe; and (2) that it can provide added safety benefits-especially if 

any exemptions to FMVSS are to be granted. 

This kind of disclosure, and process, would help companies build trust in their products, 

which right now is lacking, according to recent research by MIT and others. For example, 

preliminary survey results released by MIT Age Lab in late May indicated that only 13% of 

respondents would be comfortable with a fully autonomous car, which represented more than a 

ten percentage point drop from a similar survey the previous year. The researchers pointed out 

8 
56 


32518.026

that the declining trust in automation was particularly notable among younger respondents.9 

One possible mechanism for the public release of safety information could come through 

companies' submissions to NHTSA of safety assessment letters, which represent a key 

component of the agency's September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy guidance. Under 

that guidance, the letters represent one of the primary ways for NHTSA and the public to assess 

how entities developing and testing highly automated vehicles are addressing safety. 10 However, 

at the time this guidance was released, we were concerned that companies would choose to 

submit only the bare minimum of infonnation to NHTSA-which would be of little use to 

consumers and would not necessarily provide the agency with the robust data it needs to 

independently assess the safety of highly automated vehicles. 11 We encouraged the agency to 

ensure sufficiently robust responses and prevent entities from simply "checking the boxes." As 

current leaders at the Department of Transportation consider how to proceed with the Federal 

Automated Vehicles Policy, we urge Congress to prioritize legislative provisions that would help 

NHTSA receive and make public all of the information needed to protect consumers and provide 

transparency about the basis for automaker claims and NHTSA decisions. 

Additionally, we encourage caution on what information related to highly automated 

vehicles must be kept confidential by NHTSA. While NHTSA certainly should protect true trade 

secrets, as well as personally identifiable information, we urge members to ensure that provisions 

on the treatment of confidential business information do not inhibit the release of information 

that could keep consumers safe from a hazard that may emerge in an automated driving system. 

9 H. Abraham, et aL, "Consumer Interest in Automation: Preliminary Observations Exploring a Year's Change" at 6 

(Figure 4), White Paper (2017-2), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AgeLab (May 25, 2017) (online at 

agelab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MIT%20-%20NEMPA %20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdD. 

10 NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy at 15-16, supra. 

11 The NHTSA guidance asks entities that create automated driving systems to show how they have accounted for a 

number of key factors inherent to the safety of these systems, but does not currently specify what level of detail the 

entities should include or what additional data should be submitted to the agency. !d. 

9 
57 


32518.027

Fourth, preemption of state and local authority should be narrowly tailored and 

limited to areas where NHTSA has set strong federal standards. While it is appropriate to 

clearly delineate federal and state roles in regulating automated vehicles, we caution against 

going too far in the name of avoiding a "patchwork." It would be inappropriate to preempt states' 

authority to protect their citizens without strong federal safety standards in place. However, 

states that do not have the technical expertise ofNHTSA should certainly consult extensively 

with the agency. 

If the Subcommittee does advance legislation to preempt the states, which we do not 

support, we would at the very least urge members to narrow the provision substantially so that it 

does not prevent states from protecting their citizens in ways states traditionally have done. For 

instance, in keeping with states' traditional role overseeing whether a vehicle's operation is safe 

enough for public roads, we have called for states nationwide to prohibit the operation of 

vehicles' automated driving systems if needed equipment such as sensors or critical safety 

control systems have been significantly damaged and not repaired. It is unclear, from the 

extremely broad language of the preemption provision in the current draft of the LEAD'R Act, 

whether laws such as these could take effect under that bill. 

Fifth, the FTC and NHTSA should be given the authority to jointly set baseline, 

enforceable privacy and security standards for cars. Motor vehicles are increasingly 

networked, with today's cars having upward of70 to 100 electronic control units and potentially 

containing as much as I 00 million lines of software code--significantly more than a new 

10 
58 


32518.028

passenger airplane. 12 Further, motor vehicles are increasingly able to send and receive 

information via cellular, wireless internet, short-range, and other communications technologies. 

Given consumers' understandable concerns over the privacy of their data, 13 and the seriousness 

of vehicle data security risks, 14 lawmakers should direct the FTC and NHTSA to jointly develop 

binding minimum privacy and data security standards tor manufacturers of vehicles and 

equipment. 

Today's cars can pose privacy issues and security vulnerabilities just as a computer or a 

mobile device can. 15 Consumers have deep concerns about how their information is collected and 

used, with a nationally representative Consumer Reports survey finding last month that 70% of 

U.S. adults lack confidence that their personal data is private and safe from distribution without 

their knowlcdge. 16 We also have found that large percentages of Americans act on their 

concerns, taking specific steps to prevent their information from security breaches. 17 Moreover, 

unlike some connected products, a breach of safety-critical vehicle systems comes with serious 

Government Accountability Office, "Vehicle Cybersccurity: DOT and Industry Have Efforts Under Way, but 

DOT Needs to Define Its Role in Responding to a Real-World Attack" at 7-8 (Mar. 2016) (online at =\Y,g;!Q.gQy/ 

assets/680/676064.pd!) (GA0-16-350). 

13 See. e.g. "Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data," Consumer Reports (May 18, 2017) 

(on i inc at www .consumerreports.org/privacy/arnericans-want-more-say-in-privacy-of-personal-data). 

14 See, e.g, GA0-16-350, supra; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Transportation, and NHTSA, 

"Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable to Remote Exploits" (Mar. 17, 20 16) (online at www.ic3 .gov/media/20 16/ 

160317.aspx); Staff of U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey, Tracking & Hacking: Security and Privacy Gaps Put American 

DriFers at Risk (Feb. 9, 2015) (online at www.markey.senate.gov/imo/medialdoc/2015-02-06 Markey ReportTracking Hacking CarSeeurity%202.pdf. 

15 In March 20 17, Consumer Reports announced the launch of a collaborative effort to create a digital privacy and 

security standard for consumers. The standard, available at TheDigitillS_tandard.org, will help guide companies in the 

design of mobile and internet-connected products and services, including cars, and empower consumers by enabling 

independent testing and reporting on whether products protect the privacy and security of their personal data. 

·'Consumer Reports to Begin Evaluating Products, Services for Privacy and Data Security," Consumer Reports 

(Mar. 6, 2017) (online at www.consumerrcports.org/privacv/consumer-reports-to-begin-evaluating-productsservices-for-privacy-and-data-security). 

16 "Americans Want More Say in the Privacy of Personal Data," Consumer Reports, supra; see also, e.g., "Are You 

Scared Your future Self-Driving Car Will Get Hacked," Fast Company (Feb. 22, 2017) (online at 

www. fastcomp;my som/306 80 51 /are-you-seared-your-future-sel f:driv i ng-car-wi 11-get-hacked). 

17 Consumer Reports, "Consumer Reports Takes On Privacy, Recommends 66 Ways to Prevent Hackers and 

Companies From Capturing Your Data" {release) (Sept. 20, 2016) (online at www.consumerreports.org/mediaroom/press-releases/20 16/09/ onsumer -reports-takes-on-privacy--recommends-66-ways-to-prevent-). 

II 
59 


32518.029

risks that can be associated with life-or-death consequcnces. 18 Appropriately, Nl!TSA has 

recognized the protection of data security as a critical element of motor vehicle safety. 

Consumers should be able to know what data their car is collecting and transmitting, and 

who has access to this information. They should be able to trust that companies are legally 

obligated to protect their privacy and the security of their data. This trust is important not just for 

consumers themselves, but also for the broader acceptance and successful deployment of active 

safety and automated driving systems across the marketplace. Therefore, consumer privacy and 

data security standards for motor vehicles are too important to be left to voluntary measures 

alone, and instead, they should be binding and enforceable, and should apply to all motor 

vehicles, not just highly automated vehicles. At the same time, these standards should allow for 

appropriate access to safety-related data, including data available beyond an event data recorder, 

by crash and defect investigators in the event of a crash. 

The MEMO Act, one of the draft bills under consideration, proposes to address privacy 

and security issues by requiring the FTC and NHTSA to enter into a memorandum of 

understanding on the regulation and oversight of highly automated vehicles with respect to 

privacy and data security. While we support the Subcommittee's attention to consumer privacy 

regulation, we disagree with the approach taken in the draft bill. The MEMO Act focuses on 

limiting overlap and duplication, rather than focusing on which privacy and data security 

standards would give car consumers the strongest protection and most meaningful choices about 

their personal data. 

We urge the Subcommittee to direct the FTC and NHTSA to work jointly on mandatory 

rules. The legal authorities of the FTC and NHTSA are separate, with very different purposes, 

18 See, e.g .. "One in Five Vehicle Vulnerabilities arc 'Hair on Fire' Critical," Security Ledger (Aug. II, 2016) 

(online at security ledger .com/20 16/08/one-in-ft ve-vehicle-vulnerabilities-are-hair-on-fire-critical). 

12 
60 


32518.030

and the agencies have different areas of expertise. The agencies should share oversight where 

appropriate for the oversight of privacy and data security in cars. 

Sixth, NHTSA's research, enforcement, and other capabilities should be 

strengthened significantly through both increased funding and authority. NHTSA remains 

chronically under-resourced, both in budget and in staffing. So that it can support the safe and 

responsible advancement of automated technologies, NHTSA needs expanded funding and 

personnel. The agency already has a backlog of research needed to independently and thoroughly 

assess the safety of automated driving systems and the manner in which drivers interact with 

these new features. 19 However, if the draft bills require NHTSA to complete additional tasks 

without additional funding or personnel, these and other important efforts (such as addressing 

critical safety issues around behavioral safety risks, crashworthiness, and occupant protection) 

would likely continue to stall. 

With regard to NHTSA's legal authority, the agency made clear in a September 2016 

Enforcement Guidance Bulletin that it has the authority to deem reasonably foreseeable 

automated system risks to be safety-related defects.20 But the agency's practical ability to get 

unsafe cars off the road quickly is limited. For the agency to be the kind of watchdog consumers 

deserve, Congress should give it the authority to take immediate action on defects that present an 

imminent hazard, or those that substantially increase the likelihood of serious injury or death. 

The Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission already possess 

this type of authority, and it has been included in the proposed Vehicle Safety Improvement Act 

19 As recently as last year, the agency sought additional funding and staff for this research. See. e.g., NHTSA, 

Budget Estimates- Fiscal Year 2017 at 30, supra. 

20 ClHTSA, NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Automated Safety 

Technologies, 81 Fed. Reg. 65705 (Sept. 23, 2016). 

13 
61 


32518.031

as introduced in each of the past two Congresses. 21 We also previously called for the agency to 

receive more detailed information from manufacturers in order to create a more useful Early 

Warning Reporting program, as well as for increased civil fines authority and a criminal 

penalties provision to be enacted to deter executives from hiding defects.22 

Finally, while the potential safety benefits of partly and fully self-driving cars are 

significant, it still will take some time for all vehicles on the road to benefit from the technology. 

As a result, additional funding, personnel, and authority for NHTSA would enable the agency to 

more etTectively work to save lives and prevent injuries to vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists due to chronic problems like drunk and distracted driving, lack of seatbelt use, and the 

failure ofautomakcrs to make the best new safety technologies standard on all of their vehicles. 

Lastly, \Ve have several recommendations about additional priority issues. These 

include: 

• The proposed federal advisory committees should have broader representation, and 

come with new resources for NHTSA, if they are to be established. It is appropriate 

for NHTSA to receive and carefully consider input from key stakeholders on issues 

related to driving automation and individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, 

underserved populations, data security, and the sharing of information about on-road 

testing of vehicles. For each of these issues, the agency also should receive and carefully 

consider input from safety and consumer representatives as well as local and state 

21 See, e.g., NHTSA, GROW AMERICA Act at 183 (Apr, 7, 2015) (online at www.transportation.gov/sites/dotgov/ 

files/docs/GROW AMERICA Act I .pd0 and NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy at 75, supra; H.R. 

1181 (ll4'h Cong.). 

22 See. e.g, Testimony of Consumers Union to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, "Legislative Hearing on VIN Database and Auto Whistleblower Bills" 

(Sept. 25, 2015) (online at docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IFI7/20150925/l03982/HHRG-114-IF17-WstateWallaceW-20 150925.pd0. 

14 
62 


32518.032

officials. In addition, because federal advisory committees come with costs and staff 

commitments, any establishment of such a committee should come with an appropriate 

amount of additional resources and personnel for NHTSA. 

• If Congress decides to extend the ability to test noncompliant vehicles to entities 

beyond automakers, it should ensure NHTSA has the authority to determine how, 

and to what extent, such testing can be carried out safely. A significant portion of 

safety innovation in the automotive space comes from suppliers, universities, and others 

who create new motor vehicle equipment. However, the testing of automated driving 

systems by those other than motor vehicle manufacturers comes with unique 

complexities. Accordingly, if Congress is to extend the allowable testing of vehicles not 

compliant with FMVSS to equipment manufacturers, then it should also direct NHTSA 

and companies to explain how the equipment will be integrated safely into the broader 

vehicle system developed by another company. 

• The Subcommittee should consider the future of federal vehicle safety standards. In 

addition to crash protection and crash prevention, vehicle safety rules also should account 

for the process of developing electronic systems. Specifically, given the immense 

quantity of software and electronics systems in vehicles with some form of driving 

automation, we urge members to consider the merits of a functional safety standard. 23 

NHTSA traditionally has issued standards for individual components, but there is 

currently no clear way to establish performance standards for software that must be able 

to work reliably in almost an infinite number of circumstances. 

23 Functional safety is a process to ensure that the system, as a whole, operates correctly and safely in response to 

inputs, errors, and failures. The Subcommittee could, for instance, direct NHTSA to base a new rule on the existing 

international voluntary standard for functional safety of electrical and/or electronic systems in production 

automobiles, ISO 26262. 

15 
63 


32518.033

Conclusion 

We see great safety potential in self-driving cars, but that promise will only be realized 

by following a smart, safe path. Policymakcrs should set a clear expectation that highly 

automated vehicles must significantly improve safety, in addition to providing mobility and other 

benefits to the public. We urge Congress to embrace both technological ambition and 

accountability, including by requiring sensible, enforceable, evidence-based measures to protect 

consumers against new hazards that may emerge. As it continues to work on the draft legislation, 

we stand ready to help the Subcommittee ensure that these principles are upheld in the law. 

16 
64 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN B. MORRISON 

Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My written statement explains the general principles I believe 

should be applied to this area but now I want to take a lawyer’s 

role and go over the bills that are before this committee. 

It is necessary because the other witnesses, neither in their written statements or in their oral statements, have gone through in 

detail and I think it is very important to understand exactly what 

kind of major changes these proposed laws would make. 

Part of the problem is that each one of these draft bills is a small 

piece of the problem and they are not all put together in the staff 

memorandum or anyplace else. 

As I read them, these would enact major changes in the laws. 

There would be less safety and more preemption, and it is all in 

the name of technological advances, which is wholly unnecessary to 

full testing, and that is my first point. 

There is no law change now to enable NHTSA to get out of the 

way of testing. There is a specific exemption in the law now, 

30112(b)(10), which specifically says that the general prohibition of 

putting vehicles on the road without approval does not apply and 

therefore there is nothing standing in the way right now of all 

these vehicles being tested. The question is what else is going to 

happen. 

Now, I would point out that under my reading of the current preemption statute that States are permitted to regulate testing largely because NHTSA has no rules on testing. 

The testing provision makes it not applicable. It doesn’t mean 

that it is complying with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. 

But what’s most significant is that the LEAD’R bill will vastly 

expand the exemption from State regulation at all. Under current 

law there has to be a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in 

order for there to be preemption. 

That has changed under the LEAD’R bill. The LEAD’R bill provides that States cannot do anything unless they are doing something which is identical to what NHTSA has done. 

Since NHTSA has done nothing and has no immediate intention 

of doing nothing, that means that under this bill, no matter how 

little NHTSA does, the States can’t do anything. That’s very important and it is a major change in the law, and we are talking only 

about testing. 

Now, the second thing I want to talk about is the exemptions. 

These exemptions are not necessary for testing. They are necessary 

for deployment. Deployment means that anyone—you or I or the 

car rental companies or anyone in the country—can drive one of 

these vehicles under one of the exemptions. Testing means that 

only the car companies—the owners, the operators, and the people 

they contract with who are specially trained—are allowed to do 

this. 

65 

So there is a big difference between deployment and testing and 

this exemption would apply to deployment. And let me tell you how 

broad this exemption is. 

It would go from 2,500 vehicles a year to 10,000 vehicles in a 12- 

month period for every single manufacturer of these vehicles and 

I believe there are 30-something companies. 

If my math is right, you multiply 30 times 100,000 per year and 

you get an idea of how much this exemption is going to allow these 

vehicles to be on the road with no NHTSA supervision whatsoever. 

Moreover, the process by which these exemptions is granted is 

going to be completely ineffective. The question before the agency 

will be is there an equivalent level of safety. 

That is a very difficult question to answer for vehicles that have 

never been tested, which have totally new features, which don’t 

have brake pedals, steering wheels, accelerators, which assume 

that the driver is going to be in the car. 

Moreover, what NHTSA is going to be able to do is to say that 

none of this information that the auto companies are submitting 

can be seen by State regulators, the public, by members of this 

committee or anybody else because it is all confidential business information. 

Now, that means there is going to be no one guarding the 

guards. No one’s going to be checking to see that what NHTSA 

does is going to assure the safety of these vehicles. 

I want to be clear. I am not opposed to these vehicles. I am not 

opposed to testing. But we need somebody to look at this material 

besides just NHTSA and the auto companies. There is a big problem of trust now in this industry and I don’t think that the driving 

public, the pedestrians and everyone else in the world is going to 

be satisfied by saying it is all OK, NHTSA is taking care of it when 

we know that it is not doing anything and leaving it to all of the 

companies that have their own economic interest in doing this. 

Now, the bottom line for me is that when you work through the 

maze, and it is a maze of these rules, there is no requirement for 

new Federal regulation. None. 

Second, there is much greater preemption of State law. Third, 

there is much broader deployment, not testing exemptions. 

Fourth, there is no clear standards for granting the exemption, 

and fifth, almost total secrecy for the industry in submitting their 

test data and other information that is so necessary. 

So I want to ask this question. Is this what your constituents 

want? Do you think that this will engender public trust? I don’t. 

I think there is a way forward but these bills are not it. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:] 

66 


32518.034

STATEMENT OF ALAN B. MORRISON 

BEFORE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & COMMERCE 

UNITED STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

ON SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION 

JUNE27,2017 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear here today to discuss the legal and policy issues 

related to the testing and eventual deployment of highly automated vehicles (HAYs) also known 

as driverless cars. I am the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service 

Law at George Washington University Law School, where I also teach civil procedure and 

constitutional law. For most of my career I was the director of the Public Citizen Litigation 

Group, which I co-founded with Ralph Nader in 1972. In that capacity, and continuing to date, I 

have been involved in a wide range of litigation and related administrative proceedings, 

including, but by no means limited to, those of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), the federal agency charged with assuring vehicle safety in the United 

States. My work has also involved issues of preemption, which are very much part of the debate 

over how to assure the safety of driverless ears, while also not unduly standing in the way of 

innovation. I am submitting a copy of my resume for the record. 

Until six months ago, I knew very little about these issues, but then I was asked to 

organize and moderate a conference on the legal landscape surrounding driverless vehicles. The 

conference was held on June 14,2017, and I am submitting a copy of the program with this 

statement. A video of the day's program is now on the GW Law School website, and it can be 
67 


32518.035

accessed at https://www.law.gwu.edu/driverless-cars-legal-landscape. 1 As my background 

makes clear, I am not an engineer or a safety expert, nor do I have any detailed knowledge of the 

specifics of the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that NHTSA has 

issued. However, after working on these issues and running the conference, l think I have a solid 

understanding of the questions that need to be addressed by policy makers. I would also add that 

I do not have answers to most of them, although I do have some ideas as to where policymakers 

should and should not go. 

Before turning to the issues relating to self-driving or driverless cars, I want to make a 

related point: driverless cars will require good roads, with freshly painted lines and fewer 

potholes and other obstructions. That means more infrastructure funding and continued 

maintenance. Perhaps it goes without saying, but I will say it anyway. There are many 

proposals before NHTSA that would enhance the safety of current vehicles (as well as driverless 

versions) and that are not receiving the attention they deserve. The focus on driverless cars and 

their potential for saving lives and money is not a green light to abandon all other safety related 

rules that NHTSA could issue now without any changes in its governing statutes. 

If I can deliver one thought to you today, it is that these issues are extremely complicated 

and implicate interrelated legal, policy, and technical considerations. Significant choices will 

have to be made, and so simply telling NHTSA to do what is needed to bring on safe driverless 

cars will not suffice. More specific directions are needed. Let me illustrate. 

The industry, regulators, and consumer safety advocates agree that the focus now should 

be on the testing of these vehicles in real world conditions. To be clear, I define the testing 

1 There are separate videos for each panel and for Ralph Nader's remarks. 

2 
68 


32518.036

phase, and any exemptions from it, to be limited to vehicles being operated (controlled/driven) 

by employees (agents/contractors) of the manufacturer, but not by the general public or even 

entities such as Uber & Lyft or car rental companies. Some automated safety features are now 

being installed in cars sold to the public, but those in vehicles coming within SAE categories 3, 4 

& 5 should be regulated as test vehicles phase and should not be available to the public for some 

time. Some of the draft bills would allow large numbers of vehicles to be deployed outside their 

testing by manufacturers, and that should not be permitted. 

Assuming a properly limited test phase, one question is whether there should be any 

regulation of the testing phase, or is society willing to allow manufacturers, including but not 

limited to traditional auto makers, to test these advanced HA Vs with no check except the power 

ofNHTSA to recall unsafe vehicles from the highways. As the Committee may know, 

California has enacted a law requiring its DMV to regulate driverless cars, and its DMV has 

proposed new more detailed rules for the testing of cars (but not vehicles over 10,000 pounds). 

Other States, concerned about the safety of their highways, may pass different laws, with 

different requirements. The proposed California rules make reference to NHTSA guidance and 

possible exemptions, but it is very unclear how that will operate in practice. 

As the Committee is aware, ifNTHSA has issued an FMVSS on a given aspect of vehicle 

safety, states are precluded (preempted) from issuing a different standard. There are no federal 

standards for many of the features designed for SAE's 3-5, but there are standards--- such as 

those requiring a steering wheel, foot brakes, and an accelerator pedal that arc inconsistent with 

how vehicles in categories 4 & 5 would be configured. Thus, at the very least, even in the testing 

phase, NHTSA has to do something if tests arc to go forward, as they clearly must so that the 

public has some assurances regarding the safety of these vehicles. States may be able to 

3 
69 


32518.037

supplement what NHTSA has done in areas where there is no FMYSS, but where there is none, 

NHTSA must act one way or another. 

One or two of the draft bills included provisions for exemptions, but there appear to be no 

meaningful standards by which NHTSA can grant or deny an exemption. lfthere are to be 

exemptions, Congress or NHTSA must supply a standard, which is likely to be a challenging 

task since NHTSA does not appear to be ready even to propose FMYSS for any aspect of 

driverless cars. Plainly, there will be some risks from testing HAYs, but how much should be 

tolerated, and who will make the judgment about the level of such risk- and be held accountable 

for the harms that inevitably ensue- are open questions. 

Even if there is agreement on the standard for approval of testing, or an exemption from 

an existing FMYSS, is NHTSA able to oversee the implementation of the testing? One 

significant problem is that there will be many different models and features because the 

manufacturers are not all taking the same approaches and offering the same innovations. Docs 

NIITSA have the personnel and the field offices to oversee the testing phase, or should it 

deputize willing States to do that on its behalf for vehicles being tested within their borders? 

There is another important open question regarding the testing phase: should localities 

have any power to say, "Not in my backyard," or even just, "Not in that part of town where the 

schools are, or during these hours"? In the alternative, might localities require test vehicles to 

carry special warnings, or simply require notification when HAYs are being tested in a locality? 

In the first instance, that may be a matter of state law, but it also may be a matter over which 

Congress or NHTSA has or should have control. 

4 
70 


32518.038

Staying within the testing phase, although some of these issues will remain significant 

once deployment begins, there is the broad issue of federal preemption. There is no question that 

once Congress, or a federal agency, affirmatively acts on particular matter, States can be 

precluded from issuing a different rule. But one of the draft bills appeared to be a broad 

preemption provision, but with no federal action needed to support it. I know of no law in which 

Congress has attempted to preclude States from acting when neither it nor any federal agency has 

taken any action in that subject area. To be sure, there will always be questions about how much 

overlap there is between what the Federal Government has done and what the State wants to do, 

but that always assumes some federal action to support preemption. 

An essential part of the testing phase is the gathering of data and its analysis. One draft 

bill that provided that any testing information (broadly defined) that was submitted to NHTSA 

was automatically exempt from disclosure under the Freedom ofinformation Act. As drafted, 

that restriction would not apply to submissions to state agencies, but there is a more fundamental 

objection to it. Federal regulators, with their limited budgets, will have serious difficulties 

reviewing all the data that comes to them. In addition, more eyes and brains focusing on 

accident and other performance data make it more likely that problems can be identified as early 

as possible. Last, in my admittedly limited discussions with others and from articles I have read, 

as well as surveys reported by the Auto Alliance, there is a considerable portion of the 

population that is very afraid of driverless cars and wants to stay as far away from them as 

possible. Many of those individuals may be willing to re-consider their positions, but if they 

learn that only NHTSA and the manufacturers will have access to the crash data and the reports 

of when the self-driving mechanisms require human intervention, their worst suspicions will be 

confirmed. In the end, the perception of safety is likely to be as important as the reality if 

5 
71 


32518.039

driverless cars are to penetrate the market and be acceptable to the population at large. There 

may be some legitimately confidential business information in some submissions to NHTSA, but 

not everything falls into that category. 

Another draft bill dealt with both data privacy and cybersecurity. It would require 

NHTSA and the Federal Trade Commission to enter an agreement as to how those issues would 

be handled for HAYs. These are very important areas of concern, but I have my doubts that 

NHTSA should have any role in either, other than to implement what either Congress or another 

agency has mandated. On data privacy, the FTC should be given express authority to issue rules, 

to be implemented by NHTSA, on how to protect the vast amount of information that will be 

have to be collected by HAYs to perform their basic functions of getting from one place to 

another. Because there will be so much communication among HAYs, and between HAYs and 

the sources from which they take directions, the problems of assuring data privacy, in the actual 

operation of HAYS, is even more complicated than are the privacy problems we face today. 

On the cybersecurity side, there are real dangers from hacking not only to individual 

vehicles and those in proximity with them, but to transportation within a city because hackers 

have the capability to disable all of a particular make of vehicle in a particular area, like 

Manhattan, and bring all of those vehicle to an instant stop. I cannot begin to explain or even 

understand all of the potential dangers, but experts make clear that the problems are very real and 

very dangerous. Plainly, NHTSA is not up to the task, especially because, like protecting data 

privacy,,cybersecurity measures are always in need of updating. I do not know which agency or 

agencies should be brought it to perform a function like that the FTC will take on for data 

privacy, but surely NHTSAwill need expert help from another part of the Government. 

6 
72 


32518.040

There are a number of problems that will become more significant in the deployment 

phase (as I define it), such as driver training for HAYs and advertising limits, but there is one 

area in which study should start now. As the NHTSA September 2016 Policy Statement 

observed on page 46: 

"Rules and laws allocating tort liability could have a significant effect on both consumer 

acceptance of HAYs and their rate of deployment. Such rules also could have a 

substantial effect on the level and incidence of automobile liability insurance costs in 

jurisdictions in which HAYs operate." 

W c all know that it is impossible to eliminate all error, human or computer, and so it is certain 

that, even if HAYs are much safer than our current vehicles, there will still be crashes, for which 

someone should be held liable. 

Traditionally, auto accidents and product liability rules have been matters of state law, 

generally developed by state courts, on a case by case basis. Some scholars and others have 

suggested that this may be an area, like nuclear power was in the 1950s, in which liability laws, 

which form the basis for setting insurance premiums, require a uniform national liability answer, 

especially because HAYs, once they are deployed, will not stay within state boundaries. They 

argue that, in contrast to common law development, which can progress very slowly and depends 

on which cases reach the state's highest court (and when), legislation can be acted on relatively 

quickly and comprehensively, without having to wait for the "right case" to establish the law. 

Moreover, !lAYs will only become a majority of the vehicle fleet over a considerable period of 

time, and in the meantime, they will interact with more traditional vehicles in ways that create 

uncertainty, which may further slow down the deployment of HAYs unless the liability rules are 

clear. 

7 
73 


32518.041

I have no position on whether a national law is advisable, or what it would contain, but 

the issue of federal vs state liability law is already part of the discussion and it needs to be taken 

seriously. Because there are so many other HAY issues for this Committee to consider, perhaps 

the liability issue could be referred to the Judiciary Committee or to some other committee 

within the House. Because there are serious tradeoffs to make in this area, and because reaching 

consensus will not be easy, that is all the more reason why work on the liability issue should 

begin now, even though deployment is many years away. 

From what I have learned, one of the first major areas in which HAYs will be deployed is 

the commercial transportation sector, which includes long distance trucks and buses. However, 

under the proposed California testing rules, vehicles over 10,000 pounds are precluded from 

testing, which almost certainly means that they will not be allowed to be sold/deployed until they 

are tested. I also noted that the draft bills precluded exemptions from being made available to 

large trucks. I understand that this exclusion may be because of the limits on this Committee's 

jurisdiction. Perhaps there should be some different restrictions on testing large HAYs, but it 

makes no sense to prevent them from being tested at all. On the other hand, it makes even less 

sense to allow them to be tested with no mandatory standards. 

This brings me to another important issue: the impact of deployment of HAYs on 

workers, especially in the commercial transportation sector. If the supporters of HAYs are 

correct, potentially mill ions of drivers of trucks, busses, and taxis of all kinds may be put out of a 

job. While some will able to be re-trained to be on the production or maintenance side of HAYs, 

many will not. Again, this is an issue on which long term thinking needs to start now and not 

when job displacement has its major impact. 

8 
74 


32518.042

My final point is directed to the Trump Administration and to Members of Congress who 

seem to take the position that all regulations, especially those from the Federal Government, are 

bad ideas. At GW's June 14'h conference on driverless cars, there were many areas of 

disagreement, but on one point, there was convergence. Everyone agreed that, if there is to be a 

future for driverless cars in the United States, Congress and the NHTSA cannot sit on the 

sidelines opposing all new federal rules; nor should Nl-ITSA simply issue voluntary guidance. 

Federal HA V standards are needed for sound public policy reasons, among other reasons because 

existing rules, which were written with a very different understanding of the roles of car and 

driver, will stand in the way of the deployment of driverless cars, even on a small scale and 

perhaps will even prevent advanced versions to be tested on the roads. But even if there were no 

federal regulatory barriers, federal standards directed at HA Vs are essential, and far preferable to 

having tifty states and the District of Columbia all deciding how safe is safe enough to pennit 

driverless cars to be deployed. 

Thank you for your attention and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

9 
75 


32518.043

SUMMARY OF 

STATEMENT OF ALAN B. MORRISON 

JUNE27,2017 

The focus of legislation and regulation now should be on the testing phase for driverless 

cars, with testing to be limited to vehicles operated by the manufacturer. At this time, there 

should be no driverless vehicles operated by persons other than the manufacturer. 

It is essential that Congress direct NHTSA to issue mandatory standards that apply to the 

testing of vehicles that have equipment in SAE categories 3-5. 

If Congress docs not step in, States will do what California is doing and regulate the 

testing and eventually the deployment of driverless cars. Doing nothing is not a viable option. 

Preemption is permitted only when the federal government acts in an area, which it has 

not done for many of the features in driverless cars. Congress has no authority to preempt 

(forbid) States from regulating these vehicles unless there are federal laws in place. 

There is a serious question of whether localities should be allowed to regulate the testing 

on driverless cars, such as by banning them entirely; restricting where and when they can be 

tested; and/or requiring warnings on those vehicles. 

Crash and performance data for driverless cars should not be treated a confidential 

business information but should, with very limited exceptions, be available so that States, 

consumer groups, and the general public can have confidence that these cars are reasonably safe. 

Data privacy and the dangers of hacking are very big concerns. The Federal Trade 

Commission should be given authority to issue privacy protection rules applicable to HA Vs and 

other federal agencies should be directed to assist NHTSA in dealing with cybersecurity issues. 

Liability questions need to be considered now, including whether there should be federal 

laws in this area. 

10 
76 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. 

And Mr. Day, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF TIM DAY 

Mr. DAY. Thank you. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, good morning. 

My name is Tim Day. I am senior vice president of C–TEC, the 

Chamber Technology Engagement Center. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony this morning on self-driving vehicles. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business 

federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions as well as State and local 

chambers and industry associations. 

The chamber established C–TEC to advance technology’s role in 

the U.S. economy. I am here to testify on a vital aspect of the business environment—preemption—and also to support the LEAD’R 

Act. 

The Chamber of Commerce has historically supported preemption for all modes of transportation as transportation is key to the 

healthy interstate commerce and the growth of our economy. 

For example, according to the Department of Transportation, more than $1 out of every $10 produced in the U.S. GDP is related 

to transportation activity. As you can imagine, the United States 

is not the only country currently developing self-driving technology. 

In China, Baidu, one of the largest internet companies in the 

world, has already announced that it will introduce its fully autonomous cars on highways and open city roads by the year 2020. 

And Germany recently passed legislation to allow road test vehicles in which drivers will be allowed to take their hands off of the 

steering wheel. 

For the United States to continue to be globally competitive in 

the self-driving vehicle market, we must provide American 

innovators with a single set of standards as opposed to a patchwork 

of laws by individual States. 

Technology companies come in all sizes. Many of the current industry leaders once began with just an idea. The companies of tomorrow also will be started with ideas and we must create a business-friendly environment to allow them to succeed and thrive. 

A recent Morning Consult survey just last week of over 2,000 

registered voters found that three in five voters support the use of 

self-driving vehicles. 

It also found that voters overwhelmingly predict the positive impact of self-driving vehicles on the disabled and elderly citizens of 

this country as well as the issues of drunk and distracted driving. 

And finally, voters strongly prefer Federal standards when it 

comes to laws governing the use of self-driving vehicles. While further education of the American public is needed, this poll points to 

the fact that the public recognizes the potential benefits of this 

technology and the role of Federal Government. 

C–TEC’s autonomous vehicle working group has been convening 

stakeholders from both the commercial and passenger vehicle secVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:34 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X42SDVLEG\115X42SCVLEGWORKING WAYNE
77 

tors to ensure that the regulatory environment will allow for the 

U.S. to capitalize on these societal and commercial prospects. 

From an economic perspective, a study by Intel completed this 

month shows that the economic opportunity from self-driving vehicles will grow from $800 billion to $7 trillion as self-driving vehicles become mainstream. 

The study also finds that by the year 2050 the passenger economy, which is the result of self-driving vehicles turning drivers into 

passengers, will be a $7 trillion global industry. 

Business use will generate $3 trillion as industries use self-driving vehicles to reshape their businesses and leverage new opportunities. 

All this to say when we talk about self-driving vehicles, commercial or passenger, there is a lot at stake for the American people, 

our businesses, and our economy. 

To conclude, the chamber supports the development of voluntary 

standards that do not constrain innovation. We advocate for technology-neutral policies that will allow new technology to develop 

and recommends against policies that are too specific. 

The chamber also supports exemptions and recommends that 

regulatory agencies work closely with industry to craft these standards. 

On behalf of C–TEC, I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

this morning and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:] 

78 


32518.044

Testimony of Tim Day 

Senior Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce 

Before the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Of The House Energy and Commerce Committee 

On 

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 at 10:00 AM 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Hearing Entitled "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to provide the U.S. Chamber's perspective on self-driving vehicles. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing the 

interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and 

local chambers and industry associations. 

The Chamber established the Technology Engagement Center (C _ TEC) to advance technology's 

role in the U.S. economy. Our members are excited about the future of technology to drive 

economic growth and create jobs. C _ TEC promotes policies that foster innovation and creativity 

and sponsors research to inform policymakers, regulators, and the public at large.' 

Today's hearing takes place at an important time in the development of an emerging technology. 

With our deep automobile manufacturing experience and our world-leading technology 

companies, the United States has the potential to define and lead the world in the self-driving 

vehicle industry. Self-driving vehicles have tremendous potential to make travel safer, enhance 
79 


32518.045

worker productivity, increase transportation efficiency, improve our economy, and increase 

mobility for the elderly. 

However, without solutions and frameworks in place, America runs the very real risk of missing 

out on the incredible economic and lifesaving potential of self-driving vehicles. This United 

States is by no means guaranteed to lead the self-driving vehicle industry. In 2013, almost all 

self-driving vehicle development took place in the United States. On June 15 of2017, the 

California Department of Motor Vehicles reported that more than 25% of its permits for selfdriving vehicle tester program were issued to foreign companies." In April of this year, Chinese 

technology giant Baidu released plans to open source its self-driving vehicle technology in an 

effort to become the industry leader in self-driving vehicles. 

I am here to testify on a vital aspect of this business environment: preemption. The Chamber of 

Commerce, being the voice of business, has historically supported preemption for all modes of 

transportation, as transportation is key to healthy interstate commerce. To be competitive in the 

global self-driving vehicle market, the United States needs to make sure that innovators face a 

single set of standards as opposed to a patchwork of standards from different states. Without 

preemption, we risk impeding our innovators and ceding our leadership in this industry. 

My testimony today will be supported by the findings from a Morning Consult survey that 

C _ TEC conducted just last week. The survey results are clear: 

• Three in five voters support the use of self-driving vehicles; 

2 
80 


32518.046

• Voters are much more likely to support self-driving vehicles when they are told 

statistics related to traffic fatalities; 

• Voters overwhelmingly predict the positive impact of self-driving vehicles on disabled 

and elderly Americans, as well as on issues of drunk and distracted driving; 

• Voters strongly prefer federal standard when it comes to laws governing use of selfdriving vehicles, and most agree with its importance regarding safety and state 

coordination; and 

• Voters overwhelmingly say laws governing use of self-driving vehicles should be a 

bipartisan issue. 

Today, I will focus on the following topics. First, I will lay out some ofthc core principles that 

regulators should follow to encourage growth and innovation in our economy. Next, I will 

identify some of the benefits of self-driving vehicles in terms of increased safety, mobility, and 

job creation. I will then explain in detail the regulatory needs of the industry, including 

preemption, and how they are necessary for U.S. entrepreneurs to stay competitive. 

To start, it is important for me to lay out principles that will encourage growth in the self-driving 

vehicle industry. Emerging technologies such as self-driving vehicles are facilitators. They 

enable growth across many sectors of our economy, from transportation companies, to energy 

companies, to finance and investment companies, to even medical companies. Almost all 

industries today rely on technology to interact with their customers, improve their services, and 

make their operations more globally competitive. 

3 
81 


32518.047

To achieve growth in emerging technologies, our leaders have to make sure to keep their eyes on 

three overarching principles: 

l) Encouraging emerging technologies to get to the open market, not stifling them before 

they can even be tested; 

2) Maintaining one national standard rather than a patchwork of state regulations, a 

patchwork which will lead to uneven solutions; and 

3) Preserving the ability of inventors and creative companies to fully utilize data and 

iterative learning from that data to produce technologies to better American lives. 

My testimony focuses on the first and second of these principles: encouraging emerging 

technologies to come to market and maintaining a single set of regulations. To understand and 

fully appreciate the policy implications of these rapidly emerging technologies, C_TEC believes 

we need to bring together diverse perspectives on a host of related topics. We cannot think of 

these issues as "technology" industry specific. That is why C _ TEC' s Autonomous Vehicles 

Working Group co-chairs and members draw from a broad cross-section of business experience 

from pure-play technologies to automakers to insurance and more. Each has something to offer 

in this conversation. Our three co-chairs are in fact from Allstate, INRIX, and Intel -each 

representing a very different perspective on the future of self-driving vehicles. 

C _ TEC's AV working group has already engaged on self-driving vehicle guidance with the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and connected devices before the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

4 
82 


32518.048

Our A V working group has been convening conversations and partnerships with stakeholders to 

help guide policymakers, regulators, the public at large and the business community on the 

benefits of self-driving vehicle technologies. It is already clear that four things will result from 

the incorporation of self-driving vehicles onto our highways: 

l) a significant decrease in highway fatalities; 

2) improved efficiency for businesses and consumers; 

3) improved quality of life for currently homebound populations namely America's 

seniors and individuals with mobility impairments; and 

4) faster and cheaper delivery of goods to consumers. 

To underscore these benefits, let me quote from C_TEC member Intel's recent testimony before 

Congress: "[our] vision for the future of transportation is one of zero accidents, mobility for all, 

environmental sustainability, reduced congestion, increased efficiency and innovation that 

evolves at the pace of technology to ensure U.S. global leadership.""1 

Let us begin, as always, with safety first. 

Right now in the United States, there are approximately 38,000 vehicle accident deaths a year. 

Overall, we have seen improved statistics on vehicle deaths in the last decade, but in 2015 alone, 

traffic fatalities rose by the largest percentage in 50 years. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration research suggests that 93% of accidents are 

caused by human error and the increasing role of driver distraction in accidents has become a 

5 
83 


32518.049

topic of national debate. ln 2012, driver distraction was identified as the primary cause of over 

3,000 deaths and 421,000 injuries, figures up 9 percent from the year before. 

A recent INRIX study of consumer experiences and attitudes around connected cars and selfdriving vehicles shows that vehicle safety and technology's solutions are very much on 

consumers' minds. When INRIX asked for the most desired new car feature, respondents replied 

overwhelmingly: blind spot warning. The next most popular answers were also ones to which 

technology integration and the internet of things will be key: stolen vehicle warning/tracking, 

night vision enhancement, road incident alerts and resulting re-routing, and alerts to rear or front 

collisions. INRI X also found that 73 percent of those surveyed expect self-driving vehicles to be 

as safe as or safer than today' s cars. 

In the age of technology, we can combat vehicle accident deaths and driver distraction. 

Just this month, Intel and Strategy Analytics released a report on the new "Passenger Economy" 

that will result from self-driving vehicles. It states a number of safety improvements that the U.S. 

could see with the emergence of self-driving vehicles: 

• Conservatively, 585,000 lives can be saved due to self-driving vehicles in the era ofthe 

Passenger Economy from 2035 to 2045. 

• Reductions in public safety costs related to traffic accidents could amount to more than 

$234 billion over the Passenger Economy era. 

6 
84 


32518.050

In 2015 a study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found that 

while driverless cars were more likely than human-operated vehicles to get into accidents, all of 

those accidents were the fault of the human drivers of other cars. None of the driverless cars 

caused an accident and the authors of the study said that often, the driverless cars were struck 

because they were adhering to traffic laws, only to get rear-ended by an inattentive human in a 

conventional car. •v 

In 2016, Allstate announced a multi-year research agreement with the Intelligent Systems 

Laboratory at Stanford University to help pave a way for safer roads. Allstate's Director of 

Innovation and Research said "(w)e sec a self-driving vehicle future more as a matter of when, 

not if, and we want to be prepared to best serve our customers no matter who or what is behind 

the wheel. Allstate has long supported auto highway and safety reforms like seat belts, air bags 

and teen driver education. This is the logical next step as driverless technology continues to 

evolve." 

Self-driving vehicles also have the potential to restore the mobility of those who cannot drive a 

car. This includes mobility impaired individuals or Americans with circumstances that leave 

them dependent on others. 

Additionally, self-driving vehicles also present an opportunity to make our lives more 

productive. In 2016, research by Allstate showed the country's transportation network is highly 

inefficient, with vehicles sitting idle for most of the day. Allstate's CEO said "even moderate 

increases in effectiveness and efficiency have the potential to raise household income by 5 

7 
85 


32518.051

percent annually. I know of no other economic opportunity to generate this much wealth for 

Americans. Now, Allstate is leaning in to this opportunity."v 

Lastly, self-driving vehicles also offer immense economic opportunity. The Chamber is proud to 

have had a long history of developing solutions that have brought growth and prosperity to this 

nation. The Chamber sees self-driving vehicles as another growth opportunity. A study by Intel 

completed just this month shows that the economic opportunity from self-driving vehicles will 

grow from $800 billion to $7 trillion as self-driving vehicles become mainstream. The same 

study finds that by 2050, the passenger economy will be a $7 trillion global industry. vi 

Consumer use will account for about $3.7 trillion of that industry as consumers will continue to 

seek out self-directed personal mobility. Business use will generate $3 trillion as industries use 

self-driving vehicles to reshape their businesses and leverage new opportunities. 

Intel's study also shows that self-driving vehicles will spur change across a range of industries. 

For example, self-driving vehicles could define a new landscape of concierge and ride-hailing 

services, as well as pilotless vehicle options for businesses in industries like package delivery 

and long-haul transportation. The study shows that new and emerging applications and services 

will account for $203 billion in revenues from new use cases. vii Self-driving vehicles will also 

empower the commercial transportation industry too, reducing the time and cost of transporting 

goods. 

8 
86 


32518.052

I have laid out some of the benefits that self-driving vehicles can bring to communities all over 

the United States. I will now explain some of the regulatory steps that need to be taken to ensure 

that these benefits come to fruition. 

As a core principle, C_TEC believes that government actions in this new area must be grounded 

in the realities of the complex and fast-changing self-driving vehicle testing and development 

process in order to foster rather than hinder investment and innovation. 

As C _ TEC member Qualcomm has noted previously, "much is unknown about the future uses" 

of emerging technologies. For this reason, "the U.S. Government should tread very carefully in 

the legislative and regulatory space to let any and all innovative, and potentially groundbreaking, technologies be freely developed." 

To promote growth and innovation, C _ TEC recommends five courses of action. First, 

regulations should be technology-neutral. Regulators must avoid even the accidental adoption of 

technology-specific processes for research and testing of self-driving vehicles. Doing so would 

run the potential risk of the U.S. government indirectly picking technology winners and losers by 

approving one manufacturer's system quickly while delaying another's time to market. Standards 

need to be voluntary and carefully designed so that they do not constrain innovation. 

Second, there is another danger inherent in too much specificity in government standards. 

Regulators, even federal ones like NHTSA, cannot always be up to speed on the newest 

9 
87 


32518.053

technologies- it is just too difficult to build that kind of expertise given the fast pace of industry 

innovation. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration itself admits that "[g]iven the newness of 

HAYs and the private sector demand for persons with the necessary types of scientific expertise 

to work with those technologies, there is a shortage of suitable candidates to meet the Agency's 

critical hiring needs. "vm 

As a result, too much specificity in frameworks at this time without technical expertise to advise 

and review could prevent new life-saving technologies from entering the marketplace. A 

responsive and flexible regulator would give manufacturers the ability to quickly perfect critical 

new tools, both protecting consumers and keeping the industry competitive. 

Third, exemptions in this industry will be critical. Entrepreneurs should be given the time and 

opportunities they need to develop new products. Exemptions should be granted by regulators to 

ensure that entrepreneurs can test new technology. Without adequate exemptions, innovators will 

struggle to even have the opportunity to test new technology and will not be able to compete 

with foreign companies in this highly competitive market. 

Fourth, as has long been the practice, the government should consider defining objective 

performance standards for automobiles, and leave to manufacturers the important job of meeting 

those obligations and certifying compliance. 

10 
88 


32518.054

Finally, perhaps most importantly, a single set of federal standards is necessary for this industry 

to develop. While states would remain responsible for traditional state roles such as licensing, 

registration and insurance, a federal standard is important to ensure vehicles are able to 

seamlessly travel across state lines, adhere to common safety standards, and keep the U.S. 

competitive on a national scale. 

The Chamber has historically supported federal preemption regulations for all modes of 

transportation, and supports preemption regulations for self-driving vehicles. Avoiding a 

patchwork of state laws enables manufacturers to be more innovative and ensures that any 

safety-enhancing automated vehicle technologies will be available throughout the country. To 

effectively support the development of self-driving vehicles and the safety benefits they will 

bring, it is important to avoid creating conflicts from multiple sets of standards. 

Without a federal standard, we have seen in other industries that state laws and regulations 

rapidly become unnecessarily complex, time consuming, and costly- not to mention conflicting 

between states. 

To conclude, the Chamber supports the development of voluntary standards that do not constrain 

innovation. The Chamber advocates for technology-neutral policies that will allow new 

technology to develop, and recommends against policies that are too specific. The Chamber also 

supports exemptions and recommends that regulatory agencies work closely with the industry to 

craft standards. Finally, the Chamber strongly supports preemption, as a patchwork of state 

regulations threatens the competitiveness of U.S. companies. 

11 
89 


32518.055

C _ TEC and our members are ready and willing to engage constructively with Congress and the 

administration on these issues. Technology affects all of us, so C_TEC also strongly believes in 

the importance of working with both parties on these issues. We are here to serve as a resource to 

this committee and your colleagues to construct a framework to expand economic opportunities 

and develop forward-thinking policies in these areas. Thank you for this opportunity and I 

looked forward to your questions. 

'This C_ TECH description is pulled from: https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-report-datacenters-average~325-million-economic~impact 

'' https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vehindustry/ol/auton veh tester 

''' Prepared Statement for the Record of Intel Corporation, U.S. Senate Hearing on "How the Internet of Things Can 

Bring U.S. Transportation and Infrastructure into the 21st Century," at 4 (June 28, 2016), 

https:/ /www .commerce .senate .gov /pub! ic/ _each e/files/ 46c 728ce-3 77 e-40609cac · 

55db2230ddf8/17D163EB418271C1D3BBC8D572D589EE.doug-davis-testimony.pdf 

"http:/lfortune.com/2015/10/29/self-driving-cars-crash/ 

• http:/lwww.insurancejournal.com/news/nationai/2016/09/14/42627S.htm 

" https:// newsroom. intel.com/ newsroom/wp-content/u ploads/sites/11/2017/05/passenger -economy. pdf 

"'' https ://newsroom .i ntel.com/ newsroom/wp-content/ uploads/sites/ 11/2017 /05/pa ssenger -economy .pdf 

'"'[Federal Automated Vehicles Guidance at 82.] 

12 
90 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Bozzella, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ranking 

Member Schakowsky, Chairman Walden, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

I am John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Association of 

Global Automakers. Global Automakers represents major automotive manufacturers and suppliers that are making enormous investments in connected and automated vehicles right here in the 

United States. 

We thank the committee for its continued interest in vehicle automation and are encouraged by the discussion draft which advances a number of important ideas to help deploy automated vehicles. 

So why are we here? For Global Automakers, it is all about safety. Thirty-five thousand people lost their lives on America’s roadways in 2015. 

Unfortunately, this number is rising even though vehicles are 

safer than they’ve ever been. We need to work toward a future 

where cars no longer crash and zero lives are lost on the roads. 

To get to zero, we need a comprehensive safety approach that involves all road users and transportation providers. Automated and 

connected vehicle technology is fundamental to this effort. 

Right now, the auto industry is developing and deploying an 

array of automated vehicle technologies. These advancements are 

developing rapidly and we can put vehicles on roadways now and 

in the near future that will help save lives while regulators develop 

the necessary policy framework. 

So the question is what do we do in this interim period? First, 

we need one set of running rules to support widespread introduction of automated vehicles. 

Congress must clarify that the Federal Government is the primary regulator of motor vehicle safety. The law currently recognizes that a national vehicle marketplace needs uniform safety 

standards and that a vehicle purchased in one State can drive to 

a neighboring State. 

Unfortunately, some States, perceiving a vacuum, have begun to 

regulate. This will lead to conflicting rules that could impede development of lifesaving technologies. 

Second, in the interim, we need a flexible process that provides 

safety assurance while allowing meaningful deployment of these 

technologies. 

This process should assure the regulator and the public that 

automakers are designing their systems with safety first in mind. 

It is important that this assurance process be nimble and account for the rapid pace of innovation as NHTSA develops the data 

and basis for updating regulations. 

Congress has a clear and key role to play in helping to remove 

barriers to innovation by expanding opportunities to deploy these 

technologies. 

91 

The way to do this is to expand the current exemption levels for 

certain motor vehicle safety standards that were written for mechanical devices in a way that maintains motor vehicle safety. 

Finally, Congress should ensure that any framework does not 

pick winners and losers but instead encourages all levels of automation. 

While level 4 and 5 driverless cars will bring significant benefits, 

level 3 vehicles, where the driver is still in the loop, can also provide major gains in safety, particularly for rural areas where highway fatalities are over twice the rate of urban areas. 

Any framework should allow testing and deployment of all levels, 

and while safety is paramount, automated vehicles also create 

other benefits such as improved mobility for underserved communities and environmental benefits as automation, combined with 

transportation as a service, could significantly increase demand for 

electric vehicles. 

Congress has the opportunity now to set the policy framework 

that will help ensure these benefits become a reality. 

We look forward to working with the subcommittee on legislation 

to promote rapid and safe deployment of automated vehicles and I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:] 

92 


32518.056

GlobalAutomakers 0 

Written Testimony of John Bozzella 

President and CEO, Association of Global Automakers, before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee of Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Hearing "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

June 27, 2017 
93 


32518.057

GlobaiAutomakers 

Executive Summary 

The Association of Global Automakers represents major automotive manufacturers and 

suppliers that are making enormous investments in connected and automated vehicles in the 

United States in order to save lives. We thank the Committee for its interest in vehicle 

automation and are encouraged by the discussion draft which advances a number of 

important ideas to help deploy automated vehicles. 

As these technologies are developing rapidly, we are in an interim period, while federal 

regulators develop the necessary policy and regulatory framework. At the same time, some 

states, perceiving a vacuum, have begun to regulate. This is a problem that will lead to 

conflicting rules that could delay deployment of life-saving technologies. In this interim 

period, we believe policymakers and regulators should: 

o Clarity that the federal government is the primary regulator of motor vehicle safety. 

This is not a departure from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but an application of its 

core principles to new and emerging forms of technology. The law recognizes that a 

national vehicle marketplace needs uniform safety standards, and that a vehicle 

purchased in one state can drive to a neighboring state. 

o Support a flexible process that provides safety assurance while allowing meaningful 

deployment of these technologies. This process should assure the regulator and the 

public that automakers are designing their systems safely. 

o Remove barriers to deploy automated technologies by expanding the current 

exemption levels for certain motor vehicle safety standards that did not contemplate 

automated driving systems, while maintaining motor vehicle safety. 

o Congress should ensure that any framework does not pick winners and losers, but 

instead encourages all levels of vehicle automation. While Level4 and 5 "driverless 

cars" will bring significant benefits, Level 3 vehicles, where the driver is still in the 

loop, can also provide major gains in safety. Any framework should allow testing and 

deployment of all levels. 

While safety is our first priority, automated vehicles also create other benefits, such as 

improved mobility for underserved communities and environmental benefits, as automation 

combined with transportation as a service could significantly increase the demand for electric 

vehicles. 

We believe consumer education is an essential component for helping ensure the successful 

adoption and utilization of new technology, and a collaborative approach will be needed to 

identify the most effective means of providing relevant information to owners and operators 

of automated vehicles. 

We also believe that industry-led approaches can provide greater flexibility to respond in 

these dynamic areas of privacy, cyber, and data-sharing to best protect consumers. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on legislation to promote the rapid and 

safe deployment of automated vehicles. 
94 


32518.058

GlobalAutomakers 

Testimony 

Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky, on behalf of the Association of Global 

Automakers ("Global Automakers"), I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

Subcommittee today. Global Automakers represents major automobile manufacturers and 

suppliers operating in the United States. Our automaker members have invested $56 billion in 

U.S. facilities and directly employ 98,500 employees located throughout the United States. 

Global Automakers' members have 28 manufacturing facilities in twelve states and built 4.6 

million vehicles in the United States in 2016, a 41 percent increase in production in the last 

decade. Global Automakers and our member companies are committed to creating the safest, 

cleanest and most technologically advanced vehicles on the road. 

The automotive industry is making major investtnents in the research and development of 

automated vehicle technology in the United States, and Global Automakers thanks the 

Committee for its interest and proactive approach to vehicle automation. Automated vehicle 

systems present significant potential to save lives, enhance mobility, improve transportation 

efficiency, and reduce fuel consumption. It is important therefore that public policy help spur this 

innovation, encourage testing, and enable nationwide deployment of vehicles across all levels of 

automation. It is also critical to acknowledge the role of vehicle-to-vehicle communications in 

enhancing safer, more efficient transportation. It would be a significant missed opportunity if, 

after making great progress in automating the vehicle fleet, we fail to deploy an interoperable, 

nationwide system to connect vehicles, road users, and infrastructure wirelessly to complement 

and expand the benefits of automation. With the right policies, the United States can continue to 

3 
95 


32518.059

GlobalAutomakers 0 

lead in the development of these technologies and bring their benefits to the American people as 

quickly as possible. 

Automated vehicle technology offers a tremendous opportunity to improve highway and traffic 

safety. Over 35,000 people lost their lives on America's roadways in 2015. Unfortunately, this 

number is going up, despite the fact that vehicles are safer than ever before. We need to work 

toward a future where cars no longer crash, and zero lives are lost on roads. To get to zero, we 

need a comprehensive safety approach that involves all road users and transportation providers. 

Automated and connected vehicle technology is fundamental to this effort. 

Right now, the auto industry is developing and deploying an array of automated vehicle 

technologies, transforming the conversation from crash survival to crash avoidance. These 

advancements are developing rapidly, and we can put vehicles on roadways now and in the near 

future that will help save lives while regulators develop the necessary policy framework. So the 

question is: What do we do in this interim period? 

The federal government has already taken an important step through the Department of 

Transportation's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (the "Federal Policy"). While the details of 

the Federal Policy are currently under review, the safety assurance approach represented by the 

Federal Policy sets up a flexible interim framework which ensures that safety is being supervised 

and protected. The policy establishes a process that allows manufacturers to innovate, while 

keeping the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed about new 

automated vehicle technologies and how they operate safely. These steps will help advance 

4 
96 


32518.060

GlobalAutomakers 0 

deployment and will provide the necessary data that will inform future policy decisions and the 

scope of new regulations, but more needs to be done. 

Global Automakers believes the discussion drafts released by the Subcommittee contain a 

number of important ideas designed to advance automated vehicle systems and their benefits. 

Congress should play a critical role in removing road blocks for these new technologies. We look 

forward to working with the Subcommittee to advance legislation that clarifies that the federal 

government has exclusive jurisdiction over the design and performance of motor vehicles and 

legislation that establishes a clear pathway to encourage deployment of automated driving 

systems. 

Ensure the federal government continues to have primary authority over motor vehicle 

performance and design 

We support the Subcommittee's efforts to clarify the federal government's primary responsibility 

over motor vehicle safety. The United States has long recognized that automobiles are sold in a 

national market, and that manufacturers' success rests on the ability to sell vehicles that can be 

sold and operated in all fifty states. The federal government further recognizes that vehicle safety 

is a national priority, and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act has set clear limits on the role of states in 

regulating the design of motor vehicles. Automated vehicles should be no different. Global 

Automakers therefore supports continued efforts by Congress and the Administration to ensure 

that there is a consistent national approach to automated vehicle policy, and to clarify the 

respective roles of federal, state and local governments. Unfortunately, some states, perceiving a 
97 


32518.061

GlobaiAutomakers 

vacuum, have begun to regulate. This is a problem that will lead to conflicting rules that could 

delay deployment oflife-saving technologies. 

The primary roles and responsibilities of the federal government include setting Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), ensuring compliance with standards, investigating potential 

safety defects, and issuing guidance for manufacturers and other entities. In contrast, state 

responsibility focuses on issues related to the operation of those vehicles on their roads, such as 

driver licensing and responsibility, vehicle registration, and insurance. Ensuring federal primacy 

over laws and regulations that prescribe design and performance standards for automated 

vehicles would help spur the further development, testing and deployment of automated vehicles. 

This approach has supported decades of improvement in motor vehicle safety and it is critical to 

ensuring the widespread benefits of automated vehicle systems can be realized nationwide. 

Establish a path for the initial deployment of automated vehicles and ensure greater 

regulatory certainty 

Policymakers and regulators should support a flexible process that provides safety assurance 

while allowing meaningful deployment of these technologies. Such a process can assure the 

regulator and the public that automakcrs are designing their systems with safety in mind. It's 

important that this assurance process be nimble and account for the rapid pace of innovation, in 

this interim period, as NHTSA develops a foundation for updating regulations. 

We support the Subcommittee's efforts to create a clear path for the ncar-term deployment of 

highly automated vehicles. Congress can help expedite automated technology deployment by 

6 
98 


32518.062

GlobalAutomakers 

providing NHTSA with authority to exempt an increased number of highly automated vehicles 

from standards that would otherwise limit their deployment. Existing regulations, 

understandably, did not envision the emergence of automated vehicle technology, and as a result 

there is uncertainty when seeking to certify a vehicle that is designed to operate without the 

engagement, or possibly the presence, of a driver. The standards assume traditional features that 

may no longer be necessary and are often written in mechanical terms that do not translate well 

to connected and automated technology. As noted in a March 2016 report by the U.S. DOT 

Volpe Center, there are a number of FMVSS that may limit the deployment of automated 

vehicles due to either explicit or implicit references to the presence of human driver. 

The current DOT approach focusing on a safety assurance process, combined with NHTSA's 

existing authority to oversee motor vehicle safety through its investigation and recall authority, 

can help support the safe testing and deployment of automated vehicles on public roads as the 

Department considers the appropriate regulatory framework for automated vehicle systems. 

While expanded exemptions may provide greater opportunities for the deployment of automated 

vehicle systems in the short-term, it may not provide the necessary long-term certainty for 

manufacturers. It is therefore important that the federal government identify any outdated 

standards that may unnecessarily limit innovation and work collaboratively with industry and 

other stakeholders to update those standards to accommodate automated systems. 

7 
99 


32518.063

GlobaiAutomakers 

Ensure the policy framework supports all levels of automation 

SAE International has established a "Taxonomy" for automated vehicles in its Standard J3016, 

which defines different levels of automation, ranging from Level 0 (meaning no automation at 

all) to Level 5 (where a car can drive itself in all conditions with no supervision or input from a 

human driver). We believe that any legislative efforts should enable a level playing field that 

encourages innovation across all levels of automation. While we believe that Level 4 and 5 

"driverless cars" will bring significant benefits, Level 3 vehicles, where the driver is still in the 

loop, can also provide major gains in safety, particularly for rural areas where highway fatalities 

are over twice the rate of urban areas. Any framework should allow testing and deployment of all 

levels. Legislation should not favor one business model over another. The usc of uniform SAE 

definitions that recognize the various levels of automation is also critical to consumer 

understanding of the technology and consistent treatment of automated vehicles on our 

roadways. 

Consumer education, awareness and training 

We support the Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of consumer education regarding 

automated vehicle systems. We believe consumer education is an essential component for 

helping ensure the successful adoption and utilization of new technology, and a collaborative 

approach will be needed to identify the most effective means of providing relevant information 

to owners and operators of automated vehicles. 

8 
100 


32518.064

GlobalAutomakers 0 

There arc significant benefits that can be achieved across all levels of automation, and it is 

important that consumers develop an understanding of the level of automation of a particular 

vehicle, the conditions or limitations under which the system may be operated, how the system 

may be designed to provide warnings to the driver, and how to activate and deactivate the system 

or resume manual control, if applicable. Manufacturers, car dealerships, rental car companies, 

ride-sharing or on-demand transportation providers, and other entities should each play a role, 

and federal and state governments can help support efforts to increase public awareness. 

It is also important that drivers understand and recognize their roles and responsibilities when 

using automated vehicle systems, and recognize system limitations. As manufacturers research 

new approaches for how drivers interact with the technology, flexibility is essential to allow for 

innovative designs to develop. 

Permit testing by both automakers and automotive suppliers to encourage innovation 

Global Automakers' thanks the Subcommittee for its proposal to clarify that provisions allowing 

for the testing ofnon-FMVSS-certified vehicles apply to automotive suppliers as well as 

automobile manufacturers. Automotive suppliers are integral partners in researching, developing, 

and testing new automated driving technologies. 

9 
101 


32518.065

GlobalAutomakers Q 

A flexible approach to data, privacy and cybersecurity 

As vehicles have become more connected and automated, the industry has taken a number of 

proactive steps to address privacy and cybersecurity, and continues to engage with the various 

stakeholders on these important issues. We believe that industry-led approaches can provide 

greater flexibility to respond in these dynamic areas to best protect consumers. 

In 20!4, automakers proactively took steps to establish Federal Trade Commission-enforceable 

"Privacy Principles" to protect consumers' personal infom1ation. These principles arc based on 

the Fair Infonnation Practice Principles, and outline the various types of vehicle and driver 

infonnation that are collected and how this data is used; they treat personally identifiable 

infonnation, such as geolocation, driver behavior, and biometric information, with additional 

heightened protections. These Privacy Principles arc applicable to vehicles manufactured after 

January 2016. 

In 2015, the auto industry proactively established the Auto lnfonnation Sharing and Analysis 

Center, or Auto-JSAC, to share intelligence on immediate threats and vulnerabilities between 

industry stakeholders, and did so before any real-world cyber incidents. The organization has 

since grown to include 34 member comprised of !5 OEMs, and 19 suppliers and commercial 

vehicle companies. Additionally, the members of the Auto-ISAC have been actively engaged in 

the development of industry cybersecurity best practices to help enhance vehicle cybersccurity 

throughout the entire product lifecyclc. 

Similarly, we believe that an industry-led approach is best to address the quickly evolving issue 

10 
102 


32518.066

GlobaiAutomakers 

of data-sharing for automated and connected vehicles. There are a number of significant 

questions and challenges to be addressed, and we have already begun discussing these issues 

with our members to explore how effective data-sharing can promote continued safety 

improvements for automated vehicle systems. 

Beyond Safety 

While safety is paramount, automated vehicles also create other benefits, such as improved 

mobility for underserved communities and environmental benefits, as automation combined with 

transportation as a service could significantly increase demand for electric vehicles. Congress 

now has the opportunity to set the policy framework that will help make these benefits a reality. 

The combined effect of these trends has been recognized by a diverse group of organizations. For 

instance, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), which focuses on the need for energy 

security, believes that: 

... the market environment will strongly favor the adoption of shared, autonomous cars 

powered by advanced fuels like electricity, promoting fuel diversity in a transportation 

sector ... Modeling also shows that if a driverless fitture includes significant carsharing, 

petroleum usage in the transportation sector could decline by 50 percent by 2040, or 

perhaps even faster given the right mix of technology and regulatory developments. 1 

McKinsey also supports this point of view, pointing to examples such as shared mobility 

1 http://secureenergy.org/report/safe¥testimony-to-senate-commerce-on-drlverless-car-rules/ 

11 
103 


32518.067

Globa!Automakers 

resulting in more electric-vehicle sales because of lower costs of ownership and increased 

urbanization providing the right conditions to support these trends. 2 Also, Dr. Dan Sperling, a 

professor at the University of California-Davis, and his colleagues at the University, have been 

studying the effects of "the three revolutions" and how to maximize these trends in the context of 

urban transportation to significantly reduce greenhouse gases globally through 2050. 3 This 

further reinforces the need to promote automated vehicle deployments for the greater public 

good. 

Conclusion 

Global Automakers thanks the Subcommittee for its efforts to promote innovation and U.S. 

leadership in the area of vehicle automation. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee 

on automated vehicle legislation that clarifies the exclusive federal authority over motor vehicle 

performance and design criteria, and provides a pathway for the increased deployment of highly 

automated vehicles. Establishing a balanced federal policy will help spur the development and 

deployment of automated vehicle technologies that will improve motor vehicle safety, enhance 

personal mobility, and bring new efficiencies to our transportation system. 

12 
104 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much for your testimony today, 

and that will conclude the statements from our panel and, again, 

thank you very much for being with us today. 

And I will recognize myself for the opening questions. Mr. 

Bainwol, I would like to begin with you. Cybersecurity is a critical 

issue that has been raised by members on both sides of the aisle. 

I know that when Mr. Welch from Vermont and I did the internet of things last Congress in our working group we had some discussions on this in that cybersecurity was a big issue that had 

come up. 

What’s the current status of the Auto Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center and what is the proper role for Government in the 

cybersecurity for self-driving cars? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Thank you, sir. 

First, cyber is absolutely a concern and it is one that as we move 

forward in this process we need to address. The auto industry in 

2015, I believe it was, John—2015—established the ISAC uniquely 

in advance of an event. Almost every other sector had established 

an ISAC after an event occurred. So we were proactive—an overused word but truthful in this case, and the ISAC is up and running. 

What I’d like to do is offer the ISAC to come in to brief the committee privately. It is difficult to walk through the process and procedure of the ISAC that is in a public setting because we don’t 

want to provide a roadmap for actors who want to abuse the system. 

But I think it might be useful as you contemplate finalizing this 

package of legislation to hear directly from the ISAC and so I’d like 

to make that offer. 

But it is up and running. It is promulgating best practices and 

it is dealing with threats today. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask, as a quick follow-up, should the Government set the cybersecurity standards or act as a watchdog or what? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So the threat is a dynamic one and the notion of 

setting standards today may be relevant for the moment but not 

enduring. And so we think that the approach should not be a 

standard set by Government. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Day, your members include a host of industries involved in 

the development of self-driving cars. How important is a national 

safety framework at NHTSA for keeping self-driving car innovation 

in the United States? 

Mr. DAY. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

So we have been working on this issue at the chamber for quite 

some time. We have developed a working group of both large and 

small companies that have been engaged for quite some time. 

It truly is critical. We believe that, you know, as we were discussing in the opening statements, the Obama administration set 

the framework for this activity last year. The foreign competition 

is real. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, you’ve got China, you’ve got 

Germany and a number of other countries that are looking at this 

technology and for us to continue to maintain leadership in this 

area it is critical that we move forward with this legislation as proVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:34 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X42SDVLEG\115X42SCVLEGWORKING WAYNE
105 

posed and we look forward to working with you and the members 

of this subcommittee to make sure that that happens. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Bozzella, let me turn to something you said in your testimony that has been something I have brought up for a good number of months here. 

You stated that the advancements are developing rapidly. You 

know, if you look back 5 years—and one of the great things about 

serving on this committee and especially on this subcommittee, we 

look over the horizon, and the companies out there that are doing 

development are looking at the horizon—would you say that, if you 

look back 5 years, are you where you are today or are you farther 

ahead than you thought you’d be 5 years ago? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think we are much further ahead than I thought 

we’d be and I have been in the industry over 20 years, and I think 

that it continues to surprise me, the rapid pace of innovation, and 

I think we have a real opportunity here with this framework to responsibly and effectively, with safety first in mind, continue to 

allow now these advancements to deploy into the marketplace and 

save lives. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Strickland, there has been some discussion of the States filling the gap in the safety regulations with State-specific self-driving 

car rules. 

What would it mean for your members to comply with 50 or more 

different safety frameworks, and how and why is this not a concern 

today with cars on the road? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I mean, this would be 

a disaster, frankly, not only the members of my coalition, which includes three technology companies and two OEMs, but, frankly, the 

entire industry. 

As was stated by the panel, historically speaking, the National 

Traffic and Safety Act is meant to create a uniform national framework of vehicle safety to make sure that there is no gaps in safety 

for any vehicle in the stream of commerce in the United States and 

more specifically not to hamper innovation. 

When you think about how cars are being tested today, the innovation is like—electronics’ ability to control that was introduced in 

1990 all the way through crash imminent braking. 

Those are innovations that were built within the current framework that maintain safe thoughtful testing and deployment and 

also have the protection of making sure that you can do this in all 

50 States. 

So if this evolved or changed or if States created 50 individual 

mini NHTSAs it, frankly, would be the undoing of, frankly, our 

auto market and really impact our competitiveness, our ability to 

be able to move new technologies into the fleet thoughtfully and 

safely. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and the 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member 

of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.So both you, Mr. 

Wallace, and you, Mr. Morrison, observed in your testimony that 

NHTSA’s capabilities should be strengthened significantly through 

106 

increased funding and authority, and you, Mr. Morrison, it sounds 

like to fill a vacuum. 

So let me ask each of you to comment, and if you could be brief 

because I have a number of questions. Do you believe that NHTSA 

currently has the authority, data, staff, expertise to ensure that 

highly autonomous vehicles are safely deployed? 

Mr. Wallace. 

Mr. WALLACE. No. I believe that NHTSA needs far more staff 

that have the expertise in electronics and software. NHTSA needs 

to receive far more data about automated vehicle systems from 

companies and the systems that are approaching level 3, and as for 

authority, NHTSA, although some of the other witnesses have 

talked about NHTSA’s broad authority, what we’ve seen in practice 

is that the agency has not had a practical ability to get vehicles off 

the road quickly. And so NHTSA needs imminent hazard authority 

so it can do that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Morrison. 

Mr. MORRISON. I will speak only about the authority question. I 

have no question in my mind that NHTSA has the authority to fill 

the vacuum and if it does it would be proper to preempt State laws. 

The problem is that the industry position is voluntary guidance 

from NHTSA is enough and the States should stay out of the way. 

I don’t think that is the right balance to be struck and that 

NHTSA ought to find some way to exercise its authority not over 

testing specifically but before we start getting into deployment, 

which is what really concerns me. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You reacted to the statement that there ought 

to be exemptions for safety standards. I wondered if you wanted to 

comment on that. 

Mr. MORRISON. I want to be clear that I am talking about the 

exemptions for deployment. That is, when anyone other than the 

car manufacturer is driving the vehicle or operating the vehicle, I 

guess, is more proper in this context, or controlling the vehicle even 

if nobody is in it that is where I get worried about the exemptions. 

We don’t need any exemptions for the testing phase and the concerns about foreign countries getting ahead of us they will not be 

able to bring their cars into this country unless their HAVs meet 

our safety standards. 

There are currently no safety standards for them to meet. So unless they get an exemption, and they would not be eligible for exemptions here, we don’t have to worry about foreign competitors. 

We need to do testing and then worry about exemptions and preemption after that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, Mr. Wallace, you were talking about 

NHTSA has already requested imminent hazard authority. Is that 

true? 

Mr. WALLACE. That’s true. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to talk about a number of issues that 

are currently on the safety radar screen, at least for me. 

You said, Mr. Morrison, in your written testimony, ‘‘The focus on 

driverless cars and their potential for saving lives and money is not 

a green light to abandon all other safety-related rules that NHTSA 

could issue now without any changes in its governing statute,’’ and 

107 

I just wanted to bring up again an issue that has been close to my 

heart and constituents and consumers that I have been dealing 

with. 

Last year, 39 children died in vehicles from heatstroke, and I 

have talked to parents and we’ve had a press conference, the most 

heartbreaking press conference I ever had, who can never ever forgive themselves about forgetting their child in the back of a car. 

So, Mr. Wallace, how could NHTSA help reduce the number of 

heatstroke victims? 

Mr. WALLACE. NHTSA could reduce the number of these tragic 

deaths that occur by requiring every new vehicle to have technology on it that notifies the driver if there is a child still in the 

back seat, and that is what the Hot Cars Act would do and that 

is why we support it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And, Mr. Morrison, so you would put a focus 

on testing. Do you feel that the legislation before us doesn’t distinguish sufficiently between testing and deployment? Is that a chief 

flaw that you see right now? 

Mr. MORRISON. I think you have to read it very, very carefully 

to understand that deployment doesn’t mean testing. Deployment 

means selling these cars to fleets like Uber, car rental companies, 

or anybody else who is willing to buy them at $100,000 per year 

per manufacturer with 5-year exemptions. 

That strikes me as an awful lot beyond testing and I think we 

need to be careful to say testing is OK now but no exemptions for 

deployment. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am wondering if—my time is up—if you 

could give us your suggestions on how to proceed ahead and I 

would welcome them also from you, Mr. Wallace. 

Mr. MORRISON. I will try to draft something for you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. That would be great. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, 

the chairman from Oregon, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman. Again, I thank our panel of 

witnesses. Your testimony is most helpful in our work and we appreciate your insights and opinions. 

Mr. Bainwol, there are many potential benefits for self-driving 

cars, as we have heard from various participants in this discussion. 

I expect we’ll hear even more today. 

That said, self-driving cars are not on the road today and won’t 

be for the next few years. Why are these concepts in the discussion 

drafts important for your members—could you look at that for us— 

when it comes to innovation in developing self-driving cars? 

I mean, it is a range of options we are talking about here to get 

to where there is no steering wheel and it is completely autonomous, right? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So this is a relatively long evolution. It is both 

true that the future is here and that it is going to take a while to 

get here in full. So I alluded to Moody’s stipulating that ubiquity 

would occur in 2055 so that is 40 years from now. 

108 

But they’ll be available in 2020, 2021. It is right around the corner and the research is going on as we speak and has been for 

years. 

So the question here is how do we accelerate the future in a prudent way that maximizes safety. In my oral, I discuss the NHTSA 

framework that sought to optimize the balance so that you’d have 

protection of consumer but also the lubrication for innovation to 

occur. And that is really what this day is all about is how do you 

promote and maximize innovation here in the United States. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I want to point out again that these are staff 

discussion drafts. This is the beginning, not the end, and the importance of having everyone weigh in is not lost on us. 

Mr. Day, in your testimony you mentioned a survey, I believe, 

that was completed earlier this month. Did that survey look at how 

people who have some of the advanced safety features on their 

cars, they feel about the future of self-driving cars? 

I gave you my example and it seems to me you would go, wow, 

that makes a big difference. Does that affect the data? 

Mr. DAY. It does, and so people, once they start to experience, 

from our findings, from semi-autonomous vehicles, from automatic 

braking, from lane assistance—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. DAY [continuing]. Et cetera, when they start to understand 

the benefits and they understand what that means to overall safety, people understand and appreciate and support the technology. 

Absolutely. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. And I have to believe that, you know, you’re 

going to reduce vehicle accidents, clearly, and the cost that goes 

with it. 

I suppose the auto body shop folks might not be as happy—oh, 

they don’t want all this either, I know. But my chief of staff got 

a new Jeep—I will probably get in trouble for telling this story— 

but she was backing up and it stopped because she was very close 

to something near her mirror and it stopped the Jeep. 

And I just think about the savings this is going to bring everybody and the ability to save lives and injuries. 

Now, we do want to make sure before we unleash all these vehicles on the road with no steering wheels, off in the future, that that 

all is going to work. 

I got to admit, you know, that leaves you a little unsettled initially that all that may happen and how do you override it? I know 

with the technology in our car you can clearly override it but it 

does keep you in the lines. 

Now, I also have seen where—and this is part of why I think you 

need Federal involvement—if the paint is gone or not sufficient 

along the side lines or the center line or whatever, then that part 

of the safety technology doesn’t work. 

So do you need a paint standard? By the way, none of that works 

if you got two inches of snow and ice, I assume, on the road. I 

mean, you’re always going to have some level of importance of driver involvement. 

As you’re looking at the development, going forward, what is it 

that will work in those situations where it is not a clear highway? 

109 

Who can address that in terms of how we might minimize those— 

yes, sir. Go ahead. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. If I could, Mr. Chairman. I think you make two 

really important points. One is this is a whole spectrum of technologies that will be deployed based on competing business models, 

right. 

So you’ll have driverless vehicles, but you’ll also have vehicles 

where the technology is a guardian angel. I think that is a very important point. 

To your point about—we will call it redundancy, the idea that 

you need lots of different sensing capability: cameras, radar, 

LIDARS—we think vehicle-to-vehicle communications and vehicleto-infrastructure communications is, frankly, the code that will connect all of these technologies together that will work in the snowstorm, that will connect highly automated vehicles with less automated vehicles. So that, to us, would be a significant policy and 

technology answer to your question. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. It appears my time has expired. 

Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on this. I know 

everybody on the committee is very intrigued by what you’re doing 

here and the drafts and where we might head. So I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and your staff for all of the hard work on these bills. Taken together, they are an important step in the right direction to 

unleashing a safe autonomous future and I think for everybody in 

the room the way that they were drafted was to allow complete discussion of the various issues for people to express their concern, to 

not have this mammoth bill that nobody can read. 

But it is, obviously, a subject that is the future, has many issues 

connected with it. I am committed to working with my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation—it would 

be nice to say nonpartisan; why does the world always have to be 

Republican, Democratic?—American legislation that protects safety. 

There is nobody that is more bugaboo about cybersecurity than 

me. I didn’t get a Kroger card for years because I didn’t think it 

was anybody’s business what I bought. And the motor vehicle safety issue we are trying to address—people don’t realize that legislation right now is out of date. It is 50 years old, and it has not kept 

up with technology, and it is moving so rapidly. 

Joan Claybrook is in the audience. She’s been a hero of mine for 

a long time. How do we, in our ever-changing world, make sure 

what she’s fought for a lifetime is there but that we aren’t becoming outdated in this country because we are not keeping up? These 

are real issues that we need to talk about honestly and try to figure out. 

That said, I think it is very important we have clear rules of the 

road for Federal and State authorities when it comes to AVs. 

As you know, I represent the employees of a number of OEMs— 

yes, I am a car girl, and I am proud of it—who are investing in 

a lot of autonomous vehicle development. Those companies agree 

110 

that establishing clear responsibilities for Federal and State authorities is essential. They also agree that we need a mechanism 

that will allow autonomous vehicles to be deployed in a safe and 

responsible manner. The PAY, ROAD, and EXEMPT Acts are designed to do that. 

Could I ask you all quickly whether you share that view and how 

will these bills help facilitate safe and responsible deployment? We 

will start with you, Mr. Bainwol. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Sure. It is the combination of the two that is vital. 

You both need a national framework so that there is not confusion 

and you can—you can design to a single national approach. 

But you also need exemptions, and exemptions are not willynilly. This is a process where you will—where you will have to submit evidence to NHTSA, and if NHTSA does not feel like the evidence warrants the exemption it will not be granted. 

This will take months. There will be public comment. So the notion that this is just the Wild West is not accurate. 

The combination of the two—the national framework and the 

ability to invest a substantial amount of money, and have exemptions and a number where you can drive a return—is crucial. One 

without the other does not work. 

Ms. DINGELL. Mr. Strickland, we are going to have to go fast. I 

got a minute and 52 seconds, and 20 questions is not going to work. 

But keep going. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Ms. Dingell, I align with Mr. Bainwol’s assessment. I will make it that quick and easy, and I can expand 

LEAD’R. 

Mr. MORRISON. So I would say two things. 

First, the statute is not out of date in terms of being able to do 

this particular job of writing standards. 

Second, if I were in charge, I would say direct NHTSA to begin 

work on standards immediately and start down the road and stop 

relying on voluntary guidance. 

That’s the best way to strike the balance between State involvement and Federal involvement. If the Federal Government doesn’t 

get involved, the States are going to fill the vacuum. 

Mr. WALLACE. So we at Consumers Union Consumer Reports we 

are not opposed to testing. We are not opposed to the idea if exemptions. But first I want to note that not all highly automated vehicles will need exemptions. 

And second of all, we need across the board criteria for when exemptions are granted and how to apply for them so that it is clear 

to the public what assurances are provided about their safety. 

Ms. DINGELL. Any other comments? 

Mr. WALLACE. I agree with Mr. Bainwol’s comments earlier. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes. I agree also. We have a language problem, 

right. We have rules, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that 

refer to mechanical devices in human beings, and we need an opportunity in the near term to responsibly, with safety first in mind, 

deploy vehicles while the agency does its work. 

Mr. MORRISON. May I say those standards are not a barrier to 

testing. The tests can go on right now with those existing standards because the statute says that the standards do not apply 

when there is testing going on. 

111 

The big divide is between testing and deployment. Testing means 

that the auto companies have qualified people in these vehicles or 

running them. Deployment means anyone can do it. That is the big 

divide. 

Ms. DINGELL. I want to say that we agree that when it is deployed that we address that motor vehicle safety—there are some 

differences here. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to put more questions in the record. 

Michigan shares with California wanting to be at the forefront 

making sure that this is safe. But we got to keep moving. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, the 

vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Strickland, in your testimony you mention the numerical and 

temporal limitations on exemptions under current law. 

Can you please explain why such limitations may present really 

concrete obstacles to the development and deployment of self-driving cars? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. The bottom line being is NHTSA lives 

on data. The only way that you get data is, frankly, ultimately by 

real-world experience and, frankly, deployment and testing are, 

frankly, our tongue and groove. 

So having the ability to test beyond, you know, 2,500 vehicles for 

2 years, frankly, is a hard limitation that you can’t generate the 

kind of data needed for NHTSA’s next activity. So this expansion, 

thoughtfully done, is a very necessary approach. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. So if we are talking about that expansion, how 

will increasing the number of vehicles the manufacturer can get in 

exemptions help push this technology forward? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, I will say, think about—once again, you’ll 

never divorce us from safety. It still had to prove equivalent safety 

in terms of what you’re looking at the exemption for, number one, 

and as administrator of NHTSA for 4 years, it is a power that is, 

frankly, very jealously guarded and very cautiously used. 

It has to be well evidenced, as Mr. Bainwol noted in his commentary. So having the opportunity to be able to have an expanded 

fleet to gather data can inform what’s working in the fleet, what’s 

not working in the fleet, what technology is working. 

Parts of what the policy that the Obama administration laid out 

last year gives the vector for the agency to be able to build the case 

for a future possibility of rulemaking. 

Without those exceptions, the agency had nothing to act on and 

it is going to be inert unless it gets that data. That’s why exceptions are so necessary. 

Mr. HARPER. Right. So speed up the time line is what we are 

talking about here. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. Right. If I could, Mr. Bozzella, I have heard some 

people argue that self-driving cars are good for encouraging the 

adoption of electric vehicles. Do you have an opinion on that topic? 

112 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes, I do, and I think there are people across the 

spectrum that are looking at this and researching this. I do believe 

that when you combine these two very significant technology 

trends and advancements, one, automated vehicles, especially highly automated and driverless vehicles with changing ownership 

models, the idea of transportation as a service, those will create demand, in my view, for electric vehicles which have a perfect sort 

of capital model for that type of business. 

In other words, they have a greater up front cost but lower operation costs and so I think you’ll see transportation as a service— 

providers who are using highly automated platforms adopt electric 

vehicles as well. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bainwol, it is good to see you again. I had a chance to visit 

with you at a reception not too long ago. You know, individuals 

with disabilities often face those transportation obstacles that 

we’ve talked about and from personal experience it does make daily 

tasks such as employment and other items very difficult. 

Do you see self-driving cars as being a catalyst for breaking down 

some of those barriers? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Being a catalyst? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Absolutely. There are an infinite number of benefits from self-driving cars from economic to quality of life. 

But the most profound one, in addition to the saving of life, is 

the quality-of-life aspect for those in the disabled community. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Do you see your members thinking about the 

potentials for the disability community as they plan out this and 

they look at the future and their future business plans for self-driving vehicles? Is this being considered by everyone? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Absolutely, and not a member but a few years ago 

Google made a demonstration at Waymo of the blind individual 

going to a Taco Bell and it was a very vivid demonstration early 

on in this process that automation has these benefits. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Harper, may I add in on it? 

Mr. HARPER. Yes, please, Mr. Strickland. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. We are talking about a community 

of 36 million people that are underserved because of lack of individual transportation choices. 

Twenty million of those people, frankly, have the ability to work 

and be a part of this economy. Our members specifically have 

talked about this and have integrated disability groups into our coalition as well to think about this. How do we build a vehicle from 

the bottom up to make sure that it is fully accessible for the variations of the disability community? 

So we are very much leaning into that possibility not only for the 

safety benefits but how do we better serve, frankly, an underserved 

community that has suffered for way too long. 

Mr. HARPER. Yes, and this is a question I would like to ask you, 

Mr. Strickland, and you, Mr. Bozzella, and that is what benefits do 

you see in creating councils that allow stakeholders, innovators, 

members of the public with expertise in self-driving cars to engage 

with public officials? 

113 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think the public debate is very important. I 

think manufacturers have a significant role in public education and 

I think part of that public education process is bringing different 

stakeholders together to continue to have dialogue about how to deploy these vehicles. 

I would say that that dialogue should also include automotive 

suppliers who are driving a significant amount of this vehicle technology research and development. 

Mr. HARPER. My time has expired. 

Would you agree with what he just said, Mr. Strickland? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. Not only with Mr. Bozzella, but I also 

think about too all those stakeholders, but especially those communities that have been affected, like the disability community, to be 

able to communicate their issues and their needs specifically but, 

frankly, everybody along the chain of responsibility in manufacturing and developing vehicles should have some say. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity for us to have this discussion. 

I love the fact that the U.S. has always had the most innovative 

and the strongest auto industry in the world. We should continue 

to support and grow our auto industry as autonomous vehicles because part of our present and our future. 

I believe that we can continue to lead by solving issues, for example, of cybersecurity and privacy and by making sure that autonomous vehicles designed here are used—here and around the world 

are the best when it comes to safety today and tomorrow and forever. 

That is why we need proper laws and regulations, not to get in 

the way of American innovation but to hold ourselves to the standard that we have always strived to adhere to and that we have 

done, that is, admired American products around the world. 

We should give our agencies the tools to enforce smart and targeted improvement. I am concerned that some of the language in 

this draft legislation, specifically the MEMO Act, hurts our ability 

to make sure customer information is protected by limiting NHTSA 

in one area and FTC to another. 

This could prevent us from helping to make sure that cars are 

not hacked and customer information is protected when we could 

just allow NHTSA and the FTC to make the determination of who 

will take on what in the course of their work, and this is something 

that we certainly don’t want to make the mistake of making sure 

we have two departments pointing at each other and say, ‘‘Well, 

that is not exactly my jurisdiction. Somebody else should take care 

of it.’’ The problem would be when no one addresses those issues. 

Mr. Wallace, what consumer data could automated vehicles potentially collect? 

Mr. WALLACE. These cars, it would be an understatement to call 

them computers on wheels. They are incredibly complex. 

They have hundreds of millions of lines of code in them, and that 

goes for highly automated vehicles that are coming down the pike 

as well as vehicles already on the road today. 

114 

So the type of data that they can contain and collect is what you 

might see collected on the computer. 

But then in addition to that, where you go and other things that 

are directly related to driving. Now, I completely identify and agree 

with what you were saying about the two agencies, FTC and 

NHTSA. 

These two agencies have different authority and expertise. The 

FTC is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices. 

NHTSA is charged with protecting auto safety. These two agencies should work together. In fact, we were calling for them to be 

granted the authority to write joint standards. 

But what shouldn’t be done is to inhibit their work by drawing 

boundaries that could constrain the authority that they currently 

have. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Is there a potential that third party companies 

could want to buy this information from a car manufacturer? 

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So if that is the case, wouldn’t it help to make 

sure where those bright lines are about how that information can 

or can’t be transposed from one company to another? 

Mr. WALLACE. Absolutely, and that is why we are calling for joint 

standards to make sure that consumers know where their data is 

going, know who’s collecting it, and also that they can trust that 

companies are having to abide by a legal standard. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Mr. Wallace, is there any recommendation you 

would have for the current legislation before us in order to hold our 

manufacturers to a strong customer privacy standard? 

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, we support strong joint standards written by 

NHTSA and FTC jointly and we recommend that the committee 

grants APA rulemaking authority for those two agencies to write 

standards together. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well, I sit on another subcommittee where we 

have the FCC before us quite a bit, and it appears that, when it 

comes to customer privacy and things of that nature, FCC seems 

to be much more accustomed to dealing with privacy issues, unlike 

FTC and NHTSA. 

So the fact that we have two hopefully able and willing departments willing to tackle this responsibility of the future of autonomous vehicles, I think it is important that we not make the mistake as legislators to leave gaps that could perhaps take years for 

us to finally say oops, we should have closed that the first time. 

I would love to see this legislation move forward with those gaps 

closed but as of right now, unfortunately, I think that where there 

are gaps and there are finger pointing, what happens is we tend 

to have a lot of mistakes before we correct them. 

So with that, I am out of time. So thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the 

panel. 

115 

This committee has a long history regarding auto safety and we 

have taken the lead in pushing both industry and NHTSA to increase recall efficiency both on the supply and the consumer side. 

Mr. Strickland, how do you see self-driving automobiles affecting 

the rate of recall completion? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, it depends on the situation in terms of 

how this market evolves and how this technology evolves. 

The one thing that I think a number of stakeholders and technologists have talked about is that when a level 4 or level 5 vehicle 

can actually be notified of its need to be coming up for a recall or 

repair, it can actually maybe flip the repair model as opposed to 

having for a consumer driving the car to the dealership to get the 

recall repair exacted. 

The car could drive itself. In off hours, it can exact that recall 

opportunity and get fixed and be back at home before the consumer 

needs it. 

So, frankly, the technology probably has an opportunity to improve recall remedy rates. 

Mr. LANCE. Others on the panel, do you have views on this? Mr. 

Bozzella or Mr. Bainwol. 

Mr. MORRISON. I just note that the correlation in terms of recall 

fix is very strong and as the newer the car the more likely the individual is to get it fixed, and the closer the relationship also to the 

dealer. Those are the two factors—new car and dealer relationship. 

So, obviously, at the advent of the introduction of these the cars 

will be new and they’ll work and because, as David suggested, it 

is a self-driving car, from a time standpoint it will be easy to accommodate. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Bozzella. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Strickland and Mr. 

Bainwol. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

I apologize for the redundancy, but I feel the statistic warrants 

repeating that over 35,000 people died and nearly 2.5 million more 

were injured in automobile accidents in 2015. 

This is a very sobering figure, and approximately 95 percent of 

crashes are caused by human error and I am encouraged by your 

technology. 

Mr. Bozzella, I have seen some reports that claim self-driving 

cars could free up 50 minutes a day on average for drivers. 

This is important in New Jersey, the most densely populated 

State in the Nation, where many of our residents are stuck in traffic on a daily basis during the work week. 

Do you have figures as to how you think this might affect the average commute for a constituent of mine in New Jersey? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I would like to be able to get back to you with a 

full set of figures. But I think that the general notion is absolutely 

correct, and I think what we should be thinking about is not only 

the driverless car—the highly automated level 4, level 5 car of the 

future—but also the congestion benefits of level 3 cars and also 

which are safer, because congestion is often related to crashes, but 

also the idea of vehicle-to-vehicle communications which will allow 

vehicles to travel more closely together very, very safely. 

116 

So I think the combination of technologies across the spectrum 

of vehicles can reduce congestion significantly. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Others on the panel, do you have a view 

on this? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I align with Mr. Bozzella’s comments. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Bainwol, can you share with the subcommittee how self-driving vehicles can provide positive effects on the environment perhaps in the area of emissions and pollution? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Sure. Absolutely there is value. One of the things 

about crash avoidance—and self-driving is the ultimate in crash 

avoidance—is that it aligns safety and environmental objectives. 

It helps in several ways, cars that don’t crash as often, because 

you have less congestion so you have less idling time. So you get 

from point A to point B faster. 

But the cars themselves are more efficient, and some say 5 to 10 

percent more efficient, in terms of the drive itself. No lead foot. 

So both for the purposes of avoiding congestion and for the purposes of a more efficient drive and also when you think about the 

nav benefits, the quickest route of—there are lots of reasons why 

this is environmentally positive. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Others on the panel? Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALLACE. I would just note very briefly that additional research needs to be done to understand with greater certainty what 

the environmental impact is going to be—— 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. WALLACE [continuing]. Because at this point currently it is 

not clear whether automation would lead to cars being more efficient or far less efficient, and in fact work done by the Department 

of Energy a couple years ago, those were the results. It could be 

less. It could be far more. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. BAINWOL. Actually, if I could—I have seen Energy work that 

speaks specifically to the point of environmental value. The question, though, really is whether there is going to be more VMT or 

less VMT. That’s the question. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Well, I drive a 2004 Honda Accord stick shift with 200,005 miles 

on it, and maybe the next car I will buy will be one of your automobiles. But it is only 13 years old, so I think it is middle-aged regarding the Lances. 

But I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this session here today. As I said earlier, I believe we all have the 

same goal here. We all want to get autonomous vehicles on the 

road so we can begin to reduce the number of deaths on our roadways. 

117 

I just want to make sure that as we work on a policy framework 

that allows for the deployment of AVs we ensure that States retain 

their traditional ability to keep the roadways and residents safe. 

We also need to create a level playing field that allows all innovative companies to compete. Competition means that the market 

will ultimately decide who is able to deliver the most consumerfriendly AV technology. 

As we all know, as I said before, historically States have regulated drivers while NHTSA has regulated vehicles. But now the vehicle is the driver. 

There are a number of situations where this could cause confusion. For example, today States are able to verify owner insurance 

information with a human driver. But if there isn’t a human driver, the vehicle itself will need to present its insurance information. 

Further, AV software must be designed to comply with each 

State’s traffic laws. 

Lastly, in order for law enforcement to identify a vehicle as highly automated, States may need to require the labelling of automated vehicles as part of the vehicle registration process. 

All of these situations could overlap with the regulation of vehicle design and communication systems, which is preempted in today’s legislation. 

Now, I would ask all our witnesses do you believe the draft legislation should provide States with a limited exception, allowing 

them to create requirements that fall within these precluded areas 

but only when necessary to perform essential State functions? 

And starting with Mr. Bainwol—quick answers, please. 

Mr. BAINWOL. I am the nonattorney on the panel. But I think we 

should respect the traditional roles of the States and the feds, and 

to the extent those are implicated they should be protected. 

Mr. MORRISON. Two answers. One is it is not the traditional 

versus the nontraditional so much as the areas where NHTSA is 

not regulating versus the areas where NHTSA is regulating. 

Ms. MATSUI. Exactly. 

Mr. MORRISON. Second, I want to raise a point on this preemption. What about localities? Should a locality have any authority to 

say that testing of vehicles or even deployment of these vehicles 

under an exemption cannot be permitted in the streets of our town 

or can only be permitted away from the schools or at certain hours 

of the day. 

It is very unclear. The preemption provision in LEAD’R talks 

about traffic laws, and I would call that a traffic law. I am not sure 

that the industry would call it a traffic law but it is an important 

question which you would want to talk to your constituents about 

whether you should have some say in these vehicles coming and 

when they’re coming and going. 

Ms. MATSUI. I understand, and I would like to hear from the 

rest. 

Mr. Strickland. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Ms. Matsui. 

I think, frankly, that directionally speaking, the LEAD’R Act is 

taking the right approach and making sure traditional roles are 

maintained. 

118 

I think there needs to further discussions about those gap areas 

that Mr. Morrison is talking about. But I do think directionally 

speaking the LEAD’R Act is taking the right approach and we are 

looking forward to having further conversations. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, I am asking for limited exceptions here. Are 

you in favor of that? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think the question is ultimately the situation 

and the time in terms of what you’re looking for. I think specifically speaking I think, frankly, industry looks for regulatory certainty and I think a broader approach to make sure we don’t have 

a patchwork assurances in terms of speed but, clearly, we can certainly understand situations where there may be conversations 

about particular areas where there is a vacuum. 

Ms. MATSUI. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALLACE. To answer your question, I would say yes and I 

would also say that States should be able to take action to protect 

their citizens where they’re not already protected. 

Mr. DAY. Thank you for the question. 

I believe that the legislation as prepared and written and proposed is sufficient at this point in time. I think it is evolving, and 

it is something that we should continue to monitor and work on. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think we need to strike the right balance between the existing Federal requirements to determine what a national vehicle market looks like and design and performance standards while maintaining the States’ traditional roles. 

I think that is important. I think the legislation does strike the 

right balance, and we’d be open to a conversation to learn more 

about your concerns. 

Ms. MATSUI. And my concerns are, I think, concerns of the public, too, and so I think it is important to address them and not be 

put in a box here because I think we really need to have these discussions and I truly believe this is really the beginning of the process, and I think it is really very important. 

I am now running out of time, but I want to ask another question here. Tech companies in California have been leaders in the 

push to develop AVs. It is important that they are able to test their 

technologies in a responsible manner, whether on their own or in 

partnership with traditional automakers. 

Now, the MORE Act is intended to open up testing to more 

innovators in the AV space. Mr. Strickland and Mr. Day, do you 

believe the text of the bill adequately allows tech companies to 

test? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. I think there needs to be—frankly, I think we 

have an opportunity to think about decreasing discrimination between the tech companies and the OEMs, and I always want to 

sort of use, in a quick example, Uber and Lyft. 

Just a few years ago, those were fairly small companies that had 

limited impact. They deliver millions of rides a day. So you can’t 

necessarily think about what is a small new entry versus what is 

an evolved company and making sure that we have—once again, 

the right balance is very important in terms of making sure that 

we have equity and competition. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Mr. Day, quickly. I am over time now. 

119 

Mr. DAY. I agree, and I think when you look at the rideshare programs like Lyft and Uber, that will be one of the first ways that 

we are going to be able to test this technology, and I think that 

will be sufficient as it is related to the MORE Act. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and Mr. 

Strickland just said the right balance. I think a lot of things that 

we are looking for how do we get to the right balance. 

My questions are going to be on the exemptions. In your testimony you mentioned the numerical and temporal limitations on exemptions under current law. 

So kind of a complex question here, I guess. But one, I know you 

talked about it in your testimony but if you could further explain 

how the exemptions strike the right balance between one’s safety 

and innovation, so we want to make sure that you have the right 

balance for safety. 

Second, can you explain why the limitations, once that they are 

safe, why the limitations present concrete obstacles to the development of deployment of self-driving cars and how will increasing the 

number help move that deployment forward? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, sir. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration makes its decisions based upon data—whether or 

not they are going to take a rulemaking posture, whether they’re 

going to think about creating a change to the new car assessment 

program and once again acknowledging Administrator Claybrook’s 

fine work—program began under her time—all those things need 

data. The only way you get data, frankly, is deployment and usage, 

and that generates those necessary components. 

So the smaller, more limited the opportunity we have to test and 

deploy these technologies, making sure that once again within they 

prove equivalent safely or overall safety to the vehicle, which is already stated in law, so we are not sacrificing safety but generating 

the data where needed to make wise decisions about this technology in the future. 

And the reason why it is a concrete obstacle now limited to 2,500 

vehicles over a 2-year period there is no way you’re going to be able 

to generate the type of data information needed for, frankly, the 

companies to be able to innovate thoughtfully and, frankly, the 

agency to learn about those technologies. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So increasing the exemptions can be done in a way 

that balance and strike with, say, on balance and safety? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

I don’t think there is anyone on this panel that works with the 

manufacturing community or the tech community who is going to 

sacrifice safety and NHTSA has the authority under current law to 

make sure that those exceptions are thoughtfully applied for, 

thoughtfully and conservatively granted and making sure it generates data without sacrificing the safety of the driving public. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Thank you for that answer. 

120 

Mr. Day, could you please explain how the current regulatory 

structure at NHTSA presents obstacles to the self-driving car industry that may result in America falling behind other nations 

with respect to the development of this technology? 

Mr. DAY. You know, as I said in my comments earlier, there is 

a significant reason for concern and I think when you’re looking 

at—for example, in the State of California the DMV recently issued 

34 permits for autonomous vehicle tester program and of those 34, 

12 are from foreign countries. 

And so I think this is a, you know, another issue where we are 

looking at potentially 50 different State regulations that apply to 

this and causing further delay and the longer that we, you know, 

prolong this effort it is going to cause more concern globally and 

the competition is real. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Anybody else want to comment on that, that question of the current regulation at NHTSA? 

If not, then I will yield back my—so those are my two questions 

I prepared. I yield back my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields it 

back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the 

ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have heard concerns that this legislation as written would prevent States from regulating autonomous vehicle safety without a 

guarantee that NHTSA would step in. 

In Mr. Day’s testimony, he pointed out that Americans strongly 

prefer a Federal standard when it comes to laws governing autonomous vehicles, but in this current package of bills there is no 

standard and there are no governing laws. 

So I wanted to ask Mr. Wallace initially what are the risks to 

consumers if States are preempted from regulating AV safety and 

NHTSA does not take action to fill that vacuum? 

Mr. DAY. Sure. Right now, there are no NHTSA regulations on 

the books protecting consumers from cybersecurity risks when they 

hit their vehicles. 

There aren’t any standards on the books regarding cars that may 

lead consumers to lose attention in the driving task and, two, there 

aren’t any standards in place to make sure that the car ensures 

that they stay plugged in. 

There aren’t any standards in place to make sure that companies, manufacturers, suppliers, others, submit enough date for 

NHTSA to be able to assess whether a brand-new technology is 

safe on the road or not, and all of these are of great concern and, 

as long as those standards aren’t in place at the Federal level, we 

think States should still have the opportunity to act on behalf of 

their citizens. 

Mr. PALLONE. And then, Mr. Morrison, in your written testimony 

you said that you don’t know of any laws where Congress has preempted States from acting on an issue where no Federal agencies 

have taken action. Is that correct? 

Mr. MORRISON. That is correct. 

In my view, it raises serious constitutional questions. The supremacy clause of the constitution says Federal law shall be suVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:34 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X42SDVLEG\115X42SCVLEGWORKING WAYNE
121 

preme. If there is no applicable Federal law, how can it be supreme, and that is the question we will have to answer. 

Hopefully, we won’t get to that point—that the Federal Government will step in and issue standards. May I say—a followup to 

what Mr. Wallace just said—I think it is important to understand, 

in the past when safety innovations have been introduced, they 

haven’t fundamentally changed the experience of the driver and 

the car. 

We haven’t had to qualify drivers the way we would have to now. 

I would be frightened to death if I got into one of these cars and 

just went off on my own. 

But if start allowing the deployment phase with no regulation of 

the vehicle and no required testing of the driver to see that she or 

he is capable of driving these vehicles, I am afraid that whatever 

the safety standards are trying to be built in by the industry we 

are going to have a lot of problems on the highway, particularly because, as the gentleman pointed out a few moments ago, he has a 

vehicle that is 13 years old. 

It will be a long time before we have autonomous vehicles that 

comprise the whole fleet, and meanwhile we’ll be having a mixed 

fleet of vehicles, some of which will be autonomous and some the 

kind of cars that we are all driving now. 

So before we get to the deployment stage when we are starting 

to allow individuals who are not specially trained to operate these 

vehicles I think we have to be very, very careful and the real dangers of both injuring people but also injuring the program in the 

long run by undermining consumer confidence. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Now, we know the Trump administration has not appointed a 

NHTSA administrator or an acting administrator. The agency 

doesn’t even have an employee who could testify today on major 

legislation that directly affects it. 

So let me ask Mr. Wallace in the time remaining, are you concerned that NHTSA may not have the resources or inclination to 

develop a Federal standard on AVs without direction from Congress? 

Mr. WALLACE. History, including very recent history, has shown 

that NHTSA is most likely to take action when Congress tells it 

to do so and so I think that Congress should recognize that and 

recognize that, if there are actions that the agency needs to take, 

especially if they pertain to safety standards, it is going to need to 

ask NHTSA to do it. It is going to need NHTSA to take that action. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Let me ask you two things at once because you only got 40 seconds. Why is it so important that NHTSA 

take an active role on autonomous vehicle regulation going forward 

and what action should NHTSA take next to ensure safe deployment of autonomous vehicles? That’s for—I guess, for Mr. Wallace 

again. 

Mr. MORRISON. I think the first thing it should do—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Would you rather answer? 

Mr. MORRISON [continuing]. It should undertake a commitment 

to start down the process of starting to develop Federal standards. 

If it doesn’t start that process it is never going to finish it. 

122 

It has a serious resource problem, and I would point out that the 

resource problem is going to be intensified if these exemptions are 

all being given. 

After all, as several of the witnesses have pointed to today, these 

vehicles are not one size fits all and therefore NHTSA will have to 

carefully examine each application and I don’t think it has the resources to do that now and it is going to be under tremendous pressure to let these cars go on the road and be deployed and I am very 

worried about that for the driving public. 

Mr. WALLACE. And very briefly, just to add to what I said, if Congress asks NHTSA to take on new responsibilities or to do new 

tasks, like I said, this is a chronically underfunded, underresourced 

agency. 

Congress should include funding for the agency if it asks the 

agency to take on new matters. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this 

has been one of the more interesting panels. This is probably the 

fourth or fifth panels that we’ve had on this subject and it is one 

of the two engineers in Congress. 

It is a fascinating dialogue about all of this. In fact, we are going 

to have a conference this fall back in the district over this subject 

because we want to explore this further. 

But I do have some issues or concerns that perhaps go beyond 

this legislation because I have all the confidence that we will develop a bipartisan approach that will develop this. But I am looking at maybe from 30,000 feet perhaps on something. 

Mr. Bainwol, maybe it goes back to you. One of your charts that 

you put up showed that there was an increase in accidents or 

deaths in the last few years. Can you just give me a real short 

version of what’s caused that uptick in numbers? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So there has been a tick-up and it is beyond VMT. 

We have looked at it preliminarily and we can’t give you a totally 

conclusive explanation but there are a number of factors that are 

clear. 

One is distraction. We think it is about 10 percent of the challenge. It is also older drivers and older cars. There’s an enormous 

correlation between the age of the car—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. If I could jump in on that, because that is 

really where I wanted to go is if we have available technology right 

now to address some of that with seatbelt legislation, possibly 

glare-proof windshields, breathalyzers that we can use, why 

aren’t—why isn’t the—why aren’t the manufacturers using that as 

the first step instead of taking this giant leap over into self, you 

know, automated cars? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is it the cost? Because, when I talk to the auto 

dealers, that is what they tell me. People can’t afford all of these 

provisions. 

Mr. BAINWOL. There are a range of factors. One is cost. The price 

of a vehicle has gone up fairly dramatically and much of that is reVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:34 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X42SDVLEG\115X42SCVLEGWORKING WAYNE
123 

lated to compliance and it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford. So that is a part of it. 

But there is also the question of what the end result of the investment is, and in my oral I showed that pyramid and the existing 

challenge that relates to the car is 1 percent. Ninety-nine percent 

has nothing to do with the car. With self-driving you can deal with 

the totality of the problem, and so the prize there is critical. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And given, again, the time frame here—we have 

this constraint on it—so we talked a little bit about costs, and we 

haven’t as a board or as a panel here, we haven’t really gotten into 

that other than I have asked that in the previous groups about 

what is the cost, and everyone says they will get back to me and 

I am going to say three months later no one has gotten back to me, 

because what I was raising the question was, this has to increase 

the cost to a household, and for a family in Connecticut or Maryland that has a $70,000 annual house—that is their average in 

Maryland. But in Mississippi it is barely $37,000. 

How are people supposed to afford newer cars, especially when 

you also looked at one of your charts that you talked about—the 

older the car, the more liable there is going to be a problem with 

it. 

So how are we going to do this? Do you think the automobile’s 

business plan, their strategy here—maybe called your business 

case—is assuming that ultimately we are going to go to some kind 

of subsidy or tax credits for consumers to be able to have an automobile? 

Mr. BAINWOL. That is not part of any strategy. The—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Do you think that could ultimately lead to this? 

Because, if they’re going to increase costs of the cars, how are they 

going to be able to do that or maintain them, keeping in mind that 

many States across the country don’t even have automobile inspections. 

Now we are going to put this very sophisticated car on the highway without any inspection of that car. 

Mr. BAINWOL. The early phase of adoption will be through services like Uber and Lyft and Chariot and Maven, and because of 

that the costs to the consumer will actually be lower than today’s 

use of the vehicle. 

Down the road, as the technology matures, the price point will 

drop. So the blend of access versus ownership models will evolve. 

But the first experience, as I think Tim alluded to, will be through 

the ridesharing application, and there the cost will be low. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So, just for the record, you don’t think that the 

automobile industry is ever going to ask for some subsidy or tax 

credit so that new buyers will be able to acquire an automobile 

with this kind of automation with it? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I have never been part of conversation where the 

concept has been broached. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. All right. Well, I am curious about it because 

there is a reason that there are older cars on the highway—that 

people can’t afford them—and now we are going to impose this new 

standard. 

Again, I am fascinated with it. I think it is where we are going 

to be. But I am still hung up a little bit on how we get to there 

124 

from a macro view. And we will take care of the regulations on that 

but how is it going to affect our economy let alone, as Schakowsky 

mentioned earlier, 4.1 million people losing their jobs that are drivers. I am really curious about the big scheme. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time is expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for great testimony. 

There, I think, is a universal agreement that we’d like to have 

our car manufacturers be the first. We are in agreement that we 

want safety to not be compromised. 

The background here, though, where I think, ultimately, when 

we put pen to paper there is a difference, is putting any confidence 

in an organization—governmental entity—that has some responsibility to say the car is good to go, because there is an apprehension 

among many that, where you have a regulatory agency, it is going 

to delay the deployment and it is going to increase the cost. That’s 

the divide here. 

But bottom line, at a certain point if these are going to be deployed some entity has to decide yes, it is good to go. So I just want 

to ask, Mr. Bainwol, who would be the decider that the fleet is 

ready to go on the road? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Well, it is NHTSA. I mean, the exemptions will 

not be enforced unless NHTSA makes the decision to approve 

them. And I just want to make a point on that. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. All right. So, you know, I will let you get to 

that. But the bottom line, what you’re saying is this public organization is the one that has the final say this car goes on the road? 

Mr. BAINWOL. It is the safety organization, and I do want to 

make a point that has been lost in the last few minutes—that is 

that NHTSA has broad enforcement and defect authority that applies not just when there is a standard but in the absence of standards when it is an exemption, when it is a test. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. So what, in your view, does NHTSA need 

in order to most effectively do the job of protecting public safety? 

Because, by the way, if we don’t have this done right, if we go too 

fast, one of two things is going to happen. 

There’s going to be big delays because there will be a reservation 

to act or there will be a disaster because we acted too toon. And 

if I were on the manufacturing side, the last thing in the world I 

would want is some spectacular crash that totally compromises 

public confidence that this is good technology. 

So what does NHTSA need in order to do its job? Because a lot 

of folks in this building think the best thing for NHTSA is to starve 

its budget. 

Mr. BAINWOL. It needs its existing authority. It needs to be properly budgeted and that is a congressional point, and it needs to act 

when it feels it needs to. 

Mr. WELCH. Would the auto industry be willing to have like a 

contribution to funding NHTSA to boost its capability to do this 

work? 

125 

Mr. BAINWOL. We could talk about it. I mean, it is not something 

we have discussed. But let me point out—— 

Mr. WELCH. I am sorry. We only have 5 minutes. I wish I could 

hear more, but I am limited. 

Mr. Strickland, how about you? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Current authority, frankly, is very broad, and 

I think it is very effective in this case. Also remember, Congressman, that NHTSA requires a self-certification of compliance to the 

standards. 

So for the past 50 years, basically, the automakers have to say 

that, yes, our vehicle complies with all the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards and then NHTSA goes out and tests for compliance randomly. 

So your suggestion of a type of approval of where NHTSA sort 

of signs off on the fleet before it is deployed would be dramatic 

change in the law that is, frankly, unprecedented and actually creates new problems in and of itself. I think—— 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I actually don’t want to create problems. But 

I want to, like you, ensure safety. So would NHTSA need access 

to more of the data? 

I mean, there is always a proprietary argument about the data 

but how can the entity that is charged with certifying safety act 

without access to that data? 

Mr. BAINWOL. NHTSA has access to the data. Basically, they 

have relationships with all the manufacturers to be able to get confidential business information. They have information requests. 

There’s lots of opportunities for them to get the data they need. 

That’s one of the aspects of the Federal Automated Vehicle. 

Mr. WELCH. So your view would be that, whatever NHTSA needs 

datawise, they should get in order to certify. 

Mr. BAINWOL. No. There are certain things that, frankly, I think 

that NHTSA is going to have to justify why they need particular 

data points. But in terms of safety, if there is an issue, NHTSA has 

the opportunity to ask for and then be able to get it. 

Mr. WELCH. Is your concern about proprietary information leaking out? 

Mr. BAINWOL. NHTSA has an excellent record in protecting proprietary data. The issue is ultimately going to be whether or not 

there being some ways to compel proprietary and confidential data 

to be propelled outside. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I don’t know how we—you know, Mr. Chairman, for me, I see this as a practical issue and not an ideological 

issue. 

We have got to be certain that the public feels confident that 

these self-driving vehicles are safe. We all know that. It has got to 

happen. 

So I would have less confidence if the organization we’ve assigned the responsibility to say ‘‘OK, it is good to go’’ didn’t have 

the information that it wanted, and I am reassured by you that I 

am hearing that NHTSA has a good record of—— 

Mr. STRICKLAND. They have an excellent record. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. Well that is great—— 

Mr. MORRISON. May I point out? 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. And it is the way it should be. 

126 

Mr. MORRISON. I’d point out, Mr. Welch—— 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. MORRISON [continuing]. That the EXEMPT Act provides that 

all of the date submitted in connection with these highly autonomous vehicles shall be exempt from public disclosure as confidential business information. 

Contrary to the standard practice for years in which NHTSA has 

been able to exempt a limited amount of trade secret information. 

This would be a complete reversal and the public would have no 

confidence whatsoever that NHTSA was doing the right thing because all this information would be secret. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. Yes. I only have a few more seconds. I guess 

I don’t have any more seconds. 

[Laughter.] 

I will just say this. I appreciate the panel, all right, and I appreciate your leadership here. We want to get this done. Some of these 

practical challenges I think lend themselves to a quiet working 

group as opposed to kind of a contested approach. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for the gentleman’s discussion. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here and taking your time with us today. It is important. 

A couple of points I want to make right off the bat. Safety is the 

most important thing in all this. I think this is the jump to safety 

that we’ve all been looking for. 

Illinois lost 998 fatalities last year, up 8 percent from the prior 

year. Those are a thousand lives that theoretically could have been 

saved through this. 

The other big important point to remember is that this is happening. It is just like with cell phones. I remember in ’96 I went 

to Germany and as an 18-year-old and saw that they were texting 

for the first time and was awed by that, and they were leading the 

United States in cell phone technology. 

Well, we were able to grab that back and now we basically lead 

the world on that kind of stuff and this is the competition we are 

in in self-driving cars. This is a competition against China, against 

Europe. 

We all kind of want to work together, but we also want to be the 

first in leading this technology, and so I think that is an important 

point to remember, even as we think about the employment implications, which I think we need to do a lot of work to figure out how 

to handle that, because that is coming. 

Mr. Bozzella, Germany has enacted a law that is paving the way 

for autonomous vehicles on public roads and the U.K. is working 

on legislation as well, and I can imagine that across the globe nations are updating their regulations to allow testing and operation 

of autonomous vehicles on public roads. 

How do today’s proposals improve the U.S. competitiveness and 

ensure that we remain the leader in this technology? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman, 

and I appreciate, first, the sense of urgency here in Congress and 

with this subcommittee, because it is really important. 

127 

There is a competition taking place. It is happening all around 

the world. What you’re doing here with this framework is you are 

providing a flexible and nimble opportunity to deploy technology 

while at the very same time assuring the public and the regulator 

that we are doing this in the safest possible manner and you are 

doing this in a couple ways. 

One is, you are building on the notion of safety assurance. This 

is important. The regulators already recognize that. 

Secondly, what you’re doing is you are assuring safety by giving 

the preeminent safety regulator the ability to get this technology 

on the roadway only if we can assure that we are producing equivalent safety and you are also allowing the regulator to build the 

database so that they can update their rules which were, frankly, 

set up in the world of mechanical automobiles. 

That’s what you are doing. It is really important we appreciate 

it. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Strickland, the Safe Driving Coalition supports the four proposed bills to expand NHTSA’s authority to permit more highly autonomous vehicles on public roads for testing and for deployment. 

In regards to the MORE Act, can you explain the benefits of expanding the eligible testing entities to include equipment manufacturers, suppliers, universities and new market entrants? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Frankly, you need—and you don’t know where 

your next innovation is going to come and to be able to have the 

opportunity to thoughtfully test and test safely and deploy safely 

in order to generate data and, frankly, new opportunities for innovations to enter into the space is crucial. 

Level 4 and level 5 vehicles are farther away. Often, you talked 

about no driver being a part of the driving task ever and level 5 

is in all conditions: rain, snow, sleet, et cetera. 

So you are going to need opportunities to make sure that you can 

thoughtfully test and deploy these technologies and a broad way to 

collect data which benefits both the agency, NHTSA, and benefits, 

frankly, all the innovators and manufacturers. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

I think it is important to note with all that too we can never foresee what technology and innovations come along or it wouldn’t be 

called innovation. 

It would just be called stuff we know, and so it is important to 

set the framework for these smart ideas and, unfortunately, we 

would like to admit that the 435 of us here can come up with the 

best ideas but we can’t and people out there can, so provide that. 

Last question for Mr. Day. In your testimony, you state that exemptions are critical to the industry with respect to self-driving 

cars. 

Can you explain by exemptions are critical at this stage in the 

development of these cars and do you see a benefit to create new 

exemptions specifically tailored to self-driving cars? 

Mr. DAY. I don’t think we need new exemptions, and thank you 

for the question. I appreciate your leadership on the committee and 

I look forward to discussing this issue further but I think exemptions are one way and I think along with preemption of really getVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:34 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X42SDVLEG\115X42SCVLEGWORKING WAYNE
128 

ting us on the right track and I think it is something that we need 

to explore. 

I think there is another, you know, way of exploring these issues 

and we should be looking at how they complement each other, 

going forward. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you. Thank you all for being here, 

and I will make up for Mr. Welch going over by yielding back 26 

seconds. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially for 

extending legislative courtesy to me to participate in this subcommittee hearing, which I am not a member of, but the issues is 

of great importance to me, to my constituents and certainly our 

country. So thank you to all the witnesses and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

As the member of Congress having the great privilege to represent Silicon Valley, I am proud to have essentially a front row 

seat in the next great revolution now in transportation. 

Everyone from the major domestic and foreign automakers to 

large tech companies and small start-ups are developing AV technologies in Silicon Valley. I have driven on Interstate 280—I don’t 

know how many of you have ever been on it; it is billed as one of 

the most beautiful freeways in the world—in a Tesla on autopilot 

with my heart in my throat. It was on autopilot mode. And I have 

ridden in a self-driving vehicle developed by a start-up in an old 

fire station in Menlo Park. 

In my view, consumer confidence should be the number-one priority of both the automakers and we, the policymakers, that want 

to speed deployment of AVs. 

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to revolutionize mobility, 

safety, urban planning and transportation around the world and I 

want to see America be the leader—the unquestioned leader in 

this. 

But if consumers don’t have confidence in the technology or the 

policies and the safety regulations that govern it, I think that 

they’ll be hesitant to turn over the controls to a computer. 

So I think a very important part of ensuring this confidence is 

passing the fully bipartisan legislation that will lead to evidencebased regulations by the expert agencies, obviously, instructed by 

all of you as well. 

When Congress first created the Federal Automotive Safety 

Standards in 1966, the law passed nearly unanimously and I think 

that we should draw from that and be inspired by it. 

The bills before us today represent policy by preemption and exemption rather than directing rulemaking to guide the safe deployment of this technology. 

Now, I recognize that there will be some preemption because traditionally the Federal Government has regulated the vehicle 

through safety and design standards while the States have regulated the driver through licensing and insurance. 

129 

So we have a key role in this. But in an autonomous vehicle, the 

vehicle is the driver. So the issue of preemption I think by that 

very definition becomes more complicated. 

Today, there are, roughly, the same amount of traffic fatalities 

in the United States as in 1956, the year that Congress authorized 

the interstate highway system. 

So I think AVs have the potential to save thousands of lives, but 

consumers won’t have confidence in the technology unless they 

have a sense that their safety is paramount in both the policy and 

the technology. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for extending the legislative 

courtesy to me. I want you to know that I want to very much be 

involved in helping to shape the policy. This, clearly, needs to be 

bipartisan and that in and of itself is going to project a message 

of confidence to the American people in this. 

And with that, I will yield back—oh, I have finished all of 

my—— 

Mr. LATTA. Well, our technology isn’t quite working today. 

Ms. ESHOO. Did you speed it up? Did you speed it up? Was this 

on automatic pilot? Maybe it was autopilot mode. 

But at any rate, thank you very, very much. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate the lady’s—— 

Ms. ESHOO. An important hearing, and I look forward to working 

with you on it. 

Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the lady’s comments. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Consumers’ willingness to get into a self-driving car or feel about 

having their family members ride in a self-driving car is one of the 

most popular topics in news stories about self-driving cars. 

Consumer education seems to fit naturally with consumer adoption and the public’s willingness to try out a new technology that 

interacts with lots of older cars on the road. 

The average lifespan of a vehicle recently increased to 11 years 

on the road. In addition, we are still years away from the first limited commercial deployment of self-driving cars. 

Mr. Bainwol, what role do you see for industry communicating 

with their consumers about self-driving cars? 

Mr. BAINWOL. We have a role and some of this is, you know, informally when you buy a car and have kind of a tutorial. 

The one thing I would note about consumer acceptance is, is 

there is a relationship between the number of driver assists that 

you’ve experienced and your attitude about self-driving? 

And so to some extent, over time, as your constituents experience 

more and more driver assists, the reaction to self-driving transforms in a dramatic fashion. If you have had no experience with 

driver assists, your attitude is very negative. If you have had lots 

of experience with driver assists, you have a totally different reaction. 

Ms. WALTERS. Do we know enough about the cars that will be 

on the road to set parameters for the Government to begin educating the public about self-driving cars? 

Mr. BAINWOL. Conceptually, yes. 

Ms. WALTERS. OK. 

130 

Mr. Day, in your testimony, you warn against too much specificity with regard to Government standards. Why do you believe 

there is an inherent danger in providing for very specific standards 

for technology such as self-driving cars that is continually evolving? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you for the question, and I think we need to 

kind of step back. I think a lot of the questioning here today—we 

are at the beginning stages of this technology, and while we are 

conceptually aware of what the technology brings there is still a lot 

of questions to be answered, hence the importance of the testing 

that we are talking about and having the general framework by 

which we should have established to go forward. 

And so I think, you know, part of what I am trying to do at C– 

TEC within the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is to work with our 

State and local chambers and our member companies on truly messaging what they know now and making people feel more comfortable with the technology to understand it, to appreciate it, and 

to really understand and appreciate the benefits to the disabled, 

senior citizens, et cetera, and to keep drunk drivers off of the road. 

Ms. WALTERS. OK, and then I have another question for you. 

In your testimony you mention a study conducted by Intel on the 

economic impact of self-driving cars. Can you please discuss what 

the study looked at and its results? 

Mr. DAY. I do not have that in front of me but I would be happy 

to share that with your office after this hearing today. 

Ms. WALTERS. OK. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back the 

balance of her time. 

And now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. I am 

sorry for getting the order mixed up there. But you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that 

clock would make sure. 

I want to thank the committee for the diligence we have been 

doing and as a member of it, but I was running back and forth between Energy and Healthcare. But I want to thank the Chair and 

the ranking member for this. 

I want to experience in our country with some type of self-driving 

vehicles. You have Governors on certain trucks or certain vehicles, 

but this is a whole new experience, and I think national standards 

and the safety ought to be the bottom line on anything. 

Mr. Morrison, in your testimony you mentioned there is a number of proposals before NHTSA currently that would enhance safety of all vehicles currently on the road. 

Could you please talk about these proposals briefly, because I 

only have 5 minutes, and tell us what you think these proposals— 

why they haven’t received much attention. 

Mr. MORRISON. I am sorry. I can’t be specific about the details 

of these proposals. I know that they are there. They are on the 

DOT’s docket. I think Wallace can help you be more specific. 

But the principal problem has been two things—number one, the 

will of the agency to proceed, the unwillingness of the companies 

to put the kind of safety first message that they have had here 

131 

today and, of course, finally, the question of resources for the agency. 

Mr. GREEN. Like I said, the only experience we have in somebody 

controlling the vehicle we are driving is very limited. 

Mr. Wallace, automated vehicle innovations gathered steam over 

the years, and you voiced concern about level 2 and 3 vehicles that 

still require an occasional human intervention. 

Is there a way we can blend that together? And let me tell you 

one joke. When I was a young State legislator in the ’70s, my wife’s 

grandmother said, ‘‘I don’t like to drive on the roads where we have 

the older road trucks—can we build a separate freeway for them?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘Well, the gas taxes would really be high if we had 

to do that.’’ But having one lane for automated vehicles and maybe 

other lanes for those of us who may not be driving an automated 

vehicle. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Congressman. 

I am not sure about different lanes, but what I can tell you is 

that given our concerns about level 2 and 3 vehicles, automakers 

and dealers will need to be very clear with consumers about what 

they can and cannot do because too often we have seen marketing 

or other types of publicity about cars that have driver assist technology and portraying them as self-driving cars when they are not, 

and we are very concerned that that could lead to problems on the 

road. 

Mr. GREEN. And that is what I know the committee doesn’t want, 

and that is why we are giving real good diligence to whatever we 

set up. 

Mr. Bainwol, in your testimony you mentioned the Federal Aid to Highway Act of 1956, which allocated $24.8 billion to build about 

41,000 interstate highways. 

There is widespread agreement that self-driving cars will need 

well-maintained infrastructure to function including clear lane 

lines, stop lights and signage. Can you talk about what infrastructure investments you and your members anticipate will be needed 

to ensure that self-driving vehicle technology can work? 

Mr. BAINWOL. So self-driving will be a product of the algorithms 

of the and the external environment, and so the external environment matters a ton. 

The simplest of eternal factors is the clarity of the white lines 

in the lanes. And so that is a fundamental kind of basic. 

But if you move further down the road, things like vehicle-to-vehicle communication, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, so 

there are a number of implications for infrastructure down the 

road. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I will give an example right now and I think 

everybody is familiar with Waze in the Houston area I grew up 

there and I know how to get around traffic. Waze may give us one 

way. 

Would that automated vehicle take that, you know, from the 

computer and this is the quickest way instead of the driver having 

any input? 

Mr. BAINWOL. There will be some application like Waze or Google 

Maps or some other proprietary mapping nav service that would 

dictate the route in the fastest, most efficient way. 

132 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank the committee for their diligence. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the 

balance of his time. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to get a couple things on the record so I will be as quick 

and, hopefully, you can be as direct as possible. 

Mr. Bozzella, buying a car can be very expensive and public 

transportation options are not available or sometimes inadequate 

in many communities. 

Do you see self-driving cars playing an important role in providing better, more reliable mobility options to those who must rely 

solely on public transportation? 

Mr. BOZZELLA. Absolutely. Yes, I do. 

Mr. COSTELLO. All right. 

Mr. Day, in your testimony you state that self-driving cars will 

benefit American seniors. Can you please explain how this technology will help senior citizens remain independent? 

Mr. DAY. A number of ways. You know, my parents in Ohio in 

their 80s would benefit by having—perhaps if they are not able to 

drive at some point in their future—having medicines delivered 

from or being able to pick up their own medications at the pharmacy. 

They are able to have a car drive them to the grocery store to 

get their groceries. I think there is a whole host of ways, and I 

think that that is one segment of our society that will benefit, 

amongst others, as we talked about here—the disabled community 

as well. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Strickland, for some—I am picking up on 

that—access to transportation is a public health issue. Often, inadequate public transportation options stand in the way of receiving 

care. Do you think self-driving cars will play a role in solving that 

problem? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. I think what Mr. Day mentioned and Mr. 

Bozzella mentioned, the opportunities for, frankly, individual mobility for those that are disabled, those that are seniors, and have 

the ability to get themselves to the doctor, get to the hospital, get 

to the pharmacy, I think it will be transformational for them. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Bozzella, related to underserved communities, just explain how you view this as being transformational. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I think there are a number of ways. One is that 

highly automated vehicles will enable a new business model. 

Let us call it transportation as a service, and it will reduce the 

cost of this service and I think make it much more affordable and 

accessible to underserved transportation populations. 

I think the other place that you will see automated technology 

provide mobility to underserved communities is, frankly, the ability 

to create more safety in rural areas by deploying level 2 and level 

3 technologies on vehicles in rural areas. 

So I think there are a number of ways we are going to create 

more transportation for underserved communities. 

133 

Mr. COSTELLO. Avis and Waymo, Apple and Hertz, we are continuing to see business partnerships evolve here. Do you expect 

such business dealings to promote the introduction of fleet and 

electric self-driving cars? Whomever wants to take that one. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. I agree with that. I testified to that point earlier, 

and I think what will happen is electric vehicle platforms and the 

cost model for electric vehicles’ higher upfront cost but lower operating costs will fit with a fleet-first automated vehicle strategy deployed by fleets. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Another observation I have is, you know, a car 

driving itself ultimately is going to see to it that everybody is going 

to have that technology accessible. 

But the software side of this, you know—we can just look at antitrust litigation within the space of certain companies owning certain software and whose computer systems it can get on. 

I see the day when it is the software piece of this and updates 

and a new type of application or a new software product wanting 

to make its way into one specific car or a fleet of cars. 

Share with me, if anyone has these thoughts, about how to shape 

legislative policy so that we are not walking into the day when we 

are going to be dealing with that set of issues, which, obviously, 

has been front and center in the traditional tech world for quite 

some time. Or is it just unavoidable? 

Mr. BAINWOL. I think the simplest thing is to recognize that as 

NHTSA does its work it should be nonprescriptive and should be 

technology neutral. Let the marketplace work. 

Mr. DAY. Let me just add on very quickly. I mean, again, we are 

at the very early stages here, and this is not the only time that we 

are going to be looking at legislation addressing this issue. 

I think where we are right now, the legislation and the proposals 

that we have in front of us are adequate and as we have the testing done and as we learn more then perhaps that will, you know, 

require us to come back and think through some of the issues that 

you mentioned. 

Mr. BOZZELLA. And I would just add one more comment, and it 

comes up in the—I believe it is called the MORE Act. I do think 

that you want to make sure that a number of responsible companies have the ability to test. 

So not only what we would consider automakers but also auto 

suppliers that are increasingly developing the software you’re talking about, increasingly deploying the technology that you talked 

about. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes. I just wonder if there is a point in time 

where this just falls outside of NHTSA’s jurisdiction if we are dealing in purely computer intelligence issues. 

But my time has expired. Thank you for your answers. I yield 

back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired and seeing that there are no other members that are here to 

ask questions, I want to thank our panel today. 

You can tell there is a lot of discussion, a lot of interest in having 

you hear before us today. Before we do conclude today I would like 

to include the following documents to be submitted for the record 

by unanimous consent: the letter from the Competitive Enterprise 

134 

1The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety letter and the Consumer Watchdog document 

have been retained in committee files and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182. 2The report has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182. 

Institute, letter from Property Casualty Insurers, a letter from 

American Car Rental Association, a letter from MEMA, a letter 

from CTA, a letter from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

a letter from Consumer Watchdog, a letter from SAFE, a letter 

from ITS America, a letter from NAMIC, a letter from EPIC. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]1

Mr. LATTA. And does the gentlelady have a—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I do. I wanted to add to the record a document from the Center for American Progress, a report entitled, 

‘‘The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Carbon Emissions.’’ 

And if I could just say a number of those submissions came from 

our side. They include important specific feedback on the 14 bills 

before us and what is missing from those bills, in our view, and I 

urge my colleagues to look closely at the submissions from safety 

advocates and other interested parties. 

We will need to carefully weigh their concerns as we move forward, and I hope very much that this could be a bipartisan safetyfocused legislative package. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, and for the two letters the 

lady submitted, without objection it will be added to the list.2

Mr. LATTA. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. I ask that witnesses submit their responses within 10 business days from upon receipt of the questions from the Members. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you 

very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

135 


32518.080

[DISCUSSION DRAIT] 

115TH CONGRESS H R 

1ST SESSIO~ 

• • 

To amend section 30103 of title 49, United States Code, to establish sole 

authority for the Kational Highway Traffic Safety Administration over 

the regulation of hig·hly automated vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

l\I . introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on ___________ _ 

A BILL 

To amend section 30103 of title 49, United States Code, 

to establish sole authority for the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration over the regulation of 

highly automated vehicles, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Let NHTSA Enforce 

5 Automated Vehicle Driving Regulations Act" or the 

6 "I.JEAD'R Act". 
136 


32518.081

2 

1 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

2 The purpose of this Act is to ensure the ability to 

3 test and deploy automated driving systems in the United 

4 States and expressly preempt any related State laws to 

5 prevent the testing or deployment of this technology. 

6 SEC. 3. NHTSA AUTHORITY AND STATE PREEMPTION FOR 

7 AUTONOMOUS MOTOR VEHICLES. 

8 Section 30103(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

9 amended10 (1) by striking paragraph (2); 

11 (2) in paragraph (1)-

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

(A) in the first sentence, by inserting after 

"\\Then a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter" the following: "for a 

motor vehicle that is not a highly automated vehicle"; 

(B) by striking "(1) \;vnen" and inserting 

"(2) :JIOTOR v"'"EHICLE STANDARD. When"; and 

(C) by striking "However," and inserting 

"(4) IIIGHER PERFORMAt\CE REQUIREMEJ'\T. 

21 However,"; 

22 (3) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so re23 designated, the following new paragraph: 

24 "(1) HIGHLY AUTO:J!IATED VEIIICLES.-No 

25 State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, 

26 maintain, enforce, impose, or continue in effect any 
137 


32518.082

3 

1 law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or 

2 other provision having the force and effect of law re3 lated to the de&ign, construction, mechanical sys4 terns, software systems, or communications systems 

5 of highly automated vehicles or automated driving 

6 system equipment unless such law, rule, regulation, 

7 duty, requirement, standard, or other provision hav8 ing the force and effect of law is identical to a 

9 standard prescribed under this chapter."; 

1 0 ( 4) by inserting after paragraph ( 2), as so re11 designated, the follmving new paragraph: 

12 "(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTIO~.-Nothing m 

13 this subsection may be construed to prohibit a State 

14 from prescribing a law or regulation regarding any 

15 other registration, licensing, [liability], driving edu16 cation and training, insurance, or traffic law or reg17 ulation unless the law or regulation is an unreason18 able restriction on the design, construction, mechan19 ical systems, software systems, or communications 

20 systems of highly automated vehicles."; 

21 (5) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by 

22 striking "or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its 

23 mrn use that imposes a higher performance require24 ment than that required by the otherwise applicable 

25 standard under this chapter" and inserting the fol-
138 


32518.083

4 

1 lowing: ''motor vehicle equipment, highly automated 

2 vehicle, or automated driving system equipment ob3 tained for its mvn use"; and 

4 (6) by inserting at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 "(5) DEFINITIONS.-ln this subsection: 

7 "(A) AUTOMATED DHIVING SYSTEM.-The 

8 term 'automated driving system' has the mean9 ing given that term in the September 2016 Sur1 0 face V chicle Recommended Practice Report 

11 (J3016) by S...._L\E International[, or any suc12 cessor report thereto]. 

13 "(B) HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEI-IICLE.-The 

14 term 'highly automated vehiclc'-

15 "(i) means a motor vehicle equipped 

16 with an automated driving system; and 

17 "(ii) does not include a commercial 

18 motor vehicle (as defined m section 

19 31101).". 
139 


32518.084

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115'l'H CONGRESS 

1ST SESSIO~ H.R. 

To amend seetion 30113 of title 49, United States Code, to increase the 

annual number of vehicles that may be exempted for the development 

of new vehiele safety features, and for other purposes. 

IN 'fHE HOUSE OI~ REPRESENTATIVES 

l\I . introdueed the following bill; whieh was referred to the 

Committee on __________ _ 

A BILL 

'fo amend section 30113 of title 49, United States Code, 

to increase the annual number of vehicles that may be 

exempted for the development of new vehicle safety features, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmtse of Representa2 tives qfthe United States qf'Arne,rica in Congress assernbled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Practical Automated 

5 Vehicle Exemptions Act" or the "PAVE Act". 
140 


32518.085

2 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 30113(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended4 (1) by striking "A manufacturer is eligible for 

5 an exemption under subsection (b)(3)(B)(i)" and in6 serting the following: 

7 "(1) EI1IGIBIUTY liKDER SUBSECTIO~ 

8 (b)(3)(B)(i).-A manufacturer is eligible for an ex9 emption under subsection (b)(3)(B)(i)"; 

10 (2) by striking "A manufacturer is eligible for 

11 an exemption under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iii), or 

12 (iv)" and inserting the following: 

13 "(9) - E JJIGIBIUTY UNDER SUBSECTION 

14 (b)(3)(B)(iii).-A manufacturer is eligible for an ex15 emption under subsection (b)(3)(B)(iii)"; and 

16 (3) by inserting at the end the following new 

17 paragraphs: 

18 "(3) ELIGIBII1ITY UKDEH SUBSECTION 

19 (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv), (v), OR (vi).-A manufacturer is 

20 eligible for an exemption under subsection 

21 (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of this section only if 

22 the Secretary determines the exemption is for not 

23 more than 100,000 vehicles to be sold in the United 

24 States in any 12-nwnth period.". 
141 


32518.086

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSIOK H.R. 

To amend section 30118 of title 49, United States Code, to increase the 

period for vehicles that may be exempted for the development of new 

vehiele safety features, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

:YI . ~---- introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on ~----

A BILL 

To amend section 30113 of title 49, United States Code, 

to increase the period for vehicles that may be exempted 

for the development of new vehicle safety features, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Renewing Opportuni5 ties for Automated Vehicle Development Act" or the 

6 "ROAD Act". 
142 


32518.087

2 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 30113(e) of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended4 (1) by striking "An exemption or renewal under 

5 subsection (b)(3)(B)(i)" and inserting the following: 

6 "(1) EXE:\IPTIO='J U='JDER SUBSECTION 

7 (b)(3)(B)(i).-An exemption or renewal under sub8 section (b)(3)(B)(i)"; 

9 (2) by striking "An exemption or renewal under 

10 subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iii), or (iv)" and inserting 

11 the following: 

12 "(2) EXEMPTION UNDER SUBSECTIO='J 

13 (b)(3)(B)(iii).-An exemption or renewal under sub14 section (b)(3)(B)(iii)"; and 

15 (3) by inserting at the end the following: 

16 "(3) , . E :A."El\IPTION UKDER SUBSECTIO='J 

17 (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv), (v), OR (vi).-An exemption or re18 newal under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv), (v), or (vi) 

19 of this section may be granted for not more than 5 

20 years.". 
143 


32518.088

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH CONGRESS R 

1ST SESSIO~ H • • 

To amend section 30113 of title 49, United States Code to establish new 

exemptions for motor vehicle safety standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

1\I . introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on __________ _ 

A BILL 

To amend section 30113 of title 49, United States Code 

to establish new exemptions for motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep'resenta2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ''Expanding Exemptions 

5 to Enable More Public Trust Act" or the "EXEMPT 

6 Act". 
144 


32518.089

2 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 30113(b)(3)(B) of title 49, United States 

3 Code, is amended4 (1) in clause (iii), by striking "; or" and insertS ing a semicolon; 

6 (2) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the 

7 end and inserting a semicolon; and 

8 (3) by inserting at the end the following new 

9 clauses: 

10 "(v) the exemption would promote the 

11 public adoption and acceptance or facilitate 

12 meaningful commercial deployment of a 

13 new motor vehicle safety feature or system 

14 and provide an overall safety level at least 

15 equal to the overall safety level of non16 exempt vehicles; or 

17 "(vi) the exemption would promote 

18 transportation access to individuals with 

19 disabilities (as defined in the Americans 

20 with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. 

21 12101 ct seq.) and would provide an over22 all safety level at least equal to the overall 

23 safety level of nonexempt vehicles.". 
145 


32518.090

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 

To amend title 49, United Statt~S Code, to expand the exemption from 

the motor Ychiclc safety standards for testing or eYaluation purposes 

to cover manufacturers of highly automated vehieles and automated driYing systems, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

_____ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on--······----··--·-··-------··· 

A BILL 

rro amend title 49, United States Code, to expand the exemption from the motor vehicle safety standards for testing 

or evaluation purposes to cover manufacturers of highly 

automated vehicles and automated driving systems, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 t·ives of the Un-ited States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 'l'his Act may be cited as the ".Maximizing Opportuni5 ties for Research and the Enhancement of Automated Ve6 hicles Act" or the "MORE Act". 
146 


32518.091

2 

1 SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING OR EVALUATION. 

2 Section 30112 of title 49, United States Code, is 

3 amended4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

(1) in subsection (b)(lO)-

(A) by striking "that prior to the date of 

enactment of this paragraph"; 

(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

"motor vehicles into the United States that are 

certified" and inserting "into the United States 

motor vehicles that are certified, or motor vehicle equipment that is certified,"; 

(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the 

period at the end and inserting"; or"; 

(D) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 

through (C) as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, and moving their margins 2 ems to the 

right; 

(E) by striking "evaluation by a manufacturer" and inserting the following: "evaluation 

by-

"(A) a manufacturer"; and 

(F) by adding at the end the following: 

"(B) a manufacturer of highly automated 

vehicles or automated driving system equipment 

that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the highly automated vehicle or automated driving sys-
147 


32518.092

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

3 

tem equipment at the conclusion of the testing 

or evaluation and-

"(i) has submitted to the Secretary-

" (I) the name of the individual, 

partnership, corporation, or institution of higher education and a point 

of contact; 

"(II) the residence address of the 

individual, partnership, corporation, 

or institution of higher education and 

State of incorporation if applicable; 

"(III) a description of each type 

of highly automated vehicle or automated driving system [equipment] 

manufactured by the individual, partnership, corporation, or institution of 

higher education; and 

"(IV) proof of insurance for any 

State in which the individual, partnership, corporation, or institution of 

higher education intends to test [or 

evaluate] highly automated vehicles; 

and 

"(ii) if applicable, has identified an 

agent for service of process in accordance 
148 


32518.093

4 

1 with part 551 of title 49, Code of Federal 

2 I\egulations."; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 "(c) DEFIKITIONS.-ln this section: 

5 "(1) AUTOMATED DRIVI~G SYSTEM.-The term 

6 'automated driving system' has the meaning given 

7 that term in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle 

8 Recommended Practice Report ( J3 016) by SAE 

9 International[, or any successor report thereto]. 

10 "(2) HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEI-IICI~E.-The term 

11 'highly automated vehicle'-

12 "(A) means a motor vehicle equipped \vith 

13 an automated driving system; and 

14 "(B) docs not include a commercial motor 

15 vehicle (as defined in section 31101).". 
149 


32518.094

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH COKGRESS H R 

1ST SESSIOl\ 

• • 

To amend title 49, L'nited States Code, to require the Seeretary of Transportation to noti~v States of exemptions of highly automated vehicles from 

the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

-·-··-·--··-------· introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on __________ _ 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Transportation to notifY States of exemptions 

of highly automated vehicles from the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards, and for other purposes. 

1 Be d enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of Amet"'1;ca in Cong1·ess assmnbled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Increasing Information 

5 and Notification to Foster Openness Regarding Highly 

6 Automated Vehicle Matters to States Act" or the "IN7 FOR::.\1 Act". 
150 


32518.095

2 

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION TO STATES OF EXEMPTIONS OF 

2 

3 

HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES FROM 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. 

4 Section 30113 of title 49, United States Code, IS 

5 amended by adding at the end the follmving: 

6 "(i) XOTIFICATION TO STATES OF EXEl\IPTIOKS OF 

7 HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICJ,ES.-(1) Xot later than 30 

8 days after granting under this section an exemption of an 

9 highly automated vehicle from a motor vehicle safety 

10 standard prescribed under this ehapter or a bumper stand11 ard prescribed under chapter 325, the Secretary shall no12 tizy, by whatever means reasonable, an appropriate au13 thority in each State of sueh exemption. 

14 "(2) In this subsectionIS "(A) the term 'highly automated vehicle' 

16 means17 "(i) a motor vehicle equipped with an auto18 mated driving sy·stem; and 

19 "(ii) does not include a commercial motor 

20 vehicle (as defined in section 31101); and 

21 "(B) the tenn 'automated driving system' has 

22 the meaning given that term in the September 2016 

23 Surface V chicle Recommended Practice Report 

24 (J3016) by S..~.ill International[, or any successor re25 port thereto] . ''. 
151 


32518.096

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TII CONGRESS 

1ST SESSTOJ\' 

JUNE 6, 2018 

H.R. 

'l'o establish in the Department of Transportation a Disability :VIobility Advisory Council to make recommendations regarding advancing mobility 

access for the disabled community with respect to the testing and deployment of automated driving systems. 

I~ THE HOUSE 01~ REPRESENTATIVES 

~------- introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee 011 ___________ _ 

A BILL 

To establish in the Department of Transportation a Disability ::VIobility Advisory Council to make recommendations regarding advancing mobility access for the disabled 

community with respect to the testing and deployment 

of automated driving systems. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the Unded States of America in Oongress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISABILITY MOBILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL. 

4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-Subject to the availability of 

5 appropriations, the Secretary of rrransportation shall es-
152 


32518.097

2 

1 tablish in the Department of Transportation a Disability 

2 :VIobility Advisory Council (hereinafter referred to as the 

3 "Council") composed of not less than [15] and not more 

4 than [50] members appointed by the Secretary. 

5 (b) DUTIES.-The Council shall undertake informa6 tion gathering activities, develop technical advice, and 

7 present recommendations to the Secretary regarding ad8 vancing mobility access for the disabled community vvith 

9 respect to the deployment of automated driving systems 

10 to ensure an avvareness of the needs of the disability com11 munity as these vehicles are being designed for distribu12 tion in commerce. 'I'he recommendations shall also be re13 ported to the Committee on Energy and Conunerce of the 

14 House of Representatives and the Committee on Com15 merce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

16 (c) MEMBERSHIP A:'-JD QUALIPICATIO:'-JS.-Members 

17 of the Council shall be representative of18 (1) individuals with disabilities and the individ19 uals' representatives; 

20 (2) disability researchers; 

21 (3) directors of independent living centers; 

22 ( 4) the business community that has e:h.l)erience 

23 with testing and developing automated dri·ving sys24 tems, including representatives from the suppliers of 

25 this technology, the small business community and a 
153 


32518.098

3 

1 representative who has e:xl)crience with hiring indi2 viduals w'ith disabilities; 

3 (5) automobile dealers selling automated driving 

4 systems; and 

5 ( 6) academia vv'ith e:xl)ertise m mobility access 

6 for the disabled community. 

7 (d) VACANCIES.-Any vacancy occurring in the mem8 bership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner 

9 as the original appointment for the position being vacated. 

10 'l'he vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining 

11 members to execute the duties of the Council. 

12 (c) FEDEHAIJ .ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.-The es13 tablishment and operation of the Council shall conform to 

14 the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

15 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

16 (f) TECHNICAL ASSISTAKCE.-On request of the 

17 Council, the Secretary shall provide such technical assistIS ance to the Council as [the Council] I [the Secretary] 

19 determines to be necessary to carry out its duties. 

20 (g) DETAIL OF FEDEHAL E:.VIPLOYEES.-On the re21 quest of the Council, the Secretary may detail, vv':ith or 

22 vv'ithout reimbursement, any of the personnel of the De23 partment of 'l'ransportation to the Council to assist the 

24 Council in carrying out its duties. Any detail shall not in-
154 


32518.099

4 

1 terrupt or otherwise affect the civil service status or privi2 leges of the Federal employee. 

3 (h) PAYMENT A~D EXPENSES.-Members of advisory 

4 councils shall serve ·without pay, except travel and per 

5 diem will be paid each member for meetings called by the 

6 Secretary. 

7 (i) DEFINITIOK-For purposes of this Act, the term 

8 "automated driving system" has the meaning given that 

9 term in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle RecIO ommendcd Practice Report (.J3016) by SAE 

11 International[, or any successor report thereto]. 
155 


32518.100

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH CONGRESS H R 

1ST SESSION • • 

To establish in the Department of Transportation an Advisory Council for 

Improving· Mobility Access for Uudenmrved Populations and Senior Citizens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

_____ introduced the following bill; whic•h was referred to the 

Committee on----------·---·-------·-----.. ----........... _ ............. _ 

A BILL 

To establish in the Department of rrransportation an Advisory Council for Improving l\!Iobility Access for Underserved Populations and Senior Citizens. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hmtse of Representa2 t·ives of the United States ofArnerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON IMPROVING MOBILITY 

4 ACCESS FOR UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS 

5 AND SENIOR CITIZENS. 

6 (a) ESTABLISIDIE.:-JT.-Subject to the availability of 

7 appropriations, the Secretary of Transportation shall es8 tablish in the Department of Transportation an Advisory 
156 


32518.101

2 

1 Council for Improving Mobility Access for Underserved 

2 Populations and Senior Citizens (hereinafter referred to 

3 as the "Council") composed of not less than [15] and 

4 not more than [50] members appointed by the Secretary. 

5 (b) DUTIEs.-The Council shall undertake informa6 tion gathering activities, develop technical advice, and 

7 present recommendations to the Secretary regarding mo8 bility access for senior citizens and populations under9 served by traditional public transportation services and 

10 educational outreach efforts >:v-ith respect to the testing 

11 and distribution of highly automated vehicles in com12 merce. The recommendations shall also be reported to the 

13 Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 

14 Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

15 Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

16 (c) MEMBERSHIP AND QUAUFICATIONS.-Members 

17 of the Council shall be representative of18 ( 1) senior citizens; 

19 (2) indi>-iduals dependent on public transpor20 tation living or working in underserved areas; 

21 (3) the directors of independent living centers; 

22 ( 4) the business eomn:nmity that has e:l\.-perience 

23 with testing and developing automated driving sys24 terns, including representatives from the suppliers of 

25 this technology, the small business community and a 
157 


32518.102

3 

1 representative who has experience >Nith hiring senior 

2 citizens and individuals dependent on public trans3 portation living or working in underserved areas; 

4 ( 5) automobile dealers selling automated driving 

5 systems; and 

6 (6) academia 1vith e:A1Jertise in mobility access 

7 for senior citizens and underserved populations. 

8 (d) VACANCIES.-.Any vacancy occurring in the mem9 bership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner 

10 as the original appointment for the position being vacated. 

11 The vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining 

12 members to execute the duties of the Council. 

13 (e) FEDERAL ADVJSORY C01I:\UTTEE ACT.-The es14 tablishment and operation of the Council shall conform to 

15 the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

16 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

17 (f) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-On request of the 

18 Council, the Secretary shall provide such technical assist19 ance to the Council as [the Council] I [the Secretary] 

20 determines to be necessary to carry out its duties. 

21 (g) DETAIL OF FEDERAl~ E;uPI~OYEES.-On the :re22 quest of the Council, the Secretary may detail, with or 

23 1vithout reimbursement, any of the personnel of the De24 partment of Transportation to the Council to assist the 

25 Council in carrying out its duties. Any detail shall not in-
158 


32518.103

4 

1 terrupt or otherwise affect the civil service status or privi2 leges of the Federal employee. 

3 (h) PAYl\IEKT A:-.JD EXPENSES.-Members of advisory 

4 councils shall serve "'Without pay, except travel and per 

5 diem ·will be paid each member for meetings called by the 

6 Secretary. 

7 (i) DEFINITIOKS.-For purposes of this Act8 ( 1) the term "highly automated vehicle"-

9 (A) means a motor vehicle equipped 1vith 

10 an automated driving system; and 

11 (B) does not include a commercial motor 

12 vehicle (as defined in section 31101 of title 49, 

13 United States Code); and 

14 (2) the term "automated driving system" has 

15 the meaning given that term in the September 2016 

16 Surface Vehicle Hecommended Practice Report 

17 (J3016) by SAE International[, or any successor re18 port thereto]. 
159 


32518.104

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

I 15TH CO:NGRESS 

1ST SESSIO:-J H.R. 

To establish in the Department of 'l'ransportation an Automated Driving 

System Cyberseeurity Advisory Cmmeil make reeommendations regarding 

eyberseeurity framework for the testing, deployment, and updating of 

automated driving systems. 

IN THE HOUSJ1J OF REPRESENTATIVES 

_______ introdueed the fol!O\\ing bill; whieh was referred to the 

Committee on __________ _ 

A BILL 

To establish in the Department of 'fransportation an Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council 

make recommendations regarding cybcrsccurity framework for the testing, deployment, and updating of automated driving systems. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM 

4 CYBERSECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL. 

5 (a) ESTABLISIDIE:\l'T.-Subject to the availability of 

6 appropriations, the Secretary of Transportation shall es-
160 


32518.105

2 

1 tablish in the Department of Transportation an Auto2 mated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council 

3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") composed of not 

4 less than [20] and not more than [50] members ap5 pointed by the Secretary. 

6 (b) DUTIES.-The Council shall undertake informa7 tion gathering activities, develop technical advice, and 

8 present recommendations to the Secretmy regarding 

9 cybersecurity for the testing, deployment, and updating of 

10 automated driving systems with respect to supply chain 

11 risk management, interactions -vvith Information Sharing 

12 and Analysis Centers and Information Sharing and Anal13 ysis Organizations, and a framework for identifying and 

14 implementing recalls of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

15 parts. The recommendations shall also be reported to the 

16 Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 

17 Representative and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

18 and Transportation of the Senate. 

19 (c) ::VlEMBERSriiP A~D QUAIJIFICATIOl'\S.-lVIembers 

20 of the Council shall be representative of21 (1) original equipment manufacturers of auto22 mated driving systems with a presence in the United 

23 States; the community of suppliers of original equip24 ment manufacturers of automated driving systems; 
161 


32518.106

3 

1 (2) automobile dealers selling automated driving 

2 systems; 

3 (3) org·anizations facilitating the sharing and 

4 dissemination of cybersecurity threat information 

5 and intelligence v\rithin the automotive industry and 

6 with external stakeholders (including publie sector 

7 entities such as State ehief information seeurity offi8 eers); 

9 ( 4) engineers developing the software and hard10 ware deployed in automated driving systems; 

11 ( 5) independent eyberseeurity researehers; 

12 (6) aeademia with expertise in eyberseeurity for 

13 automated driving systems; 

14 ( 7) eommunieations cyberseeurity e}."J)erts with 

15 experience regarding automated drhring systems; 

16 (8) insuranee industry representatives; 

17 (9) automotive repair industry representatives; 

18 and 

19 (10) at least one representative from the Na20 tional Highway 'l'raffic Safety Administration and at 

21 least one representative from the ?\ational Institute 

22 of Standards and Technology. 

23 (d) VACANCIES.-Any vacaney occurring in the mem24 bership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner 

25 as the original appointment for the position being vacated. 
162 


32518.107

4 

1 The vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining 

2 members to execute the duties of the Council. 

3 (e) FEDERAL ADV1SORY COMMITTEE ACT.-The es4 tablishment and operation of the Council shall conform to 

5 the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

6 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

7 (f) TECIDJICAL AsSISTANCE.-On request of the 

8 Council, the Secretary shall provide such technical assist9 ance to the Council as [the Council] I [the Secretary] 

10 determines to be necessary to carry out its duties. 

11 (g) DETAIL OF FEDEHAL El\IPLOYEES.-On the re12 quest of the Council, the Secretary may detail, ·with or 

13 -vvithout reimbursement, any of the personnel of the De14 partment of Transportation to the Council to assist the 

15 Council in carrying out its duties ... Any detail shall not in16 terrupt or othemi.se affect the civil service status or pri-vi.-

17 leges of the Federal employee. 

18 (h) PAYMEKT AND EA.'PENSES.-1\!Iembers of advisory 

19 councils shall serve vvi.thout pay, except travel and per 

20 diem will be paid each member for meetings called by the 

21 Secretary. 

22 (i) DEFIKITION.-For purposes of this Act, the term 

23 "automated driving system" has the meaning given that 

24 term in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle Rec-
163 


32518.108

5 

1 ommended Practice Report (J3016) by SAE 

2 International[, or any successor report thereto]. 
164 


32518.109

[DISCUSSION DRAIT] 

115TH CONGRESS H R 

1ST SESSIO~ • • 

To establish an advisory eommittee on highly automated vehicles, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

:.\I . _____ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on ___________ _ 

A BILL 

To establish an ad·visory committee on highly automated 

vehicles, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and H mtse of Represent a2 tives ofthe United States of Arnerica in Congress assembled) 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Sharing Automated 

5 Vehicle Records with Everyone for Safety Act" or the 

6 "SHARES Act". 
165 


32518.110

2 

1 SEC. 2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HIGHLY AUTOMATED 

2 VEHICLES. 

3 (a) ESTABI,ISID'IENT.-Not later than 6 months after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

5 'l'ransportation shall establish in the National Highway 

6 'rraffic Safety Administration an advisory committee to 

7 develop a framework that allows manufacturers of highly 

8 automated vehicles to share relevant, situational informa9 tion related to any testing event on public streets resulting 

10 in damage to the test vehicle or any occupant thereof and 

11 validation of such vehicles in a manner that does not risk 

12 public disclosure of such information or disclosure of con13 fidential business information. 

14 (b) lVIEl\IBERSHTP.-Thc advisory committee shall 

15 consist of not less than [15] and not more than [50] 

16 members appointed by the Secretary. 'l'he members shall 

17 include the follmving: 

18 (1) Representatives from standard-setting orga19 nizations, ineluding SAE International. 

20 (2) Manufacturers of highly automated vehicles 

21 and automated driving system equipment. 

22 (3) Public sector entities, such as State authori23 tics v'.rith jurisdiction over highly automated vehicles. 

24 ( 4) Insurance industry representatives. 

25 ( 5) Automobile dealers selling automated driv26 ing systems. 
166 


32518.111

1 (6) Automotive repair industry representatives. 

2 (7) Academia with expertise in the testing of 

3 highly automated vehicles. 

4 (8) Other members determined to be appro5 priate by the Secretary. 

6 (c) DUTIES.-'l'he advisory committee shall gather 

7 information, develop technical adviee, and present rec8 ommendations on the framework described in subsection 

9 (a) to the Seeretary of Transportation and the Congress 

10 not later than 2 years after the elate of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

12 (d) DEFI:\TITIONS.-In this subsection: 

13 (1) AUTOl\IATED DRIVING SYSTE:\L-Thc term 

14 "automated driving system" has the meaning given 

15 that term in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle 

16 Recommended Practice Report ( J3 016) by SAE 

17 International[, or any successor report thereto]. 

18 (2) HIGIIIJY AUTCHIATED v'EIIICLE.-The term 

19 "highly automated vehicle"-

20 (A) means a motor vehicle equipped vvith 

21 an automated driving system; and 

22 (B) does not include a commercial motor 

23 vehicle (as defined in section 31101 of title 49, 

24 United States Code). 
167 


32518.112

4 

1 (3) MOTOR v"'EI-IICLE.-The term "motor vchi2 cle" has the meaning given that term in section 

3 30102(a) of title 49, United States Code. 
168 


32518.113

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TH CONGRESS H R 

1ST SESSIOJ'\ 

• • 

To prohibit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from requiring pre-market approval of vehiele t)1)eS or designs for highly automated 

vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

~~~~~- introduced the following bill; whieh was referred to the 

Committee on ~~~~~~~~~~-

A BILL 

To prohibit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from requiring· pre-market approval of vehicle types 

or designs for highly automated vehicles, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ''Highly Automated Ve5 hicle Pre-Market Approval Reduces Opportunities for 

6 More People to Travel Safely Act" or the "HA V 

7 PRO::VIPrr Act". 
169 


32518.114

2 

1 SEC. 2. PRE-MARKET APPROVAL PROCESS PROHIBITED 

2 FOR HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES. 

3 Section 80111 of title 49, United States Code, 1s 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 "(g) PROIIIBI'l'ION ON PRE-:YL<\RKET .APPROVAL 

7 PROCESS FOH HIGIII~Y AUTOl\IATED VEHICLES.-

8 "(1) IN GENEHAL-Except as provided for in 

9 the exceptions described under section 80112(a), the 

10 Secretary of Transportation may not implement a 

11 pre-market approval process in which a manufac12 turer is prohibited from manufacturing, introducing 

13 into commerce, offering for sale, or selling a highly 

14 automated vehicle unless, prior to any such action, 

15 the Secretary has assessed the safety or any of the 

16 features of the highly automated vehicle and ap17 proved such vehicle or features. 

18 "(2) DEFINITIONS.-ln this subsection19 "(A) the term 'highly automated vehicle'-

20 "(i) means a motor vehicle equipped 

21 ·with an automated driving system; and 

22 "(ii) does not include a commercial 

23 

24 

25 

26 

motor vehicle (as defined m section 

81101); and 

"(B) the term 'automated driving system' 

has the meaning given that term in the Scp-
170 


32518.115

1 

2 

3 

4 

3 

tember 2016 Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice Report (J3016) by SAE 

International[, or any successor report thereto].". 
171 


32518.116

[DISCUSSION DRAFf] 

115TH CO~GRESS 

1ST SESSIO't\ H.R. 

To amend subchapter II of chapter 301 of part A of subtitle v'1 of title 

49, United States Code, to require the treatment of information related 

to highly automated vehieles as confidential business information, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTA'riVES 

:.VI . _____ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on ____________________ _ 

A BILL 

To amend subchapter II of chapter 301 of part A of subtitle 

VI of title 49, United States Code, to require the treatment of information related to highly automated vehicles 

as confidential business information, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 t·ives of the United States of Arnerica in Con,g1·ess assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Guarding Automakers 

5 Against Unfair Advantages Reported in Public Documents 

6 Act" or the "GUARD Act". 
172 


32518.117

2 

1 SEC. 2. FOIA EXEMPTION. 

2 (a) A:\IEND:\IENT.-Subchapter II of chapter 301 of 

3 part A of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

5 "§ 30129. Automated driving system information 

6 "(a) HIGHLY AUTO:VfATED VEIIICLB E:A"EMPTIONS.-

7 rrhe follovving information received by the Secretary from 

8 a manufacturer or equipment manufacturer of highly 

9 automated vehicles, \vith respect to the design or testing 

10 of such vehicles, shall be treated as confidential business 

11 information: 

12 "(1) Any report or data relating to the testing 

13 and validation of an event, incident, and crash data 

14 of automated driving systems. 

15 "(2) Any report or data relating to the design 

16 and validation processes of electrical, electronic, 

17 communication, or mechanical functions of autoIS mated driving systems. 

19 "(3) Any report or data relating to the testing 

20 and validation of cybersecurity in automated driving 

21 systems. 

22 " ( 4) Any report or data relating to the assess23 ment, testing, and validation of human machine 

24 interfaces. 
173 


32518.118

3 

1 "(5) .. Any report or data relating to the testing 

2 and validation of the fallback of an automated driv3 ing system. 

4 "(6) Any report or data relating to the testing 

5 and validation of the object and event detection re6 sponse capabilities of an automated vehicle. 

7 "(b) DI£I<'INITI0~8.-In this section: 

8 "(1) AUTG:YIATI£D DRIVTt\G 8Y8TKl\I; FALI,BACK; 

9 OBJI£CT AND f£VE}NT DI£TI£CTION AND RESPONSI£.-

10 The terms 'automated driving system', 'fallback', 

11 and 'object and event detection and response' have 

12 the meaning given those terms in the September 

13 2016 Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice Report 

14 (J3016) by SAE International[, or any successor re15 port thereto]. 

16 "(2) CONFIDI£NTIAI.J BU8INI£88 INFORl\iA17 TION.-The term 'confidential business information' 

18 means trade secrets or commereial or financial infor19 mation that is privileged or confidential, as described 

20 in section 552(b)(4) of title 5. 

21 "(3) HIGIU.JY AUTUMATED v'EIIICI.JE.-The term 

22 'highly automated vehicle'-

23 "(A) means a motor vehicle equipped \Vith 

24 an automated driving system; and 
174 


32518.119

4 

1 "(B) does not include a commercial motor 

2 vehicle (as defined in section 31101).". 

3 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORJ\IIKG AMEKD1rENT .-

4 The table of sections for subchapter II of chapter 301 of 

5 part A of subtitle VI of 6tle 49, United States Code, 1s 

6 amended by adding at the end the folluwing new item: 

"30129. Automated driving system information.". 
175 


32518.120

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115Tn CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission and the Administrator of the N'ational Highway Traffic SAfety Administration to enter into a memormJclum of understanding 011 the regulation and oversig·ht of highly automated vehielcs with respect to privacy and cyberseeurity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF HEPRESEN'rArriVES 

:.VI . _____ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Trade Commission and the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to enter into a memorandum of understanding 

on the regulation and ovorsig·ht of highly automated vehicles -vvith respect to privacy and cybersocurity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 t·ives ofthe United States ofArnerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Managing Government 

5 Efforts to Minimize Autonomous Vehicle Obstruction Act" 

6 or the "1VIElVIO Act". 
176 


32518.121

2 

1 SEC. 2. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FTC 

2 ANDNHTSA. 

3 (a) IK GENEHAL.-Kot later than 180 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Pederal Trade Com5 mission and the Administrator of the National Highway 

6 Traffic Safety Administration shall enter into a mcmo7 randum of understanding on the regulation and oversight 

8 of highly automated vehicles vvith respect to privacy and 

9 cybersecurity. 

10 (b) REQUIHEl\rENTS.-The memorandum of under11 standing entered into under subsection (a) shall include12 (1) intentions to limit overlap and duplication 

13 between regulation and oversight by the Commission 

14 and by the Administrator; 

15 (2) a commitment from the Commission to 

16 focus on privacy and cybersecnrity issues that are 

17 not connected with the active operation of a highly 

18 automated motor vehicle or the features of such ve19 hicle; and 

20 (3) a commitment from the Administrator to 

21 focus on privacy and cybersecurity issues that arc 

22 connected "With the active operation of a highly auto23 mated motor vehicle or the features of such vehicle. 

24 (c) DEFINITIONS.-In this section: 

25 (1) AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM.-The term 

26 "automated driving system" has the meaning given 
177 


32518.122

3 

1 that term in the September 20Hi Surface Vehicle 

2 Recommended Practice Report (J3016) by SAE 

3 International[, or any successor report thereto]. 

4 (2) HIGHLY AUTOJVIATED VEHICLE.-The term 

5 "highly automated vehicle"-

6 (A) means a motor vehicle equipped -vvith 

7 an automated driving system; and 

8 (B) does not include a commercial motor 

9 vehicle (as defined in section 31101 of title 49, 

10 United States Code). 

11 (3) MOTOR VEHICLE.-The term "motor vehi12 cle" has the meaning given that term in section 

13 30102(a) of title 49, United States Code. 
178 


32518.123

[DISCUSSION DRAIT] 

115TH CONGHESS 

1ST SESSIOK H.R. 

To amend section 32302 of title 49, United States Code, to require information on highly automated driving systems to be included on stickers 

placed on motor vehicles hy their manufacturers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENrrATIVES 

____ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee 011 

A BILL 

To amend section 32302 of title 49, United States Code, 

to require information on highly automated driving systems to be included on stickers placed on motor vehicles 

by their manufacturers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States qj'America 'in Congress assembled) 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Designating Each 

5 Car's Automation I .. evel Act" or the "DEC.Lli.J Act". 
179 


32518.124

2 

1 SEC. 2. INFORMATION ON HIGHLY AUTOMATED DRIVING 

2 SYSTEMS REQUIRED ON STICKERS MADE 

3 AVAILABLE TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. 

4 (a) .. AniENDMENT.-Section 32802 of title 49, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 "(e) INFOIUIATION ON .AI;TO:\iATED DRIVING SYS8 TE.JIS REqt:IRED.-

9 "(1) IN GEKERAh-Manufacturers shall in10 elude a description of the level of driving automation 

11 for any highly automated vehicle on the stickers de12 scribed in subsection (c). 

13 "(2) DEFIKITIONS.-As used m this sub14 seetion15 "(A) the term 'highly automated vehicle'-

16 "(i) means a motor vehicle equipped 

17 vvith an automated driving system; and 

18 "(ii) does not include a commercial 

19 motor vehicle (as defined m section 

20 31101); and 

21 "(B) the term 'automated driving system' 

22 has the meaning given those terms in the Sep23 tember 2016 Surface Vehicle Recommended 

24 

25 

26 

Practice Report by SAE 

International[, or any successor report theretol.". 
180 


32518.125

COMPETITIVE 

ENTERPRISE 

INSTITUTE 

Letter for the Record 

June 27, 2017 

Marc Scribner 

Senior Fellow 

Competitive Enterprise Institute 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Hearing: Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

Dear Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to supplement the record of your hearing with our views on 

vehicle automation technology legislation, The 14 discussion drafts before the subcommittee 

raise some important issues and propose some welcome policy changes, In light of the continued 

safety hazards associated with conventional driving, there is an emerging consensus on the need 

to provide regulatory clarity and relief to developers of vehicle automation systems in order that 

they can more rapidly deploy these life-saving technologies. 

As a practical matter, a comprehensive update of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) to reflect emerging automation technology will require a significant effort on the part 

of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). To its credit, NI-ITSA and the 

Department of Transportation's Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office 

completed an initial audit of its FMVSS in March 2016, which was conducted by the John A. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 1 

Yet, short of a comprehensive update of FMVSS, there is much that can be done to provide 

short-term clarity and relief. Here there is a strong role for congressional leadership. The 14 

discussion drafts recognize this opportunity for congressional action, covering matters such as 

I'MVSS exemption caps, preemption and federalism, and premarket approval authority. 

With respect to FMVSS exemption caps, we strongly support the aims of the PAVE, ROAD, and 

EXEMPT Acts. FMVSS exemptions will be critical to the efforts of developers to quickly 

1 Anita Kim, Dan Bogard, David Perlman, and Ryan Harrington, "Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards(FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles," Pre/iminmy Report, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center, U.S. Department ofTransportation, March 2016, 

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/57000/57000/57076/Review_FMVSS_A V _Scan. pdf. 

131 0 L Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202 331 1 01 0 cei.org 
181 


32518.126

deploy early generation vehicle automation systems, which are likely to be centrally managed 

fleet vehicles operated in urban areas. 

With respect to preemption and federalism, the LEAD'R and INFORM Acts provide a great 

framework for clarifying the respective roles of federal and state authorities while also ensuring 

that federal and state authorities remain informed partners in the forthcoming deployment of 

vehicle automation systems. 

With respect to premarket approval authority, the HA V Prompt Act would provide needed 

assurances that NHTSA will not be permitted to upend the long-established and successful 

FMVSS self-certification regime with either wholesale premarket approval or some hybrid as the 

agency had contemplated in its September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy guidance 

document.2 

These proposals are all welcome and will serve as the basis for a productive debate on vehicle 

automation system policies. However, we do have concerns with the DECAL Act's proposed 

changes to Monroney label requirements. To be sure, in the future the Monroney label can be 

reasonably anticipated to reflect the presence and attributes of vehicle automation systems. But 

the Act is flawed in several respects. 

First, the Act proposes to codify in statute the automation levels contained in SAE 13016. These 

standards are subject to great debate and will likely be frequently updated in the coming years. 

At least until automation level standardization at SAE stabilizes, it is unwise to codify them in 

either the statutory or administrative codes. 

Second, while the Act presumes SAE J3016 will be updated, providing for future standards to 

supersede SAE 13016, this constitutes a transfer of lawmaking power to a private third-party 

entity. This is because SAE International's subsequent automation level updates will materially 

impact manufacturer obligations under the Act and these obligations are entirely subject to the 

whims of a private entity. 

Third, any future Monroncy label updates to reflect the presence of vehicle automation systems 

should be conducted by the Secretary of Transportation under 49 C.F.R. Part 575. Congress may 

wish to direct the Secretary to make these future changes, but any SAE standard referenced in 

Part 575 should be fixed in time, much in the same way NHTSA currently references SAE 

standards in FMVSS, in order to provide manufacturers with reasonable regulatory certainty. 

2 National Highway Traftic Safety Administration, "Federal Automated Vehicles Policy," U.S. Department of 

Transportation, September 20, 2016, https://www.nhtsa.gov/av. 
182 


32518.127

Again, thank you for this opportunity to supplement the record on this important topic. My 

Competitive Enterprise Institute colleagues and I are happy to discuss this topic and these 

measures further with committee members and their staff. 

Sincerely, 

Marc Scribner 
183 


32518.128

June 26, 2017 

Chairman Bob Latta 

Committee on Energy and Commerce; 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Latta; 

1919$, 

Arlington, VA 22202 

703-907-7600 

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA)rMwould like to thank the Digital Commerce and Consumer 

Protection Subcommittee for its leadership in proposing policies to support the advancement of self-driving 

vehicles and for holding this important legislative hearing. 

CTA is the trade association representing the entrepreneurs, technologists and innovators molding the future of 

the consumer technology industry, Our more than 2,200 member companies include many working to transform 

the safety and efficiency of the driving experience through automated driving technologies and assisted and 

self-driving cars, These advances are changing our lives for the better; leading to expanded mobility, increased 

fuel efficiency, reduced traffic congestion and, above all, enhanced safety on our nation's roads and highways, 

The subcommittee's discussion draft legislation addresses several key issues that will ensure the safe and rapid 

testing and deployment of these lifesaving technologies, As you know, one of the biggest challenges facing the 

development and implementation of these technologies is the growing patchwork of legislation and regulation 

across the country, To that end, CTA appreciates the draft legislation's clear direction about the proper roles of 

State and Federal governments in regulating self-driving cars, This is essential in creating consistency for 

companies testing and deploying this technology, while ensuring interstate use of these innovations is the norm 

rather than the exception, The adoption of the SAE J3016 definitions in the text also provides for a technology 

neutral approach and further ensures clarity, Additionally, we support the legislation increasing the number and 

length of time for exemptions for innovative self-driving safety features, as well as an expansion of eligibility to 

permit on-road testing of prototype vehicles by vehicle equipment manufacturers and technology companies, 

We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee on this legislation as it advances, Thank you for 

your thoughtfulness and leadership on this issue, 

Gary Shapiro 

President and CEO 
184 


32518.129

•••• 

Pel .~~: . ...• ...• ...• 

Property Casualty Insurers 

Association of America 

Advocacy. Leadership. Results. 

June 26, 2017 

The Honorable Bob Latta 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce 

and Consumer Protection 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

NATHANIEL WIENECKE 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

The Honorable Jan Schakowsky 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce 

and Consumer Protection 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PC I) is pleased to submit a letter for the record for 

the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection's hearing on "Self-Driving Vehicle 

Legislation." 

The promise of "self-driving" vehicles to improve road safety and mobility continues to generate debate about 

the appropriate regulatory frame work for the testing and deployment of such vehicles. As the automation of 

driving functions increase, some motor vehicle laws and regulations will need to be changed to accommodate 

the testing and deployment of self-driving cars. PCI is pleased that the committee's draft legislation touches 

on the most significant policy questions such as safety, defining the federal and state role in regulation as well 

as data sharing and security issues in a manner that encourages innovation and provides the opportunity for 

stake holders to work together to address those issues. 

PCI is composed of 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest cross section of insurers of any 

national trade association. PCI members write $202 billion in annual premium, 35 percent of the nation's 

property casualty insurance. That figure includes over $97 billion, or 42 percent of the auto insurance 

premium written in the United States. 

General Comments: 

The increasing automation of the driving function is likely to result in significant change for the auto insurance 

industry. To adapt to these changes and support innovation in transportation, insurers will need to have 

access to data and information regarding vehicles with automated driving systems. The ability to identify 

which vehicles have automated driving technology, and the type of technology of each vehicle is critical for 

insurers to develop historical loss data and innovate and price new insurance products to support the 

technology as it evolves. 

As policymakers consider what data should be collected and retained by automated vehicles, PCI supports 

rules that provide for reasonable access to insurers for claims handling purposes. In many auto accidents, 

apportionment of liability is likely to hinge upon whether a human driver or the vehicle itself was in control and 

what actions either the driver or the vehicle did or did not take immediately prior to the loss event. 

444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 10001 Telephone 102·639·0490 Facsimile 20H39·01r94 www.pclaa.net 
185 


32518.130

Access to data for insurers will speed claims handling and potentially avoid disputes that could delay 

compensation to accident victims. PCI also supports clear identification of federal and state regulatory 

responsibilities regarding self-driving vehicles, with the federal government setting and enforcing safety 

standards for motor vehicles and recalls, and the states continuing to have primacy on motor vehicle 

insurance and liability issues as they do today. 

Testing requirements, guidelines and standards for use on public roads should set clear expectations for the 

public and provide clear direction for technology developers and manufacturers for compliance. Modifications 

to existing auto safety laws and motor vehicle safety standards should be rare and limited to only the highest 

levels (i.e. fully autonomous) of automated driving and should clearly define the levels of automation to which 

the modification applies. Clear and effectively enforced auto safety laws and vehicle standards can save lives 

on our roads today and, when applied to automated driving systems, develop public confidence that will 

ultimately determine whether the technology realizes its full potential. 

Specific Comments on Draft Legislation 

Exemptions and Testing 

The PAVE and ROAO Acts expand the number of vehicles that the Secretary of Transportation may grant 

exemptions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for each manufacturer and the duration for 

which a manufacturer can maintain that exemption. While PCI recognizes that the current two year, 2,500 

vehicles per manufacturer limits may need to change, we also believe that exceptions to FMVSS standards 

should be rare and limited in scope. 

The EXEMPT Act sets the standards for granting exceptions; promoting acceptance of the new safety 

technology or providing better access to transportation for those that are disabled and, in both cases, would 

provide an overall safety level that is at least equal in overall safety level. Public acceptance of self-driving 

technology will likely hinge on the perception that it will bring an improvement in safety. As such, PCI 

recommends using "equal or better in overall safety" as the standard. 

The INFORM Act requires that NHTSA notify the states when exemptions are granted within 30 days, which 

PCI finds reasonable if the exemptions are made public in some way, which would allow insurers to be able to 

identify such vehicles for claims and underwriting purposes. 

Advisory Committees 

Improved mobility for seniors, the disabled and those underserved by present public transportation options is 

one of the most significant potential benefits of self-driving technology and PC! agrees that seeking input from 

these stakeholders is important going forward. 

As indicated earlier, data access and cybersecurity issues are of critical importance to insurers, as such PCI 

is very pleased that insurance representatives are specifically provided for on the advisory bodies created by 

the Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council and SHARES Acts. PCI is eager to participate 

on these advisory councils and work with all stake holders to establish a framework for sharing information 

that protects vehicle user privacy and the intellectual property rights of the manufacturers. 

GUARD Act 

As companies invest millions of dollars in developing automated driving systems, they are justifiably 

concerned with protecting their intellectual property and other proprietary information. Insurers make similar 

investments and share those same concerns for their own investments. We are concerned how this provision 

will interact with the framework to be established by the SHARES Act, and could limit access to information 

necessary to resolve accident claims and develop new insurance products. PCI recommends that the issue 

of what should or should not be considered "confidential business information' be incorporated in to the 

SHARES Act framework discussions. 

2 
186 


32518.131

Other Proposals 

The MEMO Act would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration (NHTSA)to develop and enter in to a memo of understanding that lays out each 

agencies responsibility on cybersecurity, avoiding duplication of efforts (and regulatory requirements). PCI 

supports clear identification of federal and state regulatory responsibilities regarding self-driving vehicles and 

we agree that clarifying responsibilities between federal agencies is good public policy. We also support 

adding information about automated driving features to the Monroney label, so that information is available to 

consumers, insurers and repair facilities, among others. 

Conclusion 

Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future, and implementing clear policies on the 

federal and state roles in regulating automated vehicle technology and ensuring that insurers have access to 

vehicle data on reasonable terms to efficiently handle claims, develop products and underwriting methods are 

an essential first step toward that future. PCI and its members look forward to working with legislators and 

regulators at the federal and state level to establish a regulatory framework for automated driving . 

• 2fi· 

Nathaniel F. Wienecke 

3 
187 


32518.132

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

1030 15th Street, NW Suite 500 East DC 20005 

202.393.6362 FBX 202.737.3742 

The Honorable Bob Latta 

June 26, 2017 

Statement for the Hearing Record 

"Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, 

House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Room 2125, Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Latta: 

www.mema.org 

MEMA applauds your leadership on legislation for highly automated vehicles. We are 

pleased to support the draft legislation recently circulated, as it contains critical priorities 

for vehicle suppliers. We offer the following information and comments for your 

consideration: 

AboutMEMA 

The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) is the leading international 

trade association in the fast-changing mobility industry. Representing motor vehicle 

suppliers that manufacture and remanufacture components, technologies, and systems for 

use in passenger cars and heavy trucks, MEMA serves as a critical bridge between high-tech 

capabilities in new vehicles -such as automated and connected vehicles- and the "nuts and 

bolts" of vehicle manufacturing. Motor vehicle suppliers contribute more than 77 percent 

of the value in today's vehicles. 

MEMA works to ensure that the marketplace and public policies support the 

development of advanced, transformative technologies that enable safer, smarter, and 

more efficient vehicles. MEMA's members are represented through four divisions: 

Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy Duty Manufacturers 

Association (HDMA), Motor & Equipment Remanufacturers Association (MERA), and 

Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA). 

Earlier this year MEMA released an important economic impact study that clearly 

defines the critical role motor vehicle parts suppliers play in the U.S. economy. Motor 

vehicle component manufacturers are the largest employer of manufacturing jobs in the 

U.S., contributing nearly 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Suppliers directly 

employ more than 871,000 Americans, up 19 percent since 2012, and generate a total 
188 


32518.133

t\rl[MAS~,tcmen~: Sell D,·,v•ng V~'h!.,l<-' lcgoslat!on 

www.mema.org 

6/?.6/17 2 ol 

direct and indirect employment impact of 4.26 million jobs, up nearly 18 percent since 

2012.1 

Vehicle Safety Today 

Vehicle suppliers are dedicated to vehicle safety with the design and manufacture of 

their components and systems. To fully appreciate the state of vehicle safety today, over 

50 years of crash data show that an estimated 613,5011ives have been saved by vehicle 

safety technologies and associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).2 

Today, there are many advanced safety features available in the vehicle marketplace 

ranging from passive to active systems that either warn, aid and/or assist a driver to avoid 

or mitigate vehicle crashes. These advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and vehicleto-vehicle (V2V) technologies have foundational systems upon which the more complex 

systems are built. These technologies are mature, affordable and effective. 

As over 94 percent of traffic crashes are the result of human error, the potential impact 

of ADAS, VZV and automated vehicles is wide reaching and unprecedented. Suppliers 

develop their components and systems with a forward-looking approach to make them 

increasingly more automated. Ultimately, the collective goal is to improve the safety, 

mobility and productivity of all road users. 

ADAS and the Impact on Safety 

In 2015, MEMA and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) released a report exploring the 

safety benefits of ADAS technologies, many of which are crash avoidance and mitigation 

technologies. Our study showed that ADAS can provide immediate safety benefits and form 

the pathway to a partially and fully automated vehicle fleet that could virtually eliminate 

traffic fatalities. The study found that a suite of ADAS technologies has the potential to 

prevent 30 percent of all crashes- a total of 10,000 lives saved annually.3 

Highly Automated Vehicles 

Today's ADAS technologies are the safety foundation upon which the highly automated 

vehicles of tomorrow are built. Recognizing that there are varying levels of automation, the 

vehicle industry worked through the SAE International to develop an standard to clearly 

1 "Driving the Future: The Employment and Economic Impact of the Vehicle Supplier Industry in the U.S." MEMA 

and The Boston Consulting Group, January 2016. https:Uwww.mema.org/sites/default/files/MEMA lmpactBook.pdf 

2 NHTSA, "Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 

to 2012: Passenger Cars and LTVs" DOT HS 812 069, January 2015. 

3 MEMA and BCG, "A Roadmap to Safer Driving Through Advanced Driver Assistance Systems," page 2, September 

2015. 
189 


32518.134

MEMASt.-atcm<>nt: Self Or,v•nq Von•<::!<> Log•slat!<l<' 

www.nwma.org 

6/26/17 Pe>gc3oe5 

define these levels. Using terms like "self-driving" or "driverless" can be misinterpreted.4 

Therefore, MEMA urges the Committee to use precise language and reference existing 

standards, such as SAE )3016, as it moves forward with automated vehicle legislation. 

As you know, last year the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

announced its Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (FAVP), which is designed to establish 

vehicle performance guidance for automated vehicles, identify distinctions between federal 

and state roles, and to address current and future tools and authorities. NHTSA's Policy 

adopted the SAE levels of automated vehicles in order to establish a common 

nomenclature. MEMA applauded NHTSA for establishing an iterative process and 

developing this guidance, as an appropriate approach for the rapidly evolving advances in 

vehicle technologies. MEMA did urge the agency to make some important clarifications as 

soon as possible. Although, some of the issues can and should be addressed with federal 

legislation, which is needed to establish a national framework for all stakeholders to 

navigate the complexities of federal and state roles, automated vehicle technologies and 

vehicle supply chains. 

The trend in automated systems is accelerating. Many Level 1 and 2 systems are already 

available in the marketplace on new passenger cars and commercial vehicles as either 

standard or optional equipment. Level 3 automated systems are expected to be in 

production light vehicles as early as 2018. Levels 4 and 5 are forecasted to be more widely 

available by 2025. 

MEMA wants to ensure that legislative and regulatory outcomes avoid unintended 

impediments to product design, enhancements, and innovative advancements in 

automated technologies. The benefits of these technologies are evolutionary; thus, the 

endeavor to tackle public policies while also balancing innovation is massive and requires 

the collaboration and cooperation among all public and private stakeholders. 

MEMA and its members agree that safety is the top priority in shaping automated 

vehicle legislation. Over 35,000 people lose their lives each year in vehicle crashes; 

suppliers are committed to the goal of zero fatalities, which requires continuous 

improvements to technological solutions. Automated vehicles will eventually reduce and 

eliminate vehicle collisions, fatalities and injuries. MEMA supports federal leadership on 

and balanced oversight of vehicles and system standards as this technology evolves. 

Supplier testing on public roads: MEMA believes that legislation must provide 

stakeholders the latitude to continue to develop and evolve automated vehicle technologies 

4 SAE J3016'• "Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor 

Vehicles" January 2014. 
190 


32518.135

MEMI\ 

www.mema.crg 

6/26/17 4 "' 

and also establish some certainties and clarify roles. In this regard, our leading priority is to 

include legislative language that affirms that motor vehicle equipment manufacturers and 

suppliers can test and evaluate automated vehicle systems on public roads. We appreciate 

your inclusion of such language in the draft legislation. 

Under Section 24404 of the FAST Act,s vehicle manufacturers are able to test and operate 

vehicles that do not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), provided they are 

not offered for sale. However, this provision does not include vehicle equipment 

manufacturers (i.e. suppliers). MEMA raised this in our comments to NHTSA on the Federal 

Automated Vehicle Policy as well as in testimony at a Nov. 15, 2016 hearing before the House 

Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade. 

There are inherent and critical differences between automated systems that are being 

exclusively evaluated and tested by trained professionals versus automated systems that are 

intended for production and deployed to the general public. Vehicles used for the purposes 

of testing and evaluation during developmental phases of a given vehicle technology 

system are often modified and instrumented, and driven by professional drivers who are 

typically trained by the company conducting the test evaluation. During the testing process, 

a system will be adjusted, refined, and re-adjusted -sometimes within hours and days, 

sometimes over a period of weeks and months. The ability for suppliers to utilize public 

roadways to collect data, refine systems, and fully test and evaluate new technology before 

systems are finalized is a critical industry need. 

In addition, motor vehicle suppliers should also be granted exemptions from FMVSS 

requirements for test vehicles. This is necessary to evaluate new systems as technology 

evolves and vehicle systems include more automated features, including but not limited to 

steering, braking, rear visibility, lighting and other functions governed by FMVSS 

standards. 

Separate Federal and State Roles: Another leading priority for suppliers is to enact 

through federal legislation a clear distinction between federal and state authority over 

automated vehicles. This distinction is critical to prevent a conflicting patchwork of laws 

and rules governing the performance and operational requirements of automated vehicle 

technology, which should be regulated solely at the federal level. MEMA agrees with the 

NHTSA FAVP guidelines indicating that the state role should address licensing, registration, 

insurance, and traffic regulations. Since some aspects of the FAVP's model state policy may 

unintentionally conflict with each other, but MEMA believes this could be resolved by 

5 Fixing America's Surface Transp01tation Act of20!5, Public Law No: 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015 
191 


32518.136

www.mema.OfY 

6/26117 

federal legislation. Again, we appreciate and support the distinctions included in the draft 

legislation. 

Conclusion 

MEMA is committed to working with the Committee in support of automated vehicle 

technology, and our key priorities remain securing authority for motor vehicle suppliers to 

test systems and vehicles on public roads in the U.S. and establishing a clear distinction 

between federal and state roles in regulating highly automated vehicles. 

We appreciate the collaborative approach the Committee has undertaken and we look 

forward to working with you going forward. Please contact Ann Wilson at 

awilson@mema.org for additional information. Thank you. 
192 


32518.137

Statement of American Car Rental Association 

to the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee's 

Hearing on 

"Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

June27,2017 

The American Car Rental Association (ACRA) respectfully submits this statement for the record 

of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection hearing on "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" on Tuesday, June 27,2017. 

ACRA is the national representative for over 98% of our nation's car rental industry. ACRA's 

membership is comprised of over 300 car rental companies, including all of the brands you would 

recognize such as Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National and Thrifty. ACRA 

members also include many system licensees and franchisees; mid-size, regional and independent 

car rental companies; as well as smaller, ·'mom & pop" operators. ACRA members have over two 

million registered vehicles in service, with fleets ranging in size from well over 1.3 million cars to 

ten cars. 

ACRA's members strongly support the development, testing, and gradual deployment of"Highly 

Automated Vehicles" (HAYs) to improve transportation safety, as well as to reduce personal injury 

and deaths and property damage associated with vehicle accidents. However, the introduction of 

HAYs presents a complex technical and public policy challenge. As part of this challenge, 

policymakers must adapt existing safety, consumer protection, privacy, cybersecurity, and liability 

principles to reflect a changing vehicle population that includes HA V s -- while at the same time 

maintaining flexibility to address new and evolving legal issues unique to HAYs that may not be 

apparent today. 

The members of ACRA purchase one out of every nine new cars sold in the United States each 

year- almost 2 million vehicles in 2016. To the extent that HA Vs are introduced into the private 

passenger motor vehicle fleet in the next decade, ACRA members will be at the forefront ofHA V 

deployment and on the front lines of consumer education about HAYs. 

1 
193 


32518.138

ACRA respectfully submits the following comments on the Staff Discussion Drafts for HAY 

legislation: 

1. LEAD'R Act ACRA generally supports federal pre-emption of the regulation of the 

development, testing, and deployment of HAYs and their components with respect to safety 

standards and recall procedures. Traditional areas of state regulation - insurance, liability, 

licensing and vehicle registration should be respected in federal HAY legislation, to the 

extent possible. However, while states currently regulate drivers and operators of most motor 

vehicles, this traditional state role likely must shift when the vehicle itself becomes the 

"operator" or "driver" in the context of an HAY. 

ACRA also supports federal pre-emption with respect to vehicle ownership issues and 

ownership and control of personal information and vehicle-generated data associated with 

HAYs. Federal legislation must clarify that vehicle owners, not hardware or software 

manufacturers, own the information and data that is recorded, transmitted or otherwise 

generated by HAYs and that this information may be accessed by third parties, including 

hardware and software manufacturers, only: (a) through informed and express consent of the 

vehicle owner; or, (b) if the information has been "sanitized" of personal information for safety 

purposes (law enforcement or insurance) or traffic safety research. 

2. PA YE Act- ACRA is neutral with respect to this draft bill. 

3. ROAD Act- ACRA is neutral with respect to this draft bill. 

4. EXEMPT Act- ACRA is neutral with respect to this draft bill. 

5. MORE Act ACRA does not oppose this draft bill, but suggests that it would be prudent and 

demonstrate foresight if car rental companies -- which are likely to be among the early fleet 

owners of HAYs -- are added to the list of entities permitted to test HAYs. 

6. INFORM Act- ACRA is neutral with respect to this draft bill. 

7. Disability Mobility FACA- Given that ACRA members currently collectively purchase over 

I 0 percent of all new vehicles each year and thus will be at the forefront of HAY deployment 

in the coming decades, it would be prudent for a representative of the car rental industry be 

added to the list of required members of the FACA created by this draft bill. With such an 

addition, ACRA would support this draft bill. 

8. Seniors/Underserved Mobility Access FACA - Given that ACRA members currently 

collectively purchase over I 0 percent of all new vehicles each year and thus will be at the 

forefront of HAY deployment in the coming decades, it would be prudent for a representative 

of the car rental industry be added to the list of required members of the FACA created by this 

draft bill. With such an addition, ACRA would support this draft bill. 

2 
194 


32518.139

9. Cybersecurity FACA Given that ACRA members currently collectively purchase over 10 

percent of all new vehicles each year and thus will be at the forefront of HAY deployment in 

the coming decades, it would be prudent for a representative of the car rental industry be added 

to the list of required members of the FACA created by this draft bill. With such an addition, 

ACRA would support this draft bill. 

10. SHARES Act- This draft bill appears to conclude- erroneously in ACRA 's view-- that only 

HAY manufacturers will be testing HAYs and thus will be the only entities to possess 

information regarding testing events generated by HAYs. ACRA suggests that the scope of 

the entities covered by this bill be expanded to include entities other than manufacturers, 

including car rental companies. Many non-manufacturer vehicles owners, including car rental 

companies, likely will test HAYs in the coming years and will have ownership and control of, 

and should have access to, this data as HAYs are tested and deployed. 

Given that ACRA members currently collectively purchase over l 0 percent of all new vehicles 

each year and thus will be at the forefront of HAY deployment in the coming decades, it would 

be prudent for a representative of the car rental industry be added to the list of required 

members of the FACA created by this draft bill. With such an addition and the expansion of 

coverage of the bill to include all HAY owners, ACRA would support this draft bill. 

11. HAY PROMPT Act- ACRA is neutral with respect to this draft bill, but notes that it is not yet 

clear whether NHTSA should be prohibited from both pre-market assurance and pre-market 

approval processes with respect to HAYs. The existing self-certification procedures applicable 

to current motor vehicles may not be appropriate with respect to I-lA Y s, given that a 

malfunction of virtually any system in anI-lAY likely will lead to accidents, property damage 

and potentially injuries. As a result, I-lA Y s may require greater NHTSA oversight and testing 

than current motor vehicles. 

12. GUARD Act Again, this draft bill concludes that only "manufacturers or equipment 

manufacturers of" HAYs will have access to information regarding the testing or performance 

of HAYs. ACRA suggests that the entities covered by the confidential business information 

protections of this draft bill be expanded to any and all entities, including car rental companies, 

who may voluntarily submit, or be required to submit, CBI to NI-ITSA. 

13. MEMO Act- ACRA strongly supports the negotiation and execution of a Memorandum of 

Understanding between the FTC and NHTSA with respect to privacy and cybersecurity. 

ACRA suggests that this MOU be subject to public notice and comment. 

14. DECAL Act ACRA does not oppose this draft bill as written, but submits that such a label 

on a new vehicle is not sufficient to inform an HAY owner or user of how to operate the HAY 

and a manufacturer should not be permitted to rely on such a label to inform and educate HAY 

owners and users as a guard against strict liability or negligence actions under state laws. 

* * * 

3 
195 


32518.140

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for the record at this hearing. ACRA stands 

ready to work with the members of the Committee and all State and Federal legislators and 

regulators, as well as the many stakeholders interested in the development and introduction of 

HAYs, in the months and years ahead. 

Please contact Greg Scott with questions regarding ACRA's HA V development and deployment 

positions at 202-297-5123 or gscott@merevir.com. 

4 
196 


32518.141

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE SUBCOMMITIEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION 

JUNE 27, 2017 

SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY (SAFE) 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF 

NATIONAL CUED SPEECH ASSOCIATION 

SEGS4VETS 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

60 PLUS ASSOCIATION 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

Dear Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

On behalf of the above organizations we write in strong support of your efforts to remove regulatory 

barriers and provide a solid foundation for the future of autonomous vehicle (AV) innovation and 

deployment. 

AVs have the potential to influence society in a way unseen since the invention of the automobile. In 

addition to dramatically reducing traffic accidents and roadway fatalities, AVs hold the promise of 

improved mobility-critical for economic growth and quality of life. Of equal importance, AVs can 

dramatically improve the lives of communities underserved by our transportation systems and most 

vulnerable to its inefficiencies, namely America's disabled, seniors, and wounded veterans. Often 

underappreciated in this regard is that the transportation solution inherent to AVs is as much about 

personal independence-the ability to travel without aid or reliance on another individual-as the 

ability to create more efficient systems of transport. For SAFE, this is also about our view that AVs 

represent a critical technology capable of reducing our nation's oil dependence, bolstering national 

security and strengthening our economy. 

A report produced by SAFE, with the Ruderman Family Foundation, found that 15 million Americansincluding 6 million with disabilities-have difficulty accessing the transportation they need in their daily 

lives. This impacts every facet of life. For instance, approximately 4.3 million individuals with a disability 

face significant barriers to reaching needed medical appointments. The consequent missed 

appointments result in net costs of at least $19 billion per year, in addition to the quality-of-life 

detriments from sporadic access to necessary healthcare. Moreover, inadequate accessibility 

compounds the already high cost of non-emergency medical transport, which totaled more than $2.7 

billion under Medicare and Medicaid in 2013 alone. 

AVs show promise in serving as the basis of a vital, cost-effective solution that benefits members of 

these communities and their local economies. The report's analysis found that widespread AV 

deployment would open up approximately 2 million employment opportunities for the disability 

community. AVs are expected to spur a rethinking of the very shape and construct of the vehicle; 
197 


32518.142

innovative vehicle designs specifically geared toward people with disabilities would allow progress 

towards the important goal of deploying a vehicle with "universal design." 

However, these benefits can only be realized if Congress works toward three critical goals, represented 

in the draft legislation produced by this Committee: (1) federal pre-emption of key AV regulations; (2) 

creating a more flexible environment for the testing and development of innovative vehicle designs; and 

(3) ensuring that the disabled and senior populations are provided a "seat at the table" with both 

industry and regulators as this transformation of America's transportation system takes place. 

Preemption 

Federal preemption is key to ensuring market certainty in a rapidly developing industry. A messy 

"patchwork" of conflicting state regulations is emerging. Thirty-seven states have considered legislation 

to regulate autonomous vehicles, and 13 states have passed such legislation. This trend risks creating 

significant uncertainty and risk for innovators and investors, hindering the timely and widespread 

deployment of AVs. 

Source: SAFE analysi-s and data from The Centet tor Internet and Society at Stdnford Ldw Sc!wol. 

Preemption is therefore critical if we are to expedite the testing and deployment of AV technology and 

achieve the social benefits it portends. Beyond explicitly precluding states from interfering in matters of 

vehicle design and certification, Congress must take care when considering the issue of AV licensing. 

While the state has traditionally overseen motor vehicle licensing, the potential for states to mandate 

the presence of a licensed human driver in automated vehicles threatens to preclude the disabled, 

seniors and injured veterans-important potential beneficiaries of AV technology-from benefiting from 

this life-improving technology. This would run directly counter to the communities' hopes for AVs, that 
198 


32518.143

of enhancing transportation independence. This is particularly true with respect to the higher levels of 

automation, specifically levels 4 and 5 as defined by SAE International, where a "driver" is unnecessary. 

Exemptions for Novel Designs 

As AVs are an entirely new mode of transportation, no one can foresee the full uses and benefits they 

will bring as the technology matures. To ensure innovators are free to shape this technology in a way 

that fully delivers on its potential-and aids those who cannot fully utilize current modes of 

transportation-Congress must create the necessary flexibility for novel AV designs. Current law allows 

manufacturers exemptions from the design requirements oft he Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) when doing so will further societal aims, such as developing safer or more efficient vehicle 

technology. It is important at this stage to ensure that AV innovators can work to capture the full scope 

of benefits this technology can provide to society, and we applaud the Committee's proposal to expand 

the scope of exemptions for innovations specifically oriented toward enhanced mobility for the disabled 

community. 

The need for flexibility is urgent. The advent of AVs has presented industry with a rare opportunity to 

redesign vehicles from the ground up. However, current regulations favor retrofitting existing 

automobiles with AV technology, while innovative designs-which have the potential to unlock 

transportation for the 57 million Americans with a disability-are still subject to onerous barriers to 

entry. Novel designs must gain parity to ensure that our disabled, elderly, and wounded veteran 

populations have access to the same user-friendly transportation options that many today take for 

granted. Without parity, innovators with the vision to create novel, accessible vehicle designs will face 

regulatory obstacles that dis-incentivize their innovative instincts. 

We recommend that the federal government work with representatives of underserved communities to 

ensure that OEMs and other developers can innovate on vehicle design. One way to accomplish this, as 

identified by the Committee, is to expand the exemption regime to allow for the testing and deployment 

of technologies specifically designed to benefit the disability community. Other avenues should also be 

explored, such as the use of DOT-designated AV proving grounds, or other deployment sites or 

communities, where AV developers are permitted and encouraged to test design-and-use scenarios that 

would specifically benefit the disability and elderly communities. 

Advisory Committees 

Crafting policy that creates a pathway to the deployment of new transportation options for the disability 

and elderly communities is challenging, and the federal government need not-and should not-embark 

on this journey alone. Advancing the right policies necessitates creating a formal "seat at the table" to 

ensure that the interests, advice, and guidance of the disabled and senior communities are continually 

integrated into the very fabric of this quickly developing industry. Federal advisory committees can 

serve this function, though they must be vested with a mandate equal to the task and structured in a 

way to maximize their value and impact. 

There is a moral imperative to take these actions. For these communities, the quality-of-life benefits 

that AVs promise will not be fully realized unless they take part in the regulatory and implementation 

process. Currently, the voices of these groups remain absent from the larger debate surrounding the 

testing, development, and deployment of AVs. 
199 


32518.144

Moreover, it is important to recognize that while AVs pose exciting opportunities, they also hold the 

prospect of potentially creating new barriers for certain populations, such as lack of communications 

access for the deaf and hard of hearing community, to cite just one example. That is why it is absolutely 

critical that the disability community has seats at the table and provides direct input on the 

development process to ensure they are not left behind. 

With this need in mind, we encourage the creation and utilization of disability and senior advisory 

committees, such as Federal Advisory Committees, to advise regulators and engage with stakeholders to 

ensure that the needs of these communities are central to the development process from the beginning. 

In addition to these communities, follow-up mechanisms must be put in place to ensure these advisory 

committees remain pertinent to, and prominent in, these discussions. 

Importance of Inclusion 

We applaud the Committee's interest in creating a pathway for the safe, rapid deployment of AVs. We 

firmly believe this is a key step in bringing a broad range of benefits to the American public, including 

enhanced safety, fuel economy gains and the integration of advanced transportation fuels, and 

improved mobility and independence for underserved populations. To pave the way for consumer 

acceptance and adoption, it is vital that we do not exclude any group that could potentially benefit from 

the technology. We strongly recommend that both government and industry bring the disabled 

community, senior citizens, and wounded veterans into that conversation at the earliest possible 

moment. 

We hope that this ongoing mobility revolution will produce commonsense regulations that improve 

vehicle safety, foster innovation, increase access for all Americans, enhance our nation's transportation 

systems, and elevate U.S. energy security and efficiency. Together, we urge Congress to act with all 

voices at the table. 

Sincerely, 

Securing America's Future Energy {SAFE) 

National Association of the Deaf 

National Cued Speech Association 

Segs4Vets 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

60 Plus Association 

National Federation of the Blind 
200 


32518.145

epic.org Electronic Privacy Information Center 

June 27, 2017 

The Honorable Robert Latta, Chairman 

The Honorable Janice Scbakowsky, Ranking Member 

US. House Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Hearing on "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation" 

Dear Chainnan Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky: 

NW, 

We write to you regarding the hearing on "Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation:'' We 

appreciate the Subcommittee's request for comments from EPIC on the proposed legislation. 

EPIC has previously testified before Congress on "The lntcrntct of Cars" and will be 

participating in the joint FTC I NHTSA workshop this week on "Privacy, Security Issues Related 

to Connected, Automated Vchicles!'2 

EPIC appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in the privacy and cybersecurity risks of 

automated vehicles, as well as the effort to ensure that the safety and privacy of American 

consumers is protected, EPIC also supports the role of state regulators in crafting strong privacy 

regulations to safeguard consumers, At present, more than 18 states have adopted legislation 

concerning "self-driving vehicles" to safeguard consumers3 At the outset, we recommend 

federal baseline legislation that allows states to regulate upward as new privacy and security 

risks arc identified. 

Let Nl!TSA Enforce Autonomous Vehicle Driving Regulations (LEAD 'R) Act 

EPIC Statement 

House Energy & Commerce 

Defend Privacy, 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June 27,2017 
201 


32518.146

EPIC has long opposed federal preemption where privacy interests arc concerned: 

States arc the "laboratories of democracy," and their right to develop new protections above a 

federal baseline is well established. 5 However, the proposed legislation preempts states from 

issuing any rule, regulation, or law that is not identical to a previously issued Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") issued by NHTSA, including in the areas of software and 

communications systems. 

While there may be a need to ensure uniformity for vehicle design and mechanics, 

preempting states from issuing rules and regulations for software and communications systems 

will effectively prevent states from developing innovative privacy safeguards. This stands in 

contravention to the historic role that states have played in the privacy arena. 6 EPIC recommends 

that this bill be revised to allow states to issue privacy and security regulations that do not 

conflict with federal standards. 

Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council 

EPIC supports the creation of an Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory 

CounciL The task of protecting the privacy and security of drivers will be more effective with the 

input of experts from outside of the government. EPIC recommends that independent experts and 

representatives from privacy and consumer organizations be added to the Cybersecurity 

Advisory CounciL Such groups bring additional expertise and a unique view that cannot be 

obtained by those whose companies have a financial interest in the development and deployment 

automated vehicles. Additionally, representatives of consumer and privacy organizations can 

express the interests and concerns of consumers and provide a voice for the general public in this 

process. 

Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with Everyone for Safety Act 

EPIC believes that this bill needs substantial revisions. The purpose of this advisory 

committee appears to be to keep the public in the dark about how autonomous vehicles are being 

developed. The public has a right to know whether the vehicles being marketed to them are safe 

and have gone through rigorous testing. Information sharing among manufactures of highly 

automated vehicles is important as sharing such information will ultimately produce a safer 

4 Privacy Preemption Watch, EPIC, https://epic.org/privacy/preemption/. 5 See e.g. Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Right to Financial Privacy Act; Cable 

Communications Privacy Act; Video Privacy Protection Act; Employee Polygraph Protection Act; 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act; Driver's Privacy Protection Act; Grarnm-Leach-Bliley Act. 6 See Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (there is a 

"presumption that state or local regulation of matters related to health and safety is not invalidated under 

the Supremacy Clause"). Privacy is included in the category of health and safety issues as an area of 

regulation historically left to the states. For instance, in Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court upheld a law 

protecting the privacy and autonomy of individuals seeking medical care, as the law was intended to serve 

the "traditional exercise of the States' 'police power to protect the health and safety of their citizens."' 530 

U.S. 703 (2000). 

EPIC Statement 

House Energy & Commerce 

2 Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June27,2017 
202 


32518.147

product. However, the public has a right to be aware of the problems that may be associated with 

these vehicles. 

Transparency in automated vehicle development will likely improve consumer trust and 

confidence. Despite the industry's rush to produce these vehicles, consumer confidence in 

automated vehicles is Jow7 Encouraging manufacturers to intentionally kept secrets from the 

public will only serve to harm consumer trust. 

Finally, as with the Automated Drivers Cybersecurity Council proposed legislation, if an 

advisory committee is formed to help facilitate information sharing, the committee should 

include non-profit consumer advocacy groups. 

Guarding Automakers Against Unfair Advantages Reported in Public Documents Act 

While EPIC respects the need of manufacturers to protect some information, not all 

information related to autonomous vehicles is a trade secret. Reports relating to crash data, 

cybersccurity, and object detection should not be considered proprietary information. Releasing 

such information to the public and sharing it with other manufactures is vital to ensure consumer 

confidence. 

EPIC is a leading advocate for algorithmic transparency. 8 The need for transparency in 

automated vehicles will only increase in importance as algorithms make decisions for vehicles. 

This is especially true if the cars are designed in a way where the decision they make regarding 

how to respond to unexpected objects in the road may be different than that of a human driver. 

Algorithmic transparency is necessary to allow for consumer trust in automated vehicles. Instead 

of paving the way for companies to allow these companies to keep their algorithms secret, 

Congress should encourage transparency. The algorithms used in autonomous vehicles may 

have severe consequences for the safety of the driver, passenger, and individuals in the vicinity 

of autonomous vehicles. Consumers deserve to know what their car is programmed to do, and 

our roads will be safer if they do. 

Managing Government Efforts to Minimize Autonomous Vehicle Obstruction Act 

Autonomous vehicles fall into the regulatory jurisdiction of several agencies. W c support 

efforts to combine NHTSA's engineering expertise with the FTC's expertise in the fields of data 

privacy and data security. We note also the important collaboration this week between NHTSA 

7 Melissa Burden, JD. Power: Consumer Trust in Self-Driving Cars Drops, The Detroit News, Apr. 18, 

2017, http://www.detroitnews.com/storylbusiness/autos/gencral-motors/20 17 /04/18/jd-power-consumcrtrust-self-driving-tech-drops/100603780/; Zeninjor Enwemeka, Consumer Don't Really Want SelfDriving Cars, MIT Srudy Finds, WBUR, May 25, 2017, 

http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017/05/25/mit-study-self-driving-cars; Tracey Lien, Consumers Aren't 

As txcited As The Auto Industry About Self-Driving Cars, Los Angeles Times, Sep. 28, 2016, 

http://www .latimes. com/business/technology/la-ti-tn-kbb-self-dri ving -car -survey-20 16092 7 -snapstory.html. 

8 Algorithmic Transparency: End Secret Profiling, EPIC, https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/. 

EPIC Statement 

House Energy & Commerce 

3 Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June 27,2017 
203 


32518.148

and the FTC in the joint workshop on "Privacy, Security Issues Related to Connected, 

Automated Vehicles."9 

Conclusion 

We ask that this letter be entered in the hearing record. 

EPIC looks forward to working with the Committee on these issues of vital importance to 

the American public. 

Sincerely, 

Is/ .'Marc 'RotenGerg 

Marc Rotenberg 

EPIC President 

9 FTC/NHTSA Workshop. 

EPIC Statement 

House Energy & Commerce 

4 

/s/ Caitriona Titzgera{d 

Caitriona Fitzgerald 

EPIC Policy Director 

Is/ Xim .'Mi{{er 

Kim Miller 

EPIC Policy Fellow 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June 27, 2017 
204 


32518.149

lVI I < 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES 

Statement 

of the 

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

to the 

United States 

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on 

Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

Hearing on 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

Tuesday, June 27, 2017- !O:OOam 

Location: 2123 Rayburn 
205 


32518.150

Comments of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

Page2 

June 27, 2017 

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is pleased to 

provide comments to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Digital 

Commerce and Consumer Protection in its consideration of the hurdles for testing and 

successful deployment of automated driving systems (ADS). Both state and federal 

roles are vital to ensure safety while promoting innovation and American 

competitiveness. We appreciate the committee's focus on an important matter that has 

the potential to greatly impact the domestic U.S. property/casualty insurance industry. 

NAMIC is the largest property/casualty insurance trade association in the country, with 

more than 1 ,400 member companies representing 39 percent of the total market. 

NAMIC supports regional and local mutual insurance companies on main streets across 

America and many of the country's largest national insurers. NAMIC member 

companies serve more than 170 million policyholders and write more than $230 billion 

in annual premiums. Our members account for 54 percent of homeowners, 43 percent 

of automobile, and 32 percent of the business insurance markets. 

NAMIC fully supports ADS innovation and competitive development that enhances 

safety. In this context, ADS innovation will be the deliberate application of information, 

imagination, and initiative by which new ideas are generated and converted into greater 

driving safety. It is important to note, however, that while technology is a key part of 

ADS innovation, it is not the only part. Integrating innovative practices, operations, rules, 

and regulations will be just as necessary to ADS innovation as technology. 

With respect to Automated Driving Systems (ADS), NAMIC has participated in National 

Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) panels relating to state 

authority and pre-market approval, serves on the Board Member of Advocates for 

Highway Safety and Auto Safety, and is working with the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety supporting the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute as part of the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 

Automated Vehicle Technology 

Enthusiastic advocates of ADS contend that NHTSA blames 94 percent of all car 

crashes on human error, and infer or directly state that ADS will eliminate that human 

error, and thus the overwhelming majority of car crashes. That oft-cited 94 percent 

comes from NHTSA's Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor 

Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, which reported on The National Motor Vehicle Crash 

Causation Survey conducted from 2005 to 2007. The critical reason, which is the last 

event in the crash causal chain, was assigned to the driver in 94 percent (±2.2 percent) 

of the crashes in that survey, but the NHTSA defined the 'critical reason' as only the 

immediate reason for the critical pre-crash event, and simply the last failure in the 

causal chain of events leading up to the crash. 

Critical reasons were broadly classified into recognition errors, decision errors, 

performance errors, and non-performance errors: 

2 
206 


32518.151

Comments of the National Association of Mutual insurance Companies 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June 27, 2017 

• Recognition error, which includes driver's inattention, internal and external 

distractions, and inadequate surveillance, was the most (41 percent ±2.2 

percent) frequently assigned critical reason. 

Page3 

• Decision error, such as driving too fast for conditions, too fast for a curve, false 

assumption of others' actions, illegal maneuver and misjudgment of gap or 

others' speed accounted for about 33 percent (±3.7 percent) of the crashes. 

• In about 11 percent (±2. 7 percent) of the crashes, the critical reason was 

performance error such as overcompensation, poor directional control, etc. 

• Sleep was the most common critical reason among non-performance errors that 

accounted for 7 percent (±1.0 percent) of the crashes. 

• Other driver errors were recorded as critical reasons for about 8 percent (±1.9 

percent) of the drivers. 

These specific definitions are relevant to the proposed application of ADS as a remedy 

to these specific errors. The central premise behind the development and broad 

application of ADS technology is that ADS will have fewer of these specific recognition 

errors, decision errors, performance errors and other errors than human drivers 

represented by the survey. ADS that result in a significant reduction in these specific 

errors should have a corresponding reduction in crashes and result in greater vehicle 

and personal safety. 

The Hurdles for Testing and Successful ADS Deployment 

ADS may have the potential to be much safer than human drivers, and could result in a 

dramatic decrease in crashes and highway deaths. But ADS are also experimental, 

complex, and include numerous known and unknown hazards as well as unintended 

consequences. There are literally millions of related technological and policy questions 

also related to liability, cyber security, vehicle connectivity, and infrastructure. 

An even more challenging area is how ADS technology will deal with the transitional 

period, while non-ADS drivers share the road and continue to make the same and new 

recognition errors, decision errors. performance errors and other errors. As policies and 

regulations are made toward this ambitious ADS safety goal, communicating relevant 

data and analysis is critical to verify the safest transition from user-controlled to 

automated driving. 

The technical challenges to ADS testing and successful development are vast and 

complex- too vast and complex to even begin to enumerate here. But even if these 

thousands of technical challenges can be successfully addressed, ADS will not be 

adopted unless consumers can be convinced that ADS use will be safe and desirable. 

Recent surveys by both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and J.D. Power have 

indicated that consumer comfort or trust in full automation appears to actually be 

declining. A shift away from trust in automation was observed across all age groups, 

3 
207 


32518.152

Comments of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

Page4 

June 27, 2017 

and most notably in younger age ranges which had previously been most open to ADS. 

Roughly half of those surveyed stated that they would never purchase an ADS vehicle. 

As consumers learn more about ADS, they appear to have more questions rather than 

fewer. A critical hurdle for ADS deployment is that consumers lack relevant information 

to adequately gauge the performance and potential benefits of ADS. Consumers will 

require objective assessment and evaluation of just how ADS are safer than human 

drivers, and in what conditions. Consumer acceptance will require expert collection and 

evaluation of data and analysis on the ADS as designed, as well as objective data and 

analysis from crashes involving ADS. 

The history of the auto insurance industry provides ample evidence of that experience 

and expertise needed to gain consumer acceptance, which will be augmented by the 

commitment of the insurance industry to enhance driving safety. A critical requirement 

for the testing and successful development of ADS will be insurers using their decades 

of expertise to provide objective, data-based safety evaluations. This will require ADS 

companies to collect uniform ADS design and safety information and make that 

information available to insurers. In addition, insurers will need access to ADS 

information and data- including crash accident and incident information -that is timely, 

complete, and useful. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is the premier organization dedicated to 

reducing the losses- deaths, injuries, and property damage- from crashes on the 

nation's roads. The Highway Loss Data Institute provides scientific studies of insurance 

data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and 

operation of different types of vehicles and publishes insurance loss results by vehicle 

make and model. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of safety 

groups and insurance companies working together to make America's roads safer. 

State and Federal Roles to Ensure Safety While Promoting Innovation 

and American Competitiveness 

Promoting innovation and competitiveness will require joint development of state and 

federal rules and regulations. NAMIC advocates that the roles of states and federal 

authorities would best facilitate ADS safety development as follows: 

1. The Federal government- through NHTSA- should have the authority to 

make determinations of the required performance and safety, as well as data 

integrity, of ADS. 

2. States and localities should have the authority to make the determinations of 

the registration, licensing, and operation of ADS in that state/locality. 

3. States should retain the regulation of ADS insurance for the vehicle or 

operator. 

4. States should define and address ADS personal liability issues in state/tort 

law and regulation in line with existing liability constructs. States and federal 

4 
208 

Æ 


32518.153

Comments of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation 

June 27, 2017 

authorities should have the authority to define and address ADS liability 

issues in law and regulation. 

5. States and federal authorities working together should make clear and 

workable data security and privacy requirements for ADS. 

Page 5 

NAMIC has provided the Subcommittee staff with numerous and detailed comments on 

the proposed Self-Driving Vehicle Legislation now being considered by the 

Subcommittee. While generally supportive of the proposals by the Subcommittee and 

strongly supportive of the statutory mission of NHTSA to regulate the design and 

performance of motor vehicles to ensure public safety, the proposals creating 

exemptions from NHTSA review and pre-market approval are concerning. It is the role 

of NHTSA to issue comprehensive standards and regulations to govern the ADS Safety, 

and where NHTSA does not fully do so, the states should have every authority to 

provide state regulations to ensuring public safety. There is jurisdictional uncertainty as 

to when, where and how NHTSA voluntary guidelines and exemptions may allow- or 

even require- states to provide safety related ADS regulations. We suggest that 

addressing this question is paramount to the development and adoption of safe ADS. 

In summary, NAMIC supports ADS development, and insurers are leading advocates 

toward 100 percent adoption of 100 percent safe ADS. The realistic support of all 

potential for greater safety requires that insurance companies be encouraged to 

objectively identify and analyze facts and d1ta on the leading edge of ADS 

development. The development and adoptiun of ADS will be benefited by substantial 

policy and coverage changes (e.g., enhanced personal cyber liability coverage) which 

will be informed by the same factual analysis and review. As the primary rationale for 

ADS development is reducing vehicle accidents and deaths, it is important that insurers 

have an active role in the development of a realistic appraisal of those benefits. 

NAMIC greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Committee 

and looks forward to working with the Committee in the development of ADS policy and 

regulation. 

5