Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 74 Appendix B. AVAP Handouts and Checklists Handout 1: Critical Category Checklist for State Legal Audits Below is a full list of 23 recommendations for state code provisions that may need modification or clarification. States should find this checklist helpful as they begin to review their own state code provisions to identify the state codes that will require a more thorough front-to-back audit. Critical Checklist of State Code Provisions Checklist of State Code Provisions Potentially Needing Modification or Clarification Recommendation 1 Conduct a critical review of fundamental vehicle code terms “drive,” “driver,” “operate,” and “operator,” and develop necessary clarification in terms, intent, and interpretation. 2 Address the possibility that vehicle codes can be interpreted to regulate only “drivers” (who are licensed and human) and exempt level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles from legal oversight. 3 Determine who can operate driving automation systems at different levels of driving automation and adjust the law for driver licensing requirements. 4 Develop driving tests (or amend existing tests) keyed to varying levels of driving automation systems. 5 Modify prohibitions against inattentive drivers depending on level of driving automation system deployed. 6 Clarify the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles, including automated mobility as a service (A-MaaS) vehicles. 7 Amend statutes governing criminal and civil liability to leave open the possibility that when properly engaged, the ADS in a level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicle could also be responsible in whole or in part for a resulting violation. 8 Consider when “reasonable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in specific ODD with a properly engaged level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicle. 9 Clarify alcohol and drug use and regulation (including in states where marijuana has been legalized) within the various levels of driving automation. Develop offenses, fines, and sentencing terms for lower level violations at varying levels of driving automation. 10 Modify anti-distraction provisions to enhance the utility of ADS-equipped vehicles for their drivers (while the ADS is unengaged) or passengers (while the ADS is engaged).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 75 Checklist of State Code Provisions Potentially Needing Modification or Clarification Recommendation 11 Memorialize, from the time of manufacture to junk or salvage on title and registration documents, that the vehicle is driving automation system-equipped. Consider memorialization of aftermarket technologies. 12 Consider culling obscure requirements that reference specific items (e.g. use “steering assemblies” rather than “wheels” and “braking systems” rather than “pedals”). 13 Modify agency inspection legislation/regulations to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADS. 14 Revise or clarify existing laws with respect to whether and how they regulate aftermarket driving automation system-related technologies installed on a vehicle. 15 Determine responsibility for crashes, incidents, and harms that may not be the result of human error but rather flaws in the ADS as engaged at the time of the event of interest. 16 Modify lemon laws to account for new driving automation system-related technologies to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects. 17 Identify how and whether the rules of the road apply to different levels of driving automation systems. Ensure that level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles are not exempted from rules of the road requirements. 18 Modify or adjust benchmarks to accommodate the decision-making abilities of level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicles operating at level 3 or above, especially for the “due care” standard, which is tethered to human judgment. 19 Modify local controls over roadways for who can operate on them, the rules of the road, and consider issues of state level preemption. 20 Revise occupant safety requirements to take full advantage of driving automation system-equipped vehicles' sensory capabilities (e.g., seatbelts and child boosters). 21 Consider the need for modifications to “rendering aid” statutes for level 4 and 5 ADS-equipped vehicles. 22 Platooning related recommendations: a. Consider the need to modify following distance requirements for platoons on a state’s highways. This is particularly important in states that impose prescriptive following distances. b. Provide guidance and clarify the legal classification of truck platoons. c. Develop restrictions as needed if technical scan/engineering analyses identify any negative length, weight, and/or noise effects due to trucks operating as a platoon. d. Audit state laws and regulations that may impose lane restrictions or service requirements on platoons to develop harmonization across the state. 23 Assess state policy protections for privacy-sensitive data collected on vehicles through connected infrastructure and vehicle transmission and also the

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 76 Checklist of State Code Provisions Potentially Needing Modification or Clarification Recommendation implications of open records laws and the applicability of current state privacy protection statutes. Handout 2: Triggers Used to Identify Problematic State Provisions Since each state will need to consider its own state codes, it is recommended that states begin with laws that might need to be modified because they impede automated transportation functionality or are no longer relevant. Once those codes are identified, a thorough front-to-back review of each state code is recommended. As states conduct their audit, the following lists of questions will help identify provisions that need further review and may require modification or clarification. Triggers Used to Identify Problematic State Provisions – Core Questions CORE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE RESOLVED IN THE SOURCES OF LAW It is important to find all provisions that speak to these questions. 1 What is an operator and does that operator need to be a human? This will be covered partly in definitions (“operator” and “person” are typically located in the first section of code requirements for operating a car); also look for clues as to whether the operator must have a license, and then whether that license must include fingerprints, etc. 2 Does an operator need to be present in the vehicle or can the operator control the vehicle remotely? 3 Even if the operator must be physically present, does the operator need to be actively controlling the vehicle? Are there accommodations that allow automation for handicapped drivers? 4 Are there other requirements that may impede ADS operations (e.g., operator must be attentive; operator must “see” the road)? 5 Can there be two operators (e.g., the human driver and the ADS manufacturer)? If so, can the ADS manufacturer bear most of the responsibility? 6 Are there rules of the road that seem specific to the roadway and that would require a human operator (rather than an ADS)? 7 If there are vehicle inspection requirements, do the vehicles require pedals, steering wheels, etc. in order to be allowed on the road? 8 What other intersections do you see between driving automation system-equipped vehicles and the states’ laws and rules? 9 Are there requirements that preclude texting, drinking, etc. while operating a car? These could place limits on the use of ADS-equipped vehicles. 10 Is it the state’s expectation that all existing rules of the road will apply to some or all levels of automation?

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 77 Triggers Used to Identify Problematic State Provisions – Supplemental Triggers POSSIBLE (NONEXCLUSIVE) QUESTIONS 1 With regard to the driver, is there a provision for operating a level 4 or level 5 ADS-equipped vehicle (particularly an ADS-dedicated vehicle) without a human driver or manual driver controls? 2 Are there specific visibility requirements (e.g., operator must be able to see through windshield)? 3 Are there specific operator requirements that will restrict the usefulness of ADS-equipped vehicles (e.g., explicit requirement of a human “driver”; emergency requirements that the operator perform specific tasks)? 4 Are there requirements that constrain the operator (e.g., require an awake or alert human operator)? 5 Are there requirements that suggest the operator must be human (e.g., definition of person, fingerprints)? 6 Are there required vehicle features that imply a traditional human operator or that may become outdated with the deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles (e.g., steering wheel and/or brake pedals must be present)? 7 How is the legal responsibility for violations determined (e.g., operator in vehicle at time)? 8 Are there any rules of the road that are situation-specific (sensitive to conditions on the road at a given time) and might be difficult to code for as they require human judgment or situation-specific judgments (e.g., school bus or emergency stops, work zones)? 9 Are there particular requirements that might impede truck platoons? 10 Do protections exist for driver privacy (e.g., others cannot obtain driver’s license number or photo; license plate is not linked to private data)? Note, due to connectivity-related concerns, there may be a privacy risk associated with C/ADS data. 11 What are the terms of criminal sanctions and liability (e.g., leaving children in the vehicle unattended, driving under the influence, etc.)? 12 Under what conditions is there probable cause to investigate a vehicle?

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 78 Handout 3: Establishing a C/ADS Vehicle State Policy Task Force Task Force Overview Establishing a Task Force C/ADS vehicles are being tested around the country, and nearing readiness for deployment and operation in commercial settings. Despite the technological advances, areas of existing state laws and regulations assume the presence of a human operator, which may disallow or impede C/ADS operation. States can establish governmental task forces as a formal mechanism to review, analyze, and revise existing laws and regulations to ensure that C/ADSs can legally, safely, and efficiently operate. Each state’s laws and governing context are unique, and as such it is not possible to recommend a universal approach to specific legal and regulatory changes. Instead, state task forces can use this guide as a roadmap for recommended legal changes. States should convene a task force of relevant government entities to analyze state laws using the legal recommendations identified in Chapter 2, create a list of needed legal and regulatory changes, elicit feedback from relevant stakeholders and the public, then revise, and ultimately enact the needed changes. Each state has different internal structures and stakeholders, so the process will vary across states. As such, this document provides a high-level guiding framework for organizing and convening a task force to analyze and revise laws and regulations to enable the deployment and operation of C/ADSs. Legislative action may be needed in some states to develop advisory groups or steering committees; this type of mandate is often a state’s initial C/ADS-related legislation. Stakeholder committee charters should clearly note the timeframe for the committee's activities, the committee's charge (e.g., complete an audit, provide opportunities for information sharing), and anticipated deliverables (e.g., a prioritized list of modifications), if any. Some examples of recent legislative action include the following: Wisconsin Executive Order 245 (2017) created the Governor’s Steering Committee on Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Testing and Deployment. The Committee is charged with identifying all agencies in the state with jurisdiction over testing and deployment of the vehicles, coordinating with the agencies to address concerns related to issues such as “vehicle registration, licensing, insurance, traffic regulations, equipment standards, and vehicle owner or operator responsibilities and liabilities under current law,” and reviewing current state laws and regulations that may impede testing and deployment, along with other tasks. Connecticut CT Public Act No. 17-69 (June 27, 2017) establishes a task force to study “fully autonomous vehicles,” to evaluate the standards established by NHTSA regarding state responsibilities for regulating fully autonomous vehicles, the laws, legislation and regulations proposed or enacted by other states, and recommendations on how the state should regulate.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 79 Vermont Act No. 38 (HB 494) (May 17, 2017) requires the DOT to convene a meeting of stakeholders with expertise on a range of topics related to “automated vehicles” and to report any recommendations, including proposed legislation, to the legislature. Identifying Task Force Members The task force should include representatives from key government agencies and departments (e.g., Governor's office, DOT, DMV, law enforcement) with an interest in and responsibility for the various areas of consideration for deployment (e.g., licensing/registration, enforcement of traffic laws/regulations). The composition will likely vary by state. The task force may want to designate one agency to take the lead in stakeholder outreach efforts, and state DMVs may be best equipped for this role. The required legal audit will likely focus on areas of law and governance that DMVs typically oversee, such as vehicle and driver laws. Task Force Activities Task forces can accomplish many different goals using a number of different methods, but for the purpose of reviewing laws and regulations to enable C/ADS deployment and operation, we recommend the task force take several steps. These are outlined below. Convene a Working Group First, the task force should convene a core working group of representatives from key governmental agencies and departments. The proper agencies will likely vary by state, but membership could include representatives from the Governor's office, DMVs, DOTs, state insurance agencies, state attorneys general, transit agencies and transportation providers, law enforcement, legislators and legislative aides, and local and regional governments, among others. This core working group should analyze the states’ existing laws and regulations to identify areas requiring changes to enable C/ADS deployment. This group may find it useful to start with the short- and mid-term recommendations presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix 2 as guidance to identify needed changes. States may wish to focus first on the report’s most time-sensitive recommendations and tackle longer-term changes in subsequent meetings. The core working group should develop a list of specific needed legal changes for use in subsequent task force activities. Obtain Feedback Second, members of the task force should take these proposed changes and engage with relevant stakeholders to obtain feedback. As an example, if the task force identifies necessary legal changes regarding commercial vehicle platooning, feedback may be desired from commercial vehicle operators and associations, companies developing platooning systems, state and local governmental entities, and other organizations and individuals with a stake in commercial vehicle operations specific to the proposed change. The task force members should consider the feedback provided, and potentially revise the needed changes as appropriate. This process should be repeated for each needed change with relevant stakeholder groups, and the needed changes revised as appropriate.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 80 Upon completing the stakeholder engagement and revision process, the task force should then engage with the general public to gain feedback on the proposed changes. Public engagement can take many forms, but could include public meetings, workshops, and virtual open houses, among others. Again, the task force should consider the feedback provided, and revise the needed changes as appropriate. Petition for Change Finally, the task force should present the needed changes to the entities responsible for implementing the changes. Implementation of changes can take various forms, depending on the specifics of the needed changes and the state in question. State agencies may be able to make changes unilaterally if the needed change is the result of an administrative rule or regulation. State legislative bodies are often responsible for making legal changes, and the task force would likely present the needed changes before these bodies for consideration. Having legislators and legislative aides as part of the task force’s core working group will help ensure that the changes brought before legislative bodies are well informed and more efficiently implemented. State Task Force Examples States may find it helpful to consider how others are using a task force to facilitate the deployment of C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Accordingly, we have provided a number of examples below. It is worth noting that several of these examples describe the use of a task force to address C/ADS-equipped vehicle testing. States should keep in mind that moving forward, the role of task forces is likely to be primarily focused on revising state codes for C/ADS-equipped vehicle deployment and operation. States can establish governmental task forces as a formal mechanism to review, analyze, and revise existing laws and regulations to ensure C/ADS can legally, safely, and efficiently operate. The examples given here are still informative in showing the diversity of approaches by state, along with the common goal of collaboration amongst stakeholders to ensure that legislative and regulatory changes are well informed. Connecticut Connecticut plans to use a task force as a way to study ADS-equipped vehicles, evaluate NHTSA’s standards, and evaluate a pilot program. SB 260, which was enacted on June 27, 2017, requires the development of a pilot program for up to four municipalities for the testing of level 5 ADS-equipped vehicles on public roads in those municipalities.10 It specifies the requirements for testing, which include having an operator seated in the driver’s seat and providing proof of insurance of at least $5 million. A task force is to be established to study ADS-equipped vehicles. The study must include an evaluation of NHTSA’s standards regarding state responsibility for regulating automated vehicles; an evaluation of laws, legislation, and regulations in other states and provide recommendations on how Connecticut should legislate and regulate automated vehicles; and an evaluation of the pilot program. North Carolina The North Carolina DOT and DMV partnered on the “NCDOT CAV Roadmap Development Project” with the goal determining how North Carolina should be preparing for connected and autonomous vehicle 10 CT SB 260, Public Act No. 17-69. (2017). https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/ACT/pa/2017PA-00069-R00SB-00260-PA.htm

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 81 (CAV) technology.11 The project involved stakeholder coordination and education with a wide variety of stakeholders from State Agencies (e.g., NC Office of the Governor, NC State Highway Patrol), local agencies (Charlotte Area Transit, City of Durham), businesses (e.g., Regional Transportation Alliance, NC Association for Defense Attorneys) and other groups (e.g., Advocate for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Tesla Automotive, and UNC Highway Safety Research Center). The products of the joint DOT/DMV project include: (1) Assessment Summary of the NC Motor Vehicle and Licensing Codes (2) Stakeholder Workshop to identify key areas of focus for the State in response to CAV technology (3) Activities Roadmap of suggested near- and medium-term initiatives to be considered by the State in preparation for CAV technology. North Dakota North Dakota is encouraging collaboration between the DOT and industry. In 2017 HB 1202, which was enacted on April 13, 2017, authorizes a DOT study under which the North Dakota DOT will collaborate with the ADS technology industry to study the use of, and data collected by, ADSs on state highways.12 The North Dakota DOT must review current laws of licensing, registration, insurance, and data ownership to be applied to driving automation system-equipped vehicles. North Dakota’s DOT would report this study to the 66th Legislative Assembly of North Dakota. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania created an Autonomous Vehicles Testing Policy Task Force, chaired by PennDOT, to develop recommended guidance for developing policies to oversee testing of level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles.13 The guidance was presented to the PennDOT Secretary and the final testing policy was reviewed during an on-line public forum. The effort involved months of collaboration between state, federal, and private-industry officials (e.g., the Federal Highway Administration, AAA, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pennsylvania, Uber, SAE, the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association, and General Motors). The goal of the task force was “to create a framework for testing [highly automated vehicles] in Pennsylvania that balances public safety with innovation and provides for the flexibility required to keep the state in the forefront of the development of this emerging and potentially transformative technology.” Utah Utah passed HB 280 in May 2016, authorizing a level 4-5 ADS-equipped vehicle study.14 The bill specifies that each agency of the state “with regulatory authority impacting autonomous vehicle technology testing shall facilitate and encourage the responsible testing and operation of autonomous vehicle technology within the state.”15 The bill authorizes the departments of Public Safety, Motor Vehicles, Transportation and Technology Services to contract and partner with groups for testing C/ADSs in the state. 11 NC Readiness for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV) Final Report. http://www.ncav.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/NC-Roadmap-for-CAV_Final_ALL.pdf 12 HB 1202. (2017). http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0711-04000.pdf 13 Pennsylvania DOT (Press Release, December 2016). http://www.penndot.gov/pages/all-news-details.aspx?newsid=276 14 HB 280, Se 41-26-102 (3)(a). (2016) 15 HB 280. (2016). https://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0280.html

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 82 The bill directs that the Department of Public Safety, in consultation with other state agencies, including the DMV and the DOT, shall study, prepare a report, and make recommendations regarding the best practices for regulation of driving automation system-equipped vehicle technologies on Utah highways. Virginia On June 2, 2015, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced the designation of more than 70 miles of interstates and arterial roads in the Northern Virginia region as the “Virginia Automated Corridors,” allowing developers of C/ADS-equipped vehicles the opportunity to test their technologies.16 The project is a joint effort of the Virginia DOT and DMV in partnership with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), Transurban, and the navigation and mapping company HERE. Washington Washington, via Executive Order 17-02, has set up a driving automation system-equipped vehicle work group to begin to address driving automation system testing and enable pilot programs within the state. The working group will have at least one representative from the Governor’s office, and representatives from other state agencies. Pilot programs are authorized and can be conducted in partnership with entities developing ADS-equipped vehicle technology equipment. Handout 4: Engaging Legislators to Advance ADS-Equipped Vehicle Legislation Introduction to Legislative Outreach Politics is the art of the possible. It is extremely unlikely that even the best, most clearly articulated public policy will be fully realized by legislative action. Rather, some portion of that policy will become law. It is important for state senior leaders to take a careful, considered approach to the legislative process and its political realities to maximize positive results and minimize any barriers. The Importance of Legislative Outreach How many times have legislators asked state officials, “what are other states doing?” It is a perennial question and especially pertinent when issues or key legislative changes are nationwide in scope. State administrators need to be ready to answer this question. It is also likely that legislative staff will be engaged in answering this question for their legislative members. Many use the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL) as a resource and source of reference. NCSL conducts policy research in a variety of areas including transportation. They also help draft bills and provide extensive background on bills that have been enacted or are under consideration. It is important to take the first step in preparing for discussions about legislation needed to accommodate connected and Automated Driving Systems (C/ADSs) by doing your homework and studying an overview of legislation being considered in other states, especially neighboring states. The presentation that 16 Governor of Virginia. (Press Release, June 2015). https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=8526#sthash.W3FXQR9x. dpuf.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 83 accompanies this action plan is a good starting point (Appendix 1). The standalone document titled State Legal and Regulatory Audit: Identification of Laws and Regulations Potentially Requiring Modification (Wagner et al., 2018) provides a more thorough overview of the types of laws that are being changed across the nation and the focus of those laws. While this is a good starting point, keep in mind that legislation is dynamic and changes constantly each legislative session, and it is also important to regularly check for current legislation. The Outreach Process Know the Ask and Prepare in Advance Prior to meeting with your legislature, there are many other considerations that need to be thought through. Assuming that the path has been cleared internally, (Governor’s Office and/or senior agency leadership), you should determine exactly what legislative assistance is necessary. These needs vary by state and by each state’s current C/ADS involvement. For example, a basic first step “ask” may be to officially legislate a C/ADS steering committee or advisory committee. Some states are well beyond that point and ready to recommend legislative changes that will facilitate testing or deployment. Know what you want before you meet. Ideally, these first meetings or initial “asks” should be with legislative leadership. Several overarching considerations should be prioritized outside of the specific legal changes. These overarching considerations (presented below) should be addressed internally before any legislative engagement. Overarching Considerations 1. Determine your state’s goals and objectives for C/ADS deployment. Does your agency leadership want your state’s role in C/ADS testing and/or deployment to be research based, driven by economic development, supportive of industry goals? Does your state want to advance law changes quickly? Is legislation necessary or can a regulatory or policy direction be considered? What is the scope and timeline of needed legislative changes? Does your state want to focus on platooning or full deployment regardless of vehicle type? What is needed not just from the DMV side of the business, but also from law enforcement and transportation? All of these questions should be considered in determining your agency’s goals so that they can be communicated to legislative leaders. We can look to Utah, Virginia, and Pennsylvania for good examples of embracing the overarching priority of determining state goals and objectives. For example, Virginia recently developed its vision for advancing C/ADSs in the state: “To create a strategic policy framework for transitioning autonomous vehicles into the Virginia transportation network, and associated Autonomous Vehicle program, by which the Office of the Secretary can position Virginia to be a national leader in the rapidly advancing field of self-driving, connected mobility” (Day, 2017). Pennsylvania also recently outlined its C/ADS statewide strategic plan, which calls for expanding existing research, using actionable information, and developing near-term and long-term actions in nine areas ranging from driver licensing and motor vehicles to workforce requirements (Myers, 2017). 2. Be prepared to outline what an organized Stakeholder or Advisory Committee would look like.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 84 As discussed in Chapter 5, states should convene a task force of relevant governmental entities that analyzes its state’s laws against the legal recommendations identified in Chapter 2, create a list of needed legal and regulatory changes, elicit feedback from relevant stakeholders and the public, revise, and then ultimately enact the needed changes. Each state has different internal structures and stakeholders, so the process will vary across states. 3. Determine your agency’s direction regarding federal and state preemption. Guide the legislative discussion on what the agency expects regarding the federal role and those areas where federal preemption is expected, like FMVSS, and determine your agency’s recommendation regarding state preemption over local authority. The most recent NHTSA federal guidance, A Vision for Safety (NHTSA, 2017), is a good tool to highlight areas where NHTSA expects to be involved and areas retained by states. Similarly, strategic consideration should be given to the amount of local variation states will allow regarding level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicle deployment at the local level. This is especially relevant for A- MaaS deployment and the most recent introduction of ride share services. State preemption provisions and local control are an important factor as states consider this overarching priority. When local ordinances and regulations are layered into level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicle deployment law and regulation modifications, the situation becomes complex, especially for OEMs and technology companies. These types of strategic considerations need to be made early in the audit process, as do incorporated statute modification provisions for any statutes governing federal preemption or local restrictions. 4. Highlight the importance of a legal audit and outline your agency’s plans. In early discussions with the legislature, you should have a plan to complete a legal or vehicle code audit. This proactive approach will help guide needed legislative change. Identify the Right Agency Team Ideally, your policy will be advanced by a team consisting of a legislative process expert, the legislative liaison, a subject matter expert, and a senior level policy maker or administrator. It may be tempting for politically experienced subject matter experts to proceed without the legislative liaison but this is not advisable. There are usually a set of complex political issues and relationships having little, if nothing, to do with new C/ADSs legislation needs, which can dramatically affect legislative outcomes. The legislative liaison can identify and help manage these issues, allowing the subject matter expert to focus on the policy. Given the breadth and complexity of issues included C/ADSs, it may be necessary to include more than one, or even a team, of subject matter experts. If so, it is still advisable to designate a senior-level individual as the primary point of contact, as legislators may think it is more appropriate to deal with a senior-level representative. Where to Start Ideally, the process of developing a C/ADS policy will have included identifying key legislative leaders. If so, these legislators should be your initial points of contact. These individuals may or may not be the chair or chairs of the appropriate legislative committees, but will still be your initial contacts.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 85 Committees are, of course, the engine rooms of legislatures, so the chair of the appropriate committee has significant power in the legislative process. Without their assent and active participation, it will be difficult to obtain the necessary policy support. Once again, given the breadth and complexity of C/ADS issues, it may be necessary to approach more than one committee, as bills may be referred to multiple committees. However, most bills fall under the jurisdiction of one committee, and identifying the appropriate committee in this iteration is critical. Again, the advice of a seasoned, competent legislative liaison is vital to a successful strategy in this regard. The broader legislative leadership will eventually decide if and when a legislative committee’s work will be taken up by the entire body. Accordingly, it is also necessary to begin to build a broader foundation of legislative support for any proposed legislative changes. The legislative liaison and committee chairs are invaluable in this process. Legislative staff is, of course, critical to the process. Senior committee and leadership staff are arguably second in importance only to their principals. What to Present A well-developed, clearly articulated public policy addressing C/ADS is vital in the legislative approach. This public policy should be developed in a coordinated, collaborative, and comprehensive process. It is often advisable to involve external stakeholders as well, but it is imperative that all internal parties reach consensus around a clear policy direction. Legislative outreach is not the time to attempt to resolve internal disputes or generate top level buy-in or enthusiasm for legislative change. Proceeding without these firm underpinnings can cause a significant setback. Assuming the strong foundation of a well-developed, clearly articulated public policy, there are several topics that will be of interest to legislators as noted earlier. “Why must this be done now,” is often the first question asked. Legislators will also have other questions, such as what other states are doing; what the appropriate federal, state and local rules are; what the cost will be; who will pay; and what the biggest challenges are. It is important to have anticipated as many of these and any other relevant questions as possible and to have answers at hand. If something unexpected is asked, it is important to have a process in place to quickly identify and provide an answer. Conversely, it is equally important that the DMV or DOT clearly express and support their priorities as noted earlier. What are their mission and goals? Do they want to lead or follow, from a national perspective? What are their safety concerns? Is this an important economic development or competitiveness issue? What kind of legislative and regulatory framework do they prefer — prescriptive or flexible? And finally, what is the specific action requested. This forms a good basis for a legislative action paper. The best approach to ensuring that all of these issues and other vital topics are covered is to have a comprehensive set of talking points developed at the outset, and to amend and supplement these points as necessary throughout the legislative process. Specific short-, mid- and long-term legislative priorities are identified (in Chapter 3), but these specific priorities must be advanced within the context of the broader discussion above. Knowing When to Present Some legislative outreach may have occurred during the policy formation process. The main body of legislative effort should occur in the year or so prior to the date of desired legislative action. As a practical

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 86 matter, it may be necessary and even desirable to do most of the outreach when the legislature is in recess or out of session. Session time may be too busy and too late to get much done. Final Thoughts There remain many uncertainties regarding C/ADS market entry and penetration, but one thing is clear: states, and especially state DMVs, will be tasked with addressing the uncertainties in law and regulation. The legislative process and legislative involvement is expected to be key in advancing C/ADS deployment successfully.