Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis (2018)

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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 31 Checklist of State Code Provisions Potentially Needing Modification or Clarification Recommendation 4 Develop driving tests (or amend existing tests) keyed to varying levels of driving automation systems. 5 Modify prohibitions against inattentive drivers depending on level of driving automation system deployed. 6 Clarify the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, including automated mobility as a service (A-MaaS) vehicles. 7 Amend statutes governing criminal and civil liability to leave open the possibility that when properly engaged, the ADS in a level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle could also be responsible in whole or in part for a resulting violation. 8 Consider when “reasonable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in specific ODD with a properly engaged level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle. 9 Clarify alcohol and drug use and regulation (including in states where marijuana has been legalized) within the various levels of driving automation. Develop offenses, fines, and sentencing terms for lower level violations at varying levels of driving automation. 10 Modify anti-distraction provisions to enhance the utility of C/ADS-equipped vehicles for their drivers (while the ADS is unengaged) or passengers (while the ADS is engaged). 11 Memorialize, from the time of manufacture to junk or salvage on title and registration documents, that the vehicle is driving automation system-equipped. Consider memorialization of aftermarket technologies. 12 Consider culling obscure requirements that reference specific items (e.g. use “steering assemblies” rather than “wheels” and “braking systems” rather than “pedals”). 13 Modify agency inspection legislation/regulations to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADSs. 14 Revise or clarify existing laws with respect to whether and how they regulate aftermarket driving automation system-related technologies installed on a vehicle. 15 Determine responsibility for crashes, incidents, and harms that may not be the result of human error but rather flaws in the ADS as engaged at the time of the event of interest. 16 Modify lemon laws to account for new driving automation system-related technologies to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects. 17 Identify how and whether the rules of the road apply to different levels of driving automation systems. Ensure that level 4–5 CADS-equipped vehicles are not exempted from rules of the road requirements. 18 Modify or adjust benchmarks to accommodate the decision-making abilities of level 3–5 CADS-equipped vehicles operating at level 3 or above, especially for the “due care” standard, which is tethered to human judgment. 19 Modify local controls over roadways for who can operate on them, the rules of the road, and consider issues of state level preemption. 20 Revise occupant safety requirements to take full advantage of driving automation system-equipped vehicles' sensory capabilities (e.g., seatbelts and child boosters). 21 Consider the need for modifications to “rendering aid” statutes for level 4 and 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. 22 Platooning related recommendations: a. Consider the need to modify following distance requirements for platoons on a state’s highways. This is particularly important in states that impose prescriptive following distances. b. Provide guidance and clarify the legal classification of truck platoons.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 32 Checklist of State Code Provisions Potentially Needing Modification or Clarification Recommendation c. Develop restrictions as needed if technical scan/engineering analyses identify any negative length, weight, and/or noise effects due to trucks operating as a platoon. d. Audit state laws and regulations that may impose lane restrictions or service requirements on platoons to develop harmonization across the state. 23 Assess state policy protections for privacy-sensitive data collected on vehicles through connected infrastructure and vehicle transmission and also the implications of open records laws and the applicability of current state privacy protection statutes. 5.1 Short-Term (2018–2020) Modification Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations With many OEMs and new entrants in the manufacturing sector pointing to the range of 2018–2020 as their target dates for C/ADS deployment, states will need to begin to build the legal and regulatory framework for level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Nearly half of the 23 modifications identified should begin now in the short-term (2018–2020). Priorities in this short-term are described for states in terms of what needs to be done, the reasoning and related concerns behind the recommendations and specific accompanying recommendations for modification. 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 (ADS-DVs) where the ADS is the “driver.” Prioritization Reasoning When code terms are ambiguous, they should be accompanied by the clarification of intent and interpretation to provide consistency and clarity. This will also allow DMVs, DOTs and law enforcement agencies that interact with level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, whether through licensing and regulation, provision of infrastructure, or law enforcement, interpretive guidance to assist in developing new programs. The need for uniform or best practice definitions from both a state and federal perspective cannot be overemphasized. Law enforcement, motor vehicle administrators and technology companies all recognize the need for uniform or closely uniform definitions, particularly as they relate to the terms “driver and operator” and “drive and operate” (Figure 9). The need for codified definitions pertaining to SAE 3016 vehicle levels was also clearly echoed by DMVs and law enforcement agencies.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 33 Figure 9. Stakeholders' perceived need for uniformity and reciprocity among states. While many states also have begun to develop definitions for different types and levels of C/ADS- equipped vehicles, this is an area that is clearly in need of consistent definitions, best practice definitions, or federal intervention. Although many states are using NHTSA's Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (2016) and subsequent A Vision for Safety 2.0 (2017), there are a number of instances in which states have developed their own definitions. In the past year alone, a wide range of varying state definitions have been legislated. As these examples show, while many of the definitions are similar, they are not sufficiently consistent (Table 6), and represent a clear threat to harmonization, state-to-state reciprocity, longer term vehicle titling and identification issues, manufacturer and technology company design and sales concerns, as well as A-MaaS launch and deployment. 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 Innovative New Vehicle Designs Associated with Automated Driving Systems—which is considering these definitional issues as well as issues associated with vehicle requirements. Table 6. Examples of varying definitions of autonomous technologies and vehicles State/Term Definition Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482A.025, 2013 Autonomous technology Technology which is installed on a motor vehicle and which has the capability to drive the motor vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human operator. The term does not include an active safety system or a system for driver assistance, including, without limitation, a system to provide electronic blind spot detection, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistance, unless any such system, alone or in combination with any other system,

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 34 enables the vehicle on which the system is installed to be driven without the active control or monitoring of a human operator Michigan MI Comp L § 257.2b, 2016 Automated technology Technology installed on a motor vehicle that has the capability to assist, make decisions for, or replace an operator. Automated motor vehicle A motor vehicle on which automated technology has been installed, either by a manufacturer of automated technology or an upfitter that enables the motor vehicle to be operated without any control or monitoring by a human operator. Automated motor vehicle does not include a motor vehicle enabled with 1 or more active safety systems or operator assistance systems, including, but not limited to, a system to provide electronic blind spot assistance, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistance, unless 1 or more of these technologies alone or in combination with other systems enable the vehicle on which the technology is installed to operate without any control or monitoring by an operator Tennessee TN Code § 55-8-202 (2015) Autonomous technology Technology "that has the capability to drive [a] motor vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 35 California CA Veh. Cod., Title 13, Div. 1, Ch. 1, Article 3.7, 2017 Autonomous vehicle Defined as a vehicle that has been equipped with technology that is a combination of both hardware and software that performs the DDT, with or without a natural person continuously controlling the vehicle or continuously monitoring the vehicle’s performance in the driving environment.” For the purposes of [this article of the state code] an “‘autonomous test vehicle’ is equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of levels 3, 4, or 5 of the SAE International's Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems, Standard J3016 Harmonization Reasoning The terminology currently used in most state motor vehicle codes was recorded during a time when C/ADSs, or any computer-enhanced operations of a motor vehicle for that matter, were unheard of and technologically infeasible. If harmonization of state motor vehicle codes does not occur before other legal modifications, states may create conflicting, overlapping, and misaligned terminology and definitions for common terms that will make national standards even more difficult to construct. As noted above, conflicting definitions are beginning to emerge. Uniform definitions or best practices terminology, developed by either NHTSA or AAMVA, would greatly benefit the harmonization of these definitions across these fundamental aspects of the driving code. Harmonization for A-MaaS The impact of outdated and/or conflicting definitions on A-MaaS applications should be a focus for harmonization, as the A-MaaS business model is dependent on states harmonizing a number of changes to their vehicle codes. This harmonization is anticipated to take place from 2018–2020, likely before C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicle applications reach the market. A-MaaS allows companies to spread out the higher cost of purchasing a C/ADS-equipped vehicle across many users and to collect data to inform development and improvements in future systems. The harmonization recommendations noted above in terms of definitional clarifications apply strongly to A-MaaS as well. The growth of the A-MaaS market depends on clarifying that A-MaaS customers are passengers (as opposed to drivers) and have no responsibility for the safe or lawful operation of the ADS-equipped vehicle in which they are riding.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 36 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 C/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. Prioritization Reasoning Most states within our sample impose following distance requirements that are incompatible with the deployment of truck platoons. If platoons are to be encouraged on a state’s highways, modification of these following distance requirements will likely be necessary. Within state DMVs and DOTs, platoons are generally treated as groups of individual trucks, sometimes operating as a caravan. However, within the language of existing state codes, other terms theoretically could be interpreted to cover platoons. To take one example, in the UVC and many states codes, there is a repeated reference to a “combination of vehicles,” a term that is almost never defined. While there appears to be strong consensus that the term

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 37 does not cover platoons, the law itself is somewhat ambiguous on this point. Indeed, because of this ambiguity, one state (Michigan) clarified in 2016 language that a platoon is not considered a “combination of vehicles” [See MI § 643a(10)]. A clearer definition of platoon will then help pave the way for other needed legal adjustments to the regulation of platoons. Since trucks in platoons operate independently but in relative close proximity, state regulators may need 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. Consideration for modifications should also address lane restrictions (if needed) or service requirements on platoons from a harmonization perspective. Platoons are likely to operate across state boundaries and travel over both state and local roadways, emphasizing the need for consistency in definitions from state to state. Truck platooning (especially platooning with level 1 or level 2 driving automation system-equipped CMVs) seems to have fewer legislative barriers than other level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. Some examples identified in Loftus-Otway and Gallun (updated 2018) include the following. Florida. Florida following-distance and passing traffic laws had to be legally clarified (CS/CS/HB 7061: Transportation, 2016). Florida HB 7061 amended s. 316.003, F.S. to define “driver-assistive truck platooning” as “vehicle automation and safety technology that integrates sensor array, wireless communications, vehicle controls, and specialized software to synchronize acceleration and braking between up to two truck tractor-semitrailer combinations, while leaving each vehicle’s steering control systems command in the control of the vehicle’s driver” (CS/HB 7061: House of Representatives Staff Analysis, 2016). Florida, by amending s. 316.303, F.S., also authorized active displays on screen while the vehicle is in motion.9 The bill’s language exempts level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles or vehicles with driver-assistive truck platooning technology from a prohibition against television-type receiving equipment being visible from the driver’s seat. Texas. HB 1791, which took immediate effect, regulates the use of connected braking systems to maintain distance between vehicles (An Act Relating to the Use of Connected Braking Systems to Maintain Distance Between Vehicles, 2017). Section 545.062 of the Transportation Code is amended by adding Subsection (d), which states, “An operator of a vehicle equipped with a connected braking system that is following another vehicle equipped with that system may be assisted by the system to maintain an assured clear distance or sufficient space as required by this section.” “Connected braking system” is defined as “a system by which the braking of one vehicle is electronically coordinated with the braking system of a following vehicle.” As with SB 2205, discussed in the definition section above, this act provides no rule making powers to any transportation or public safety agency in the state. Not all jurisdictional stakeholders believed that following-distance laws and/or regulations in their jurisdiction would be affected by commercial platooning. However, others indicated that their rules would be greatly affected, and, in some cases, had already required modification (Serian et al., 2017; Figure 10). With regard to prioritization, resource and jurisdictional stakeholders indicated the need to address platooning-related laws in less than 5 years (Serian et al., 2017). Platooning is one of the deployments that is expected to advance sooner than other C/ADS deployments, which is another reason for states to consider holistic approaches to law changes from the beginning of any rule and regulation modification process. 9 FLA. HB 7061, as Fla.Stat. 316.303, “unless the vehicle is equipped with the autonomous technology, as defined in s. 16.003(2), and is being operated in autonomous mode, as provided in s. 316.85(2).”

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 38 Figure 10. Stakeholders' projected timeline for legal and regulatory modifications. Harmonization Reasoning Platooning Driving Automation System-Equipped CMVs Truck platooning is in need of short-term harmonization to amend state vehicle codes to remove unintentional barriers to deployment of platooning level 1 or level 2 driving automation system equipped CMVs. The interstate nature of commercial motor carriers demands uniformity (to the degree possible) among state vehicle codes related to platooning. As such, this represents a call for states to work together to harmonize their updated regulations to permit the use of this technology seamlessly across state lines. Currently, state laws regarding truck following distances are a patchwork of numeric minimums at various distances and language such as “safe and prudent” following distances that require interpretation as to the legality of platooning. Given that platooning is expected to be commercially available in the near future, consistent treatment of platooning to create a nationwide regime that recognizes a mode of longitudinal control dependent on sensing and connected braking to maintain safe shorter distances is valuable in the short term (North American Council for Freight Efficiency, 2016). At the same time, tech developers have noted their systems will have the ability to automatically adjust to new parameters and requirements whenever crossing state lines or any jurisdictional boundaries. As previously noted, the legal classification of a platoon is generally not specified in state codes. The provision of additional guidance or amended laws to provide a clearer definition of the classification of truck platoons is important to avoid confusion and lend regulatory certainty to technology developers and the trucking industry.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 39 Consideration of Aggregate Length, Weight, and Noise Limits as well as Lane Restrictions for Platoons Now is the time to conduct the necessary analyses to determine if there are any negative length, weight, and/or noise effects due to heavy CMVs operating as a platoon. Any requirements stemming from these analyses would ideally be harmonized from the start. However, if any restrictions are levied on truck platoons with regard to length (number of tractor-trailer combinations in the platoon), weight, or noise, embedded software systems may be able to adjust operations as needed when crossing state lines (e.g., through the use of embedded mapping software and protocols). Or, in the case of specific bridges identified by a state as vulnerable to a platoon traversal, software could dissolve the platoon temporarily prior to crossing the bridge. Therefore, lack of harmonization with regard to operational restrictions on platoons should not delay the early growth of platooning deployment; however, deployment of platooning will grow more robustly if these factors are harmonized (again, if engineering analyses actually determine there are factors to be addressed). It could be argued then, that individual early-deployment states could take the lead in working out best practices, with harmonization coming in the 2020 timeframe. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 ADS-equipped CMVs  Prioritization Recommendation: Since trucks in platoons operate independently but in relative close proximity, state regulators may—if supported by engineering analyses—need to consider the aggregate length, weight, and possible noise restrictions as they apply to a set of trucks operating as a platoon.  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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 40 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 ADS-equipped CMVs 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. Prioritization Reasoning As the term denotes, “brands” determine the designation of the SAE J3016 automation level associated with a driving automation system-equipped vehicle, and are associated with the vehicle identification number. These brands follow the vehicle from birth (manufacturing) to death (salvage or destruction). State law enforcement personnel stakeholders specifically noted that vehicle identification markings are a top priority and should be nationally uniform. The ability to access vehicle records electronically at roadside makes the presence of branding on a registration card somewhat unnecessary. However, there was strong concurrence from resource and jurisdictional stakeholders that titles (ownership documents) should be branded with an ADS code. Further, it was recommended that a uniform title brand be suggested by NHTSA for use across all states (Figure 11; Serian, et al., 2017). Harmonization Reasoning 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. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 Figure 3. Stakeholders' perceived need for an ADS code as suggested by NHTSA’s Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (2016).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 41 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 deeply 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 Reasoning Loftus-Otway and Gallun (updated 2018) highlighted current federal provisions and recommendations for states to consider surrounding privacy, particularly with regard to event data recorder data and third-party access to data. This is an instructive area for states to review as they consider what types of modifications may be necessary and the expected role of the federal government in this area. Level 3–5 ADS-equipped or connected vehicles carry the promise of enhanced efficiency, increased safety, and other benefits. As the automation increases, however, and cars move towards levels 4–5, more and more data will be generated, collected, stored, transmitted, and shared. This data will include vehicle system data and accessory system data, as well as PII from owners’, drivers’, and passengers' personal devices. Vehicles and their systems will be at risk for unauthorized access, hijacking, and theft, putting PII at risk for unauthorized access and use. Stakeholders also prioritized privacy and data concerns (Serian et al., 2017). However, since privacy and the use of PII is currently included in state and federal laws, stakeholders did not indicate the need for modifications in this area. Stakeholders generally recognized that data should be shared with the courts, DMVs, DOTs, insurance interests, vehicle operators, and defense attorneys, but there was minimal support for sharing data with other third-party entities. Almost all stakeholders indicated that the sharing of any data with third parties would need to be regulated or legislated, with the majority of stakeholders viewing the oversight of privacy and data protection as a shared responsibility between federal and jurisdictional governments. This sharing could take the form of federal oversight with state enforcement. One resource stakeholder stressed the need to address privacy and data security in a uniform and consistent manner, noting that data security measures in particular are typically implemented by companies in a manner that crosses state and global boundaries and privacy matters are currently addressed in both federal and state laws. As such, public-private collaboration among all stakeholders (including private industry, international, federal, and state governments) is appropriate. Some states have begun to address the issue of data protection and privacy. Examples of enacted legislation surrounding privacy and data usage are limited. Following (Table 7) is California’s approach to addressing information privacy in its deployment express terms.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 42 Table 7. CA Approach to Information Privacy CA Veh. Cod., Title 13, Div. 1, Ch. 1, Article 3.7, §228.24, 2017 (a) The manufacturer shall either: (1) Provide a written disclosure to the driver of an autonomous vehicle, and for vehicles that do not require a driver, the occupants of the vehicle, that describes the information collected by the autonomous technology that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle; or, (2) Anonymize the information that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. (b) If the information is not anonymized, the manufacturer shall obtain the written approval of the operator of an autonomous vehicle to collect any information by the autonomous technology that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. (c) A manufacturer shall not deny use of an autonomous vehicle to any person on the basis that they do not provide the written approval specified in subsection (b) of this section It is important that NHTSA drive the consistency of sharable data on vehicles. However, it is likely that states will also need to address the use and availability of data based on overall state goals and individual state leadership. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 43 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 Reasoning All state codes appear to allow C/ADSs, particularly at level 3 and below when there is a human person seated behind the controls. A few states actually require that a human driver be attentive and control the vehicle at all times or devote full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle. Other state codes note that “drivers” must be in reasonable control of the vehicle. States should review alertness requirements and user attentiveness provisions in their motor vehicle codes, as they may deter the use of automation and negate some C/ADS user benefits. States with prohibitions against inattentive users will most likely need to modify related statutes. Modifications should include definitions or clarifications for operating and attentiveness on the part of a human within a driving automation system-equipped vehicle when lower levels (level 2 and below) of automation are deployed, and where they may be required to take over operations of a vehicle, be seated in the driver's seat, and/or awake. Driver attentiveness statutes may also have detrimental effects on the launch and operation of A-MaaS providers, as these services are predicated on the assumption that passengers will have no required level of attentiveness nor be required to assume control of a level 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle. These statutes may also limit the operation of A-MaaS vehicles without any passengers awaiting instructions for the next pick up or while en route to pick up a passenger. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  Prioritization Recommendation: States should review all statutes 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. Prioritization Reasoning In addition to standard rules of the road (speed limits, passing restrictions, etc.), rules of the road often apply standards of due care, such as yielding to a blind person, right of way for funeral processions, and yielding to school buses or ice cream trucks. While level 4–5 C/ADSs may have sensory means to address these issues, states still need to consider these issues at all levels. Visibility is a trigger for a number of rules of the road requirements and states ultimately may need to modify or clarify these visual cue requirements to tailor them more specifically to the capabilities of C/ADSs.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 44 Stakeholder feedback, especially from law enforcement, indicated that it should be presumed that all vehicles, whether C/ADSs or traditional, need to follow existing rules of the road (Serian et al., 2017). Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS Short-Term Recommendation 7: Local Restrictions Local restrictions are 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 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 Reasoning Local controls over roadways, with regard to both who can operate on them and the rules of the road, is an area that is likely to require the examination of local restrictions statutes. If these requirements need to be adjusted for C/ADSs, then state laws may need to be modified in ways that will involve significant policy choices. Alternatively, if new programs or directives are needed to ensure closer harmonization between states and localities, then this is an area for wholly new legislative or regulatory activity. Various levels of authority can impede commerce and have implications on harmonization for future C/ADS deployment. Following are examples of state-enacted local restrictions statutes. North Carolina. House Bill 469 notes that, “No local government shall enact any local law or ordinance related to the regulation or operation of fully autonomous vehicles or vehicles equipped with an automated driving system, other than regulation specifically authorized in Chapter 153A and Chapter 160A of the General Statutes that is not specifically related to those types of motor vehicles” (An Act to Regulate the Operation of Fully Autonomous Motor Vehicles on the Public Highways of this State, 2017). Illinois. Public Act 100-0352 notes that, “A unit of local government, including a home rule unit, may not enact an ordinance prohibiting the use of Automated Driving System equipped vehicles on its roadways” (An Act Concerning Transportation, 2017).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 45 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 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 Reasoning Fourteen jurisdictional and resource stakeholders noted that the modification of current vehicles to level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles should be regulated. Three of the resource stakeholders qualified their response by indicating that the regulation should only occur in certain instances, such as when the modification would enable a different level of driving automation system to engage (Serian et al., 2017). Several modifications to existing laws and/or regulations would be required to permit or prohibit these type of aftermarket modifications, including those related to jurisdictional registration and inspection statutes, certifications, FMVSS requirements for safe conversions, insurance, and OEM liability. In terms of who should be performing the certification/inspection of modifications, it was suggested that this be performed by licensed/registered aftermarket companies/installers to ensure the vehicle will actually perform at the indicated level. (Serian et al., 2017). Further, if an SAE J3016 level of automation becomes part of the vehicle record, certification will be required to update the record accordingly. There is little legislative activity in this area. Nevada recently passed AB 69, which does extend immunity from liability for damages caused by modifications by an unauthorized third party to the original manufacturer or developer of a C/ADS. (An Act Relating to Transportation, 2017). And while the possibility of aftermarket C/ADS downloads has been discussed, none have yet been mass produced for the market. However, this is an area that is likely to be part of the ongoing C/ADS conversation and states should prepare early on for these possible modifications.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 46 Harmonization Reasoning ADS-Equipped Passenger Vehicles and A-MaaS Urgency for harmonization is also noted regarding aftermarket C/ADSs, in which passenger vehicle owners convert a level 0 or level 1–2 driving automation system-equipped vehicle into a level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle through the addition of sensors and other automated driving technology (Serian et al., 2017). Wagner et al. (2018) notes that under both the UVC and some state laws, consumer modifications of vehicles are regulated. Most of these laws, however, seem to engage only at the inspection stage, if at all.10 This means that most aftermarket modifications remain largely unregulated.11 This market could potentially become unsafe unless governments establish clear boundaries regarding modification of existing vehicles with C/ADS capabilities. From a harmonization standpoint, the possibility of unsafe aftermarket modifications endangers all road users, regardless of the state in which the vehicle operates. Therefore, early harmonization is important to avoid a “vehicle automation outfitter” setting up shop in the state with the least stringent rules on such modifications. Here, upwards harmonization is needed to establish a high-quality standard. Prioritization and Harmonization Summary  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) Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS Short-Term Recommendation 9: Unattended Vehicles Prioritization Reasoning 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. 10 Ohio’s regulations, for example, state that “[e]ach inspection of a motor vehicle assembled from component parts by a person other than the manufacturer as provided in section 4505.111 of the Revised Code shall include inspection for identification for all component parts used to build the particular vehicle.” Oh. Admin. Code § 4501-33-05(A). Whether conversions of conventional vehicles to C/ADSs meet this definition appears to be an additional legal question in the application of this provision to automated aftermarket modifications. 11 For one example of how extensive this aftermarket modification activity might become, see https://medium.com/@comma_ai/our- road-to-self-driving-victory-603a9ed20204

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 47 Harmonization Reasoning C/ADS and A-MAAS States and A-MaaS providers will both benefit from the harmonization of the meaning and application of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles. Unattended vehicles represent a public nuisance in that they can block traffic and block use of the roadway shoulder by emergency first responders. To address this concern, states generally include in their motor vehicle codes the prohibition of drivers leaving their vehicles unattended (except for parking). Under this law, however, an empty A-MaaS C/ADS-equipped vehicle operating without any passengers or any driver could be considered “unattended” because the engine is running and the brake is not applied. The ability for an A-MaaS vehicle to operate while empty, presumably on its way to pick up a passenger, is central to the development of this business model. This effort should be undertaken in the short term and harmonized to establish uniformity and clarity of the term “unattended” and its applications, as A-MaaS-focused efforts to harmonize will eventually apply to C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles (e.g., for self-parking) as well. Prioritization and Harmonization Summary  Prioritization Recommendation: Clarify the meaning of laws that prohibit unattended vehicles, especially for level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, including A-MaaS fleet vehicles. Harmonization Recommended: Yes. Best practices language Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: A-MaaS Short-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation Summary In the next 2 years (2018–2020), modifications to the following state motor vehicle code provisions are suggested for consideration (Table 8). Note, items below are not ordered chronologically.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 48 Table 8. Short-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION 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 C/ADS-equipped vehicles from legal oversight. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS Guidelines (policy decision) PLATOON-RELATED ISSUES 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)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 49 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING 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/ADSs. 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/ADSs. RULES OF THE ROAD – APPLICABILITY TO C/ADS Identify how and whether the rules of the road apply to different levels of driving automation systems. Ensure that level 4–5 C/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/ADSs. 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/ADSs.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 50 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING 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 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, including A-MaaS vehicles. Harmonization recommended A-MaaS Best practice language 5.2 Mid-Term (2021–2025) Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations 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 C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles, the introduction of level 4 C/ADS-equipped A-MaaS vehicles, and the early introduction of level 4 C/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. Recommended harmonization for C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS vehicles are included below. No mid-term harmonization requirements for trucking have been identified, at least in terms of current motor vehicle codes. However, one aspect of new regulations may come in the form of signage and/or indicators identifying platooning level 1 or level 2 driving automation system-equipped CMVs and/or “platooning currently underway.” This is an area of active and unsettled discussion within several states. As truck platoons proliferate over the next few years, it would be valuable to harmonize any new requirements, particularly those that impact truck design. For instance, while placarding for platooning capability is relatively simple, implementing an electrical/electronic “platoon in operation” indicator impacts hardware design and should be consistent across states. 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 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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 51 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. Prioritization Reasoning Some examples of state efforts in this area include the following. Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania DOT recognized the likelihood and opportunity of addressing medical impairment. An earlier study prepared by Carnegie Mellon University for the DOT noted that changes to laws or regulations would be needed for ADS-equipped vehicles at the currently defined SAE J3016 levels of automation (Hendrickson, C., et al, 2014). Georgia. Georgia State Bill 291 amends the Official Code of Georgia by definition “to exempt persons operating a fully autonomous [level 5] motor vehicle with the automated driving system engaged from the requirement to hold a driver's license.” The exemption is based on this enacted definition: “'Fully autonomous vehicle' means a motor vehicle equipped with an automated driving system that has the capability to perform all aspects of the DDT without a human driver within a limited or unlimited operational design domain and will not at any time request that a driver assume any portion of the DDT when the automated driving system is operating within its operational design domain” (A Bill To Be Entitled: An Act to amend Title 40 of the O.C.G.A., 2017). Nevada. Nevada requires the following: “a person who holds a driver’s license in [Nevada] and wishes to operate an autonomous vehicle in autonomous mode in [Nevada] must obtain a G endorsement on his or her driver’s license from the Department.” This endorsement is required by regulation. An autonomous vehicle is described as a vehicle that can “carry out all the mechanical operations of driving without the active control or continuous monitoring of a natural person” (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482A, 2013). 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’s functional limits. 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 an 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. Stakeholder responses were in line with the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (NHTSA, 2016) on driver licensing, recognizing that federal preemption may be needed when the “driver” is the technology. Jurisdictional stakeholders saw a need for increased driver training, especially during the years when the fleet is mixed. Resource stakeholders recommend that the federal government set a federal minimum level of mandated licensing requirements for level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. This is highly inconsistent with the current state role of licensing non-commercial drivers. Input was mixed on the need for a special classification of driver’s license. However, there was a clear recognition that basic requirements in law and regulation may need to change to impose fewer restrictions (e.g., visual acuity, driver fitness, physical disabilities; Serian et al., 2017). Jurisdictional stakeholders were split as to whether at least one occupant of a level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle should be required to hold a driver's license, and whether a special type of designated license or

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 52 endorsement for licensing of level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicle users would be needed. When clarifying their responses for non-commercial driver's licensing, stakeholders indicated different licensing requirements for different SAE J3016 levels of automation, increased focus on technological aptitude standards and less rigorous skills-based aptitude testing, the potential to lift or modify age and physical restriction requirements, and redefining the “driver” as the C/ADS and implementing C/ADS compliance monitoring. Resource stakeholders noted an increased need for federal involvement in mandating minimum driver licensing qualifications, with the ability for states to enact more stringent standards (Figure 12; Serian et al., 2017). This is similar to today’s REAL ID or commercial driver’s licensing (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017). Resource stakeholders also noted a need to ensure proper education and training during the period of interoperability and the potential for alternate driver’s licenses for varying SAE J3016 level of automation. In addition, resource stakeholders suggested potential changes to the testing process to include C/ADS features, including legal requirements for providing notice to DMVs when aftermarket modifications are made. Figure 12. Stakeholder’s perception of whether or not the roles of states and the federal government regarding driver’s licensing will change with increased automation. Both jurisdictional and resource stakeholders noted a potential need to work with manufacturers, either to ensure that their representatives are providing training or to demonstrate that their operating systems can pass all driver functionality tests (i.e., can pass a driver’s license test for C/ADSs; Serian et al., 2017) Any changes to issuance requirements, testing, or training will be on a state-by-state basis and are 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 (Figure 13).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 53 Figure 13. Need for changes to testing requirements for users of conventional vehicles as level 4–5 ADS- equipped vehicles are deployed. The aforementioned report prepared for the Pennsylvania DOT recommended that driving and skill tests should be required for all SAE J3016 levels of automation with the exception of what is currently defined as level 5, where there is no interaction between drivers and vehicles (Hendrickson et al., 2014). The report also noted that testing for all SAE J3016 levels of automation should be updated initially and also periodically to assure the user’s basic familiarity with electronic assist features as well as required interactions between drivers and vehicles. Changes in this area will be incremental and informed by the technology. In reality, user testing components are likely to be driven by policy and not law in most states, and user education is clearly state based. So, while states should review their laws and regulations for testing and education, the much more pressing component is user qualification, particularly adjustments to allow those who could not “drive” before to “drive” now. Harmonization Reasoning C/ADS-Equipped Passenger Vehicles and A-MAAS Many A-MaaS companies promise their services will launch in the 2021 to 2025 timeframe (Ford, 2017; Bosch Media Service, 2017; Townsend, 2016). As such, the transition from testing with a safety driver in the vehicle to Level 4 C/ADS-equipped A-MaaS vehicle will requires several changes to state vehicle codes and will benefit from state harmonization. One such case can be found in the provisions of the code that specify who may and may not operate a vehicle. Among the most heavily promoted benefits to come from self-driving cars is improved access and mobility for all (Duncan et al., 2015; Douma, Lari, & Andersen, 2017; National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2016). Today, state motor vehicle codes limit or prohibit entirely certain individuals from obtaining licenses and operating motor vehicles through provisions requiring vision and operating tests. To fully reach the potential benefits of C/ADSs (including C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles), states will need to address the barriers that currently prevent many people from simply riding as passengers in level 4 or 5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles. However, while harmonization seems useful here, stakeholders did not indicate that overcoming these barriers automatically meant a need for harmonization (Figure 14 ).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 54 Figure 14. Stakeholders' perceived need for the harmonization of training and testing laws and regulations. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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) Prioritization Reasoning 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. As discussed below, 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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 55 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 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 The UVC and all states prohibit a person from driving while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or narcotics. The UVC directs that a person shall not drive any vehicle while “under the influence of alcohol” or “any drug to a degree which renders such person incapable of safely driving” or that exceeds prescribed blood concentrations set in the statute (UVC § 11-901). In most states, these general prohibitions are reinforced by legislative limits on alcohol and drugs in the driver. Nevada’s statutes are illustrative: it is unlawful for a person to drive if he or she “[h]as a concentration of alcohol of 0.08 or more in his or her blood or breath; or . . . is found by measurement within 2 hours after driving . . . to have a concentration of alcohol of 0.08 or more in his or her blood or breath” (NV Rev. Stat. § 484C.110). In most states, alcohol for commercial vehicles and for minors are generally stricter, sometimes approaching a zero-tolerance level (See, e.g., CA Veh. § 6-51 [commercial vehicles]; § 11-905 [zero tolerance for minors]). Prioritization Reasoning 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 and Harmonization Recommendations  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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 56 Mid-Term Recommendation 4: Motor Vehicle Liability Prioritization Reasoning 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 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 electronic recording device regulations, typically a federal responsibility). Harmonization Reasoning and Recommendations 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 responsibility for manufacturers. Harmonization for all consumer C/ADS applications (including A-MaaS) is recommended. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 ADS and whether to override or disable the 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 Reasoning Throughout the UVC and the state motor vehicle codes, users are regularly instructed that they must exercise “due care,” act “reasonably” and with “prudence” and avoid “carelessness” to comply with the rules of the road. Illustrative examples of state statues include the following: Nebraska simply requires that “[a]ny person who drives any motor vehicle in this state carelessly or without due caution so as to endanger a person or property shall be guilty of careless driving” (NE Rev. Statutes § 60-6,212).

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 57 In California, the “driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.” This “reasonable and prudent” directive is unavoidably benchmarked against human judgment. It seems likely that C/ADS programmers can match and exceed good human judgment in most cases, but in other, more complex settings (e.g., “traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist”) the C/ADS may not fully grasp the situation as a prudent human would (NE Rev. Statutes § 60-6,212). In some cases, human decision-making abilities, coupled with multi-sensory cues, assist in making this “reasonable” judgment required by law (UVC § 11-304). Similarly, passing streetcars or driving on street car tracks invoke some state requirements that the driver “proceed only upon exercising due caution for pedestrians” exiting and around the streetcar (UVC § 11-1401—1404). C/ADSs raise still more challenges with regard to this human judgment requirement by presenting a possible bifurcated “reasonable person”—one who is human driving a non-C/ADS-equipped vehicle and the other driving, for example, a level 3 C/ADS-equipped vehicle with the ADS engaged. What a reasonable human might do rounding a sharp curve may be different than what a reasonable human operating in a level 3 ADS-equipped vehicle would do given the dramatic differences in vehicle capacities. This fact only further underscores how these judgment-based provisions may complicate how compliance is assessed at different SAE J3016 levels of automation. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify or adjust benchmarks to accommodate the decision- making abilities of level 3–5 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 Prioritization Reasoning 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. Nonetheless, given the features of C/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 and Harmonization Recommendations  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. Harmonization Recommended: No. Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/ADS

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 58 Mid-Term Recommendation 7: Unfair Criminal and Civil Sanctions on Users Prioritization Reasoning 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 malfunctions need to be reviewed in vehicle codes as do assumptions of liability against OEMs, suppliers, technology companies, and A-MaaS network companies. Harmonization Reasoning With many OEMs and new entrants in the manufacturing sector targeting this time range for deployment, states will need to harmonize their vehicle codes in advance. This will involve addressing several new areas of policy and considering major operational issues for C/ADSs, such as liability and faults associated with flaws in the ADS as engaged at the time of the event of interest. Harmonization is thus recommended for level 3–5 C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 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 Prioritization Reasoning 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.12 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.” 13 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” 12 See also Glancy et al., A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless Vehicles, NCHRP LEGAL DIGEST 69, at 43 (2015) (raising similar concerns about these provisions). 13 Like the illustrative UVC provision excerpted above, the 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 Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 59 (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. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation  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 Prioritization Reasoning 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 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. Harmonization Reasoning C/ADS-Equipped Passenger Vehicles and A-MaaS Many features of the modern motor vehicle could become obsolete in C/ADSs, including items related to vehicle controls, such as brakes and a steering wheel (NHTSA, 2016b). Not only will these devices become unnecessary in level 4–5 C/ADS-equipped vehicles, they will likely be intentionally absent for level 5 vehicles utilized by A-MaaS services, as service providers will seek to prevent passengers from taking control of the vehicle. As such, states should ensure they harmonize vehicle codes and standards to enable A-MaaS vehicles to operate across state lines. Harmonization would also enable manufacturers produce a fleet that can operate throughout the U.S. without customizing vehicle design and operation on a state-by-state basis. A-MaaS-focused efforts to harmonize in this area apply to level 4–5 ADS-equipped passenger vehicles as well.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 60 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 9). Note, items below are not ordered in chronological manner. Table 9. Mid-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION 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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 61 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING IMPLIED CONSENT Consider when “reasonable articulable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in specific ODD with a properly engaged level 3–5 C/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 C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicle or A-MaaS 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 C/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 C/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 C/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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 62 RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION AFFECTED FIRST MEANS OF ADDRESSING 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 C/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 Consider the need for modifications to “rendering aid” statutes for level 4–5 C/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) 5.3 Long-term (2026 and beyond) Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations 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 Prioritization Reasoning Some agency inspection laws and accompanying regulations will likely need to be modified to accommodate the new technological features of C/ADS-equipped 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. In terms of potential modifications to current inspection-related laws, stakeholders noted that:

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 63 • Software components will need to be included if they affect the vehicle’s functionality (Figure 15); • Frequency and testing standards for C/ADSs should be established; • A federal database tracking automation level and aftermarket C/ADSs may be required; Electronic readings and onboard diagnostics could be used to check specific safety features and available system updates associated with the C/ADS instead of periodic motor vehicle safety inspections or checks (designed to uncover mechanical defects). Figure 15. Stakeholder opinions on software update checks by inspection stations. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 Long-Term Recommendation 2: Consumer Protection (i.e., Lemon Laws) Prioritization Reasoning 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. Harmonization Reasoning As states begin to consider their lemon laws, best practice language may be useful in helping states to account for new technologies in order to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 64 Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  Prioritization Recommendation: Modify lemon laws to account for new C/ADS technologies to ensure adequate consumer protection from product defects. Harmonization Recommended: Useful, but not essential. Best practice language Consumer C/ADS application(s) affected first: C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS Long-Term Recommendation 3: Occupant Safety and Protection Prioritization Reasoning 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 a C/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 C/ADS- equipped vehicles may also need to be assessed to determine contributory negligence provisions within revised tort laws. Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendations  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 Priority Modification Recommendation Summary In summary, the following state motor vehicle code provisions are suggested for modifications in the long-term (Table 10). Note, items below are not ordered in chronological manner.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 65 Table 10. Long-term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations RECOMMENDATION HARMONIZATION RECOMMENDED? CONSUMER C/ADS APPLICATION 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 5.4 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/ADS-equipped vehicles. 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 report, we consider the implications of the interoperability issues that this mix of vehicles will create for state motor vehicle codes. 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 jurisdictions, and the timely enactment of comprehensive legislative schemes to systematically address complex issues as they emerge.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 66 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 C/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 C/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. 5.5 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. However, while moving forward is important, any action should also 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/ADS-equipped vehicles oversight has yet to be set and it is unknown what federal preemption will include and what actions Congress will take. 2. The timeline for deployment of different levels of C/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 included within this chapter, state 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/ADS-equipped vehicles 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”

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 67 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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 68 Barriers to Legislative and Regulatory Modifications There may be some barriers to modifying legislation and regulations. Recognizing barriers and the role of different entities in addressing them will be helpful in the modification process. Among those playing a role are federal and state governments, technology companies, suppliers and OEMs (and many other stakeholders), consumers, state legislatures, and researchers. Based on input from the legal and regulatory needs assessment (Serian et al., 2017) and further discussions conducted with stakeholders, the following barriers were identified and suggestions for addressing them provided. 6.1 Lagging Legislative Action A lagging legislative timeframe and a traditional approach to law change in a non-traditional environment is one of the greatest barriers to advancing C/ADS deployment laws. Forming advisory committees, especially committees that include legislative representation, begins to address this barrier foundationally. 6.2 A Quick-fix Approach An effort to “fit” C/ADS related laws into current statutes without a comprehensive review and understanding of state motor vehicle codes may result in provisions that become barriers as the technology advances. An additional issue in this area is a lack of legislative understanding of C/ADS technology. Continual legislative education, especially with legislative leaders, is important. 6.3 Lack of a Model State Policy or Minimum Best Practices Guidance This is the first time in many years that a uniform federal and state approach has been necessary outside of federally governed programs. As noted, some states are already beginning to modify or add laws. If federal and state entities do not work together, diverse and varying underlying basic definitions will create problems that will worsen over time. Associations such as AAMVA and AASHTO will be the most likely entities to work with their members in addressing this barrier. 6.4 A Focus Only on Testing A barrier for state legislative changes, especially states that have not been actively involved with C/ADS legislation, is a sole focus on testing laws and regulations. With a body of references now available and with NHTSA’s guidelines, states should focus on both testing AND deployment. 6.5 Lack of Federal Clarifications A lack of clarifications from the federal government and Congress is a huge barrier for states as they determine what deployment laws and regulations should look like. Manufacturers continue to determine what direction C/ADS deployment takes. And there is even a question as to whether the federal government or NHTSA has the required technological expertise to regulate C/ADSs. There is no way for states to hurdle this barrier on their own, but they can work closely with their congressional delegations, the NGA, AAMVA, and AASHTO to help accelerate clarity.