Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 2: State Legal and Regulatory Audit (2018)

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

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 183 Appendix 3: Acronyms, Definitions, and Assumptions Acronyms AAMVA American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials A-MaaS Automated mobility as a service C/ADS Connected and Automated Driving System BSM Basic Safety Messages CFR Code of Federal Regulations DDT dynamic driving task DMV Department of Motor Vehicles DOT Department of Transportation DSRC dedicated short range communications EDR event data recorder FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIPP Fair Information Practice Principles FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards FTC Federal Trade Commission MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MVC Motor Vehicle Codes NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making ODD operational design domain OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SAE SAE International; formerly Society of Automotive Engineers SHV specialized hauling vehicle SPaT Signal Phase and Timing ULC Uniform Law Commission USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation UVC Uniform Vehicle Code V2I vehicle-to-infrastructure V2V vehicle-to-vehicle

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 184 Levels of Automation This project adopts the levels of automation as defined in SAE J3016. For reference, a summary of these levels is provided in Figure A1. Figure A1. SAE J3016 Levels of Automation Definitions of C/ADS Commercial Applications Connected vehicles are defined as vehicles equipped for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle- to-infrastructure (V2I) communications (collectively, V2X) as defined in the NHTSA notice of proposed rulemaking on V2V Communications343 and SAE J2735/J2945 (SAE International, 343 Posten, R., & Barrett, C. W. (2016). U.S. Department of Transportation privacy impact assessment: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on V2V communications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Privacy%20-%20NHTSA%20-%20V2V%20NPRM%20- %20PIA%20-%20Approved%20-%20122016.pdf

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 185 2016a). Connected vehicles allow for low latency direct communications between road entities (e.g., cars, trucks, intersection controllers, pedestrians) to reduce crashes and accomplish other transportation objectives, while avoiding collection and transmission of personally identifiable information. Traffic agencies can collect traffic flow data from connected vehicles to support their data needs, and traffic agencies can upload data that supports vehicle operations. For instance, SPaT data (available via V2I or “the cloud”) can enable vehicles to anticipate signal timing and adjust speed to reduce delay and conserve fuel. Available data can also be used to support level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicle control in dynamic situations, such as intersection traversals and work zone configurations. In this case, we are primarily interested in connected vehicle applications when used in conjunction with driving automation systems at levels 1–2 and level 3–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. ADS-equipped vehicles are defined in SAE J3016. Conditional driving automation is characterized as a level 3 ADS where the sustained and ODD-specific performance of the dynamic driving task (DDT) is completed by the ADS with the assumption that fallback-ready user receptive to ADS requests to intervene. Level 3 ADS-equipped vehicles enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain environmental or traffic conditions, monitor for changes in conditions, and provide the driver with sufficiently comfortable transition time when the ADS senses changing conditions that would make its continued operation unsafe. In level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles, the ADS performs the DDT while the user is considered a passenger when the ADS is engaged. Automated mobility as a service (A-MaaS) applications are an example of levels 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Current traffic laws were written with the assumption that a human driver is in control of the vehicle. Vehicles equipped with driving automation systems operating at SAE level 2 and below define the human driver as continuing to perform part of the DDT while the driving automation system (longitudinal and/or lateral vehicle motion control) is engaged. For more information and expanded definitions, see Figure A1 above. ADS-equipped passenger vehicles. Those ADS-equipped vehicles purchased or leased solely for personal use, parking, or sending off to park somewhere else when not in use. This use case will require a number of fundamental changes to the vehicle code to permit deployment, but these changes are critical to the eventual deployment of C/ADS because they overcome the many barriers currently posed by the assumption that a human driver will be in control of a vehicle; this underpins most current vehicle codes. ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles. Those ADS-equipped vehicles used for commercial purposes not associated with platooning. Platooning. Platooning is two or more vehicles in line following one another at distances much smaller than human drivers could perform safely. As a result, aerodynamic drag may be decreased, potentially resulting in increased fuel economy. The major interest in platooning is for long-haul trucking. Platooning is enabled by sensor technology and V2V communications. First- generation platooning systems are expected to be level 1, with the ADS controlling the brakes and throttle, and drivers in all vehicles being fully responsible for steering and monitoring the

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 186 road environment. In the longer term, platooning at higher levels of automation is expected. Platooning is unique in that it requires consideration of following distance in state MVCs. Otherwise, platooning automation aspects would be focused only on level 3 ADS-equipped vehicles and higher, as described above. Automated Mobility as a Service, or A-MaaS, can address both passenger and local freight delivery SAE J3016 levels 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles. For passengers, A-MaaS is an on- demand, shared, for-hire mobility service offered to the public and utilizing a fleet of level 4 or higher ADS-dedicated vehicle with no expectation that a user will respond to a request to intervene (although the vehicle may be operated by a remote dispatcher). The same applies generally to last mile delivery of freight (parcels); however, the vehicle may be optimized for parcels and not be designed to carry people. Definition of Harmonization For purposes of this document, harmonization is defined as the process of minimizing redundant or conflicting standards which may have evolved independently.344 Harmonization can create consistency of laws, regulations, standards, and practices, so that the same rules will apply across jurisdictional boarders. Regulatory harmonization ensures that business rules are followed across borders.345 Harmonization is not uncommon across the states in the motor vehicle and driver licensing areas, and states have worked over the years to improve state to state harmonization or at a minimum reciprocity. Harmonization is also extremely difficult to achieve in the driver license and motor vehicle areas based on the fact that laws and regulations governing these areas – unless federally mandated—are set based on state legislative preference and state agency/administration direction. In the motor vehicle and driver license areas, states have attempted to achieve best practices or work with model laws to best achieve harmonization. Legal Definitions A statute begins as a bill proposed or sponsored by a legislator. If the bill survives the legislative committee process and is approved by both houses of the legislature, the bill becomes law when it is signed by the executive officer (the president on the federal level or the governor on the state level). When a bill becomes law, the various provisions in the bill are called statutes. The term statute signifies the elevation of a bill from legislative proposal to law. State and federal statutes are compiled in statutory codes that group the statutes by subject. These codes are published in book form and are available at law libraries.346 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 344 Pelkmans, J. (1987). The new approach to technical harmonization and standardization. Journal of Common Market Studies, XXV(3), 249-269. Retrieved from https://courses.washington.edu/eulaw09/supplemental_readings/Pelkmans_New_Approach_Harmonization.pdf 345 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/statute 346 Ibid.

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 187 expected to hold true, state policy makers will still need to consider their impact on legal modifications regardless, and should consider them in advancing any legislative ore regulatory change. Assumption #1. NHTSA’s Role and Federal Preemption in Key Areas. It is assumed that NHTSA’s delegation of duties and authorities between the federal government and the states will not change. NHTSA notes that under current law, manufacturers bear the responsibility to self- certify that the vehicles they manufacture for use on public roadways comply with the 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 Legislatures347 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.”348 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 AAMVA continue their close coordination with NHTSA and that NHTSA continues to engage AAMVA in assisting the states. Assumption #2. Assumption on Commercial Driver License Standards and Interstate Motor Carrier Preemption. It is assumed that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (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.349 States should, however, review their current laws and regulations that codify these federal requirements and consider modifications that would allow for the easy incorporation of new provisions. This is an area of legal review that should not be overlooked. Many state federal codification statutes are specific to a particular law reference or a particular federal regulation. Some even codify the exact wording of the federal regulation. The key in this evolving environment is to review current federal preemptive statutes and consider how they may need to be changed. 347 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017, September). Automated driving systems 2.0: A vision for safety. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/AV 348 Global Automakers. (2017, April 24). Comments of the Association of Global Automakers, Inc. concerning the Department of Motor Vehicle's proposed regulations for the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Retrieved from https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/734f1d33-45fc-4763-b789- 8a375b883392/GlobalAutomakers.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 349 Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. Title XII, § 12001. (1986).

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 188 Assumption #3. Focus on Deployment versus Testing. Further, with the issuance of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy350 the subsequent publication, A Vision for Safety,351 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 was developed that reflects anticipated commercial availability. While it may not be possible to set a precise date when state MVCs and regulations will require certain modifications, it is clear that states need to start planning for deployment now. The recommended priorities for medication 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 A2). This timeline is provided to help state policymakers recognize that the time frame for passenger level 4–5 ADS-equipped vehicles operating in unconstrained environments is likely to be longer, but also that C/ADS-equipped vehicle deployment is unlikely to be linear. What the timeline indicates is that any laws that states need to modify for level 1 truck platooning need to take place immediately. Some states have begun this effort by modifying (as necessary) following distance laws, definitions for platoons, and other impacting constraints. However, states should also recognize that a limited number of level 3 ADS-equipped vehicles are already on the market, with significant market penetration expected by 2020. Additionally, level 4 ADS- equipped A-MaaS shuttles in constrained environments 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. 350 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016, September). Federal Automated Vehicle Policy: Accelerating the next revolution in roadway safety. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/federal_automated_vehicles_policy.pdf 351 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017, September). Automated driving systems 2.0: A vision for safety. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/AV

NCHRP 20-102(07) Interim Report 189 While states should not overreact to this timeline or any of the other expressed timelines by technology companies, manufacturers, or other private interests, efforts to modify laws should be underway or planned for the immediate and near term. Having the appropriate legislative and legal framework in place, preferably one that permits easy adaptation, will facilitate state efforts to navigate the rapid pace of change and will allow OEMs and technology providers to develop, refine and apply the technology appropriately, safely, and effectively. Figure A2. Timeline for C/ADS deployment.