Senate AV Bill - Sensitive and Thoughtful

The Senate's AV START Act is similar, but not identical, to the House of Representative's already passed SELF DRIVE Act. (Summary of here for the House's SELF DRIVE Act, referred to interchangeably as the House version or the SELF DRIVE Act.) I am thrilled to write that the Senate bill displays sensitivity to and awareness of people with disabilities as well as a more organized structure for considering AV topics than the House's SELF DRIVE Act.

Definitions - Both the House and the Senate employ the SAE definitions and terminology for levels of automation.

Preemption - The Senate legislation drafters are looking for easy passage, so the AV START Act contains the same language as the House. Both stay away from commercial vehicles and both would continue the current federal-state division of responsibilities for vehicle safety, licensing, registration, and operation. Both contain the same language that states may not use their authority to unreasonably limit "HAV or automated driving system design, construction, or performance." HAV is highly automated vehicle, which is one capable of fully driving itself. [Image from US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation webpage announcing the legislation.]

Exempt vehicles - Up to 100k or more

The Senate version goes with the same vehicle numbers and increases of numbers as the House version: Up to 100,000 vehicles over a few years. One point of departure is that the Senate version allows for a manufacturer to go above 100,000 exempt vehicles after "the exemption has been in place for 5 years."

People with disabilities

Big differences between the legislative bodies on the topic of people with disabilities. In a departure from the House version, the Senate bill provides that "a State may not issue a motor vehicle operator’s license for the operation or use of a dedicated highly automated vehicle in a manner that discriminates on the basis of disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) [ADA]." This provision in Section 3 of the AV START Act is a halfway point for people with disabilities because it liberates them from the current licensing laws that require the ability to operate a motor vehicle as the ticket to first-class participation in US society.

Get excited, but don't go crazy: Nothing in the Senate version requires that all vehicles manufactured be physically accessible for people with various types of disabilities. BUT - and this is a big but - the Senate version would require human interfaces with the vehicle be accessible. This is a big win for people with disabilities, particularly for people with visual, auditory, and some cognitive impairments.

Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee - Knowledgable language

People with disabilities are significant on the short list of concerns expressed in the Senate version of the committee structure provided for. The Senate version provides for a 15-member Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee, which would be composed of people with technical expertise and knowledge. Two working groups are mandated; these address (1) people with disabilities and (2) consumer education.

Nice language addresses people with disabilities in particular: "A]ccessibility for people with physical, sensory, or other disabilities, including for those who rely on mobility devices." Someone in or close to the Senators sponsoring this legislation pointed out that not all people with disabilities are exactly the same.

AND

To show that the interest in accessibility is a real concern, the Senate version working group language states:

[T]o develop voluntary best practices regarding highly automated vehicle accessibility for people with physical, sensory, or other disabilities, including for those who rely on mobility devices. Such best practices shall address the physical accessibility of highly automated vehicles and human-machine interface accessibility through visual, auditory, or haptic displays or other methods. The working group shall include representatives from national organizations representing individuals with disabilities. 

Oh my waking heart. Sweet language and I hope it will be taken seriously.

Odd timeline

Like the House version, the Senate's AV START Act has a timeline that is likely to be irrelevant before we reach the end of the five years it refers to. However, the timeline differs from the House's SELF DRIVE Act.

Volpe report and related rulemaking
180 days - The Volpe Center is required to issue a report to identify and craft substitution language for HAV safety, including HAV compliance with objective and practicable test procedures.

90 days after the 180 days - DOT rulemaking to commence to incorporate by reference the Volpe report into safety standards.

1 year after the 90 days after the 180 days - Final rule.

Please note that DOT may issue different rules regarding partial AVs for when they operate in human-driver mode.

Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee

180 days - DOT must establish the HAV Technical Committee. It must meet at least four times a year. It may establish working groups and it must establish a working group to address accessibility for people with disabilities. The Senate version encourages interaction between the DOT and the HAV Technical Committee.

180 days after the establishment of the HAV Technical Committee - The Committee shall submit a work plan to the DOT.

5 years after the establishment of the HAV Technical Committee - The Committee shall submit a report to DOT with recommendations. The Committee will dissolve upon submission of the report unless DOT chooses otherwise.

1 year after the 5 years - DOT will decide whether to pursue the recommendations in the HAV Technical Committee report.

Other
2 years - Lifespan of the consumer education working group. This group is required to submit a report to DOT.

3 years - Crash data reporting - DOT is required to incorporate HAV and levels of automation into the "crash investigation data collection system."

Traditional manufacturer/startup equality - The Senate version does not limit HAV testing to established vehicle manufacturers.

Manufacturer requirements

SER - SER stands for Safety Evaluation Report, which may be submitted to DOT, the Senate says, before enactment. An SER is required at least 90 days prior to the introduction into interstate commerce of a Highly Automated Vehicle (HAV) or an Automated Driving System (ADS). It must be updated annually as long as the HAV or ADS continues to be introduced into interstate commerce (sold, leased, etc.).

The SER will include information about the human-machine interface and its use by people with disabilities "through visual, auditory, or haptic displays, or other methods."

Cybersecurity plan - A plan is required from each HAV and ADS manufacturer. As part of the plan, the Senate version asks for information about "voluntary efforts by industry and standards-setting organizations to develop and identify consistent standards and guidelines relating to vehicle cybersecurity ..."

DOT is also authorized to work with manufacturers to adopt "voluntary a coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy and practice in which a security researcher privately discloses information related to a discovered vulnerability to a manufacturer and allows the manufacturer time to confirm and remediate the vulnerability."

The Senate version is quiet about privacy. No privacy plan is required.

Auto dealerships - The Senate uses the same language as the House to stay away from auto dealerships. They can keep their close relationships with the States.\

There's more in the bill. What will be interesting, assuming passage of the AV START Act, will be the compromise between the House and Sentate bills - what will remain and what will disappear. Also interesting will be what will happen when Congress finally addresses trucks and buses.