Impacts of Laws and Regulations on CV and AV Technology Introduction in Transit Operations (2017)

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.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 71 L A W S A N D R E G U L A T IO N S

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 72 Laws Protecting Employees Section 13c Requirements of the Federal Transit Act 49 U.S.C. 5333(b), also known as “Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act,” has been maintained by the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) for many years. The overview of this law on the OLMS website 44 begins with the paragraph shown below (underline text denotes emphasis added by the authors of this paper): When federal funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a mass transit system (public transportation), federal law requires arrangements to protect the interests of mass transit employees. 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b) (formerly Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act). Section 5333(b) specifies that these protective arrangements must provide for the preservation of rights and benefits of employees under existing collective bargaining agreements, the continuation of collective bargaining rights, the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions in relation to their employment, assurances of employment to employees of acquired transit systems, priority of reemployment, and paid training or retraining programs. 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b)(2). The law states in part that as a condition of financial assistance from the federal government to a transit operating agency, the interests of employees shall be protected under arrangements which the Secretary of Labor concludes to be fair and equitable. These arrangements are administered under the Office of Labor-Management Standards and include: • Preservation of rights, privileges and benefits under existing collective bargaining agreements • Continuation of collective bargaining rights • Assurances of priority of reemployment of employees who (…are displaced by changes, notably via automation technology systems in this context) • Paid training or retraining programs These Section 13(c) stipulations are existing law and may contain some of the most challenging aspects of bringing AV technology into the mainstream of public transit system operations Based on this possibility, transit operating agencies currently receiving federal funding could risk losing their funding due to labor law compliance impacts when implementing L4 AV technology, if the changes are not first vetted with their employee’s labor unions. Notably, new services such as first-mile connections using low(er) speed L4 shuttles may not displace existing employees at all (and in fact may require additional employees). Possible Options for Operating Agencies – Another possible view that has been expressed in stakeholder discussions is to treat this transition to AV technology application in transit service as an opportunity to wean an agency off federal funding by a potential reduction in operating costs resulting from automation. If there is a possibility to move away from Federal funding in contrast to impacts of 13(c), agencies may still be able to optimize costs through other funding solutions, such as local taxes. This is only speculative and research is likely 44 https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/compltransit.htm

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 73 needed to assess the different cost variables of such adjustments. Such a study might consider the hypothetical conversion of a medium sized transit agency (as defined by APTA) to progressive application of AV technology in its operations. A thorough benefit/cost analysis could then assess the overall employee workforce and financial impacts of this transition over the course of time, including impacts such as loss of federal funding due to potential reduction of employee staffing levels. No systematic analysis of employee reorganization has yet been done (that we know of). While the general speculation is that many fewer employees would be needed to “supervise” an AV transit system than drive each vehicle manually, it is not clear yet how significant the reductions in staff would be. Possible Changes to the Law – Other possible changes to the federal transit employee protection law may be considered based on the following questions: 1. As automation of the driving task and employee presence on each vehicle gradually begins to reduce the size of the workforce, should the federal law be revised to allow for attrition? 2. Does the law need to address how or in what way employees can be retrained and redeployed in public transit agencies? 3. How will these changes to employee roles and responsibilities impact contracted employees, and should federal funds be allowed for contracted services in the workforce if those services are not compliant with these federal rules? Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations OSHA operates as a division of the Department of Labor, and the OSHA Standards regarding workplace safety are contained within 29 CFR Part 1910 — OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS. OSHA has published standards regarding the application of machines in industrial settings for many years. Chapter Six – Robotics in the Workplace from OSHA Publication 3067 – Concepts and Techniques of Machine Safeguarding45 is particularly relevant. This aspect of OSHA regulations is worthy of further studies to determine if specific requirements are necessary for AV transit. This is specifically important for operations facilities (dispatching and storage yards), as well as maintenance facilities where OSHA directives and guidelines may need to address processes and procedures concerning robotic vehicles and the potential for workplace hazards. During discussion of this topic in industry stakeholder workshops, one suggestion was to require that the vehicle must be “aware” of human(s) in the vicinity and communicate desired automated actions through some means (audio, lights, text, etc.). Such vehicle awareness functions are integral to operation in the long term. Laws Protecting Passengers Title VI of the Civil Rights Act – FTA Regulations In 1964 the Civil Rights Act established major tenets of social justice in the United States of America. As guidance for the applicability of Title VI requirements relative to transit system 45 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/Mach_SafeGuard/chapt6.html

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 74 projects, FTA Circular C.4702.1B 46 was last updated in 2012 and it serves to protect people from discrimination in transit programs receiving federal financial assistance. The Federal Transit Administration’s Office of Civil Rights monitors FTA grant recipients’ Title VI internal programs to ensure their compliance with the federal law. The Justice Department is also involved in the process, if violations are found. The impacts of AV technology deployment will be assessed under Title VI criteria for the ways in which minority populations are served by each new AV transit service. This seems particularly important with the demographic trends showing the suburbanization of the poor. These demographic shifts can create concentrations of transit dependent populations in locations where transit service cannot effectively serve their needs, when compared to populations in the urban core where the heaviest transit investments have traditionally been made. The ability of AV transit deployment is suburban areas will therefore be an important factor in determining the Title VI impacts or benefits. Environmental Justice Policy – Issues such as those discussed above must be carefully assessed, since FTA’s “environmental justice” (i.e. discriminatory impacts of a new transit service) requirements47 can be a major factor in receiving approval for a given transit project’s Environmental Record of Decision (ROD) and the resulting release of New Start funding from FTA. Even after enactment of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requiring equal access to transportation programs and services, many scholars believed that additional safeguards were needed to project these special populations. As a response, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Executive Order requires each federal agency to develop what became known as an environmental justice strategy that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. To facilitate this matter across all Executive Branch agencies, an Interagency Working Group48 was established whose charge is to ensure the protection of minority and low-income populations. The most basic of environmental justice implications for the introduction of AV transit technology in public transit service is the requirement that the metropolitan planning organizations and transit operating agencies implement a strategy to ensure greater public participation in the decision-making process. The federal requirements stipulate that this public involvement must include minority populations and low-income populations that could be affected by the AV transit deployment and the associated environmental hazards, urban renewal programs, and transportation projects. 46 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Title_VI_FINAL.pdf 47 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/environmental-justice-policy- guidance-federal-transit 48 https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/federal-interagency-working-group-environmental-justice-ej- iwg

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 75 Americans with Disabilities Act – FTA Regulations The ADA first became law in 1990, and today its public transit application is administered by the Civil Rights Department of FTA49. There are multiple components of the federal law defining aspects of ADA requirements for public transit agencies: • CFA 49 – Transportation, including Part 37 Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities, and • Part 38 Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles. Part 38 has more than 30 pages of regulatory law specifically dedicated to ADA requirements for public transit systems, vehicle equipment and facilities. FTA Circular C4710.1 has been published for guidance in the application of the law50, and this 300+ page document is an important reference for transit operating agencies who manage the day-to-day issues of serving their elderly and disabled passengers. By the nature of such comprehensive requirements of ADA for both transit systems and associated facilities, there are many exceptions granted in the Circular for equipment and facilities that were placed in service decades before the law was passed. The interpretation of “exceptions” is handled under the auspices of the FTA Civil Rights Office. Eventually changes to the law to specifically address AV transit will likely be addressed through a normal process over the course of time as experience with this new type of vehicle technology is obtained. General ADA Criteria – In CFR 49, Part 38 ADA Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles requirements, there are a few general criteria that apply across all vehicle types: • Minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches for wheelchair parking inside vehicles, with wheelchair securement against movement while the vehicle is in motion. • Interior vehicle handrails and stanchions required. • Wheelchair Access/Circulation Clearance internal to the vehicle to allow wheelchair maneuvering that allows a “route at least 32 inches wide”. • Priority Seating and Signs designating seating locations for passengers with disabilities. • Audio Announcements and Visual Instructions for the hearing and visually impaired. For buses, vans and fixed guideway systems, there are specifications of the number of wheelchair securement locations (e.g., 2 wheelchair position for vehicles over 22 feet in length), and the minimum forces that each securement device must be able to withstand (e.g., 2,000 lbs.). There are also provisions for “automatic attachment” as well as operability by a person familiar with the system and mobility aid. The Part 38 requirements contain detailed specifications for wheelchair lift design and lifting capacity. Wheel Chair Ramps – The most challenging requirements for AV technologies that are written into existing law for conventional rubber-tired transit vehicles are those that address vehicle 49 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/ada-regulations 50 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/americans-disabilities-act-guidance- pdf

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 76 floor height above the boarding surface where the passengers stand, creating conditions where a step up is typically required to board a vehicle. Vehicle/Platform Edge Gap – FTA’s specific requirements for rail mass transit systems stipulate that level platform boarding with a maximum 3-inch gap be provided between the platform edge and the vehicle door threshold at all stations, including a maximum 5/8-inch vertical height difference. The regulations also require that a low-speed people mover system (operating at a speed no greater than 20 mph) must have a maximum gap of 1 inch and a maximum height differential of 1/2 inch. Key Issues for ADA Requirements with AV Applications – The benchmarks of ADA regulatory requirements described above are of critical importance as new provisions in the law are created for application to AV transit vehicles. There could be one set of requirements during the early stage of AV transit deployment when L3 automation still requires an operations person in every vehicle who can assist with ADA accommodations in the boarding/alighting process. Then a different set of requirements may apply over the long term when under L4 and L5 automation there will be no operations person present in the vehicle, or at boarding locations. Other questions that are relevant to discuss, investigate and consider through follow-on studies or research activities include: 1. Will AV transit vehicles be viable for public service with ramps or lifts that are automatically deployed to board a passenger in a wheelchair, and, if so, what new safety hazards might be induced? 2. If AV technology supplier designs for unmanned vehicle operations do not provide equivalent ADA compliance as do conventional human-operated transit vehicles, can regulatory changes be made to accommodate this through exceptions or otherwise? 3. Will wheelchair securement be required in AV transit vehicles, and how will that be safely automated if no operator is onboard? 4. Should AV technology suppliers be changing their vehicle designs to ensure highly reliable maneuvering capabilities for precise docking at stations that complies with the existing ADA regulations for level platform boarding? FTA Transit System Regulations Buy America Requirements FTA funding for New Starts transit projects is normally contingent on compliance with Buy America regulations in the procurement of systems, facilities and rolling stock. The stipulations of the regulations generally require that equipment and construction materials be purchased from American manufacturing sources specified as a percentage of total content for the subsystems and component parts. The full law has recently been revised by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and established as law in 49 U.S.C. Section 5323(j) / FAST Section 3011. As one feature of the FAST Act, the US manufactured content of rolling stock will soon to be raised to 70%. In addition, foreign transit vehicle manufacturers must establish a final assembly

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 77 plant on U.S. soil, as well as meeting the required percentage of the subsystem equipment from American sources. The existing Buy America law will clearly have major impact on the way that AV transit technology advances in its development and deployment within the United States, since Buy America requirements seem unlikely to be reconsidered just for AV technology application benefits under the current U.S Administration. Exceptions in the Near Term are likely to be needed which can be granted for a whole project without an extensive waiver application process to place AV transit systems in revenue service quickly. There have already been processes set in place within FTA to obtain waivers for initial test and demonstration projects to not require compliance with Buy America stipulations. To address the evolution of AV technology and to not constrain innovation, this approach of the federal government granting waivers may be a key path to moving forward in the near term. Considering the current situation where most AV transit vehicle suppliers are not U.S. owned sources of supply, a reduction of the minimum percentage of U.S. subsystems and components could be established in the FTA Buy America regulations. • Should the federal government consider changing the FTA Buy America minimum percentages of U.S. supply for equipment and rolling stock when funding is provided for AV transit technology? Whenever FTA funds are being applied to transit equipment purchases there is focused federal oversight given to ensure Buy America requirements are met. • Should FTA establish an official oversight support office for providing guidance to transit operating agencies and managing the Buy America regulatory constraints as new applications of AV transit technology begin to come into common service deployment? A related question was raised concerning the possible mandate of Buy America requirements for transportation network company contracted services to AV transit operating agencies using FTA funding. • Will Buy America stipulations also be applied to TNC contractors, as well, when funding for these services comes from FTA grants? FTA New Bus Testing Process 49 CFR Part 665 indicates that all new bus models must undergo testing at FTA’s Altoona Bus Testing Facility. These procedures include tests for performance at maximum gross vehicle weight (speeds on grades, parking brake operations), maintainability testing, noise, fuel economy, emissions, and safety tests. Safety tests include basic braking distance tests on a variety of surfaces, structural integrity of the vehicle chassis when stressed in different manners. New tests for AV sensors and actions would likely need to be developed and it would be likely that other test criteria may need to be applied for smaller AV transit vehicles that are not the same size as a standard coach. Transit System Safety Program – Safety Management Systems Recent updates to these FTA safety programs have included a Safety Management System component which has drawn extensively from the safety program experience of the Federal

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 78 Aviation Administration (FAA). As discussed earlier, noncompliance with these safety rules by a transit operating agency could potentially jeopardize FTA New Start funding or conceivably even incur fines or other penalties imposed by FTA if unsafe practices and/or designs are determined to be deployed. In addition, it is possible that such fines could be levied whether federal funds have been used in the procurement of the system equipment, facilities and rolling stock (i.e., transit vehicles). FTA’s Office of Transit Safety and Oversight administers the federal transit safety regulatory program and includes aspects of program compliance. This role primarily addresses oversight for New Starts projects to advance the provision of safe, reliable, and equitable transit service through adherence with legislative, policy and regulatory requirements as established by FTA. It is noted, however, that the primary oversight of continuing safety program compliance has been delegated to the states, which the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight has been charged with “certifying” the state-level oversight program. Although the SMS program has applicability for any size and type of transit operating agency, with specific resources and guidelines available for even the small bus operators (refer to the SMS website link cited in the footnote), the overall system safety program requirements are only mandated by FTA for fixed guideway rail systems. With the new design and operational complexities of AV transit, the new safety risks of automation will make the importance of implementing a full safety program in compliance with FTA guidelines applicable to even small transit operating agencies. Many operators that do not have fixed guideway transit and have never implemented such a thorough safety program as part of their bus operations will likely face a reorganization of their decision-making process, as well as enacting policies and procedures to develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive system safety program plan. Remote Operator Involvement – There are a variety of ways that human transit vehicle operators currently ensure the safety of passengers, particularly when passengers have special needs such as elderly passengers with canes or walkers, passengers with seeing or hearing disabilities, and passengers in wheelchairs. 1. Will FTA safety laws/regulations allow operations control center personnel to remotely monitor boarding and alighting of disabled passengers sufficiently to adequately mitigate the risks and thereby ensure safe passenger transfers into and out of the vehicle? 2. How much of the safety assurance risk mitigation under these circumstances of remote monitoring will rely on procedural compliance, and how much will it rely on detection and control functions to be automatically executed (e.g., OCC alarms and operator response, or automatic vehicle propulsion interdiction)? 3. Should regulations allow (or necessarily not preclude) remote operators of AV transit vehicles to enable wheelchair lifts or wheelchair ramps, actuate wheelchair securement features, and/or actively supervise the passenger boarding process through remote video/audio links?

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 79 NHTSA Vehicle Safety Regulations Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards As discussed previously, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes and maintains safety standards known as the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations for the automobile industry in the United States. NHTSA has not yet announced how and if these traditional safety requirements and tests will be expanded to include safety tests specific to what the 2016 USDOT/NHTSA Policy Statement identified as “highly automated vehicle” (HAV) technology. Currently, a process is underway to assess the FMVSS standards’ applicability to AV technology. Through this ongoing review process, NHTSA is identifying which standards may need to be changed to properly address semi-automated and fully automated roadway vehicles, as well as identifying what new FMVSS standards will need to be added to test and confirm the adequate safe design of both light and heavy vehicle AV products that are brought to the US market place. The Executive Summary of a 2016 FMVSS evaluation report51 assessing how HAV technology could fit into existing standards begins with these summary points: Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do not explicitly address automated vehicle technology and often assume the presence of a human driver. As a result, existing language may create certification challenges for manufacturers of automated vehicles that choose to pursue certain vehicle concepts. The purpose of this work is to identify instances where the existing FMVSS may pose challenges to the introduction of automated vehicles. It identifies standards requiring further review - both to ensure that existing regulations do not unduly stifle innovation and to help ensure that automated vehicles perform their functions safely. Clearly, the decisions of NHTSA concerning the expansion of FMVSS standards to address AV technology in general, and AV transit vehicles will have a major impact on the designs of automated roadway transit vehicles that are available for deployment in transit service. Regarding the early deployment prospects of L4 automation in non-conventional AV transit vehicle designs which are actively being tested in campus and very low-speed environments, the following summary point has been extracted from the Volpe review of FMVSS standards and their potential impacts on AV technology (refer to footnote 14): Automated vehicles that begin to push the boundaries of conventional design (e.g., alternative cabin layouts, omission of manual controls) would be constrained by the current FMVSS or may conflict with policy objectives of the FMVSS. Many standards, as currently written, are based on assumptions of conventional vehicle designs and thus pose challenges for certain design concepts, particularly for ‘driverless’ concepts where human occupants have no way of driving the vehicle (e.g., §571.101, controls and displays, §571.111, rear visibility, §571.208, occupant crash protection represent a few examples). 51 http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/57000/57000/57076/Review_FMVSS_AV_Scan.pdf

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 80 The special environments and enhanced monitoring and crash avoidance features of AV transit vehicles should be given special consideration in order to allow the near-term deployment of AV transit technology in special environments – a step important to advancing R&D initiatives. The following questions illustrate some of the key issues that may need to be addressed: 1. Can the crashworthiness criteria be adjusted for AV technology if/when automation can be shown to significantly improve crash avoidance capabilities of the vehicle? 2. Can provisions with less stringent crashworthiness criteria be made in the near term for AV transit vehicles that operate in protected environments dedicated to transit vehicles and pedestrians (such as campuses, parking lots, and guideways)? 3. Can crash survivability criteria be less stringent for AV transit vehicles operating in protected environments (such as campuses, parking lots, and guideways) when interactions with other roadway vehicles only occurs at signal-protected grade crossings of the transitway with roadways? The rapid advancement of a several L4 AV transit vehicle designs which do not resemble conventional automobile, truck or bus chassis designs gives an urgency for NHTSA and FTA to identify any decisions on how and where these specialized vehicles will and will not be permitted to operate. Other FMVSS requirements to be placed on AV transit vehicles that generally conform to conventional bus and light truck chassis design will be issued at a point in the future, probably at the same time as standards for HAV automobiles are released by NHTSA. Security and Privacy Laws Security Regulations Cybersecurity is the biggest threat to safety of AVs. As with any other computerized systems with networking capabilities these days, AVs have the potential to be hacked, which could have very serious consequences particularly in the context of transit. Pilot projects across the European Union and United States are testing different cybersecurity and privacy measures. Some vehicle manufacturers are giving “hack-a-thon” prizes to test the security of vehicles. Cybersecurity must take a multi-pronged approach to preventing, identifying, and stopping thefts and attacks. The private sector manufacturers of AVs have different proprietary algorithms and codes for automation, as well as software and hardware that are manufactured by multiple vendors. There are multiple sources of cyber-threat within one AV. In addition, V2I networks are a possible source of cyberattack. Another source of cyber-threat is the internal network for the AV’s electrical control unit (ECU). Finally, networks within the AV that are linked to external data sources such as radio, navigation, etc. are another source of a potential threat. Because many of the threats to AVs are internal to the vehicle, private manufacturers must take the lead on implementing cybersecurity. However, in the US, in 2014, only two of 16 auto manufacturers had addressed cybersecurity threats by developing the capability to detect hacks in real time.52 52 http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sens-markey-blumenthal-introduce-legislation-to- protect-drivers-from-auto-security-privacy-risks-with-standards-and-cyber-dashboard-rating-system

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 81 Because of the major need and the lack of commitment from AV manufacturers, US legislators are attempting to pass legislation to establish federal standards for security and privacy for AVs. The act, entitled “The Security and Privacy in Your Car Act” prescribes vehicle manufacturers to detect, report, and stop hacks that interfere with personal data or vehicle control.53 The legislation addresses the types of data including location, speed, owner, and passengers and the location of the data – onboard, in transit from vehicle to another location, and off-board data storage. It proposes a “cyber dashboard” to tell consumers the vehicle’s cyber rating above the minimum requirements. It also requires AV manufacturers to notify the owner or user of the vehicle of what data is being collected, how it is stored, for how long, and what the data is used for. It gives the user the ability to opt out of data collection (with specific safety exceptions) without losing AV features. Finally, the legislation prevents the use of data for advertising or marketing without the owner or user’s consent. This legislation has not yet become a law in the US. In July 2016, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto ISAC), a group of Automotive Manufacturers, developed a series of best practices for cybersecurity54, which is endorsed by NHTSA in its September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. The categories addressed include:  Governance  Risk Assessment  Risk Management  Security by Design  Threat Detection and Protection  Collaboration and Engagement The best practices document recommends identifying and addressing cyber-threats in the design process of the vehicle’s systems with an emphasis on limiting network interactions and separating networks and environments where possible. The governance recommendations include creating or purposing a vehicle cybersecurity organization with regulations and policies for vehicle manufacturers. In probably the best-case result for the US, this would be a federal agency responsibility such as NHTSA. How such regulations would affect the transit industry is not known now, and NHTSA’s AV model policy does not discuss any transit specific issues. The USDOT has adopted a “security by design” principle as it develops the system architecture for connected vehicles—meaning cybersecurity systems will be built in. In the EU, the recommendations of the C-ITS platform are very clear: one common standardized C-ITS trust model and certificate policy all over the EU, based on a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and defined in an appropriate regulatory framework, shall be urgently deployed to support full secure interoperability of C-ITS Day 1 services (including any connected transit systems and vehicles). The "security by design" principle applies to both V2V and V2I systems. 53 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1806/all-info 54 https://www.automotiveisac.com/best-practices/

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 82 NHTSA’s Federal AV Policy addresses data recording and sharing55. The policy recommends collecting data for testing and for crash events. For crash events, NHTSA should receive the data itself in case of personal injury and significant damage that requires towing. For testing purposes, NHTSA recommends collecting data on positive events including near misses or when the AV avoided an incident, and sharing the data with other third parties. When the data is shared, it should not be personally identifiable with a person or vehicle. NHTSA acknowledges that data sharing and privacy regarding AVs is still in its infancy and advises the vehicle manufacturers to work with standards organizations for data collecting and sharing. There is still more work to be done in the public and private sector internationally in developing specific policies and regulations for cybersecurity and data privacy for HAVs in general, and specifically for AV transit systems56. A security framework for all AV transit will need to be developed stemming from the NHTSA actions. Where such regulatory responsibilities for transit operations will lie will need to be determined, and how such activities are coordinated with Auto- ISAC and state and federal regulations regarding hacking. Strict punishments will need to be established for cybersecurity breaches commensurate with the level of threat particularly in the case of AV transit (up to and including attempted and actual murder and terrorism). Privacy Protection Laws Automated vehicles process sensor readings of the surrounding environment to travel safely. For AVs to make those navigational and operational decisions, the vehicle will need to collect data about itself and/or the driver; then distribute that data between vehicles, infrastructure, and other drivers. The risks lie not only in the data collection, but how that data is communicated whether transmitted between technologies in the vehicle (i.e. smartphone) or V2V or V2I. New vehicles including buses beginning in September 2014 in the US are now required to have an event data recorder (EDR) per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 57. NHTSA requires the recorder to obtain information related to 15 variables: speed, airbag deployment, application of brakes, seatbelt worn, engine speed, steering, and others. The recorders are not supposed to be recording audio, GPS, or video within the vehicle (although many transit buses have onboard video that is not strictly part of the EDR). The information is used to assess how well the driver responded in a crash and whether the vehicle was operated properly.58 The US has no one specific data protection law but rather a patchwork of complementary and in many cases overlapping regulations. The US has several data privacy laws and regulations that 55 NHTSA Federal Automated Vehicle Policy, Sept 2016. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiGxKOxhL3PAhUG 6mMKHdENDT8QFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fnhtsa%2Fav%2Fpdf%2FFederal_ Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHSgKVEpfw_sEOcV6VFGd7uefwI6A&sig2=m- GdAFvdtQlYo8mcuZK11A 56 https://www.nap.edu/download/23520 57 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/xml/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-part563.xml 58 http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/U.S.+DOT+Proposes+Broader+Use+of+Event+Dat a+Recorders+to+Help+Improve+Vehicle+Safety

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 83 are specifically dedicated based on specific industries or specific states (Arizona, Alaska, etc.)59. For example, there is the Video Privacy Protection Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. In 2012, the US administration developed the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights,60 identifying or recognizing the Fair Information Practice Principals (FIPP). Data privacy and protection laws are designed so that individuals have a reasonable expectation their private data would not be transmitted to another party without their consent. This would be true for both inside and out of the vehicle; including smartphone and vehicle ‘black boxes’. As an extension of the general principles and legal requirements discussed above, there will need to be additional care given to protecting the personal information of individual transit patrons. New types of on-demand dispatch driverless transit services may use data from the passenger’s smart phone or other such personal device when they request a transit vehicle. This information will likely include their origin and intended destination as well as possibly their personal identity and payment information. Such personal data, combined with likely use of real- time audio and video security surveillance in vehicles and stations present privacy protection issues for transit operating agencies. Currently, transit agencies that accept contactless smart cards for fare payment face many of these issues already today as summarized in recent TCRP Legal Research61. Most existing legacy transit smart cards have no PII expressly loaded on them but only a balance of funds available for transit use62. As smartphones, have now enabled new ways for merchants to be paid (Samsung Pay, Google Wallet, etc.) through near-field-communications (NFC), this abstraction of PII from location is somewhat removed but is commonly still managed through the merchant payment system. As noted in [29], no legal cases involving privacy violations of transit patron’s PII have been encountered to date. In most situations, the transit agency is treated as just another type of merchant. As long as the transit agency has industry-accepted privacy policies and protections in place, there is little argument that driverless transit services will pose any more PII risk than existing payment and service systems. Similarly, audio and video surveillance and recordings are now commonplace in transit operations. In most states, recording and real-time surveillance is legal since there is no expectation of privacy in a public space (i.e. in the transit vehicle). Such monitoring becomes even more important when there is no driver on board and communications with the remote operator will only be possible through these systems if a problem arises. As long as the transit agency has industry-accepted privacy policies and protections in place, there is little argument that driverless transit services will pose any more risk to personally-identifiable information than existing video and audio surveillance systems on transit vehicles today. 59 https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2011/04/DDP2015_United_States.pdf 60 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf 61 http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/175848.aspx 62 Except in certain programs where cards are used for discounted fares such as senior and children and pre-paid passes. In these cases, the user’s ownership information is linked to the card’s use at the time of payment for verification that the pass is valid.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 84 Governmental Policy Considerations The overall policy considerations on L3, L4 and L5 automated roadway vehicle operations which governmental bodies are beginning to address around the world will have major implications for the long-term future of our multimodal transportation systems. There are diverging views on how AV technology will transform and impact both our transportation system and the urban centers of population in which the clear majority of people now live. The policy question is whether the regulatory management (or intentional lack of regulatory management) elements in their toolbox of proactive transportation master planning will foster utopia or drive dystopia in a future HAV-dominated roadway system. Does policy drive the creation of governing laws/regulations which may be needed to accomplish the goals of a master plan? What is the role of transit systems if mobility in individual HAVs can be provided for comparable cost to individual vehicle ownership? If a current transit rider’s commute can be cut by 50% travel time for double the price, would they pay the price? The essence of this question is whether shaping this future transportation world is important enough to intervene in a regulatory manner – much like a government planning for a future water supply must impose regulatory provisions through water conservation/management combined with the creation of sufficient reservoirs and water distribution systems. Any such regulatory steps to shape the world, whether affecting transportation or basic water supply, can be very controversial. Findings on Governmental Laws and Regulations Governmental laws/ordinances and the regulatory constraints that they impose will have a major impact on how and when AV transit technology will affect our society and the communities where we live and work. Even more importantly, any delays resulting from laws and regulatory barriers to AV transit technology deployment within the multimodal transportation system may change forever the extent to which transit is considered in long-range regional urban planning and funding programs. Employee Protections – A portion of federal laws are intended to protect employees of public transit operating agencies. To some extent, these laws provide for the preservation of jobs and will be critically important to review and possibly modify if AV technology is to have its maximum penetration of this sector of the transportation market. Section 13c of the Federal Transit Act specifically states “…must provide for the preservation of rights and benefits of employees under existing collective bargaining agreements, the continuation of collective bargaining rights, the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions in relation to their employment, assurances of employment to employees of acquired transit systems, priority of reemployment, and paid training or retraining programs.” Some involved in our stakeholder meetings believe that this federal law could be one of the most challenging aspects of bringing AV transit technology into the mainstream of public transit service. The involvement and cooperation of collective bargaining unions and impacted staff employees will determine how a mutually acceptable interpretation and application of the law by each transit operating agency.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 85 OSHA Workplace Safety regulations are primarily applicable to industrial workplace protection, and the entry of robotic machines into the manufacturing industry over the past few decades has been a topic addressed by OSHA in the way of guidelines more than regulations. However, the sudden insertion of robotic machines which move within relatively uncontrolled and relative unprotected environments of transit operations and maintenance facilities (when compared to manufacturing plant assembly lines and factories) may require more precise OSHA directives and guidelines that go beyond the existing guidelines. Passenger Protections – Intervention of the federal government to protect the most vulnerable and most dependent of public transit passengers from discrimination and from unsafe operating conditions has been an important area of existing laws and regulations. The two demographics that have had specific federal laws created for their protection are the physically disabled and the racial minority communities. Title VI Nondiscrimination law has significantly impacted the release of federal funds for transit projects over the past 50 years. There can be decisions made with respect to this aspect of federal funding that has some elements of discretion in determining the nuances of discrimination. The application of AV transit technology for some transit operating agencies could potentially result in negative assessment of discrimination in the project funding review process if the deployments unfairly exclude the portions of the population protected by Title VI. However, there is an equally strong potential that AV technology can significantly help transit operating agencies more successfully serve the disenfranchised minority populations if a more cost-effective AV transit service can be provided in low density, suburban areas where the population has a high transit dependence. ADA Transit Regulations are drawn from the Americans with Disability Act in which FTA has developed specific requirements for transit vehicles and transit station facilities. The regulations provide basic criteria that must be accommodated in the vehicle designs, but no regulations are yet in place for L4 AV transit technology vehicles. Wrestling with these issues cannot begin soon enough as more and more agencies contemplate the use of L4 shuttles for first-mile, last- mile services and circulators. FTA Regulations – FTA has developed regulations specific to public transit systems which are not derived from other primary law such as their regulations covering Title VI or ADA nondiscrimination laws. These areas of regulation may be the most important with respect to implementing AV transit technology by the local transit operating agency since there are typically quantifiable analyses and calculations involved. Failing to demonstrate to FTA a compliance with the regulations to FTA could directly impact FTA funding grants, or even pose the potential for FTA to levy fines for noncompliance. Buy America requirements will be a critically important set of regulations directly impact which foreign suppliers of AV transit vehicles can be solicited for proposals/bids once the early phase of research and development is passed and the full FTA regulatory framework is being applied. The Buy America regulations could also foster the creation of more U.S. owned manufacturers of AV transit vehicles, perhaps accelerated with additional incentives for US companies to enter the market such as tax credits, deductions, or other subsidies. Transit System Safety Program Plans have been an important part of FTA requirements and guidelines for fixed guideway rail transit systems for several decades. The FTA regulations/guidelines, and the associated State Safety Oversight responsibilities will need

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 86 careful coordination by FTA over the near to medium term for AV transit systems to have operational safety that equals that of automated fixed guideway transit systems. NHTSA Regulations – The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards comprise the regulatory law that governs the federal government’s oversight and control of the automotive industry and the automobile products that are sold in the United States. FMVSS cover basic safety aspects of vehicular crash avoidance, vehicular crashworthiness and crash survivability of passengers. Other FMVSS which require features allowing the vehicle to be driven in a conventional way by a human operator are also included in the regulations. FMVSS requirements have been under review by NHTSA for several years with respect to the new technology developments of what has been defined in the USDOT/NHTSA 2016 Policy Statement as “highly automated vehicles”. At this point in time, there have not been any specifically proposed changes or additions to FMVSS to define safety design requirements, test procedures or performance criteria under fully automated or semi-automated vehicle controls. However, it is anticipated that such changes will be forthcoming over the next several years. The rapid advancement of several L4 AV transit vehicle designs which do not resemble conventional automobile, truck or bus chassis designs gives an urgency for NHTSA and FTA to identify any decisions on how and where these specialized vehicles will or will not be permitted to operate. Other FMVSS requirements to be placed on AV transit vehicles that generally conform to conventional bus and light truck chassis design will be issued at a point in the future, probably at the same time as standards for HAV automobile standards begin to be by NHTSA. Security and Privacy Law – Cybersecurity is the biggest threat to safety of AVs. Cybersecurity must take a multi-pronged approach to preventing, identifying, and stopping thefts and attacks. Because of the major need and the lack of commitment from AV manufacturers, US legislators are attempting to pass legislation to establish federal standards for security and privacy for AVs. The act, entitled “The Security and Privacy in Your Car Act” prescribes vehicle manufacturers to detect, report, and stop hacks that interfere with personal data or vehicle control.63 In July 2016, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a group of Automotive Manufacturers, developed a series of best practices for cybersecurity64, which is endorsed by NHTSA in its September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. In probably the best-case result for the US, this would be a federal agency responsibility such as NHTSA. How such regulations would affect the transit industry is not known now, and NHTSA’s AV model policy does not discuss any transit specific issues. Research Projects and Policy Studies on AV Transit Laws and Regulations – The prospects of a transit operating agency losing federal FTA funding due to a compliance issue with the variety of laws and regulations described in this working paper would seem to lead to significant impediments to AV Transit deployment. The following key policy studies, based on the considerations and findings of this working paper, would be beneficial. 1. Hypothetical Study of Transit Automation Allowing Withdrawal from Federal Funding – Assessment of the operational cost reduction prospects for a medium sized 63 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1806/all-info 64 https://www.automotiveisac.com/best-practices/

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 87 transit operating agency (i.e., “typical” local transit agency) could be studied with the objective of withdrawing from all Federal funding support and operational subsidies. The extent of automation could be defined as a series of hypothetical exercises to determine if this premise of financial independence from federal funds is possible and under what combination of service types using only ridership fares and local tax funding subsidies. 2. Possible Changes to Section 13c of Federal Transit Act – Investigation of the possible changes to the federal law 49 U.S.C. § 5333(b) known as “Section 13c” could be performed. The work will assess how a progressive process within a transit operating agency for retraining of its employees and a gradual decreasing is total staff could be accommodated under the law. Possible changes deemed necessary to prevent the constraint of AV transit deployment due to the potential violation of Section 13c will be the key study results. 3. Applicability of Laws and Regulations to Private Contractors – Assessment of the applicability of the laws and regulations that apply to public transit operating agencies could be made to determine if these same laws/regulations might be applied to those companies that provide contracted “transit” services. The applicability of these laws/regulations to transportation network companies could be assessed, and the long- term implications for federal funding used for contracted services could be evaluated. Regulations of importance appear to be Buy America stipulations, transit employee labor laws, FTA safety requirements and FTA’s ADA regulations. 4. OSHA Regulations for Robotic Vehicles in the Workplace – Compilation could be performed of technical articles, standards and guidelines relevant to the presence of robotic vehicles in the workplace. This catalogue of materials relevant to robotic machines in the workplace could be assessed for safety procedures and design features applicable to the transit operations and maintenance workplace where AV transit vehicles are present with humans. 5. Minority Population Involvement – A working plan is needed by which minority populations can be engaged and involved in the public outreach process as planning for AV Transit deployment begins. Developed for guidance of transit operating agencies, the study documents could establish a framework for any transit agency to accomplish the required public involvement process with minority communities, as well as provide an initial assessment of how AV Transit can be deployed without violating Title VI Civil Rights law. 6. Title VI Adjustments and Incentives – A study could be performed of the benefits to providing allowances or exceptions to the Title VI requirements for advancing the progress of AV technology during the early years of transit deployment. Similarly, the study could assess the use of incentives to encourage AV transit deployment in the combined conditions of low population density and high transit dependency – conditions which are increasingly common in suburban communities. 7. Automated Boarding Features for Wheelchair Passengers – This technical study would address the design requirements, challenges and new potential hazards/risks in providing automated ramp deployment and automated wheelchair lift deployment. The study could include an investigation of the means for automated wheelchair securement, and the potential technology required to allow remote operator involvement in the process.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 88 8. Boarding Requirements and Possible ADA Exceptions – An assessment of ADA requirements and the apparent required changes to vehicle designs would be beneficial as a means to provide equivalent accommodations and safety as human-operated transit vehicles, using features such as precision docking at level-platform station berths. Based on the design and cost implications of the required changes, the project work could evaluate the basis for considering exceptions to the ADA requirements and how those can be addressed within the service needs of passengers with disabilities. 9. Buy America Challenges – This study could evaluate the current status of viable suppliers of AV Transit vehicles and supporting ITS systems to determine how much of the supplier market will have trouble meeting Buy America regulations. The work could provide an assessment of whether the provisions of the Buy America law should be changed to adjust minimum percentages during the early period of AV Transit deployments, and whether incentives should be considered to improve the sources of supply from American vehicle suppliers – such as tax credits, tax deductions or other subsidies. The study could also address the need for FTA creating a special oversight support office, specifically dedicated to supporting operating agencies and managing the Buy America requirements during the period when new applications of AV Transit technology are coming on line. 10. Vehicle/Station Supplemental Systems Necessary for Safe Operations – A technical study is needed which performs research that begins with a functional definition of the supporting systems necessary for safety in the passenger/vehicle/system interface at station boarding and alighting locations. The work could address the potential need for new subsystems and associated safety provisions (e.g., propulsion/braking interlocks with door systems) to protect passengers during the period of active boarding/alighting as an integral part of vehicle designs sufficient to meet FTA safety program goals. These provisions may be on the vehicle, in the station, through remote monitoring and intervention by personnel in an operations control center, or some combination of these means and methods. 11. Semi-Automated Operations Hazards Assessment and Mitigation – Safety requirements could be studied for the period during which there is partial automation or transitions from automation to human driver/operator control at a point of failure or leaving of the ODD for the AV transit vehicle. The relative safety of AV transit operations under conditions of a human operator onboard the vehicle, a human operator in a remote OCC, and the various conditions when partial automation or transitions form automated operations could be assessed with respect to hazards and risk mitigation through design features and operating procedures. 12. Applicability and Implications of FMVSS Requirements from NHTSA – A combined policy and technical study would be beneficial to assess the impacts of NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on low-speed L4 AV transit vehicles that do not conform to conventional automotive, truck and bus chassis design. As a concession to allow near-term operations of these specialized vehicles in special operating environments, the work could assess whether the crashworthiness specifications should be given special provisions in the near term to advance AV technology applications. As an extension of this assessment, the consideration of whether low-speed L4 AV Transit should be granted more lenient crashworthiness standards on a permanent basis when the vehicles only operate in protected environments such as campuses, parking facilities

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 89 and dedicated transitways. The study could also assess the design impacts and deployment hindrances of the alternate approach in which full compliance with FMVSS for any L4 vehicle is mandated, no matter what the operating speed or environment – including those vehicles with non-conventional designs and specifically intended to operate within an L4 AV transit system in a semi-protected operating environment. 13. Development of AV Transit Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Regulatory Framework – Performance of a policy oriented study would be helpful to define a catalogue of issues, perform appropriate research studies and then evaluate draft laws/regulations being considered within the AV technology world. The applicability to AV Transit would have to be determined, and a framework of laws and regulations that are probable would then be prepared for reference by transit regulatory agencies, transit operating agencies, transit services contractors and AV vehicle/technology suppliers. The importance of protecting personal data of the transit users, and the data processing and storage requirements for local transit operators could also be addressed. 14. Broad Policy Considerations of AV Transit in Regional Transportation Planning – A broad policy study that would be helpful is one which develops a generic regional transportation master plan incorporating the possible scenarios of AV Transit deployment and the associated multimodal transportation infrastructure for metropolitan areas of different sizes and densities. Working also from information gained through surveys of U.S. and international sources on regional transportation master planning concepts, the study work would then develop a framework of policy issues and information for use in the informing and guiding of decision making on broad policy positions by transit operating agencies, local municipalities, metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation policy councils.