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: Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis Tammy E. Trimble Jason Wagner Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Blacksburg, VA Betty Serian Brad Mallory Betty Serian and Associates Camp Hill, PA Richard Bishop Pete Gould Bishop Consulting Highland, MD Wendy Wagner Lisa Loftus-Otway University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX Sam Morrissey Glenn Havinoviski Iteris Fairfax, VA Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-102(07) Submitted July 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 253 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Keyara Dorn, Program Coordinator Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Senior Editorial Assistant NCHRP PROJECT 20-102(07) PANEL AREA TWENTY: SPECIAL PROJECTS Robert G. Mikell, IDEMIA, Snellville, GA (Chair) Joseph Chapman, California DMV, Sacramento, CA Samer Dessouky, University of Texas–San Antonio, San Antonio, TX Yoassry M. Elzohairy, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, ON Patty A. Morneault, Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Augusta, ME David M. Neitz, CDM Smith, Boston, MA James S. Thiel, Thiel, Vu & Associates, LLC, Madison, WI Kirk Zeringue, Louisiana DOTD, Baton Rouge, LA Carl K. Andersen, FHWA Liaison Cathie Curtis, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Liaison Bernardo Kleiner, TRB Liaison

iv T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... vii ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Definitions and Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 2 Levels of Automation.............................................................................................................................. 2 Definitions of Connected and Automated Driving System (C/ADS) Commercial Applications .............. 2 Definition of Harmonization ................................................................................................................... 4 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 4 .............................................................................................. 7 2.1 The C/ADS Legal Landscape ......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Issue Identification and Stakeholder Feedback ............................................................................ 9 Jurisdictional Stakeholders' Priorities .................................................................................................. 10 Resource Stakeholders' Priorities ......................................................................................................... 10 2.3 In-depth Legal and Regulatory Review ...................................................................................... 12 ......................................................... 13 3.1 Consideration 1: Assess State Objectives ................................................................................... 13 3.2 Consideration 2: Organize a Stakeholder Group or Advisory Committee.................................... 14 3.3 Consideration 3: Scan the Legislative and Regulatory Landscape ............................................... 15 3.4 Consideration 4: Complete a Legal and Regulatory Inventory Audit and Determine the Best Route for Codification and Modification of Laws and Regulations ........................................ 18 3.5 Consideration 5: Determine Appropriate Policy Direction Regarding Federal Preemption and Local Restrictions. .............................................................................................. 20 3.6 Consideration 6. Determine the Role of Stakeholders ............................................................... 21 3.7 Consideration 7: Identify and Educate Legislative Champions .................................................... 21 3.8 Overarching Legal and Regulatory Modifications ....................................................................... 22 .................................................................. 23 4.1 Overarching Considerations Regarding Harmonization .............................................................. 23 Potential Benefits Associated with Harmonization .............................................................................. 23 Potential Drawbacks of Harmonization ................................................................................................ 24 Upward Versus Downward Harmonization .......................................................................................... 25 Implications of Not Harmonizing .......................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Alternatives to Harmonization .................................................................................................. 26 Reciprocity Agreements ....................................................................................................................... 27 Model Law / Best Practice Language.................................................................................................... 27 Guidelines ............................................................................................................................................. 28 4.3 Consumer C/ADS Application Harmonization Considerations .................................................... 28 C/ADS-Equipped Passenger Vehicle Harmonization Needs ................................................................. 28 Platooning C/ADS-Equipped CMV Harmonization Needs .................................................................... 28 A-MaaS Harmonization Needs ............................................................................................................. 28 4.4 Examples of Past Harmonization Efforts .................................................................................... 29 Commercial Driver Licensing ................................................................................................................ 29 4.5 Federal Preemption................................................................................................................... 29 ....................................... 30 5.1 Short-Term (2018–2020) Modification Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations ........... 32 Short-Term Recommendation 1: User Requirements Definitions and Driver-Only Vehicle Codes ..... 32 Short-Term Recommendation 2: Platooning-Related Code Provisions ............................................... 36

v Short-Term Recommendation 3: Vehicle Identification and Title Brands ........................................... 40 Short-Term Recommendation 4: Data Privacy and Data Security ....................................................... 41 Short-Term Recommendation 5: User Attentiveness Provisions ......................................................... 42 Short-Term Recommendation 6: Rules of the Road ............................................................................ 43 Short-Term Recommendation 7: Local Restrictions ............................................................................. 44 Short-Term Recommendation 8: Aftermarket Technologies ............................................................... 45 Short-Term Recommendation 9: Unattended Vehicles ....................................................................... 46 Short-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation Summary ........................................ 47 5.2 Mid-Term (2021–2025) Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations .................................. 50 Mid-Term Recommendation 1: User Qualifications, Testing, and Driver Education ........................... 50 Mid-Term Recommendation 2: Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (Implied Consent) ........................ 54 Mid-Term Recommendation 3: Prohibitions Against Use of Alcohol and Legal Drugs ........................ 55 Mid-Term Recommendation 4: Motor Vehicle Liability ....................................................................... 56 Mid-Term Recommendation 5: Due Care Standard ............................................................................. 56 Mid-Term Recommendation 6: User Distraction Provisions ................................................................ 57 Mid-Term Recommendation 7: Unfair Criminal and Civil Sanctions on Users ..................................... 58 Mid-Term Recommendation 8: Crash Reporting and Rendering Aid ................................................... 58 Mid-Term Recommendation 9: Vehicle Requirements ........................................................................ 59 Mid-Term Prioritization and Harmonization Recommendation Summary .......................................... 60 5.3 Long-Term (2026 and Beyond) Priorities and Harmonization Recommendations ....................... 62 Long-Term Recommendation 1: Vehicle Inspection ............................................................................ 62 Long-Term Recommendation 2: Consumer Protection (i.e., Lemon Laws) ......................................... 63 Long-Term Recommendation 3: Occupant Safety and Protection ...................................................... 64 Long-Term Priority Modification Recommendation Summary ............................................................ 64 5.4 Complex Interplay of Deployment Transition and Interoperability ............................................ 65 5.5 Prioritization and Harmonization Conclusions ........................................................................... 66 ...................................... 68 6.1 Lagging Legislative Action .......................................................................................................... 68 6.2 A Quick-Fix Approach ................................................................................................................ 68 6.3 Lack of a Model State Policy or Minimum Best Practices Guidance ............................................ 68 6.4 A Focus Only on Testing ............................................................................................................ 68 6.5 Lack of Federal Clarifications ..................................................................................................... 68 6.6 Lack of or Delayed State-Led C/ADS Working Group .................................................................. 69 6.7 Overstated Automation Capabilities .......................................................................................... 69 6.8 Lack of Best Practices ................................................................................................................ 69 ................................................................................................................. 70 7.1 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 70 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 72 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 73

vi L I S T O F T A B L E S Table 1. Short-term (2018–2020) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary ................ xi Table 2. Mid-term (2021–2025) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary .................. xiii Table 3 Long-term (2026 and beyond) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary ......... xv Table 4. Definition-related Legislative Examples ................................................................................ 16 Table 5. Critical Category Checklist for State Legal Audits ................................................................... 31 Table 6. Examples of varying definitions of autonomous technologies and vehicles ........................... 34 Table 7. CA Approach to Information Privacy ..................................................................................... 44 Table 8. Short-term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations ..................... 49 Table 9. Mid-term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations ....................... 61 Table 10. Long-term Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Recommendations .................... 66 L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1. Timeline for C/ADS deployment. .......................................................................................... ix Figure 2. SAE J3016 Levels of Automation ............................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Timeline for C/ADS deployment ............................................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Jurisdictional and resource stakeholder timeline priorities for levels 3–5 ADS-equipped-passenger vehicle deployment. ............................................................................ 9 Figure 5. Consistent indication that clear definitions have highest priority. ........................................ 11 Figure 6. Commonly identified modifications noted by stakeholders through stakeholder input efforts. .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Visual depiction of the centric approach to prioritization efforts. ........................................ 13 Figure 8. Stakeholders' perceived need for significant new vehicle manufacturer and dealer responsibilities. ......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9. Stakeholders' perceived need for uniformity and reciprocity among states. ........................ 34 Figure 10. Stakeholders' projected timeline for legal and regulatory modifications. ........................... 39 Figure 11. Stakeholders' perceived need for an ADS code as suggested by NHTSA’s Federal Automated Vehicle Policy (2016). .................................................................................. 41 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. .......... 53 Figure 13. Need for changes to testing requirements for users of conventional vehicles as level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles are deployed. ..................................................................... 54 Figure 14. Stakeholders' perceived need for the harmonization of training and testing laws and regulations. ................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 15. Stakeholder opinions on software update checks by inspection stations. ........................... 64 Figure 16. Contributing factors to the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (AVAP). ................................ 72

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis vii Executive Summary The fundamental objective of this project was to help states, especially agency leadership in the transportation domain, recognize the critical laws and regulations that may need to be changed or modified as connected and Automated Driving System (C/ADS)-equipped vehicles are deployed. Industry sectors engaged in C/ADS deployment, legal practitioners, and state legislatures recognize that current laws and regulations must be addressed in a comprehensive, yet flexible way to ensure safety and reap the anticipated societal benefits of C/ADSs, while at the same time anticipating many unknowns. Unlike implementing traditional legal and regulatory changes, making simple citation modifications to add a new title brand or type of license plate, or instituting an adjustment in fees, fines, or driver sanctions, the changes to C/ADS-related laws are complicated and challenging. Modifying these laws will require changes to basic underpinning concepts and definitions, as well as an understanding of the C/ADS technology and its limitations. Further, there exist a number of situations in which states, through their motor vehicle agency or department of transportation, may find their needs and those of industry best served by synchronizing their efforts in order to harmonize key regulatory or legislative provisions related to C/ADSs. There may also be areas in today’s vehicle codes and regulations where it is important to harmonize for purposes of supporting the deployment of C/ADSs. In this respect, we assess the advantages, disadvantages, and practicality of harmonizing the approaches to these types of laws and regulations across the country. Objectives This analysis set out to 1) identify how and when regulations and laws will need to be modified to facilitate the implementation of C/ADS-equipped vehicles, and 2) identify areas in today's state motor vehicle codes and regulations where harmonization may be important in supporting the deployment of C/ADS-equipped vehicles across the U.S. The following discussion will: • Delineate the complex interplay between the influence of various vehicle technologies and various vehicle fleets over time and the associated timing for regulatory and legislative reform. • Identify the regulatory and legal issues related to interoperability. • Prioritize the progression of laws and regulations based on the short-, mid- and long-term timeframes of driving automation system equipped and C/ADS-equipped vehicles’ entry into the marketplace. • Determine the degree of harmonization that may be possible in the short, mid-, or long-term. o Identify the implications for industry if harmonization of state motor vehicle codes and regulations are not achieved. o Present the state-perceived barriers to or enablers for advancing harmonization lessons and models of lessons learned. • The priority charge of this project is to consider existing laws and regulations that may require modification and/or harmonization; the recommended prioritization provided within primarily draws upon findings from an in-depth legal and regulatory review.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis viii Methods Due to the complex nature of the C/ADS technology environment, it is useful for states to have a framework to assist them in the identification and prioritization of the changes that will need to be made to critical laws and regulations as driving automation equipped and C/ADS-equipped vehicles are deployed. Additionally, a framework can assist states in their efforts to determine the potential for harmonization of these issues as well as the appropriate means of achieving harmonization. Lessons learned from previous project activities (Loftus-Otway & Gallun, updated 2018; Serian et al., 2017; Wagner et al., 2018) help point to a framework that encourages law and regulation change at the point where technology, stakeholders, and laws, regulations, and policies meet. Key Assumptions The following assumptions were considered in developing the progressions of priorities needed for the legal and/or regulatory changes outlined in this report. While these assumptions are expected to hold true, regardless of whether they do or not, state policy makers will still need to consider their impact on legal modifications and should consider them in advancing any legislative or regulatory change. Assumption #1. NHTSA’s Role and Federal Preemption in Key Areas NHTSA’s Role and Federal Preemption in Key Areas. It is assumed that NHTSA’s delegation of duties and authorities between the federal government and the states will not change. NHTSA notes that under current law, manufacturers bear the responsibility to self-certify that the vehicles they manufacture for use on public roadways comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If a vehicle is compliant within this framework and maintains a conventional vehicle design, there is currently no specific federal legal barrier to a C/ADS being offered for sale or for commercial mobility operations. NHTSA’s Best Practices for State Legislatures (See A Vision for Safety 2.0, NHTSA, 2017) confirms that the states retain their traditional responsibilities for driver licensing (perhaps only until the vehicle is “the driver), vehicle licensing and registration, traffic laws and enforcement, and motor vehicle insurance and liability regimes. It is assumed that for harmonization reasons, NHTSA will specifically retain FMVSS settings and manufacturer/technology company vehicle and equipment standards. As the trade association Global Automakers have pointed out, the “primary advantage for federal standards related to the design and performance of motor vehicles is to allow manufacturers to design, build and sell one vehicle across all 50 states” (Global Automakers, 2017). States and their associations need to keep this assumption in mind and remain aware of the changing federal landscape. It is recommended that associations like the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) continue their close coordination with NHTSA and that NHTSA continues to engage AAMVA in assisting the states. Assumption #2. Commercial Driver’s License Standards and Interstate Motor Carrier Preemption It is assumed that FMCSA will promulgate standards in both of these areas. With the importance of harmonization across state lines and the need for one industry standard and state-to-state uniformity, jurisdictional stakeholders clearly indicated that current standards as codified in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and accompanying regulations for states should be updated by FMCSA in consultation with the states (Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1986). States should, however, review their current laws and regulations that codify these federal requirements and consider modifications that would allow for the easy incorporation of new provisions. This is an area of legal review that should not be overlooked. Many state federal codification statutes are specific to a particular law reference or a particular federal regulation. Some even codify the exact wording of the federal regulation. The key in this evolving environment is to review current federal preemptive statutes and

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis ix consider how they may need to be changed in anticipation of changes at the federal level that govern these statutes. Assumption #3. Focus on Deployment Versus Testing Further, with the issuance of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (NHTSA, 2016) and the subsequent publication, A Vision for Safety 2.0 (NHTSA, 2017), along with the extensive body of current and anticipated laws, regulations, and introduced legislation, the focus of this roadmap document is primarily on driving automation system-equipped and C/ADS-equipped vehicle deployment rather than on testing. While this document does highlight legal requirements associated with both the deployment and testing of C/ADS-equipped vehicles, the most likely application of this resource document is deployment efforts. The varied goals associated with testing in states tend to drive testing legislation, so this project would not be as useful to the end users if the focus was primarily on testing. Assumption #4 Timeline for Deployment The timeline for deployment can vary widely based on individuals’ perspectives, vehicle level of autonomy, and anticipated use case. Taking these factors into consideration, a timeline for deployment reflecting anticipated commercial availability was developed with panel and expert input. While it may not be possible to set a precise date when state motor vehicle codes (MVCs) and regulations will require certain modifications, it is clear that states need to start planning for deployment now. The recommended priorities for modification of laws and regulations have been developed to coincide with this timeline and have been grouped according to the short-term (2018–2020), mid-term (2021–2025), and long-term (2026 and beyond; Figure 1). This timeline is provided to help state policymakers recognize that the time frame for passenger level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles operating in unconstrained environments is likely to be longer, but also that C/ADS- equipped vehicle deployment is unlikely to be linear. What the timeline indicates is that any laws that states need to modify for level 1 truck platooning need to take place immediately. Some states have begun this effort by modifying (as necessary) following distance laws, definitions for platoons, and other impacting constraints. However, states should also recognize that a limited number of level 3 ADS-equipped vehicles are already on the market, with significant market penetration expected by 2020. Additionally, level 4 ADS-equipped A MaaS Figure 1. Timeline for C/ADS deployment.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis x shuttles in constrained environments are expected to be in operation in increasing numbers by 2020. SAE J3016 level 1 driving automation system-equipped platooning commercial vehicles are anticipated to be market-ready by 2020 as well. Therefore, laws cannot be modified simply for one level of C/ADS or their expected progression but should be examined holistically with any timeline only as a point of possible reference. Overarching Considerations for Prioritization As states move forward, the seven overarching considerations presented within this section form the basis for any specific law and regulatory change or priority determination. 1. Assess state objectives. 2. Organize a stakeholder group or advisory committee. 3. Determine the role of stakeholders. 4. Scan the legislative and regulatory landscape. 5. Complete a legal and regulatory inventory audit. 6. Determine the appropriate policy direction regarding federal and state preemption. 7. Identify and educate legislative champions. These considerations will help states assess their resources and objectives, engage stakeholders, conduct a legal and regulatory inventory analysis (including the prioritization of potential modifications), and evaluate the legal and regulatory modifications. Keeping these considerations in mind will assist states in preparing for and advancing the deployment of level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Additional discussion regarding these considerations may be found in the section titled Overarching Prioritization Considerations. Overarching Legal and Regulatory Modifications Stakeholders uniformly noted three areas that must be considered in the short term for law and regulation changes. 1. Definition Determinations. This is the first and foundational priority that states should consider, and has been consistently identified as such by stakeholders. The definitions of “driver,” “operator,” “drive,” and “operate” are key first steps. New terms in need of consistent definitions include “autonomous” or “automated” vehicle and a codification of the ADS-equipped vehicle levels based on SAE J3016 definitions. 2. Platooning Definitions and Associated Allowances. Stakeholders identified this as the second most important area to consider, as platooning capabilities continue to advance quickly. 3. Need for Model Definitions and Best Practices. Lastly, stakeholders noted that a model law may not be the best direction for advancing law and regulation changes. A preferred approach would be developing model definitions that could be used as a basis for states to consider along with best practices language.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis xi Recommendations The prioritization and harmonization summary tables presented below illustrate that 2018–2020 is an important timeframe for states to begin legislation and regulation changes (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). States can choose to make these modifications earlier, but should also closely monitor the marketplace and any federal oversight direction. Just as importantly, any modifications suggested should be in a form that allows for flexible updating and ease of change. Regulations (unless they can be completed rapidly) are most likely not the best choice for modifications. Additional information regarding the prioritization recommendations may be found in Chapters 3 and 5 while additional details regarding the harmonization recommendations are provided in Chapters 4 and 5. Table 1. Short-term (2018–2020) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary 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)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis xii VEHICLE TITLING AND REGISTRATION Memorialize, from the time of manufacture to junk or salvage on title and registration documents, that the vehicle is driving automation system-equipped. Consider memorialization of aftermarket technologies. Harmonization recommended C/ADS-equipped passenger vehicles and A-MaaS Guidelines (policy decision) PRIVACY PROTECTIONS Assess state policy protections for privacy- sensitive data collected on vehicles through connected infrastructure and vehicle transmission and also the implications of open records laws and the applicability of current state privacy protection statutes. No harmonization recommended Not currently harmonized at the state level; no specific reason to harmonize for C/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. 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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis xiii Table 2. Mid-term (2021–2025) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary 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 IMPLIED CONSENT Consider when “reasonable articulable suspicion” of alcohol or drug use is appropriate in specific operational design domains (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

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

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis xv Table 3 Long-term (2026 and beyond) Prioritization and Harmonization Modification Summary 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