Good outreach does not equal posting one announcement on one government webpage, okay?
Here's my take on yesterday's NHTSA public meeting and it begins before the meeting took place. First, before getting to the meeting, let me say that the outreach was terrible and limited. I'm sorry, but an official announcement with just a few days open for registering to attend the meeting - which was not even held at the US Department of Transportation building - displays an impression that you only want people in the know, an inner circle, to attend. In the age of Twitter, Facebook, and tons of social media outlets, that is poor and inadequate outreach and public engagement. Second, my bad, I am ditzy and inattentive (which is why I really want driverless transportation), but I failed to read the fine print that the event was being held at the GSA (General Services Administration) building, which is in an entirely different part of town than DOT. Fortunately, both agencies are only a couple of Metro stops away from each other on the same Metro line.
I attended even though mid-level NHTSA employees hosted the meeting at an obscure location. The DOT building is quite large, so I am not sure why the meeting was not held there.
What was the meeting about? NHTSA's proposed guidelines on automated vehicles.
Who found their way to the GSA building?
It is so weird for me to be in a room with the likes of Google, Ford, Toyota, GM, and Zoox. The one interesting misfit, besides me, was the guy (did not catch his name) from the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), a group doing its best to keep drivers at the wheel and attending their member driving schools. Unlike the American Trucking Associations (that is a singular entity, by the way), which has a big interest in cheap, efficient trucking operations sans drivers, CVTA is a voice for delay and roadblocks to thwart a driverless trucking industry.
Points of agreement from those actually in the no-decor government auditorium
Except for the CVTA guy, who has diametrically opposed fish to fry than anyone else who was in the room (a truly boring, small auditorium with no windows or interesting decor), everyone - tech and car companies and public advocates alike - wants clarity and safety. Most want flexibility to support innovation. I say most because I do not get that feeling from one public safety organization, Consumer Watchdog, which has one particular representative at every NHTSA driverless event.
In terms of public advocacy groups speaking out there was Consumers Union, which is the policy and action division of Consumer Reports; the Future of Privacy Forum, which advances "principled data practices" and self-regulation (more on that oxymoron later) because the pace of technology development is inconsistent with the speed and constraints on the process of regulatory change; and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which has worked for decades on auto safety issues.
Car companies with representatives who spoke were Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Hyundai. Tech companies with representatives who made statements were Google, Zoox, Lyft, and Bosch. Industry associations and representatives were the Center for Automotive Research (the one housed at Stanford) and the Association of Global Automakers. An interesting missing person was David Strickland of the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, but I came late due to other obligations, so it is possible that I missed him as well as representatives for people with disabilities, who have been active and enthusiastic driverless proponents.
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22 and every single representative who spoke yesterday stated that his or her company or organization will be submitting written comments. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and type in NHTSA-2016-0090. Or go straight to this comment page for the docket number. Much easier.
Where's that acronym already? (Say that with a Bernie Sanders voice.)
I will refrain from sharing my notes and instead concentrate on writing a quick summary about agreement and disagreement in the room, while pointing out what I find ridiculous. Being an outsider gives me a possibly less informed, but, perhaps, less biased and bureaucratic perspective.
A major concern of both the tech and the car industries is the protection of - here is today's acronym - CBI, or confidential business information. No one wants their trade secrets, more touchingly known as intellectual property, to become common knowledge. But an acronym is great because you have to be in the know to get it, though this one was easy to figure out. I was not the only one in the room who had not heard that particular acronym before, according to public remarks made.
Agreement List
I'm barely mentioning and not even listing this: Everyone except the CVTA guy loves driverless. What produces agreement and disagreement are the many details. It was a driverless, bureaucratic, mostly dark-suited love fest.
1. Preventing CBI from being disclosed. Every player producing, developing, or hoping to make tons of money on driverless vehicles wants to protect the CBI of themselves and their partners. Knowledge is power and no one wants to share a potentially superior and cheaper algorithm, sensor, AI software (okay, my tech expertise is non-existent). I did just watch the Imitation Game last night and I'm thinking of AI as a kind of Turing machine.
The balance of public disclosure versus CBI: Though there was, at the very least, lip service paid to transparency and the idea of information available to the public, there was broad agreement for the idea that as much information as possible be made public. That said, once details were touched upon, corporate interests expressed discomfort with any intellectual property - CBI- being open to scrutiny.
2. Trigger for new assessment letter or update - Should be a significant change, such as a change in the level of automation. There's not complete unanimity, but broad agreement. Otherwise the regulatory burden will become unbearable.
3. A little less agreement, though there was some consensus that for purposes of regulation and paperwork there should be a point person or company. Where several companies contribute equipment, software, and hardware to a driverless vehicle, who answers to and must file documents with a regulatory agency? You see where this gets into the weeds very quickly. The consensus was to have one entity per vehicle type (that's my language) be responsible so that every vehicle does not require massive paperwork from many companies. OMG, there will not be sufficient agency staff to do an adequate job in that reality.
4. The Safety Assessment Letter - get ready for it, because a new acronym is about to hit your brain, SAL - should have a cover or summary page up front. Basic contact and other information, probably a summary, should be on page one. Now while the details are not clear, the concept attracted a broad consensus.
5. Government should be supportive of corporate innovation, flexibility, and driverless in general.
6. Clarity, clarity, clarity on everything, but specifically the scope of the guidelines, and timing of required documentation to be submitted.
7. Quick response to SAL that it is complete or incomplete - and, if incomplete, how so. GM suggested that a response come from NHTSA's general counsel. Suggestions of 30 days were made, but there were others.
8. Template or templates for SALs were requested by several speakers. This will help both the parties preparing these documents and those analyzing them, whether inside or outside of government.
Disagreement and open questions list
1. Self-regulation or actual enforceable, mandatory regulations? This breaks down along predictable lines of tech and auto industry players versus safety advocates. With a new and completely different kind administration coming to Washington so soon, NHTSA under the Obama Administration will lose its chance to answer this question. The hearing provided an opportunity for public comment, but this game has just begun.
2. Triggers: Trigger level for regulation as an autonomous vehicle and for safety assessment letter: Is SAE level 2 the trigger? Level 3? Are the levels in practice actually clearly distinct? There are lots of opinions on this issue.
In fact, the whole issue of what constitutes a significant update triggering an update of an SAL is far from clear. Very in the weeds and I await a spectrum of comments from those far more conversant with automotive policy and government regulation. And may I say that this is where the average person needs experienced and knowledgeable players in government because the gobbledegook of regulatory details is a foreign language that one must be learned about to participate effectively.
3. Testing versus vehicles sold or in operation: There was disagreement or at least divergent opinions expressed about how testing should be regulated, particularly testing on public roads - like next to your car - versus how to regulate an industry that will be selling, leasing, and likely providing the contemporary equivalents of taxi, jitney, and transit service.
I thought it was interesting the mentions of consumer information because they harken to the 20th century model of individually-owned cars and light trucks versus the distinct possibility for driverless of substantial shared-use services, particularly in dense urban areas and suburbs. Does anyone look at vehicle or airplane safety information when they get into an Uber or onto a plane? That's not happening.
4. Timing of required filing of SAL - using that acronym already. Should the filing deadline be three or four months before an update or new equipment is put on the road? More? One suggestion was made of a mandated annual update for each letter. That was Lyft, but the word "mandate" is mine and perhaps I am misreading the statement made.
Singular points raised
Since industries sometimes cover up health and safety risks - not only the tobacco and football powerhouses - it is relevant whether there will be whistleblower protection and a safe space for companies to reveal unsafe conditions and things that need to be fixed. This raised the issue of tort liability in case of accidents, which is a deterrent to releasing information that admits of or suggests imperfect hardware, software, and equipment. A fear raised at the hearing was that safety data mandated for disclosure to NHTSA (or, presumably, to state regulators) would set companies up for liability in case of accidents.
Me to industry - Just take the lead of Volvo and the few others that are taking my advice, or, more likely, coming to the conclusion on their own to take the airline industry model of effective strict liability and promoting a safety culture. Pay out some money and forget about the who is actually liable. There will be accidents and the public appreciates assumption of responsibility rather than obfuscation. We all hope that driverless will be way safer than human-operated vehicles, but nothing is completely safe.
The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) speaker was interesting for advocacy for protections of privacy, but not for a government mandate to protect personal data, or, in privacy-speak, requirements for deidentification of data. FPF dreams of a world where companies voluntarily adhere to standards, which effectively are agreed-upon, crowdsourced regulation or industry-wide standard practices, all embraced by the public. I'm on the fence.
The public comment period is open until Nov. 22. To submit comments in response to the proposed NHTSA guidelines, officially known as the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, visit the Federal Rulemaking Portal (sounds very Harry Potter) and for comments use docket NHTSA-2016-0090. Here is a direct link to a comment page.
No comments:
Post a Comment