Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 6: Implementation 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. 6: Implementation Plan 1 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N P L A N Research Objective and Results The fundamental objective of NCHRP Project 20-102: Implications of Automation for Motor Vehicle Codes is to help states, especially transportation and motor vehicle agencies and their associated legal departments, identify the critical laws and regulations that may need to be changed or modified as connected and automated driving system (C/ADS)-equipped vehicles are deployed. Industry deploying C/ADS-equipped vehicles, legal practitioners, and state legislatures recognize that current laws and regulations must be addressed in a comprehensive, yet flexible, way to ensure safety and reap the anticipated societal benefits of C/ADSs, while at the same time anticipating many unknowns. Unlike traditional legal and regulatory changes or simple citation modifications to add a new title brand or type of license plate, or institute an adjustment in fees, fines, or driver sanctions, the changes to C/ADS-related laws are more challenging and require foundational changes to underpinning concepts and definitions based on an understanding of the potential and limitations of C/ADS technology. This project’s deliverables are intended to provide guidance and resources to state departments of transportation (DOTs) and departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) to assist with the legal changes that will be required as a result of the rollout of C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Key products include a final report and guidance resource titled the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (AVAP): A Roadmap for Changes to Autonomous Vehicle Laws and Regulations. The AVAP includes several resources such as a PowerPoint presentation and handouts. The PowerPoint presentation is designed to be used by state DMVs and DOTs to support their engagement and outreach efforts. The presentation has detailed notes that agencies can use to inform their discussions with stakeholder groups. The handouts are meant to guide DMVs and DOTs as they conduct their stakeholder and legislative outreach efforts. One of the key requests from Panel Members for this project, many of who are or were DOT or DMV professionals, was that the end products be usable materials for state DMVs as they move forward and grapple with needed law and regulatory changes as C/ADSs are deployed. This technical memorandum will: (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. To provide context for this implementation plan, consider the following definition of implementation, according to the National Implementation Research Network’s glossary: [Implementation is a] specified set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or program of known dimensions. According to this definition, implementation processes are purposeful and are described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of the “specific set of activities” related to implementation. In addition, the activity or program being implemented is described in sufficient detail so that independent observers can detect its presence and strength” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005, p 5). Implementation-related activities will be presented through the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework (Glasgow, 2002; Glasgow, Vogt, and Boles, 1999), which has been adapted from the health care industry for use in this context. The RE-AIM framework is “intended to aid the planning, conduct, evaluation, and reporting of studies having the goal

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 6: Implementation Plan 2 of translating research into practice” (Green and Glasgow, 2006). Each dimension of this framework is discussed in the following sections (Green and Glasgow, 2006; www.re-aim.org). Reach Reach: Did the research reach the intended audience? It is expected that the audience for this research will be broad and include State and Federal government policy makers, legislatures, academia, and private sector consultants and researchers. The most important implementation strategy will be for State DMVs, and that “reach” will be primarily accomplished by working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Activities and Organizations Promoting Reach To assist in this process, the AVAP and supporting materials should be made available to state and local agencies, legislative bodies, governor’s offices, and other interested parties. These documents will also be of significant help to consultants, OEMs and their suppliers, technology firms, new-to-market transportation providers, and researchers who study the policy implications of C/ADS implementation. The results of the project can be disseminated to state and local agencies through partnering organizations and national associations. Stakeholder representatives from national organizations, such as AAMVA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), can aid in distributing key research findings. These groups could distribute the results to members across the states, and coordinate with the research team on facilitating workshops to disseminate project results. Additionally, representatives from companies and organizations that informed this research effort could be asked to assist in facilitating the dissemination of the final report and the AVAP. These agencies include the National Association of State Legislators, the National Governors Association, and the Uniform Law Commission. The results of this project will also be disseminated through research papers presented at TRB annual meetings, as well as other national and international conferences. Members of the research team will present the results in relevant settings at these conferences, like committee meetings and sessions. Other example conferences and meetings could include the following: • The AAMVA Annual International Conference and regional conferences; • Meetings of AAMVA’s Vehicle Standing Committee, Automated Vehicles Best Practices Working Group, Law Enforcement Standing Committee, and Motor Carrier Working Group; • The CVSA Annual Conference and Exhibition; • The AASHTO Annual Meeting. A key factor will be the acceptance of the AVAP by AAMVA, AASHTO, and the CVSA. These organizations may be periodically contacted to determine the use of some of the project’s key components, such as the legal audit and the potential need for revisions to the legal audit guidance. Reach can be measured by the number of jurisdictions and/or organizations that are exposed to the research and the number of representativeness of those jurisdictions and/or organizations. Specific assessment criteria for measuring reach may include, but should not be limited to, the following: • The number of copies of the report disseminated though TRB and follow up inquiries;

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 6: Implementation Plan 3 • The number of hits for report downloads on the TRB website; • The number of contacts and the type of contacts acquired by the TRB and the members of the research team; • The requests for and actual presentations of the material and follow-up calls from presentations completed by the team. Effectiveness Effectiveness: Did the research achieve targeted outcomes? The primary assessment criterion for assessing effectiveness will be the research’s impact on key outcomes, in this case the identification of laws or areas of law that may potentially need to be modified as a result of the testing, deployment, and commercialization of C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Jurisdictions and/or organizations implementing this guidance may be surveyed to determine if the research products helped them to identify specific laws or areas of law that may need modification, how the research products impacted their ability to complete these legal audits, any unanticipated consequences associated with the audit, and the cost of conducting the audit and/or other recommendations of the research (e.g., the stakeholder committee or task force). Adoption Adoption: Did the research help the organization achieve its mission? The products of this research should benefit jurisdictional DOTs and DMVs by providing a strategic path for working with stakeholders, state legislatures, and regulatory authorities. The deliverables are by design practical, actionable, and useable by the states. The deliverables are particularly tailored for DMVs, as they will be responsible for the majority of actionable items needed to enact legal and regulatory changes related to the testing, deployment, and commercialization of C/ADS-equipped vehicles. The research was informed with the understanding that state statutes are governed by standards such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Commercial Driver Safety Act, and that no state or province is exactly alike (nor are their vehicle codes and regulations). Thus, the final products are designed to be broad enough for customization by states. Quantitative measures that may be used to assess adoption include (1) the number of national, state, and provincial agencies that adopt the developed guidance document and the associated strategies or approaches proposed by the project to support or promote the legal audit and the deployment of C/ADS- equipped vehicle technologies; and (2) the representativeness of those adopting the research (e.g., high population versus low population jurisdictions, urban versus rural jurisdictions) and those that do not adopt the recommendations. Activities Facilitating Adoption The adoption of the final products will be accomplished in close cooperation with the TRB, AAMVA, CVSA, and AASHTO. For example, with support from TRB staff, a series of workshops could be held to explain the research findings and the processes involved in conducting a legal audit. The purpose of such a legal audit is to identify legal provisions in state codes that may require modification as C/ADS- equipped vehicles become more commonplace. A legal audit requires a systematic front-to-back review and analysis of state codes to identify provisions that might need modification because they impede automated transport functionality or are no longer relevant.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 6: Implementation Plan 4 The workshops could provide practitioners at the state and local level a review of the required steps and methods for performing a legal audit to revise state codes and law for C/ADSs, as well as barriers that might be encountered. The workshop could discuss priorities for revising legal codes across the short-, mid-, and long-terms. It could also include discussions of the technologies of interest, the key terms to review and define, methods of adaptation—for instance, legislation, administrative code, or changes through interpretation—and how states can develop their legal codes while maintaining interstate consistency and harmonization where appropriate. National organizations like AAMVA, AASHTO, and CVSA could be asked for assistance in recruiting workshop participants with the goal of conducting the workshops in conjunction with the previously noted conferences and/or meetings. Implementation Implementation: Were program components delivered as intended? How many delivered the program? Implementation may be assessed through the number and rate of potential adoptions of the AVAP and its associated components in states and jurisdictions. For example, quantitative assessments could determine the number of potential new stakeholder or working groups formed using the AVAP. Qualitative assessments could explore how jurisdictions modified the guidance to better fit their specific needs and how stakeholder and working groups vary across jurisdictions. It is also important to consider barriers or challenges to implementation. There are several potential barriers to successful implementation: • Insufficient or inadequate data to support the implementation or adoption of the AVAP and/or recommended strategies; • Lack of practitioner understanding of the proposed strategies and/or implementation recommendations; • Organizational, political, or societal resistance to the recommended modifications or strategies. Activities to Mitigate Potential Implementation Barriers To mitigate the impacts of potential barriers and other roadblocks, a risk register covering the main risks was created. The register includes management actions for each risk. The risks identified within this section are classified with ratings for three aspects of each individual risk: the probability of that risk occurring; the impact on the project cost, schedule, or scope; and the ability of that risk to be mitigated. These levels are defined in

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 6: Implementation Plan 5 Table 1. (Note: Risks have been rated using the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office [ITS JPO] standard, which may be found at: http://www.its.dot.gov/project_mang/index.htm). Table 2 summarizes the main challenges expected when implementing the proposed AVAP and the experience-based strategies for mitigating each risk’s potential impact on the project. Risks are identified using a taxonomy that includes policy, institutional, personnel, and technical risks. Table 2 also lists the anticipated risks, their ratings and probabilities, and planned mitigation strategies.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 6: Implementation Plan 6 Table 1. Risk Rating and Probability Definitions Risk Probability Risk Rating/Impact on Cost, Schedule, and/or Scope Ability to Mitigate Risk 4 = High Risk (>10%) 4 = Catastrophic: Major Impact 4 = None 3 = Medium Risk (Between 5% and 10%) 3 = Critical: Significant Impact 3 = Low 2 = Low Risk (Between 1% and 5%) 2 = Marginal: Low Impact 2 = Medium 1 = Negligible Risk (Less than 1%) 1 = Negligible: Insignificant Impact 1 = Excellent Table 2. Risk Matrix Category Description Risk Probability Risk Impact Mitigation Rating and Strategy Policy Federal laws enacted that restrict automated vehicle, connected vehicle, or infrastructure deployment 3 1 1 – Mitigate risk by engaging in continual review of ongoing Federal efforts Policy State laws enacted that restrict automated vehicle, connected vehicle, or infrastructure deployment 3 1 1 – Mitigate risk by engaging in continual review of ongoing State efforts Institutional Insufficient or inadequate data to support the implementation or adoption of the Guide and/or recommended strategies 1 3 2 – Mitigate risk by engaging in continual review of ongoing legal efforts and by consulting with a broad range of personnel with expertise in conducting legal reviews Institutional Organization and/or political leadership unable or unwilling to support research effort 3 3 1 – Mitigate risk with strong coordination and education Personnel Lack of personnel qualified to conduct in-depth reviews 1 3 2 – Avoid risk by keeping a broad range of personnel focused on the project goals; provide opportunities for training via workshops Technical New developments in connected or automated vehicle technology or standards 2 2 1 – Accept risk and integrate new developments as appropriate into analyses for consideration Technical Stakeholders unable or unwilling to support research effort 3 3 1 - Mitigate risk with strong coordination and education Maintenance Maintenance: Did the program produce lasting effects? How did the program evolve? Maintenance explores whether the program, in this case the legal audit, produced lasting effects. It also considers how the individual jurisdictional audit programs evolved over time. For this project, a key measure will be how many jurisdictions that do not currently have any type of C/ADS legislation or stakeholder groups in place use this research as a guide to develop legislation, complete a motor vehicle code audit, and/or initiate a stakeholder process. The nature and duration of stakeholder committees will help to determine how these groups were used and their potential for long-term impact on jurisdictional activities.