Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 4: 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 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 1 Introduction 1.1 Challenge: Preparing for Connected and Automated Driving System- Equipped Vehicle Deployment The integration of Connected and Automated Driving Systems (C/ADS) into the vehicle fleet and the commercialization of these vehicles into everyday operating situations (especially alongside the standard vehicle fleet) poses current challenges for governmental agencies and policy makers. This integration also requires that the law and regulatory framework be in place to adapt quickly as technology advances and industry and customer demands for these types of vehicles accelerates. Lives depend on ensuring that innovation can progress but also that innovation proceeds in a responsible manner. The transformation of the motor-vehicle fleet in the U.S. over the next one to three decades will likely entail a mix of conventional (driver-operated) vehicles with limited vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle- to-infrastructure (V2I) capabilities and an increasing number of autonomous vehicles (AVs) that may or may not require driver supervision. These different CV/AV scenarios and the rate of CV/AV vehicle/infrastructure integration into everyday driving will have underlying implications for motor vehicle laws and regulations. Ultimately, the emerging paradigms will increase the number of CVs/AVs on our networks, while reducing the “traditional” use of private automobiles and changing the nature of freight movement. This transition will require laws and regulations that are flexible and able to adapt to technology changes, and will require state policy makers to determine how they want to embrace these changes in their states and interagency coordination and will necessitate the engagement of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders. Moving forward, it is important that agency leadership in the transportation domain recognize the critical laws and regulations that may need to be changed or modified as C/ADS-equipped vehicles are deployed. Industry sectors engaged in C/ADS deployment, legal practitioners, state legislatures, and Governors’ offices 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 simultaneously anticipating many unknowns. Unlike implementing traditional legal and regulatory changes or making simple citation modifications for adding a new title brand or type of license plate, or instituting an adjustment in fees, fines, or driver sanctions, the changes to C/ADS-related laws are complicated and challenging. Modifying these laws and regulations will changes to basic underpinning concepts and definitions, as well as an understanding of C/ADS technologies and their limitations.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 2 This project forms the basis for states to develop the framework for an Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (AVAP) that begins with being aware of the legislative landscape and the foundational laws and regulations that may need to be prioritized for modification (Figure 1-1). Purpose of the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan The AVAP is intended to provide guidance and resources to state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) and transportation (DOTs) to assist with the legal changes that will result from the rollout of C/ADS- equipped vehicles. This resource will provide states a means to validate their legal and regulatory modification decisions and opportunities to identify migration strategies to minimize any negative impacts before implementing changes to current motor vehicle codes. The following questions are addressed within the AVAP: Figure 1-1. Contributing factors to the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (AVAP).

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 3 1. What applicable existing laws and regulations may need reconsideration as C/ADSs become more widely used? 2. How and when will these codes need to be revised? 3. How might changes to motor vehicle laws, regulations, and statutes related to C/ADSs affect current driving practices and impact the continuous responsibility of managing traffic safety hazards? 4. What are the barriers to implementing the resultant new rules of the road and what strategies can be used to overcome these barriers? 1.2 AVAP Organization This guidance document is organized as follows: Chapter 2: Presents a brief overview of the C/ADS legal and regulatory landscape as well as an overview of potential legal and regulatory modifications and/or clarifications that will be required as a result of the deployment of C/ADSs Chapter 3: Presents a prioritized list of potential legal and regulatory modifications and/or clarifications according to time period (short-, mid-, and long-term) and notes whether or not harmonization is recommended Chapter 4: Discusses potential barriers to legal and regulatory modifications Chapter 5: Presents a guide for establishing a C/ADS task force Chapter 6: Provides a guide for engaging the legislature Chapter 7: Presents concluding thoughts and next steps Additional supporting materials may be found in the following reports and memorandum: • Wagner, W. L. Loftus-Otway, S. Gallun, S. Morrissey, G. Havinoviski, and B. Serian, State legal and regulatory audit: Identification of laws and regulations potentially requiring modification, 2018, Manuscript submitted for publication. • Serian, B., B. Mallory, T. E. Trimble, J. Wagner, S. Baker, Bishop, R., Gould, P., W. Wagner, L. Loftus-Otway, S. Morrisey, and G. Havinoviski. Connected and Automated Driving Systems Legal and Regulatory Prioritization Assessment and Harmonization Analysis, 2018, Manuscript submitted for publication. • Loftus-Otway, L., and S. Gallun. Connected and automated driving systems legal landscape, updated 2018, manuscript submitted for publication.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 4 1.3 Definitions, Assumptions, and Considerations Levels of Automation This project adopts the levels of automation as defined in SAE J3016 (SAE International, 2016b). For reference, a summary of these levels is provided in Figure 1-2. Definitions of C/ADS Commercial Applications Connected vehicles are defined as vehicles equipped for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to- infrastructure (V2I) communications (collectively, V2X) as defined in NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking on V2V Communications (Posten & Barrett, 2016) and SAE J2735/J2945 (SAE International, 2016a). Connected vehicles allow for low latency direct communications between road entities (e.g., cars, trucks, intersection controllers, pedestrians) to reduce crashes and accomplish other transportation objectives, while avoiding collection and transmission of personally identifiable information. Traffic Figure 1-2. SAE J3016 Levels of Automation

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 5 agencies can collect traffic flow data from connected vehicles to support their data needs, and traffic agencies can upload data that supports vehicle operations. For instance, Signal Phase and Timing data (available via V2I or “the cloud”) can enable vehicles to anticipate signal timing and adjust speed to reduce delay and conserve fuel. Available data can also be used to support level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicle control in dynamic situations, such as intersection traversals and work zone configurations. In this case, we are primarily interested in connected vehicle applications when used in conjunction with driving automation systems at levels 1–2 and level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. ADS-equipped vehicles are defined in SAE J3016. Conditional driving automation is characterized as a level 3 ADS where the sustained and operational design domain- (ODD)-specific performance of the dynamic driving task (DDT) is completed by the ADS with the assumption that fallback-ready user is receptive to ADS requests to intervene. In level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles, the ADS performs the DDT while the user is considered a passenger when the ADS is engaged. Automated mobility as a service (A- MaaS) applications are an example of levels 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Current traffic laws were written with the assumption that a human driver is in control of the vehicle. Vehicles equipped with driving automation systems operating at SAE level 2 and below define the human driver as continuing to perform part of the DDT while the driving automation system (longitudinal and/or lateral vehicle motion control) is engaged. For more information and expanded definitions, see above Figure 1-2. ADS-equipped passenger vehicles. Those ADS-equipped vehicles purchased or leased solely for personal use, parking, or sending off to park somewhere else when not in use. This use case will require a number of fundamental changes to the vehicle code to permit deployment, but these changes are critical to the eventual deployment of C/ADS because they overcome the many barriers currently posed by the assumption that a human driver will be in control of a vehicle; this underpins most current vehicle codes. ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Those ADS-equipped vehicles used for commercial purposes not associated with platooning. Platooning. Platooning is two or more vehicles in line following one another at distances much smaller than human drivers could perform safely. As a result, aerodynamic drag may be decreased, potentially resulting in increased fuel economy. The major interest in platooning is for long-haul trucking. Platooning is enabled by sensor technology and V2V communications. First-generation platooning systems are expected to be level 1, with the ADS controlling the brakes and throttle, and drivers in all vehicles being fully responsible for steering and monitoring the road environment. In the longer term, platooning at higher levels of automation is expected. Platooning is unique in that it requires consideration of following distance in state motor vehicle codes. Otherwise, platooning automation aspects would be focused only on level 3 ADS-equipped vehicles and higher, as described above. Automated Mobility as a Service, or A-MaaS, can address both passenger and local freight delivery level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. For passengers, A-MaaS is an on-demand, shared, for-hire mobility service offered to the public and utilizing a fleet of level 4 or higher ADS-dedicated vehicle with no expectation that a user will respond to a request to intervene (although the vehicle may be operated by a

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 6 remote dispatcher). The same applies generally to last mile delivery of freight (parcels); however, the vehicle may be optimized for parcels and not be designed to carry people. Definition of Harmonization For purposes of this document, harmonization is defined as the process of minimizing redundant or conflicting standards which may have evolved independently (Pelkmans, 1987). Harmonization can create consistency of laws, regulations, standards, and practices, so that the same rules will apply across jurisdictional boarders. Regulatory harmonization ensures that business rules are followed across borders (Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed). Harmonization is not uncommon across the states in the motor vehicle and driver licensing areas and states have worked over the years to improve state-to-state harmonization or at a minimum reciprocity. Harmonization is also extremely difficult to achieve in the driver license and motor vehicle areas based on the fact that laws and regulations governing these areas – unless federally mandated—are set based on state legislative preference and state agency/administration direction. In the motor vehicle and driver license areas, states have attempted to achieve best practices or work with model laws to best achieve harmonization. Assumptions The following assumptions were considered in developing the progressions of priorities needed for the legal and/or regulatory changes outlined in this report. While these assumptions are expected to hold true, regardless of whether they do or not, state policy makers will still need to consider their impact on legal modifications and should consider them in advancing any legislative ore regulatory change. Assumption #1. NHTSA’s Role and Federal Preemption in Key Areas. It is assumed that NHTSA’s delegation of duties and authorities between the federal government and the states will not change. NHTSA notes that under current law, manufacturers bear the responsibility to self-certify that the vehicles they manufacture for use on public roadways comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If a vehicle is compliant within this framework and maintains a conventional vehicle design, there is currently no specific federal legal barrier to a C/ADS being offered for sale or for commercial mobility operations. NHTSA’s Best Practices for State Legislatures (See A Vision for Safety 2.0, NHTSA, 2017) confirms that the states retain their traditional responsibilities for driver licensing (perhaps only until the vehicle is “the driver), vehicle licensing and registration, traffic laws and enforcement, and motor vehicle insurance and liability regimes. It is assumed that for harmonization reasons, NHTSA will specifically retain FMVSS settings and manufacturer/technology company vehicle and equipment standards. As the Global Automakers have pointed out, the “primary advantage for federal standards related to the design and performance of motor vehicles is to allow manufacturers to design, build, and sell one vehicle across all 50 states” (Global Automakers, 2017). States and their associations need to keep this assumption in mind and remain aware of the changing federal landscape. It is recommended that associations like the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) continue their close coordination with NHTSA and that NHTSA continues to engage AAMVA in assisting the states.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 7 Assumption #2. Assumption on Commercial Driver License Standards and Interstate Motor Carrier Preemption. It is assumed that FMCSA will promulgate standards in both of these areas. With the importance of harmonization across state lines and the need for one industry standard and state-to- state uniformity, jurisdictional stakeholders clearly indicated that current standards as codified in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and accompanying regulations for states should be updated by FMCSA in consultation with the states (Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1986). States should, however, review their current laws and regulations that codify these federal requirements and consider modifications that would allow for the easy incorporation of new provisions. This is an area of legal review that should not be overlooked. Many state federal codification statutes are specific to a particular law reference or a particular federal regulation. Some even codify the exact wording of the federal regulation. The key in this evolving environment is to review current federal preemptive statutes and consider how they may need to be changed in anticipation of changes at the federal level that govern these statutes. Assumption #3. Focus on Deployment versus Testing. Further, with the issuance of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (NHTSA, 2016) and the subsequent publication, A Vision for Safety 2.0 (NHTSA, 2017), along with the extensive body of current and anticipated laws, regulations, and introduced legislation, the focus of this roadmap document is primarily on driving automation system- equipped and C/ADS-equipped vehicle deployment rather than on testing. While this document does highlight legal requirements associated with both the deployment and testing of C/ADS-equipped vehicles, the most likely application of this resource document is deployment efforts. The varied goals associated with testing in states tend to drive testing legislation, so this project would not be as useful to the end users if the focus was primarily on testing. Assumption #4. Timeline for Deployment. The timeline for deployment can vary widely based on individuals’ perspectives, vehicle level of autonomy, and anticipated use case. Taking these factors into consideration, a timeline for deployment reflecting anticipated commercial availability was developed with panel and stakeholder input. While it may not be possible to set a precise date when state motor vehicle codes and regulations will require certain modifications, it is clear that states need to start planning for deployment now. The recommended priorities for modification of laws and regulations have been developed to coincide with this timeline and have been grouped according to the short-term (2018–2020), mid-term (2021–2025), and long-term (2026 and beyond; Figure 1-3). This timeline is provided to help state policymakers recognize that the time frame for passenger level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles operating in unconstrained environments is likely to be longer, but also that C/ADS-equipped vehicle deployment is unlikely to be linear. What the timeline indicates is that any laws that states need to modify for level 1 truck platooning need to take place immediately. Some states have begun this effort by modifying (as necessary) following distance laws, definitions for platoons, and other impacting constraints. However, states should also recognize that a limited number of level 3 ADS- equipped vehicles are already on the market, with significant market penetration expected by 2020. Additionally, level 4 ADS-equipped A-MaaS shuttles in constrained environments and level 5 ADS- equipped A-MaaS shuttles are expected to be on the market by 2020. Level 1 driving automation system-

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 8 equipped platooning commercial vehicles are anticipated to be market-ready by 2020 as well. Therefore, laws cannot be modified simply for one level of C/ADS or their expected progression but should be examined holistically with any timeline only as a point of possible reference. While states should not overreact to this timeline or any of the other expressed timelines by technology companies, manufacturers, or other private interests, efforts to modify laws should be underway or planned for the immediate and near term. Having the appropriate legislative and legal framework in place, preferably one that permits easy adaptation, will facilitate state efforts to navigate the rapid pace of change and will allow OEMs and technology providers to develop, refine and apply the technology appropriately, safely, and effectively. Figure 1-3. Timeline for C/ADS deployment.