Snarky comments are sometimes provided parenthetically. Oh, and NHTSA = National Highway Safety Transportation Administration.
1. What a surprise, another federal advisory council
Disability Mobility Advisory Council - This council would consist of 15 to 50 members who will perform routine advisory council stuff: "information gathering activities, develop technical advice, and present recommendations." And who exactly will be invited to the party? People with disabilities themselves, directors of centers for independent living, researchers about disabilities, small businesses with experience hiring people with disabilities, the business community that is testing and developing automated vehicles (expansive language not limited to highly automated vehicles), automobile dealers (who have never provided accessible vehicles), and "academia with expertise in mobility access for the disabled community."
Not mentioned:
- Transportation providers with experience in transporting people with disabilities.
- Representatives of the various disability communities, such as people with visual and auditory challenges, and people with developmental disabilities.
- Federally-funded transportation technical assistance centers that are already paid to have knowledge about transportation for people with disabilities.
Advisory Council for Improving Mobility Access for Underserved Populations and Senior Citizens - Honestly, I am not sure why the first two advisory councils are not combined. There is lots of overlap and such committees would have the authority to meet jointly.
This advisory council would consist of 15 to 50 members that will do the same thing as the above advisory council relating to people with disabilities, except to focus on underserved populations and senior citizens. Who are these people who will allowed to participate on this advisory council? Actual older people and people living or working in places underserved by public transportation - pretty much everywhere outside of NY, SF, Chicago, and a few other transit-rich islands, directors of centers for independent living (who also show up on the above advisory council), the business community that is testing and developing automated vehicles (expansive language not limited to highly automated vehicles), automobile dealers (who have never provided and underserved populations" (again, why not merge these advisory councils?).
Since we are in repeat mode, I'll reiterate my points. Not mentioned:
- Transportation providers with experience in transporting senior citizens and underserved populations.
- Representatives of the various range of senior citizens and underserved populations.
- Federally-funded transportation technical assistance centers that are already paid to have knowledge about transportation for senior citizens and underserved populations.
Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council - Yes, this advisory council will do the same tasks as the previous two councils listed, this time "regarding cybersecurity for the testing, deployment, and updating of automated driving systems with respect to supply chain risk management, interactions with Information Sharing and Analysis Centers and Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, and a framework for identifying and implementing recalls of motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts."
Interesting that this advisory council will report not to a federal agency, but to the "Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate." Someone actually gives credence to this advisory council because its recommendations will not get lost in the administrative ether.
Included on the list of members are those with academic expertise in the topic, car manufacturers, automobile dealers selling automated driving systems, organizations in the cybersecurity field, engineers involved in this field, and "at least one representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology" (a federal agency), as well as representatives from NHTSA, the insurance and, the auto repair industries.
4. Getting to the meat
NHTSA would be given more authority in the Let NHTSA Enforce Automated Vehicle Driving Regulations Act or the LEAD’R Act - "The purpose of this Act is to ensure the ability to test and deploy automated driving systems in the United States and expressly preempt any related State laws to prevent the testing or deployment of this technology."
Some nice federal preemption there. Forget states as the laboratories of innovation in this field of regulation. This is broad preemption that mirrors the current governance structure for auto safeyy.
HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES.—No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, maintain, enforce, impose, or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to the design, construction, mechanical systems, software systems, or communications systems of highly automated vehicles or automated driving system equipment unless such law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter. [Emphasis added.]There are limited exceptions for "registration, licensing, [liability], driving education and training, insurance, or traffic law or regulation," which have traditionally been the purview of state government.
5. Good to be flexible
The Practical Automated Vehicle Exemptions Act or the PAVE Act would stretch the current NHTSA exemption from motor vehicle safety standards for 2500 vehicles per manufacturer to 100,000 for each calendar year. Car companies have been interested in this new number for a while.
6. Someone must do this acronym naming thing for a living
Is there an elf who lives in a closet in a House office building who comes up with cute acronyms? Here's another one: Renewing Opportunities for Automated Vehicle Development Act or the ROAD Act. This bill would extend the maximum exemption period from three to five years.
7. Winner in the brilliant acronym category and real attention to people with disabilities
Expanding Exemptions to Enable More Public Trust Act or the EXEMPT Act - This bill would add two exemptions to the NHTSA toolbox, (1) for "promot[ing] the public adoption and acceptance or facilitat[ing] meaningful commercial deployment"of a feature or system that makes vehicles safer (or reasonably believed to be safer) than non-exempt vehicles, and (2) an amazing inclusion provision regarding people with disabilities. The second added exemption:
would promote transportation access to individuals with disabilities (as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and would provide an over-all safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles. [Emphasis added.]Don't get too excited because the word "promote" is vague and undefined. The fact that the disability community is mentioned however, with the implicit acknowledgment that they are currently second-class transportation citizens, is meaningful in itself.
8. Not just car companies anymore.
Maximizing Opportunities for Research and the Enhancement of Automated Vehicles Act or the MORE Act - This bill imagines a world beyond car companies by adding to the testing and evaluation exemption list of the certification standard in 49 USC Section 30112 (b) (10) highly automated vehicle (HAV) manufacturers and HAV equipment.This bill also adopts the SAE standards for automation levels included in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice Report (J3016). An HAV is partly defined as not a commercial motor vehicle. Those are regulated separately.
9. Telling states what's up
Increasing Information and Notification to Foster Openness Regarding Highly Automated Vehicle Matters to States Act or the INFORM Act - This draft bill would require notification to states of exemptions from motor vehicle safety and bumper standards for HAV.
10. Kumbaya and another advisory committee
Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with Everyone for Safety Act or the SHARES Act - NHTSA would be instructed to form an advisory committee to deal with information that government needs without compromising trade secrets. The committee would:
develop a framework that allows manufacturers of highly automated vehicles to share relevant, situational information related to any testing event on public streets resulting in damage to the test vehicle or any occupant thereof and validation of such vehicles in a manner that does not risk public disclosure of such information or disclosure of confidential business information.Those whose membership on the advisory committee is mandated are SAE International, insurance companies, auto dealers selling automated systems (as opposed to HAVs), manufacturers of HAVs and automated equipment, and auto repair industry representatives (too bad the Car Talk guys are gone).
11. Oh no you don't Act
Highly Automated Vehicle Pre-Market Approval Reduces Opportunities for More People to Travel Safely Act or the HAV PROMPT Act - The Secretary of Transportation is barred from creating a pre-sale approval process for HAVs. The legislative language is short, sweet, and complete. Not a change, really; this bill would merely add HAVs to regular auto law - not that there are not problems with laws that have tolerated 30,000 deaths per year for decades while the automobile companies have continued to make tons of money.
12. Shush, adding a FOIA exemption
Guarding Automakers Against Unfair Advantages Reported in Public Documents Act or the GUARD Act- Yes, it's understandable that automakers and tech companies would want a Freedom of Information Act exemption. This exemption bars release of particular information from "manufacturer or equipment manufacturer of highly automated vehicles, with respect to the design or testing of such vehicles." The classes of information listed in the bill shall be treated as confidential business information. These categories include data and reports about testing, events, crashes, cybersecurity, human interfaces, "testing and validation of the fallback of an automated driving system," and "event detection response capabilities."
This means that some ordinary person or curious journalist cannot access this information through formal government channels. The ban is pretty complete.
13. Please pick a leader. Forced co-equal government coordination is problematic.
Managing Government Efforts to Minimize Autonomous Vehicle Obstruction Act or the MEMO Act - This draft bill acknowledges that two federal agencies have overlapping interests in the cybersecurity and privacy aspects of HAVs: the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This bill would require that within approximately six months of passage that NHTSA, an agency within DOT, and the FCC would "shall enter into a memorandum of understanding on the regulation and oversight of highly automated vehicles with respect to privacy and cybersecurity." Interesting to see what happens with this.
Tune in on Tuesday
The House hearing on the package of draft bills will take place on Tuesday, June 27. So sad that I will be away, but thank goodness for live streaming and archiving. The interests represented by witnesses scheduled are automotive, consumer, and the business side of technology. No one will be representing transit or anyone who is transportation-vulnerable in our current transportation system.
No comments:
Post a Comment