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 17 Prioritization and Harmonization of C/ADS Legislative and Regulatory Changes 3.1 Understanding Opportunities for Legal and Regulatory Modifications State legislatures, Governor’s offices, legal practitioners, and industry sectors engaged in C/ADS deployment 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 require more foundational changes to basic underpinning concepts and definitions, as well as an understanding of C/ADS technologies and their limitations. Further, there exist a number of situations in which states, through their motor vehicle agency or DOT, may find their needs and those of industry best served by syncing their efforts in order to harmonize key regulatory or legislative provisions related to C/ADSs. There may also be areas in today’s vehicle codes and regulations where it may be important to harmonize for purposes of supporting the deployment of C/ADSs. In this respect, we assess the advantages, disadvantages, and practicality of harmonizing the approaches to these types of laws and regulations across the country. Findings (as noted throughout this document) suggest the need for states to get as "centric" as possible to the intersecting realities of technological imperatives, public policy, and stakeholder interests. The point where these realities intersect represents opportunities for legal and regulatory modifications are illustrated in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1. Visual depiction of the centric approach to prioritization efforts.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 18 Ideally, state legislative and regulatory schemes would fit neatly within the circles where public policy, technological imperatives, and stakeholder interests all intersect. However, it seems probable that the reality of legislation and regulation will be messier, straying in one direction or another on a given issue or at a particular moment in time. When assessing law and regulation change, the closer a legislative and regulatory approach comes to the theoretical center where technology, stakeholders, and current laws, regulations, and policies meet, the more likely that change is to meet public policy objectives, avoid or withstand external challenges, and meet the needs of a complex, evolving technology. 3.2 Overarching Considerations Regarding Harmonization Individual state laws and regulations for C/ADS are vital, but equally important is ensuring that vehicles can operate seamlessly across state lines. Ensuring state laws do not substantially conflict can occur through a process known as harmonization, which is the process of minimizing redundant or conflicting standards that 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. Harmonization is agnostic to the specific policy approach, and can mean moving all jurisdictions’ standards to the strictest standard, most permissive standard, or to a midpoint between the two poles or to a more uniform standard. Harmonized state regulations for C/ADSs offer a number of critical advantages over a diverse and discordant set of state regulations. However, while harmonization has some advantages, there are some drawbacks, possible alternative strategies, and several areas (identified in Serian et al. 2017) that do not need harmonization for the safe deployment and operation of C/ADSs. The following subsections explore harmonization of motor vehicle codes and other rules governing C/ADSs, considering benefits, drawbacks, examples, and alternatives to harmonization. Potential Benefits Associated with Harmonization As with most regulatory discussions revolving around C/ADSs, the primary rationale for harmonizing state motor vehicle codes is to make the vehicles and the roadways safer for all users, improve enforcement, and increase driver awareness. Furthermore, the potential for substantial reductions in motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries serves as the driving force behind the generally supportive posture the public sector has taken towards C/ADSs (Strickland, 2013). At the same time, states are motivated to remove any barriers to the operation of safe C/ADSs to encourage private sector investment and research into this technology. Consistent, clear, and predictable rules across disparate political entities can reduce complexity for manufacturing and product development, potentially reducing costs to industry and consumers alike. Harmonization therefore touches issues that affect state policy makers and agencies, industry, as well as the traveling public. The business case for C/ADSs depends, in part, on state harmonization of motor vehicle codes. To the degree that similar regulations are in place across many or all states (for example, liability), some

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 19 introductions of C/ADS technologies may be accelerated, increasing the market size. A-MaaS use cases, for example, rely on a “network effect” to function effectively (Rogers, 2016). Services like A-MaaS must build out a robust network of users to function, and states with consistent rules make it easier for companies to build a user base across state lines. This has been clearly demonstrated with the deployment of Transportation Network Companies from state to state and from city to city. The business case for C/ADSs in CMV operations can also depend on harmonized state motor vehicle codes and regulations. For example, many goods reach markets via CMVs, and ensuring their safe and efficient operation is important for other road users, the companies receiving and shipping the goods, and the users of the goods. Harmonized state motor vehicle codes can reduce the regulatory burden on CMV operators transporting goods across state lines, and may also be relevant as platooning CMVs enter the transportation network. From a broader economic perspective, harmonization offers a seamless regime that facilitates the free flow of goods and commerce across borders without regulatory barriers. This application has been demonstrated through such applications of the International Registration Plan. When there are disparate approaches to regulating specific aspects of vehicle equipment, manufacturing costs may rise (Canis and Lattanzio, 2014). Harmonization at the state and local levels can reduce these costs, which in turn is likely to benefit consumers through lower cost products and a more efficient technology rollout. This efficiency stems from the regulatory consistency that is provided for manufacturers of vehicles, as well as system developers regarding uniform vehicle functionality, external markings, and several other areas that could help reduce development and implementation complexity and accelerate market introductions. Another motivation for harmonization is facilitating data sharing between states, such as improving interstate consistency for vehicle records designations (e.g., titling and the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System and the Commercial Driver License System). Much of this type of harmonization is already underway. Note that when it comes to harmonization of areas such as liability and insurance requirements, this may need to be approached based on the type of consumer ADS application. Within this analysis, harmonization considerations are presented in in terms of consumer ADS applications (C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS; see Chapter 1 for definitions). Potential Drawbacks of Harmonization While harmonization offers many advantages for states, industry, and the traveling public, there are also downsides that bear consideration. Perhaps the most obvious concern a state might have regarding harmonization is a loss of control over policy decisions. Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, states maintain powers not designated to the federal government (U.S. Const. amend. X). Harmonization can reduce complexity by aligning a disparate set of rules or regulations. However, doing so can also cause problems if the harmonized rules are inappropriate, premature, or have other flaws. If an industry or product is not technically mature, for example, establishing rules prematurely could hamper innovation by restricting the product or industry in ways that may not improve safety or efficiency. If states harmonized to a premature or inappropriate set of rules, the problematic rule would shift from being a local or regional problem to being a national problem. For this reason, those involved in the

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 20 harmonization process should carefully consider the costs and benefits to all stakeholders and interests, including manufacturers and the traveling public, both with regards to safety and cost. Beyond overt disadvantages, there are also basic questions of necessity when considering harmonization across all states. Harmonization is not a simple or speedy process, as demonstrated by the Drivers License Compact, and typically takes several years to complete. Due to the slowness and difficulty of harmonizing regulations, states may wish to avoid harmonization for areas that are neither necessary nor beneficial. For issues that do not expressly need state harmonization, each state could ensure their laws and/or regulations are clear, in particular as they relate to core terms and definitions (e.g., drive, driver, operate). Additionally, states could require all vehicles follow the rules of the road, regardless of whether a human driver or the ADS performs the DDT. However, flexibility in interpretation and execution of the rules of the road is also important, in that it enables vehicles—both ADS and human-operated—to make reasonable decisions in a complex and dynamic operating environment. Harmonization may be unnecessary when regulating certain aspects of C/ADS, as some manufacturers may develop the ability to automatically adjust to new parameters and requirements whenever crossing state lines or any jurisdictional boundaries. As an example, A-MaaS operations areas may gradually expand as regulatory regimes evolve. In much the same way that C/ADSs will need to adjust automatically to each roadway’s speed limit, developers could potentially include automatic adjustments for other non-hardware related regulatory provisions. Implications of Not Harmonizing Much of the above discussion has centered on the benefits that come from states harmonizing their vehicle codes and standards for C/ADS, but it is equally important to note the risks for industry and the broader public if such harmonization, where needed, does not occur. Without harmonization, industry faces what has been termed a “patchwork quilt” of state regulations. The risk associated with the failure to harmonize standards when needed is that industry testing and eventual deployment of C/ADS will be unnecessarily delayed and/or potentially not broadly available, the safety benefits of C/ADSs will be lost, and the lives saved from roadway fatalities will be lessened. Regulatory inconsistencies will create roadblocks for C/ADS testing and operation if the differences include conflicting standards or excessive overlapping of state, county, regional, and local requirements. This risk is associated only with a failure to harmonize those areas we have recommended for harmonization. For areas identified as not requiring harmonization, the impact on industry is deemed much less detrimental with regard to testing, development, and deployment of C/ADSs. This is a result of the current lack of harmonization in these areas across states. We believe industry can comply with any existing related provisions without impacting their timelines for C/ADS deployment or the manufacturing process.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 21 For hardware, design, and other fixed vehicle attributes, harmonization through federal preemption is likely necessary. Standards that address or prohibit allowable hardware, hardware mounting, or other hardware aspects essential to level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles could prove prohibitive to their interstate operation, thus conceivably blocking market introduction. Alternatives to Harmonization Reciprocity Agreements Harmonization is not the sole mechanism for achieving seamless authority to operate a motor vehicle across state borders with different laws, regulations, standards, and practices. Reciprocity agreements represent a highly effective, and frequently utilized, alternative in which states sign agreements to mutually recognize each other’s licenses, share driver infraction records, or any other provision of vehicle codes that are necessary for operating vehicles in other states. Three examples of existing interstate compacts include 1) The Driver License Agreement, 2) the Driver License Compact, and 3) the Non-Resident Violator Compact (AAMVA, n.d.; National Center for Interstate Compacts, n.d.a; National Center for Interstate Compacts, n.d.b). Under these arrangements, states agree to mutually honor licenses issued by other states, share information regarding out-of-state infractions and driver safety, and allow for the processing of traffic citations across state borders. Most states take part in these arrangements: 44 out of 50 (88%) participate in the NRVC, and 45 of 50 (90%) participate in the Driver License Agreement, for example. These agreements ease interstate travel without the harmonization of state vehicle codes or licensing requirements. The process for a state to join a reciprocity agreement or interstate compact such as these can involve state legislatures ratifying the agreement and the passage of legislation to codify the content of the reciprocity agreement. This process can be lengthy, and historically, some states have taken years to sign these compacts. An example candidate for reciprocity could include permit requirements for platooning level 1 driving automation system-equipped vehicles. However, with the recognition of the obstacles to interstate compact agreements, this is not a preferred recommended direction. Model Law / Best Practice Language Another approach that can make the harmonization process much easier is drafting model legislation or best practice language. A model law is a complete piece of legislation, pre-made and ready for introduction into the legislative process. Best practice language is less formal, and features pre-crafted tenets or aspects of legislation that lawmakers can adopt into law. This approach is effective because it enables unfamiliar legislators to start from a prepared text rather than requiring each individual state, and each legislative committee within each state, to craft original language. In discussions with state administrators, we found that stakeholders view model legislation as a solid foundation for state laws and cross-jurisdictional reciprocity. Similarly, state DOTs echoed the importance of uniform regulatory efforts related to infrastructure improvements, such as interconnected traffic signals and other V2I systems for connected vehicles.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 22 Model laws or best practice language can be useful to lawmakers who are unfamiliar with C/ADS technology or who do not have the time to become experts in the intricacies of the technology or its full array of policy implications. However, while model laws can be helpful, they are far from perfect, as there are rarely issues as complex as those surrounding C/ADSs that can be addressed within the text of a singular, universal bill. Additionally, variation among existing state codes can make it difficult to apply model laws, as doing so would require closely scrutinizing existing code and replacing it with model language. As such, it is helpful for those crafting model laws to focus on providing model language primarily for the most important policy aspects of this topic. States, working with the legislatures, can then utilize the model language within the content of a bill, drafted according to their state’s statutes, codes, and regulatory agency structures. Associations such as AAMVA and AASHTO and the Uniform Law Commission are important resources and ideally should (with their members) drive model law considerations. History teaches a lesson here as well. Model laws are difficult to get legislatively enacted in some states. The legislative process is complicated. Bills often change substantially from introduction to acceptance, which can reduce the effectiveness of model legislation. For these reasons, based on our interviews, many industry representatives favor the less prescriptive best practice language approach over that of model law when seeking harmonization; this is a lesson they learned through experience during past attempts to enact model bills across the states. Guidelines Lastly, states should consider the use of less prescriptive and more flexible guidelines at the state level. NHTSA used this mechanism with the issuance of non-binding Federal Automated Vehicle Guidelines in 2013, again in 2016, and further updated under the current DOT leadership (NHTSA 2013, 2016, 2017). Based on our stakeholder feedback, recent experiences in the C/ADS regulatory area have led many to believe that it is likely too hard to “go straight to regulations” and that an approach centered on the issuance of clear guidelines may prove to be a better approach. When responding to questionnaires, several stakeholders, including manufacturers and technology companies, cited the State of California’s in-depth regulations for the testing and deployment of C/ADSs as a reason for moving their testing operations to other, less prescriptive states. Guidelines addressing key areas of needed legal changes, such as definitions, developed at the federal level with input from state- and local-level government entities and other stakeholders (e.g., national and state associations, citizen groups) can provide state policy makers with a starting point for their individual efforts. Further, guidelines may serve as a catalyst for harmonization across states. Federal Preemption The impetus behind federal preemption has historically been to avoid a patchwork of state standards and regulations. The federal government has strongly indicated it will address standards for C/ADS hardware and software such that state level regulations (or harmonization) will not be necessary, and that federal laws and standards could preempt state policy (NHTSA, 2016, 2017). Under this scenario, the

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 23 harmonization of certain aspects of C/ADS regulations and standards would become moot as NHTSA (or FMCSA for motor carriers) would set standards preventing states from enacting standards that differ from federal rules. Enforcement of federal standards would largely depend on the specifics of the policy in question; currently, many automotive safety and environmental regulations are enforced via self- certification, and this seems a likely avenue for future enforcement mechanisms (Canis and Lattanzio, 2014). As noted in the previous chapter, with the unanimous passage of the SELF DRIVE Act of 2017 by the House of Representatives, Congress has already begun to consider preemption of state and local regulations and laws pertaining to hardware and design features for C/ADSs. 3.3 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations As noted in Chapter 2, states should examine the fundamental legal concepts and terms that undergird their motor vehicle and transportation programs, and consider how these concepts and terms will be affected by the use of C/ADSs. This is a time to assess and then act, rather than reacting or acting for the sake of action. These latter approaches result in the crafting of piecemeal revisions and solutions to legal impediments and gaps as they arise, but fail to recognize the more strategic implications of specific law changes that go deeper than one piece of a state motor vehicle code. During the assessment process, states are advised to refer to NHTSA's guidance (2017) which encourages states "to allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology. If a State does pursue ADS performance-related regulations, the State should consult with NHTSA" (2017, p. 20). NHTSA notes that "allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will help avoid conflicting federal and state laws and regulations that could impede deployment” (2017, p.18). Recommendations included within this chapter are based on past experience with C/ADS-related research, input from stakeholders, and the anticipated timeline of level 4-5 ADS-equipped vehicle deployment (Figure 1-3). All changes to laws and regulations should be girded by the state’s goals and objectives surrounding level 4-5 ADS-equipped vehicle deployment and an individual state motor vehicle code assessment. For additional reasoning behind these recommendations Chapters 4 and 5 of Serian et al. (2018). Short-Term (2018–2020) Modification Priorities Short-Term Recommendation 1. User Requirements Definitions and Driver Only Vehicle Codes States, if they have not yet done so, should review the fundamental terms “drive,” “driver,” “operate,” and “operator,” as well as any wording that arguably omits any restrictions on C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Any ambiguous terms should be clarified to provide consistency and reduce ambiguity. Additionally, policy makers should directly address the possibility that their vehicle codes can be interpreted to regulate only “drivers” (who are licensed and hence human), thus potentially exempting from legal oversight level 4-5 C/ADS-equipped dedicated vehicles (C/ADS-DVs) where the ADS is, in effect, the “driver.” Moving forward, states should be mindful of a current NHTSA project—Assessment, Evaluation, and Approaches to Technical Translations of FMVSS and Test Procedures That May Impact Compliance of

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 24 Innovative New Vehicle Designs Associated with Automated Driving Systems—which is considering these definitional issues as well as issues associated with vehicle requirements.  Prioritization Recommendation: In developing laws, regulations, and policies, ensure that the included definitions, especially those for level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, are consistent with the SAE framework (as reflected in NHTSA, 2017). Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Best practices language. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS.  Prioritization Recommendation: States should consider working with NHTSA and AAMVA to develop uniform definitions for the terms “driver,” “operate,” and “operator” as best practices or uniform definitions. This effort should recognize the possibility that state vehicle codes can be interpreted to regulate only “drivers” (who are licensed and hence human) and thus effectively exempting from legal oversight level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles (where the ADS, when engaged, could be considered the “driver”). Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Guidelines (policy decision). Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Short-Term Recommendation 2: Platooning-Related Code Provisions Policy makers should audit their highway/transportation state laws and regulations to identify those areas that deter the use of platoons. Areas possibly requiring modification include lane restrictions, service requirements, size, weight, and following distance—following distance being a frequently addressed area (Serian et al., 2017). Policy makers should also determine if local governments will have the ability to regulate platoons in ways that differ from the rest of the state. A number of stakeholders noted the need to address state regulations related to move over laws, following distance and tailgating, passing of other vehicles, convoys, and vehicle size and weight laws. However, some stakeholders saw no need for any legal or regulatory changes. As highlighted in Wagner et al. (2018), perspectives vary based on how jurisdictions interpret their current law and regulation wording. As with operator and driver definitions, some states have begun to define what a platoon is, where it can operate, and how approvals will be considered.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 25  Prioritization Recommendation: If platoons are to be encouraged on a state’s highways, modification of following distance requirements will likely be necessary, particularly in states that impose prescriptive following distances.  Prioritization Recommendation: The legal classification of platoon is generally not specified in state codes. Policy makers should consider providing guidance or amend laws to provide a clearer definition of the classification of truck platoons. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Definitions surrounding platooning could benefit from best practices definitions and consistency from state to state. States should consider working with AAMVA, AASHTO, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and FMCSA, to develop consistent platooning recommendations. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: Truck platooning driving automation system-equipped CMVs.  Prioritization Recommendation: Since trucks in platoons operate independently but in relative close proximity, state regulators may—if supported by engineering analyses—to consider the aggregate length, weight, and possible noise restrictions as they apply to a set of trucks operating as a platoon, depending on the outcome of relevant engineering analyses.  Prioritization Recommendation: In addition to a vehicle code review, policy makers should audit their highway/transportation state laws and regulations to identify those that impede the benefits of platoons. Some areas possibly requiring modification include lane restrictions, service requirements, size and weight, and following distance, which has been addressed frequently with regard to driving automation systems. In addition, policy makers need to determine if local governments will have the ability to regulate platoons in ways that differ from the rest of the state. Another important consideration for policy makers is harmonization across local boundaries, state boundaries, and international boundaries so as to not impede commerce. Harmonization Recommended: Useful, but not essential. Definitions surrounding platooning could benefit from best practices definitions and consistency from state to state. States should consider working with AAMVA, AASHTO, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and FMCSA, to develop consistent platooning recommendations. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: Truck platooning driving automation system-equipped CMVs.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 26 Short-Term Recommendation 3: Vehicle Identification and Title Brands This recommendation addresses two areas highlighted by stakeholders and revealed in Wagner et al. (2018): 1) how a vehicle will be identified as a level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicle (an OEM and NHTSA role), and 2) how vehicles may need to be branded or identified for titling and/or registration. Each state currently has varying title brands and inconsistent definitions for brands. This is an area that should be considered in the short-term to allow states moving forward at the onset of C/ADS development to adopt consistent title and registration branding. States should consider modifying statutes that define vehicle brands based on SAE J3016 automation level, and include new title brands for level 3 and higher ADS-equipped vehicles. State accommodations for title brands should follow the SAE levels, but also make provisions for aftermarket applications and brand revisions.  Prioritization Recommendation: States should consider modifying statutes that define vehicle brands based on SAE J3016 automation level, and include new title brands for level 3 and higher ADS-equipped vehicles. State accommodations for title brands should follow the SAE levels, but also make provisions for aftermarket applications and brand revisions. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Guidelines (policy decision) Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Short-Term Recommendation 4. Data Privacy and Data Security While NHTSA and other federal regulators are engaged in the various privacy issues presented by connected vehicles, which may also be automated, states should also consider statute changes to ensure public confidence and clarity on data collection and use. Two key legal issues should be addressed in this short-term timeframe. State policy makers should ensure that if privacy-sensitive data is collected on vehicles through connected infrastructure or otherwise, that data is not publicly accessible—for example through open records statutes—in ways that can compromise the privacy of individual drivers, riders or passengers (e.g., by being linked to specific cars or rides). Second, states should consider whether this same data could be used by state law enforcement officials in ways that compromise Fourth Amendment protections against unconstitutional search and seizures.  Prioritization Recommendation: States and their associations should review open records statutes and user and vehicle data use and availability statutes to address any needed modifications. They should also closely monitor activities at the federal level regarding data privacy. Since the collection, storage, and use of the data from connected vehicles carry such significant privacy risks, regulators such as NHTSA, the Intelligent

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 27 Transport Systems Joint Program Office, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications System, as well as the auto industry itself, must prepare regulations or standards to minimize those risks. Whether at the federal level or the state level, the benefits from improved technology in C/ADSs will need to be balanced against the growing need for data security and privacy to instill public confidence in these vehicles. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Short-Term Recommendation 5: User Attentiveness Provisions Only a few states require the driver to be fully attentive during the DDT, but when these conditions apply, they limit the use of level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. There are also several different requirements that regulate user behavior and demand a heightened level of attentiveness. Although the requirements are dispersed throughout the reviewed vehicle codes, some will require modification.  Prioritization Recommendation: States should review all statutes that related to driver attentiveness and inattentive driving and consider modifications to these anti- distraction provisions depending on the level of driving automation system deployed. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Short-Term Recommendation 6: Rules of the Road States should identify and determine whether the rules of the road apply to C/ADSs and make appropriate modifications to motor vehicle laws. Some states have indicated in newly developed statutes that all provisions of rules of the road and accompanying penalties apply to level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Additionally, when these rules apply to “drivers,” clarification is needed as to who or, in the case of level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, what that “driver” is to ensure that C/ADSs are not exempted from rules of the road requirements. States should also review all rules of the road with an eye to the “human” element and implement provisions that apply to all drivers and vehicles as appropriate. In addition, visual cues should be reviewed.  Prioritization Recommendation: States should review all rules of the road with an eye to the “human” element and implement provisions that apply to all drivers and vehicles as appropriate. Visual cues should also be reviewed. Benchmarks may need to be modified or adjusted by policy makers to accommodate the sensory abilities of C/ADS-equipped vehicles operating at level 3 or above.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 28 Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Short-Term Recommendation 7: Local Restrictions The issue of local restrictions is one of the overarching priority considerations discussed earlier in this report. The UVC and some states provide explicit powers to local authorities to override the state laws in their motor vehicle codes. The sharing of powers and responsibilities between the states and localities with respect to C/ADSs may be a major impediment unto itself. Most of these challenges, however, lie beyond the motor vehicle codes. Given the importance and scope of this issue, we spotlight this type of provision, both for rules of the road and platoons. State-local cooperation, authorized by the law, may need refining or modification in the future in some states. Moving forward, states should begin reviewing existing statutes that allow for local control/local restrictions in light of level 3 and above C/ADS- equipped vehicle deployment.  Prioritization Recommendation: Some states’ codes provide local governments with authority to regulate traffic and impose local restrictions in additional to state restrictions. To the extent that local provisions would be stricter than state code restrictions, states should work with local governments to determine if the local controls should remain in place with deployment of level 3 and higher C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Short-Term Recommendation 8: Aftermarket Technologies The application of existing state laws to aftermarket conversions of conventional vehicles into C/ADS- equipped vehicles remains unclear. Existing laws should be revised or clarified. In addition, aftermarket modifications should be classified and DMVs notified via a state-determined process if C/ADSs are installed on a vehicle. States should be aware that NHTSA governs vehicle safety equipment, and state revisions to this area of law are subject to federal preemption.  Prioritization Recommendation: States should begin to consider how they will address, legislate, or regulate aftermarket C/ADSs. Current laws and regulations may need to be revised or clarified with respect to whether and how they regulate aftermarket driving automation system-related technologies installed on a vehicle. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Guidelines (policy decision).

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 29 Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Short-Term Recommendation 9: Unattended Vehicles States should consider clarifying the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. While mass deployments of passenger vehicles operating at these levels are beyond the mid-term timeframe, this legal area will still need to be considered for A-MaaS vehicles in the short-term.  Prioritization Recommendation: Clarify the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles, including A-MaaS fleet vehicles. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Best practice language. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: A-MaaS. Short-Term Prioritization Recommendation Summary In the next 2 years (2018–2020), the following state motor vehicle code provisions are suggested for consideration for modifications (Table 3-1). Note, items below are not ordered chronologically. Table 3-1. Short-Term (2018-2020) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING DEFINITIONS AND DRIVER ONLY VEHICLE CODES Conduct a critical review of fundamental vehicle code terms “drive,” “driver,” “operate,” and “operator,” and develop necessary clarification in terms, intent, and interpretation. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Best practice language Address the possibility that vehicle codes can be interpreted to regulate only “drivers” (who are licensed and human) and exempt level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles from legal oversight. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Guidelines (policy decision) PLATOON-RELATED ISSUES

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 30 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING Consider the need to modify following distance requirements for platoons on a state’s highways. This is particularly important in states that impose prescriptive following distances. Additionally, provide guidance and clarify the legal classification of truck platoons Harmonization recommended Platooning ADS- equipped CMVs Best practice language; receive guidance (e.g., from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) Develop restrictions as needed if technical scan/engineering analyses identify any negative length, weight, and/or noise effects due to trucks operating as a platoon. Further, audit state laws and regulations that may impose lane restrictions or service requirements on platoons to develop harmonization across the state. Useful but not essential Platooning ADS- equipped CMVs Best practice language; receive guidance (e.g., from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) VEHICLE TITLING AND REGISTRATION Memorialize, from the time of manufacture to junk or salvage on title and registration documents, that the vehicle is driving automation system-equipped. Consider memorialization of aftermarket technologies. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Guidelines (policy decision) PRIVACY PROTECTIONS Assess state policy protections for privacy- sensitive data collected on vehicles through connected infrastructure and vehicle transmission and also the implications of open records laws and the applicability of current state privacy protection statutes. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS USER ATTENTIVENESS Modify prohibitions against inattentive drivers depending on level of driving automation system deployed. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS RULES OF THE ROAD – APPLICABILITY TO C/ADS

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 31 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING Identify how and whether the rules of the road apply to different levels of driving automation systems. Ensure that level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles are not exempted from rules of the road requirements. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS RULES OF THE ROAD – LOCAL RESTRICTIONS Modify local controls over roadways for who can operate on them, the rules of the road, and consider issues of state level preemption. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS AFTERMARKET MODIFICATION Revise or clarify existing laws with respect to whether and how they regulate aftermarket driving automation system- related technologies installed on a vehicle. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Guidelines (policy decision) UNATTENDED VEHICLES Clarify the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4– 5 ADS-equipped vehicles, including A- MaaS vehicles. Harmonization recommended A-MaaS Best practice language Mid-Term (2021–2025) Priorities The mid-term timeframe of 2021–2025 will see significant change in terms of vehicles at different SAE J3016 levels of automation. We anticipate an increasing number of level 3 ADS-equipped passenger vehicles, the introduction of level 4 ADS-equipped A-MaaS vehicles, and the early introduction of level 4 ADS-equipped passenger vehicles. The most significant and rapid change is expected to happen during this period. The following law and/or regulation code changes are recommended in advance of this timeframe. Mid-Term Recommendation 1: User Qualifications, Testing, and Driver Education States should expect to modify licensing qualifications and requirements and determine if additional user testing and education is necessary. This effort goes well beyond the issuance of a digital or physical

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 32 credential with an “ADS-equipped” designation. States will also need to look at any underlying reasons citizens have NOT been able to obtain a license to drive and if those issues can be resolved in level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. These reasons might include medical competency provisions, sight restrictions, or other physical restrictions. Regulations governing medical competency boards should also be reviewed to determine possible changes in representation and skill sets. By this point, states should have addressed the underlying fundamental definitions of “drive,” “driver,” “operate,” and “operator,” making a review of these types of provisions less daunting. Testing components should also be reviewed during this time, and states might consider adding level 4–5 C/ADS component language to existing driving tests to help ensure that the user understands the functional limits of the C/ADS system. Some of these terms may include C/ADS, DDT, minimal risk condition, operator and driver, and ODD limits. Education requirements will similarly need to be examined for possible inclusion of new provisions and units to help users understand the appropriate times to engage and disengage a C/ADS, as well as how to operate during a handoff situation. Similar consideration should be given to how to interact with level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Any change to issuance requirements, testing, or training will be on a state-by-state basis and is likely to intersect with federal mandates or requirements for non-commercial drivers in this area. The emphasis needs to be on reciprocity and best practices or model minimum standards developed by the states in concert with AAMVA.  Prioritization Recommendation: Determine who can operate C/ADSs at different SAE J3016 levels of automation and adjust the law for driver licensing requirements.  Prioritization Recommendation Develop driving tests (or amend existing tests) keyed to the different SAE J3016 levels of automation. Harmonization Recommended: Useful, but not essential. Reciprocity agreements, best practice language. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Mid-Term Recommendation 2: Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (Implied Consent) States should consider when a “reasonable articulable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in settings where the system is controlling a level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle. For example, if it is possible for law enforcement to confirm at the scene that the C/ADS was properly engaged at the time of a violation or crash, there can be no presumption of a “reasonable articulable suspicion” of impaired driving.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 33 Amendments to implied consent would seem logically to lead to parallel allowances for drinking for C/ADS operators under conditions that allow for safe operation for high levels of automation. Yet the latter decision would involve more comprehensive standards and public decisions about when drinking is and is not allowed in operating vehicles. Adjustments to implied consent for higher levels of automated driving will not lead to the automatic legalization of alcohol consumption while driving.  Prioritization Recommendation: Consider when a “reasonable articulable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in settings where the C/ADS is engaged in a level 3– 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle. Harmonization Recommended: No. Assumes definitions are modified to clarify users are considered passengers when traveling in a level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicle or A-MaaS. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Mid-Term Recommendation 3: Prohibitions Against Use of Alcohol and Legal Drugs States will need to clarify alcohol and drug use and regulation within the various SAE J3016 levels of automation (including in states where marijuana has been legalized). For example, for higher levels of automation, states may decide to allow operators to consume alcohol in advance of or during driving. If alcohol consumption is allowed for some levels of automation, this legal modification will also impact the implied consent requirements discussed above. Implied consent for higher levels of automation may need to be adjusted or even eliminated entirely.  Prioritization Recommendation: Clarify alcohol and drug use and regulation within the various SAE J3016 levels of automation (including in states where marijuana has been legalized). Develop offenses, fines, and sentencing terms at varying levels of automation. Adjust implied consent requirements accordingly. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Mid-Term Recommendation 4: Motor Vehicle Liability Some crashes, incidents, and harms will be the result not of human driver error, but rather flaws in the engaged ADS when it is in control of the vehicle. Some state laws currently place full legal responsibility for any damages and harms on the human driver and preclude any manufacturer liability. Policy makers should consider whether it is more equitable to place primary responsibility on vehicle manufacturers and technology companies when the ADS is engaged and in control of the vehicle, or at least include partial

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 34 responsibility for manufacturers. There is also a parallel need to define the process for determining who was in charge of driving at the time of the crash (likely by modifying event data recorder regulations, typically a federal responsibility).  Prioritization Recommendation: Determine responsibility for crashes, incidents, and harms that may not be the results of human operator errors, but rather flaws in the ADS as operating at the time of the incident. Harmonization Recommended: Useful, but not essential. Best practice language. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles (later) and A-MaaS (now). Mid-Term Recommendation 5: Due Care Standard Policy makers should clarify how the “due care” standard applies when a vehicle is operating at SAE J3016 levels 3–4. Presumably, there are “due care” considerations applied to the human driver with respect both to whether to engage the C/ADS and whether to override or disable the C/ADS in specific settings. Since these types of “due care” actions currently have no reliable benchmark in human experience, states should define what these terms might mean in different technological and operational scenarios.  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify or adjust benchmarks to accommodate the decision-making abilities of level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, especially for the “due care” standard. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Mid-Term Recommendation 6: User Distraction Provisions Most states prohibit driver distractions, which can take the form of video screens, texting, earphones, and even grooming. None of these provisions impede the use of C/ADSs and none create safety hazards. Given the features of ADSs, some of these provisions may need to be modified as the fleet evolves into SAE J3016 levels 4–5. In particular, level 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles operating as part of an A-MaaS fleet will assume no passenger responsibility for attentiveness nor have any expectation that the passenger will retake control of the vehicle.  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify anti-distraction provisions to enhance the utility of level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles for those who would benefit from their use.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 35 Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Mid-Term Recommendation 7: Unfair Criminal and Civil Sanctions on Users Drivers can be charged with criminal acts for violating certain traffic laws, but in the case of level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, some of these criminal charges are less straightforward. Certain provisions may assign criminal liability to a human operator in situations where the vehicle could be completely to blame, or at least largely responsible, for resulting harms or violations. For example, in vehicles operating at SAE J3016 levels 4–5, C/ADS malfunctions may cause the vehicle not to register a visual or audible signal from law enforcement, creating criminal liability for the human operator. Criminal acts that could be a result of C/ADS malfunction need to be reviewed in vehicle codes as do assumptions of liability against OEMs, suppliers, technology companies, and A-MaaS network companies.  Prioritization Recommendation: Amend statutes governing criminal and civil liability to leave open the possibility that a level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle with a properly engaged C/ADS could also be responsible in whole or in part for a resulting violation. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Best practices language. Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Mid-Term Recommendation 8: Crash Reporting and Rendering Aid States should consider reviewing and modifying rendering aid statutes. These “report and render aid” provisions can create two separate challenges for level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles.1 The first challenge is that compliance requires a human. Thus, in cars without an active operator or even able occupants, compliance with the requirements may be difficult, if not impossible. The second challenge returns to the problem of definitions. The render aid requirements focus their mandates on the terms “drivers” and “operators.”2 It is possible that if a level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle operating without a human aboard causes an accident, it could be exempt from these provisions since there is no “driver” (human present in the car). Again, while most of the related deployment modifications apply to level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles, this provision also applies to A-MaaS vehicles, which are expected to be deployed in the mid-term. 1 See also Glancy et al., A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless Vehicles, TRB Legal Digest 69, at 43 (2015) (raising similar concerns about these provisions). 2 State codes generally reference the “driver” of the vehicle involved in the accident as triggering the duty. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 63-3- 401, 403, 405, 407, 409 (same duty applied to fixtures), 411, 423; SDCL §§ 32-34-2, 3.1, 4, 6, 7; see also Texas Transportation Code §§ 550.021—025 (references “operator” rather than “driver” but definition of operator is person in actual physical control for this particular requirement); Utah § 41-6a-401 (same).

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 36  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify rendering aid statutes for level 4–5 C/ADS- equipped vehicles to address the fact that a human driver may not be present in the vehicle. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Mid-Term Recommendation 9: Vehicle Requirements Most states impose specific types of requirements on the physical features of vehicles. While most of these vehicle requirements are open-ended and do not appear to impede C/ADSs, some do appear to pose potential impediments in the future (e.g., horns and other audible warning devices, steering wheels, mirrors, brake pedals). Level 4 and Level 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, especially those that are C/ADS- DVs, may not conform to these requirements. As a result, certain vehicular requirements in state codes may become outmoded or unduly prescriptive in limiting the types of C/ADSs allowed in the state. As part of a detailed motor vehicle code audit, policy makers may want to consider identifying and modifying soon to be obsolete requirements so that more applicable terms are used (e.g., referring to “steering assemblies rather than “steering wheels”/“wheels” or “braking systems” rather than “pedals”). The aforementioned NHTSA project, Assessment, Evaluation, and Approaches to Technical Translations of FMVSS and Test Procedures That May Impact Compliance of Innovative New Vehicle Designs Associated with Automated Driving Systems, is considering issues associated with vehicle requirements. States should be aware of this research effort and monitor NHTSA for findings related to the project.  Prioritization Recommendation: Begin to identify obscure requirements that reference specific items (use “steering assemblies” rather than “wheels” and “braking systems” rather than “pedals”) to address over the longer-term. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Reciprocity agreements and/or federal preemption (likely a policy decision). Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS. Mid-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation Summary In summary, the following state motor vehicle code provisions are suggested for modifications in the short term (Table 3-2). Note, items below are not ordered chronologically.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 37 Table 3-2. Mid-Term (2021–2025) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING DRIVER LICENSING Determine who can operate driving automation systems at different levels of driving automation and adjust the law for driver licensing requirements. Useful but not essential C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Reciprocity agreements, best practice language DRIVER TESTING AND EDUCATION Develop driving tests (or amend existing tests) keyed to varying levels of driving automation systems. Useful but not essential C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Reciprocity agreements, best practice language IMPLIED CONSENT Consider when “reasonable articulable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in specific ODD with a properly engaged level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicle. No harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Assumes definitions are modified to clarify users are considered passengers when traveling in a level 4–5 ADS-equipped passenger vehicle or A-MaaS

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 38 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING PROHIBITIONS AGAINST USE OF ALCOHOL AND LEGAL DRUGS Clarify alcohol and drug use and regulation (including in states where marijuana has been legalized) within the various levels of driving automation. Develop offenses, fines, and sentencing terms for lower level violations at varying levels of driving automation. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY – USER AND OWNER LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES Determine responsibility for crashes, incidents, and harms that may not be the result of human error but rather flaws in the ADS as engaged at the time of the event of interest. Useful but not essential C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles (later) and A-MaaS (now) Best practice language RULES OF THE ROAD – DUE CARE STANDARD AND HUMAN JUDGMENT Modify or adjust benchmarks to accommodate the decision-making abilities of level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicles operating at level 3 or above, especially for the “due care” standard, which is tethered to human judgment. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS USER DISTRACTIONS Modify anti-distraction provisions to enhance the utility of ADS-equipped vehicles for their drivers (while the ADS is unengaged) or passengers (while the ADS is engaged). No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS UNFAIR CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS ON USERS (REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION) Amend statutes governing criminal and civil liability to leave open the possibility that when properly engaged, the ADS in a level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicle could also be responsible in whole or in part for a resulting violation. Useful but not essential C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles (later) and A-MaaS (now) Best practice language CRASH REPORTING AND RENDERING AID

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 39 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING Consider the need for modifications to “rendering aid” statutes for level 4–5 ADS- equipped vehicles. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS Consider culling obscure requirements that reference specific items (e.g. use “steering assemblies” rather than “wheels” and “braking systems” rather than “pedals”). Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A- MaaS Reciprocity and/or federal preemption (likely a policy decision) Long-Term (2026 and beyond) Priorities Beyond the short- and mid-term changes needed, states should undertake several longer-term efforts after 2026, once the C/ADS market begins to reach greater penetration of the broader fleet. These include efforts to fully normalize and structure the operation of C/ADSs, both for personal use and under an A- MaaS service, such as through the adaptation of vehicle inspection requirements. Long-Term Recommendation 1: Vehicle Inspection Some agency inspection laws and accompanying regulations will likely need to be modified to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADS vehicles, such as the absence of steering wheels and brake pedals. Inspection laws and regulations may also need to be amended to include new requirements, such as mechanisms for disengaging a level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle, to ensure the safety of these vehicles on state roadways, and for any aftermarket C/ADS technologies applied to a vehicle. Note that, based on our 15-state review, no issues were found with auto emission regulations or laws.  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify agency inspection legislation/regulations to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADSs. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 40 Long-Term Recommendation 2: Consumer Protection (i.e., Lemon Laws) States should consider needed modifications to lemon laws. These laws, originally designed to protect consumers, may not be sufficient to ensure adequate protection from C/ADS product defects. For states that have adopted these laws, some modifications may be necessary to account for the fact that problems with the programming or automation may not be evident over the relatively short period during which manufacturers are legally held responsible for making repairs.  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify lemon laws to account for new C/ADS technologies to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Long-Term Recommendation 3: Occupant Safety and Protection Occupant safety requirements may need to be revised to take full advantage of C/ADS sensor capabilities (e.g., sensing the weight of each passenger to determine appropriate safety restraint use; disengaging when belts are not in place so that the vehicle will not operate in conflict with safety requirements laws). Currently, at least child restraint requirements (i.e., the age of a child determines the required restraint) may not be programmable in an ADS. However, the same or improved protections for occupants may be accomplished by alternative sensory-based requirements (e.g., passenger weight determines restraint type). Legal responsibility of drivers for meeting occupant safety provisions for level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles may also need to be assessed to determine contributory negligence provisions within revised tort laws.  Prioritization Recommendation: Revise occupant safety requirements to take full advantage of C/ADSs sensory capabilities (e.g., seatbelts and child restraints). Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS. Long-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendation Summary In summary, the following state motor vehicle code provisions are suggested for modifications in the long-term Table 3-3). Note, items below are not ordered chronologically.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 41 Table 3-3. Long-Term (2026 and beyond) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATIO N RECOMMENDE D? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATIO N AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING VEHICLE INSPECTION Modify agency inspection legislation/regulations to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADS. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS Modify lemon laws to account for new driving automation system-related technologies to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects. Useful but not essential Best practice language OCCUPANT SAFETY AND PROTECTION Revise occupant safety requirements to take full advantage of driving automation system-equipped vehicles' sensory capabilities (e.g., seatbelts and child boosters). No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS 3.4 Complex Interplay of Deployment Transition and Interoperability Over time, the composition of the vehicle fleet will shift from almost entirely human operated vehicles to almost entirely C/ADSs. The pace of this evolution is difficult to predict, but the timeline envisioned in this study sees this transition occurring over the next 30 years, with level 1 vehicles predominating now and level 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles perhaps beginning to dominate by the end of the 30-year period or just beyond. In this assessment, the implications of the interoperability issues that this mix of vehicles will create for state motor vehicle codes were considered. It could be argued that state motor vehicle codes should evolve apace with the evolving vehicle fleet. However, this approach would inevitably cause lags between the emergence of C/ADS-related issues and appropriate state motor vehicle code changes. A better approach is the application of research such as this, further study of the impact of C/ADSs on various

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 42 jurisdictions, and the timely enactment of comprehensive legislative schemes to systematically address complex issues as they emerge. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed that "the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience" (Holmes, 2009, p.1). But the body of experience and case law related to C/ADSs will develop more smoothly if logical, comprehensive legislative schemes are in place from the outset. Absent such schemes, case law will develop haphazardly, driven by narrow factual situations and political concerns. As a practical matter, this will impede the implementation of C/ADSs and delay the realization of their ultimate benefits. The demands imposed upon a state motor vehicle code by a 10% C/ADS-equipped vehicle market penetration rate versus an 80% market penetration rate are not appreciably different. A comprehensive state policy and legislative approach is needed in either scenario. Therefore, the priorities outlined in this Assessment should be considered regardless of the anticipated penetration rate. In terms of priorities, the progression of varying levels of C/ADS fleets are not expected to be linear. As noted in the timeline, level 5 ADS-equipped A-MaaS vehicles will be sharing the road with level 2 passenger vehicles and level 1 C/ADS-equipped truck platoons. Given this scenario, in the event of a crash involving a level 1 platoon vehicle, a level 2 passenger vehicle, a level 4 C/ADS-equipped vehicle, and a conventional vehicle, ALL laws relating to ALL vehicles would need to be on the books. States recognize that there will likely be decades of transition from conventional vehicles to level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Accordingly, planning and designing for mixed environments is essential. From a DOT perspective, this effort will require rethinking planning processes. The same will hold true for DMVs and law enforcement. 3.5 Prioritization and Harmonization Conclusions States need to begin modifying their laws and regulations now, at least in basic areas such as definitions, and in rapidly advancing areas. While moving forward is important, any action needs to be tempered by a state recognition that some issues are not yet clear. That lack of clarity is primarily rooted in three key issues: 1. As of this writing, the federal direction for C/ADSs oversight has yet to be set, and it is unknown what federal preemption will include or what actions Congress will take. 2. The timeline for deployment of different levels of ADS-equipped vehicles is also unknown, but is not expected to be linear. 3. Many states are waiting for model laws before taking action, but that effort (with the exception of AAMVA’s continued work on best practices) is not imminent and has been met with concerns from the motor vehicle community. Despite these issues, enough states are now moving ahead to provide good law and regulation examples to consider. Drawing on these states’ laws and regulations as examples, and using the checklist and timetable of the top expected legal and regulatory modifications (See Chapter 2 of this report ), state

NCHRP 20-102(07) Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan – A Roadmap for States 43 agencies, lawmakers, and other state stakeholders can begin to prioritize what modifications will be most needed in their states and plan accordingly. The eventual deployment of C/ADSs will require a regulatory structure that can cross state lines as easily as these vehicles will. These recommended changes and harmonization efforts are based on their urgency, as well as their necessity for the deployment of each consumer C/ADS application. As outlined, many of the most urgent recommendations for harmonization relate to elements of state motor vehicle codes that define key terms and their implications. For example, who is a “driver” or an “operator” of a motor vehicle and what exactly does it mean to “drive” or “operate” the vehicle on public roads? Similarly, states are encouraged to harmonize changes that address previously basic scenarios. Situations where a vehicle is left unattended will soon take on a very different meaning when A-MaaS services become available, as these vehicles must be able to operate without any human passengers or operators present between trips. Additionally, for truck platoons to properly operate, issues related to minimum following distances and other core aspects will need to be addressed and harmonized so that the full benefits of this technology can be realized. Meanwhile, states should not underestimate the challenges associated with any harmonization effort, and as such, should not expend energy or time harmonizing their motor vehicle codes for matters that don’t require uniformity. We advise against harmonization for recommended changes related to such issues as distracted driving, driving under the influence, privacy protections, lemon laws, and occupant protection devices, among others. These recommended changes, while no less important, simply fail to rise to the level of requiring states harmonization, as many are not currently harmonized for level 0 vehicles, to little or no ill effect.