AVs Through the Lens of Politics

In the past couple of weeks, political fissures in the autonomous vehicle (AV) world have become crystal clear. Prior to recent statements, representatives and others from vastly separate places on the political spectrum have reached consensus on AVs, but as experience this term in the US Senate demonstrates, loud voices opposing AV policy and legislation as well as current statements from the President's Administration show that consensus is under attack.

USDOT stands out of the way of business

The US Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, and her cadre of modal agency leaders at the US Department of Transportation, are all on the same page in their hopes for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and their attitude about government's role. They all did a nice job a couple of weeks ago at the public show of friendly solidarity at a large gathering in the USDOT building.

The USDOT Secretary, who is also the Senate Majority Leader's wife, and her modal agency leaders all declare that government should stay out of the way of the private sector to develop new technology and improved technology as well as reconfigured vehicles and business models. One point of caution that each USDOT official made, however, was the importance of safety - but without any word that government should take a particularly active role.

Lip service to people with disabilities and older adults

Every USDOT official uttered the magical, but quite general, incantation that AVs will bring freedom and independence to people with disabilities and older adults. But the devil is in the details and I did not hear anything about encouraging or requiring multiple and redundant interfaces that take into account different types of disabilities (or even preferences for interfaces). I heard zero about finally extending the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or otherwise mandating universal accessibility for all - or even a healthy percentage - of AVs sold, leased, or placed on the street for service within the United States. Nada. 

The same goes for the presumption of improved mobility for those on the low end of the economic spectrum. Vague comments about the magic of AVs, but without any details.

But USDOT invited in interesting voices

Though USDOT modal officials all spoke from the same playbook, the invited voices did talk about encouragement of shared-use modes, reduction in VMT (vehicle miles traveled), the need for additional technology to manage roads, the importance of parking policy and fees, and the question of what will happen in rural areas. The trucking association in the US also appeared on the dais, though it remained with its old trope about how we will be employing drivers for decades to come. 

R Street versus letter to Senate leaders

Two diametrically opposed documents were released in the last couple of weeks that demonstrate how far apart advocacy is on AV policy. One document is from the R Street Policy Study No. 134, spouting the wise alignments that the private sector preternaturally produces, versus the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill, spouting a bunch of safety and consumer protection reasons for waiting on national AV legislation. Both come to some wrong conclusions.

R Street's report mostly examines ridehailing and it is almost uniformly against all regulation by way of examining the shared-use transportation industry issues of safety, labor, fees, licensing, and insurance, among others. It does not address people on the margins of the current transportation system who need policy and legal encouragement, even subsidies, to achieve transportation equity. It does not examine issues of public health when criticizing ridehailing companies for declaring that cities should discourage car ownership (self-serving as such statements are when uttered by the expected beneficiaries of such policies). 

The AV issues that R Street takes the most time with regarding AVs are privacy and cybersecurity. It's knee-jerk reaction throughout the report and in this context is to say that "we should be careful not to overreact and impose stringent new regulations that could harm responsible business practices." R Street may be correct in saying that we already have legal protections in laws and regulations, but it does not discuss whether those have been enforced sufficiently and whether they have been effective.

Letter brought to you by the word "no"

How advocates for safety can write the Letter to Senate Leaders on Driverless Car Bill with a straight face is beyond me. I'll be the first to say that the federal government has a role - a substantial role - in ensuring that AVs will be safe, BUT for safety and consumer advocates to conveniently forget that human-operated vehicles cause tens of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries each year detracts from the credibility of their arguments - in my opinion.

These signers of the letter include advocates from the fields of public health, biking and walking, law enforcement, environmentalists, consumer advocacy, and road safety. What is interesting is that the signers do not represent a broad coalition from any of those particular fields. In fact, proponents of national legislation include many groups representing people with disabilities and advocates against human driving while under the influence of intoxicants.

In terms of the letter, the message is that we should not have untested vehicles operating on public roads. (Again, with car companies self-certifying FMVSS compliance, we pretty much already have that system.) The letter is against the lack of performance standards as part of the House and Senate bills - or requiring their development and implementation at the USDOT. The lack of performance standards includes not even the equivalent - my words - of the driving test that 16 year olds are required to take before being licensed to drive or even your average DMV vision test.

The letter seems to back, without explicitly saying so, California's regulatory approach, while stating expressly that providing consumers with information is not a substitute for federal safety standards. The letter is against preemption of state and local regulation and in favor of encouraging vehicle designs that are accessible for people with disabilities. And the letter actually spells that out, though only in terms of physical accessibility and not in terms of accessibility and redundancy of interfaces.

What I like

 I am fully on board with the letter's stand on extending federal AV legislation to cover SAE level 2 - Telsa equivalent - vehicles. There are more and more distracted drivers in those vehicles every day who are not ready in a split second to take over operation of their vehicles. And there are more and more of these vehicles on our roads with every new car purchase.

Congress Moving on Autonomous Vehicles

I am happy to say that bipartisan cooperation is alive and well in the US House of Representatives at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which voted favorably on an autonomous vehicle legislative package in late July concerning  testing, cybersecurity, and the appearance of incorporating concerns about rural areas, people with disabilities and older adults.

Warnings

• Long post, and 
• The legislation discussed below does not address autonomous commercial vehicles, meaning trucks and intercity passenger buses.

Grumble: Congress seems to have bought into the misleading marketing speak of Tesla and the car companies that "autonomous" means partially self-driving and "highly autonomous" means actually autonomous, as in hands off.

1. HR 3406 - Star of the show
Arguably the most important of the package of bills is HR 3406, the PAVE Act, which stands for Practical Automated Vehicles Exemptions Act, and is also the first in a list of impressive acronyms. This bill would increase the current exemption limit from 2500 vehicles to 100,000 for motor vehicles to be "sold, leased, or otherwise introduced into commerce in the United States in any 12-month period" that do not meet federal motor vehicle safety standards.

2. HR 3388 - Kicking can down the road
HR 3388, the DECAL Act, which stands for "Designating Each Car’s Automation Level Act.," concerns both partially self-driving vehicles as well as fully autonomous vehicles. HR 3388 calls upon the US Department of Transportation to produce a report - in three years. What will be studied and reported on? "[D]etermin[ing] the most effective method and terminology for informing consumers for each highly automated vehicle or a vehicle that performs partial driving automation about the capabilities and limitations of that vehicle."

Only AFTER completion of that study  - more than three years from now - will USDOT be authorized to issue regulations "to require manufacturers to inform consumers of the capabilities and limitations of a vehicle’s driving automation system or feature for any highly automated vehicle or any vehicle that performs partial driving automation."

Studying and reporting = delaying

With technology advancing so fast, HR 3388's mandate that the USDOT produce a report, let alone regulations - in three years - this seems pretty meaningless. My guess is that by three years from now we will see superseding legislation.

Other details

"Let us know if you change anything" is the bill's message to SAE International, which has defined the levels of vehicle automation used by vehicle manufacturers, tech businesses, non-profit groups, and government institutions. SAE will be required to inform the USDOT if its automation level designations and definitions change. This provision is included as well wherever relevant in those bills mentioned below.

Other bills

3. HR 3407 - Cybersecurity 
This bill would require that manufacturers "not sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce, or import into the United States" any automated vehicle without having a written cybersecurity plan and "an officer or other individual of the manufacturer [identified] as the point of contact with responsibility for the management of cybersecurity."

HR 3407 would mandate that manufacturers plan for "preventative and corrective" actions that account for cybersecurity vulnerabilities; and declare how access to autonomous systems are being limited. The bill also strives for incorporation of the plan into operation via: "A process for employee training and supervision for implementation and maintenance of the policies and procedures required by this section, including controls on employee access to automated driving systems."

4. HR 3411 - Cybersecurity Advisory Council
This bill would require that NHTSA form a Cybersecurity Advisory Council (CAC) of 15-30 people that would make recommendations. CAC membership will be comprised of "a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary."

Like all advisory councils, CAC will have no actual authority. It is incumbent on the press and bloggers to make sure to monitor CAC's recommendations and follow up at NHTSA and the USDOT.

5. HR 3412 - Federal authority and preemption
HR 3412 makes clear that regulation of autonomous vehicles will be under the authority of the federal government - not the states - and that NHTSA will be the responsible agency. Specifically, NHTSA will regulate "the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems." No information about the amount of money to be appropriated so that NHTSA will have the resources to fulfill its role.

States retain authority over "registration, licensing, driving education and training, insurance, law enforcement, crash investigations, safety and emission inspections, congestion management of vehicles on the street." Car dealers successfully lobbied Congress because states will also continue to regular dealerships.

6. HR 3416 - Another advisory council - this time for rural residents
Rural America has reason to be concerned as the economics of shared-transportation business models favor densely-populated areas. HR 3416, if passed, would establish a Rural and Mountainous Advisory Council that would concentrate on safety and logistical issues particular to isolated areas or "caused by natural geographical or man-made features, or adverse weather conditions." Though this advisory council is not authorized to address economic challenges, the bill's description of the council's composition suggests otherwise. "Members of the Council shall include a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary."

This generic language is repeated over and over in language of Congressional hankering for advisory councils.

7. HR 3405 - Definitions of testing vehicles and paperwork
This bill is all about testing cars and light trucks and specifically not about selling or leasing those vehicles. Certification of autonomous testing vehicles will not be required, but manufacturers will need to submit, if HR 3405 passes, "a description of each type of motor vehicle used during development of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems manufactured by the individual, partnership, corporation, or institution of higher education;" and proof of insurance.

Fans of acronyms - here you go: HR 3405 is the Maximizing Opportunities for Research and the Enhancement of Automated Vehicles Act” or the “MORE Act”.

8. HR 3414 - Throwing a crumb to people with disabilities
My rant first - Regulators, planners, and car and tech manufacturers, as well as start ups repeat the mantra about the life-changing freedom of autonomous vehicles for people with disabilities. BUT that freedom of movement, on par with everyone else, will only happen if vehicles have various interfaces and accessible interior design and doorways suitable for a wide range of disabilities - not just for the visually impaired or people in wheelchairs. And I have not seen anything from Congress or federal transportation agencies about design for or achieving transportation equity for people in wheelchairs.

HR 3414 would establish a Disability Mobility Advisory Council, to be comprised of - OMG, identical language to HR 3416 (rural advisory council) - "a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary."

Nothing in that language addresses different disabilities, whether individuals with disabilities must be included, or even a mention that organizations that work to improve the lives of people with disabilities be included. Not encouraged here despite the duties of the council for "advancing mobility access for the disabled community with respect to the deployment of automated driving systems to identify impediments to their use and ensure an awareness of the needs of the disabled community as these vehicles are being designed for distribution in commerce."

9. HR 3404 - HAV advisory council
Oh happy day for the endless, ignored archives or recommendations, reports, and agendas of federal advisory councils: Another one to add to the list. HR 3404 would establish a Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council, to be made up of - oh yes - "a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary."

No way to guess that one, right?

This advisory council will look at employment, environmental, privacy and security of information, and safety impacts. A grab bag that makes me question how seriously this council will analyze each particular issue within its scope.

10. HR 3401 - Standards and self-certification paperwork
Are you bored yet? I am. These in-the-weeds details would work wonders for insomnia. I could use a nap right now.

This bill gives the USDOT two years to issue regulations governing safety assessment certifications - who must submit them, what data and test results will be required, and what circumstances will trigger required updates. In the meantime, companies operating in the autonomous vehicle sphere will be governed by NHTSA's "Federal Automated Vehicles Policy issued in September 2016, or any successor guidance issued on highly automated vehicles requiring a safety assessment letter."

That two years, however, includes a deadline one year in for an actual "rulemaking and safety priority plan" and an 18-month deadline for rulemaking to commence. There is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with these deadlines and there is an escape hatch if timing becomes an issue. HR 3401 directs NHTSA to "identify elements that may require performance standards including human machine interface and sensors and actuators, and consider process and procedure standards for software and cybersecurity as necessary."

11. HR 3430 - Sharing around an exclusive campfire
Entitled the SHARES Act, short for the Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with Everyone for Safety Act, HR 3430 would not mandate a singalong, but rather direct the birth of yet another advisory council. Boy, they really know how to copy and paste in the halls of Congress. The "Highly Automated Vehicle Information Sharing Advisory Council" would be comprised of - oh yes, you guessed it - "a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary."

The topic is actually important and could likely use a nudge (maybe more than a nudge) from a federal agency. The advisory council is tasked with coming up with options for tech and vehicle companies to both share within a limited circle and limit dissemination of "relevant, situational information related to any testing or deployment event on public streets resulting or that reasonably could have resulted in damage to the 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."

12. HR 3413 - Watering down through division of vulnerable populations into different advisory councils
Called the Addressing Community Challenges Emerging From Self-Driving Systems or Access Act, HR 3413 would establish an advisory council to make recommendations to NHTSA regarding older adults and "populations underserved by traditional public transportation services and educational outreach efforts" - but not people with disabilities, an overlapping population with similar mobility concerns, whose interests are covered under the separate HR 3414 advisory council.

Yes, sing the chorus, the council will be comprised of "a diverse group representative of business, academia and independent researchers, State and local authorities, safety and consumer advocates, engineers, labor organizations, environmental experts, a representative of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other members determined to be appropriate by the Secretary." Yes, 15 to 30 members.

13. HR 3408 - Great acronyms accumulate
HR 3408 is known as the EXEMPT Act, which stands for "Expanding Exemptions to Enable More Public Trust Act." The bill provides for allowable exemptions if the highly autonomous vehicles are either "a highly automated vehicle providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard for which exemption is sought; or (II) a highly automated vehicle providing an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.”

This bill would amend 49 USC § 30113, which gives authority to the Secretary of Transportation to exempt testing vehicles from safety standards. Vehicles would be searchable by VIN number and not by owner name.

14. HR 3421 - Weirdly Cold War acronym
HR 3421 is the INFORM Act, which stands for Increasing Information and Notification to Foster Openness Regarding Highly Automated Vehicles Matters to States Act. The bill would create a publicly searchable exemption database for all vehicles granted exemptions pursuant to 49 USC § 30113.

Outside of the package, a few more morsels - not quite miscellaneous

None of the above applies to commercial vehicles, whether trucks or intercity buses. Provisos abound in HR 3353, but up to $100 million would be allowed for Motor Carrier Safety grants, BUT the money must come out of the Highway Trust Fund.

$100,000,000 in additional obligation limitation is provided for a highly automated commercial vehicle research and development program, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31108, and shall remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided further, That the activities funded by the previous proviso may be accomplished through direct expenditure, direct research activities, grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, intra or interagency agreements, other agreements with private and public organizations, and transfers to other Federal agencies for activities under this heading. Provided further, That such funds as necessary for payment of obligations incurred in carrying out this section shall be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), to be available until expended. [Emphasis in original.]

S 1519 would permit the Department of Defense to "establish one or more multi-institution task order contracts, consortia, cooperative agreements, or other arrangements to facilitate expedited access to university technical expertise, including faculty, staff, and students, in support of Department of Defense missions in the areas specified" - which includes artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, materials science, and autonomous systems, among a host of others.

Whether we like it or not, lots of good research gets funded by Defense, even for things that go beyond military and defense-related stuff.