Perspective through which I interpret the proposed California Regulations
Yes, the California proposed regulations conceive of testing and operations of autonomous vehicles that lack steering wheels, brakes, and other driver-controlled equipment. The regulations also show the detail work that will be involved for driverless manufacturers in each state with the passage of relatively simple driverless statutes that basically allow state departments of transportation to regulate each in its own way. It's like going under the hood of a gleaming, fancy new car. The devil is in the details.
You do the math. When you multiply all that would be involved with complying with California's proposed regulations, begin to wonder what all that will mean for 50 - slightly different - set of regulations. And that does not even begin to conceive of what would happen if five or 10 states take significantly different approaches. With the proposed California regulations for driverless car operation we can see just how maddening and inefficient state-by-state rules could be.
We need a common app
In the US, college applicants can fill out one application, affectionately called the common app (formally, the common application), that almost every school will accept. No filling in your name, address, and social security number 10 times; no 10 separate long application essays. (Many have their own short essays, but they tend to be similar and not require that much extra time.) In contrast, every college and university has a slightly different medical form. So when Junior gets ready to go to XYZ University and Junior's pal gets ready to go to ABC College, their neighborhood doctor can't zip quickly through the medical forms. Attention to details - and the time it takes to make sure the differences in forms are respected - takes lots of extra time. Our doctor hates this.
We need a common app for driverless vehicle regulation. Each state having its own set of forms, its own slightly different reporting requirements, its own testing demands - you get the picture. There are two choices: Either we pass a federal law or we have a uniform code of regulations that allows for one set of requirements and paperwork demands that each state administers for the vehicles "licensed" - or whatever it will be called when the vehicle software operates the vehicle - in its jurisdiction.
Personally, I would favor federal regulation, but we are not writing on a clean slate. Our custom in the US is for a considerable state regulatory presence that governs who drives and the inspection and licensing of vehicles. Perhaps AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Official), AAA (American Automobile Association), the Uniform Laws Commission (not to be confused with the Uniform Code Council, which fosters consortia of companies within particular industries to self-regulate), the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (also known as the Auto Alliance), and SAE International (because it is already in the business of standards and expertise regarding autonomous vehicles) should begin to hash this out. One could add more players for a complete regulatory kumbaya, which would mean the American Trucking Associations (that's the name; it's only one entity), the Taxi, Limousine, and Paratransit Association (TLPA) (because it has experience with managing passenger fleets), and the American Bus Association. Surely any group will have to include the fledgling Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, which is aiming to grow its membership and occupy a large space in this arena. Whatever the mix of stakeholders, they must figure out how to make regulation flexible enough to encourage innovation, to effectively monitor vehicles and promote safety, and to create a seamless system of regulation from sea to shining sea (that means all across the US, for any who do not understand the reference).
Into the weeds on the California proposal - starting at the end
Read through to the end: There are marbled tidbits of all the way through this regulatory meat (brisket reference). In fact, the very last subsection (Sec. 227.90(b)) reads like a pointed finger in the face of Elon Musk at Tesla, but also others that sell partially self-driving vehicles.
Terms such as “self-driving”, “automated”, “auto-pilot”, or other statements made that are likely to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous, as defined, constitute an advertisement that the vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section and Vehicle Code section 11713.
Vehicle Code section 11713, by the way, prohibits false and misleading statements relating to the advertising and sale of vehicles. Now the section will also be nipping in the bud the imagined meeting of partially AV and the classic image of the used car salesman. The section applies to new vehicles as well.
Return to the beginning for a list of highlights
Before I start, a little disclaimer: I will not be writing about aspects of the proposed regulations that do not change previous versions.
Read the definitions for:
Autonomous technology data recorder (ATDR): Black box defined. Good feeling this will show up further into this thick pile of what used to be paper, but is now an endless scroll on my laptop. To be kosher, the ATDR must record "for 30 seconds prior to a collision and at least 5 seconds after a collision or until the vehicle comes to a complete stop." (Sec. 227.02 (b))
Autonomous vehicle: Adopting the SAE International standards of level 3-5 for autonomous vehicles. That is significant and shows California is willing to play with others and have the rationality of agreed-upon terms define the sphere of autonomous vehicles. (Sec. 227.02 (d))
The added proposed definitions also conceive of deployment of driverless vehicles by regular people, meaning not people who are testing or developing or otherwise working on a pre-market phase of driverless operation. There is also a definition of remote operator, which is self-explanatory.
Sprinkled throughout
All through the proposed regulations are references to the NHTSA “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles." For example, the California proposed regulations adopt the requirement of a safety assessment letter submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as specified in the “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles.” The California regulators are presuming that the NHTSA Guidance survives into a new Administration in DC.
For now, forget the driverless motorcycle
New - Explicit bases for suspending a driverless testing permit. (Sec. 227.40)
No driverless testing or ordinary driverless operation of motorcycles, trucks and intercity buses (given the weight restriction, weight being one defining feature of a commercial motor vehicle according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations), and vehicles carrying hazardous materials - at least for now. (Sec. 227.52). This provision seems to rule out as well the driverless tiny house. I am sure this will change. Nevada already allows for driverless truck testing.
Before you test sans driver, read the NHTSA Guidelines and other fine print
Driverless vehicles - without a driver present - may be tested on California's public roads (Sec. 227.54). But wait, there is a long list of conditions given. In addition to bureaucratic hurdles, there must be a remote operator, hopefully not some guy with his feet up who is eating a sandwich and reading the sports pages. The vehicle must be capable of communication with the remote operator (who is a human). By the way, that remote operator human must be trained (Sec. 227.54 (l)). "The certification shall include a description of how the manufacturer will monitor the communication link." And one thing more, in case of a crash, the vehicle must be capable of taking out, I mean displaying or sharing, its owner and operator information.
If there is no steering wheel and brakes, that's fine by California, but before testing may begin on public roads, the state would require that the vehicle:
... complies with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as the “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles” in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, or the manufacturer provides evidence of an exemption that has been approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (Sec. 227.54 (g)(4))
California is basically opting for uniformity and for someone else to have the bureaucracy in place for approval of completely driver-incapable vehicles.
Before no-driver testing, to make sure that the federal requirements are adhered to: "The manufacturer [must] provide[] a copy of the safety assessment letter that it submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as specified in the “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles” in the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy." (Sec. 227.54(h))
Recordkeeping requirements include, but are certainly not limited to, an annual report (Sec. 227.54 (n) (1)) and manufacturer retention of "data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode. For the purposes of this section, “disengagement” means the deactivation of the autonomous mode when there is a failure of the autonomous technology or when the safety of the vehicle, the occupants of the vehicle, or the public requires that the autonomous technology be deactivated." (Sec. 227.54 (n))
Oh and testing companies (or entities) must cooperate with 'local authorities." So, town A, on one side of the road, might say welcome to testing, while town B, on the other side of the strip mall, might be furious. (Sec. 227.54 (a))
Are you asleep yet?
This stuff is about as boring as could be. I am tempted to join my dog in that very relaxing nap he is taking. Just to make sure that no one goes permanently catatonic while reading this post, I will heretofore restrict myself to highlights and avoid every last detail.
On to normal operations a/k/a post-testing deployment
What are we talking about the War in Iraq? If post-testing deployment is normal operations, why are terms used that are superfluous? Andy why use terms that sound so military? Useless rant ends here.
Normal operations will require the vehicle equivalent of the flight data recorder or AVDR (Sec. 227.58 (a)(6) and the manufacturer will be required to specify any weather or road conditions, such as fog or wet roads, that render the vehicle incapable of safe operation (Sec. 227.58 (a)(3)). I am inserting the word "safe.' The text actually refers to operation.
What did you see and where were you?
In addition to complying with federal safety standards, pretty routine, all sensor data will be available to law enforcement upon request (Sec. 227.58 (a)(6)(A)). No mention of the Fourth Amendment or its California equivalent. No mention whether this police purview only relates to crashes or does it relate to any possible criminal activity (as in could the defendant have possibly seen something or have been at a particular location at a particular time?). Well, we have redefined the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Instead of heading over for a vehicle inspection every year, the autonomous technology will have to be updated at least once a year (Sec. 227.58 (b)(2)) by a certain date and with the possibility of local regulation as well.
The vehicle will be required to come safely to a stop when there is a malfunction (Sec. 227.58 (b)(4)) - without needing to reboot first. I guess true emergency, immediate malfunctions will be rendered illegal and will never happen.
Plan for Hello Hal
Law enforcement and other first responders - EMT and fire departments - must be furnished with a "law enforcement interaction plan" for:
... how to interact with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. The manufacturer shall certify that it developed the law enforcement interaction plan in consultation with the impacted law enforcement agencies. (Sec. 227.58 (b)(5))
Now you are multiplying not by 50, but by thousands of local jurisdictions - if this is not a standard specification. [Note: Sec. 227.60, the contents of the application for post-testing deployment on public streets mirrors Sec. 227.58 and will not be discussed further.]
We're waiting, we're waiting
The proposed regulations do not set forth the maximum amount of time that the State of California will have for reviewing applications to test or to deploy autonomous vehicles. Will applications be outstanding for a month, for a year? There is no clue.
No surprise that manufacturers must notify the state of material changes to the vehicle's capability, but this must be done via a new permit for post-testing deployment (Sec. 227.64 (b)). Deployment of the material change may not occur until a permit has been granted (Sec. 227.64 (c)).
[A] material change is defined as any hardware, software, or other significant update to the autonomous vehicle’s autonomous technology that triggers the need to submit a new safety assessment letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as specified in the “Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles.” (Sec. 227.64 (b))Yes, safety stuff must be reported. Discoveries of bad things. blah, blah, blah. I should not say that because lives are in the balance, but in this complete set of regulations, it is expected that this information will be included. Oh, and procedures for contesting decisions about applications and review of decisions to deny applications are provided for as well.
What does GM, Google, and Uber know about you?
To try to prevent the inevitable invasions of privacy and the free floating of private information, the proposed regulations make an attempt at privacy protection in Sec. 227.78. Data must either be anonymized or " [p]rovide a written disclosure to the operator of an autonomous vehicle that describes the information collected by the autonomous technology that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle." I'm uncomfortable with the latter. All the manufacturer has to do is tell me? Great, now Google will not only know every website I visit, but when I go to CVS to buy dental floss. Armed with that information, any company will invade someone's else's privacy.
Comma.ai situation
California regulators are wise to imagine the reconfigured vehicle and not just the brand new driverless vehicle. Comma.ai and others are getting ready to sell driverless-in-a-box kits to render conventional automobiles into driverless, or at least Tesla-like, machines. Sec. 227.80 addresses this situation, but regarding autonomous vehicles.
I must admit that I am confused. Are vehicle owners obligated to re-register their cars that are outfitted after sale with a driverless kit? Is this required for partially autonomous vehicles? Are these regulations applicable to something like and including a Tesla? Looking at the Vehicle Code references, I remain confused, but ready to say I believe this obligation applies to individual owners. After all, it is individuals or their significant others who register vehicles.
Due to my confusion about the parameters of this subsection, I am copying it here.
(a) In addition to the requirements set forth in Vehicle Code section 4150, an application for registration of an autonomous vehicle previously titled in California prior to the incorporation of autonomous technology shall include:
(1) The certificate of ownership or certificate of origination from the vehicle manufacturer as defined in Vehicle Code section 672.
(A) The certificate of origination shall clearly indicate when a vehicle has been equipped with autonomous technology by including a field designated as “MISC”, followed by “AV” as an abbreviation for autonomous vehicle or “AVD” as an indication the vehicle is capable of operating without a driver.
(2) An indication that the certification label pursuant to section 227.82 is present on a Verification of Vehicle (REG 31).
(b) An autonomous vehicle so modified shall be identified as such on the face of the registration card and any certificate of ownership.
The manufacturer of parts (software, sensors, etc.) that render a conventional vehicle driverless will be obligated, pursuant to the proposed California regulations, to "affix a certification label on each vehicle." (Sec. 227.82 (b)) The label will be similar to the label that manufacturers of driverless vehicles will be required to supply. The label would be required to include this statement:
“This vehicle has been modified with the incorporation of autonomous technology that the manufacturer has certified conforms to State of California requirements for autonomous vehicles in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.”
Perhaps these manufacturers will have to be more hands on than they wish.
Juicy stuff right near the end
Just when you think there's nothing else that's interesting, you get to the division of responsibility between driver and manufacturer. Oh yea.
The message of Sec. 227.86 is that if you have a Tesla, keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road. The manufacturer will not be liable if you should have been paying attention, but instead you were watching on your phone the SNL parody of the last presidential debate.
Autonomous mode = shift of liability
However, Sec. 227.86 provides:
The manufacturer shall be responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, including compliance with all traffic laws, when the autonomous vehicle is operating in autonomous mode within its approved operational design domain.
So, does this mean that Teslas and their ilk will be required to comply with speed limits? That could be a boost to road safety.
And for completely driverless vehicles,
[t]he manufacturer of any autonomous vehicle that is capable of performing all aspects of the dynamic driving task without reliance on the intervention of a driver shall be responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle at all times the vehicle is operating in its operational design domain, including compliance with all traffic or other laws.
Wow, deep pockets available in lawsuits when vehicle codes - especially speed limits - are not obeyed. I'm smiling. Perhaps those who speed and weave in and out of traffic will not be.
No comments:
Post a Comment