Self Driving Policies and Procedures - Revision history

Pinfold at 22:27, January 19, 2023

2023-01-19T22:27:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, January 19, 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Chapter		{{Chapter
	\| ~~blueprint~~ = ~~Transportation~~		\|image=SelfDrivePol.jpg
	\| ~~sectors~~ = ~~Transportation, Data, Wireless~~		\|poc=Wilfred Pinfold
	\| authors = Wilfred Pinfold, Skip Newberry, Jeff Allen, Ken Montler, Timothy Smith, Joe Cortright, Greta Knappenberger, Jill Sorensen, John Feo, Corey Marshall, Jose Gonzalez, Geoffrey Urbach		\|authors=Wilfred Pinfold, Skip Newberry, Jeff Allen, Ken Montler, Timothy Smith, Joe Cortright, Greta Knappenberger, Jill Sorensen, John Feo, Corey Marshall, Jose Gonzalez, Geoffrey Urbach
	\| ~~poc~~ = ~~Wilfred Pinfold~~		\|blueprint=Transportation
	\| ~~email~~ = ~~wilfred.pinfold@opencommons.org~~		\|sectors=Transportation
	~~\| document = TransportationBlueprintFeb18.pdf~~		\|summary=Since 2012, 41 states and the District of Columbia have considered legislation relating to AVs. 21 states and the District of Columbia have passed AV
	~~\| chapter = 5012~~		legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.
	~~\| image = SelfDrivePol.jpg~~		\|email=wilfred.pinfold@opencommons.org
	\| summary = Since 2012, 41 states and the District of Columbia have considered legislation relating to AVs. 21 states and the District of Columbia have passed AV		\|document=TransportationBlueprintFeb18.pdf
	legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.		\|chapter=5012
	}}		}}
	;State Level Policy		;State Level Policy

Pinfold at 06:57, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:57:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:57, March 17, 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]		[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]

	The ~~[https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance~~ U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.		The ''U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP'' released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.

	The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ''Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology''.		The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ''Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology''.

Pinfold at 06:55, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:55:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:55, March 17, 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	;Federal Role		;Federal Role
	In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released ''Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2.0)''. The policy updates the~~<u>~~ Federal Automated Vehicles Policy~~</u> <u>~~(FAVP) ~~</u>~~released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.		In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released ''Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2.0)''. The policy updates the ''Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (FAVP)'' released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.

	[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]		[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]

Pinfold at 06:54, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:54:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, March 17, 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	;Federal Role		;Federal Role
	In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released ~~“<u>~~Automated Driving~~</u> <u>~~Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety~~</u>”~~(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.		In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released ''Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2.0)''. The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.

	[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]		[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]

Pinfold at 06:53, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:53:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, March 17, 2022
Line 20:		Line 20:

	[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]		[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]
	~~[[File:2017-22058.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]~~

	The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.		The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.

	The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of [~~https~~:~~//www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/17/~~2017-22058~~/automated-driving-systems-voluntary-safety-self-assessments-public-workshop~~ Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology].		The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ''Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology''.

			[[File:2017-22058.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology]]

	Another important element of the 2.0 policy is it outlines best practices for state legislatures. These include providing a ‘technology-neutral’ environment, providing licensing and registration procedures, reporting and communications methods for public safety officials, and reviewing traffic laws and regulations that may serve as barriers to AV deployment.		Another important element of the 2.0 policy is it outlines best practices for state legislatures. These include providing a ‘technology-neutral’ environment, providing licensing and registration procedures, reporting and communications methods for public safety officials, and reviewing traffic laws and regulations that may serve as barriers to AV deployment.

Pinfold at 06:51, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:51:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:51, March 17, 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.		In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.

	[[File:2017-22058.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]		[[File:13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]
			[[File:2017-22058.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]

	The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.		The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.

Pinfold at 06:49, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:49:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:49, March 17, 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	;Federal Role		;Federal Role
	In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.		In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.

			[[File:2017-22058.pdf\|200px\|center\|Automated Driving - Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety]]

	The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.		The [https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance U.S. DOT releases new Automated Driving Systems guidance FAVP] released in 2016 was the federal government’s first attempt to set up a centralized regulatory framework for AVs. The guidance is divided into four sections: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, the Model State Policy, NHTSA’s Current Regulatory Tools, and New Tools and Authorities. It established a 15-point safety assessment for manufacturers, outlined state and federal roles in regulating AVs, and explained how NHTSA would and could use existing regulatory tools to manage AV testing and deployment. NHTSA’s updated 2017 guidance eliminates three recommendations from the FAVP concerning privacy; registration and certification; and ethical considerations revising the safety assessment for manufacturers to 12 points. 2.0 generally includes less stringent regulations. It seeks to make the “regulatory processes more nimble” and remove “barriers to innovation.” One of the AV industry’s major concerns with the FAVP had to do with the mandatory safety assessment letter (SAL) addressing each performance guideline. The 2.0 policy suggests companies submit a voluntary safety self-assessment. While the two policies take different approaches to federal regulation, they take a similar view on the delineation of federal and state regulatory responsibilities. Historically, the federal government has regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, while states have been responsible for regulating the driver. 2.0, like the FAVP, suggests this division of regulatory responsibilities should remain.

Pinfold at 06:44, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:44:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, March 17, 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:
	The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/17/2017-22058/automated-driving-systems-voluntary-safety-self-assessments-public-workshop Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology].		The 2.0 policy emphasizes DOT should maintain responsibility over the nation’s infrastructure system, interstate motor carriers, commercial vehicle drivers, and registration and insurance requirements. The policy specifies that states should “allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/17/2017-22058/automated-driving-systems-voluntary-safety-self-assessments-public-workshop Automated Driving Systems: Voluntary Safety Self (ADS) technology].

	Another important element of the 2.0 policy is it outlines best practices for state legislatures. These include providing a ‘technology-neutral’ environment, providing licensing and registration procedures, reporting and communications methods for public safety officials, and reviewing traffic laws and regulations that may serve as barriers to AV deployment [~~https~~:~~//fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/~~R44940.pdf (Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment - Federation of American)].		Another important element of the 2.0 policy is it outlines best practices for state legislatures. These include providing a ‘technology-neutral’ environment, providing licensing and registration procedures, reporting and communications methods for public safety officials, and reviewing traffic laws and regulations that may serve as barriers to AV deployment.

			[[File:R44940.pdf\|200px\|center\|Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment - Federation of American]]

	Considering the pace of autonomous vehicle innovation, DOT anticipates that it will continue to update its regulatory guidance on an annual basis. In fact, Version 3.0 is already underway. NHTSA published a notice for public comment on “Removing Regulatory Barriers for Automated Vehicles” on January 10, 2018. In addition to its existing authority to issue federal vehicle safety standards and order recalls of defective vehicles, NHTSA has other tools it can use to address the introduction of new technologies: letters of interpretation, exemptions from current standards, and rulemakings to issue new standards or amend existing standards.		Considering the pace of autonomous vehicle innovation, DOT anticipates that it will continue to update its regulatory guidance on an annual basis. In fact, Version 3.0 is already underway. NHTSA published a notice for public comment on “Removing Regulatory Barriers for Automated Vehicles” on January 10, 2018. In addition to its existing authority to issue federal vehicle safety standards and order recalls of defective vehicles, NHTSA has other tools it can use to address the introduction of new technologies: letters of interpretation, exemptions from current standards, and rulemakings to issue new standards or amend existing standards.

Pinfold at 06:42, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T06:42:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, March 17, 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.		legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.
	}}		}}
	=State Level Policy =		;State Level Policy
	While each piece of [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx legislation] attempts to ensure public safety while encouraging innovation, they all vary in approach, creating challenges for AV developers operating or planning to operate across state lines. This patchwork of legislation ranges from basic to robust requirements		While each piece of [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx legislation] attempts to ensure public safety while encouraging innovation, they all vary in approach, creating challenges for AV developers operating or planning to operate across state lines. This patchwork of legislation ranges from basic to robust requirements
	for automated vehicles which has resulted in the AV industry advocating for federal (rather than state-by-state) regulation of autonomous vehicles to		for automated vehicles which has resulted in the AV industry advocating for federal (rather than state-by-state) regulation of autonomous vehicles to
	ensure consistency and encourage innovation.		ensure consistency and encourage innovation.

	=Federal Role =		;Federal Role
	In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.		In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released “<u>Automated Driving</u> <u>Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety</u>”(2.0). The policy updates the<u> Federal Automated Vehicles Policy</u> <u>(FAVP) </u>released in September 2016 by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the Obama administration.

Line 29:		Line 29:
	Look for 3.0 to be released in September if historical trends hold. The previous policy guidelines were published in the same month.		Look for 3.0 to be released in September if historical trends hold. The previous policy guidelines were published in the same month.

	=Congressional Action =		;Congressional Action

	==SELF DRIVE Act ==		'''SELF DRIVE Act'''

	On September 6, 2017 the House of Representative passed its first piece of AV legislation, the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act, H.R.3388. The SELF DRIVE Act seeks to outline a clear federal regulatory path for developing, testing, and deploying AVs. The bill focuses on the following:		On September 6, 2017 the House of Representative passed its first piece of AV legislation, the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act, H.R.3388. The SELF DRIVE Act seeks to outline a clear federal regulatory path for developing, testing, and deploying AVs. The bill focuses on the following:
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* '''Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council:''' The legislation would require NHTSA to create a new advisory group made up of 30 members from business, academia, states and localities, and labor, environmental, and consumer groups.		* '''Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council:''' The legislation would require NHTSA to create a new advisory group made up of 30 members from business, academia, states and localities, and labor, environmental, and consumer groups.

	==AV START Act ==		'''AV START Act'''

	On October 4, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed<u> S. 1885</u>, the AV START Act out of committee. Despite concern from both parties, AV START passed with bipartisan support. The AV START Act is the first piece of AV legislation passed by the Senate and mirrors much of what is included in the House SELF DRIVE Act. Where the two pieces of legislation differ is on preemption of state laws, exemptions to FMVSS, and other topics that would need to be resolved in conference.		On October 4, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed<u> S. 1885</u>, the AV START Act out of committee. Despite concern from both parties, AV START passed with bipartisan support. The AV START Act is the first piece of AV legislation passed by the Senate and mirrors much of what is included in the House SELF DRIVE Act. Where the two pieces of legislation differ is on preemption of state laws, exemptions to FMVSS, and other topics that would need to be resolved in conference.

	=Other Transport Oriented Smart City Legislation =		;Other Transport Oriented Smart City Legislation

	=Grant/IOT/Smart Infrastructure Legislation =		'''Grant/IOT/Smart Infrastructure Legislation'''

	Legislation to develop grant programs, promote smart technologies and systems and generally advance IOT have been introduced in the 115<sup>th</sup> Congress. The Moving FIRST Act (H.R. 3901) would require USDOT to establish the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Challenge Grant Program to promote technological innovation in US Cities. The Smart Cities and Communities Act of 2017 (S. 1904) would promote smart technologies and systems by improving Federal Government coordination, promote quality and performance of smart city/community technologies, demonstrate value and utility through development and implementation of performance standards, provide technical assistance, aid workforce development, and expand international cooperation and trade.		Legislation to develop grant programs, promote smart technologies and systems and generally advance IOT have been introduced in the 115<sup>th</sup> Congress. The Moving FIRST Act (H.R. 3901) would require USDOT to establish the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Challenge Grant Program to promote technological innovation in US Cities. The Smart Cities and Communities Act of 2017 (S. 1904) would promote smart technologies and systems by improving Federal Government coordination, promote quality and performance of smart city/community technologies, demonstrate value and utility through development and implementation of performance standards, provide technical assistance, aid workforce development, and expand international cooperation and trade.

	=2018 Outlook =		;2018 Outlook
	In should result in increased federal action on CAVs. Congress is likely to pass an AV bill. Informal pre-conference meetings have begun in the House and Senate to reconcile differences in the AV Start and SELF DRIVE Act which is an optimistic sign legislation could pass before the summer. This year should also see USDOT expand its role in AV development. The agencies 3.0 guidance will go beyond AV design and performance to address actual implementation of autonomous driving technologies.		In should result in increased federal action on CAVs. Congress is likely to pass an AV bill. Informal pre-conference meetings have begun in the House and Senate to reconcile differences in the AV Start and SELF DRIVE Act which is an optimistic sign legislation could pass before the summer. This year should also see USDOT expand its role in AV development. The agencies 3.0 guidance will go beyond AV design and performance to address actual implementation of autonomous driving technologies.

Pinfold at 16:57, March 16, 2022

2022-03-16T16:57:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, March 16, 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\| document = TransportationBlueprintFeb18.pdf		\| document = TransportationBlueprintFeb18.pdf
	\| chapter = 5012		\| chapter = 5012
	\| image =		\| image = SelfDrivePol.jpg
	\| summary =		\| summary = Since 2012, 41 states and the District of Columbia have considered legislation relating to AVs. 21 states and the District of Columbia have passed AV
			legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.
	}}		}}
	=State Level Policy =		=State Level Policy =
			While each piece of [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx legislation] attempts to ensure public safety while encouraging innovation, they all vary in approach, creating challenges for AV developers operating or planning to operate across state lines. This patchwork of legislation ranges from basic to robust requirements
	~~Since 2012, 41 states and the District of Columbia have considered legislation relating to AVs. 21 states and the District of Columbia have passed AV~~
	~~legislation. Additionally, the governors of Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin have signed executive orders relating to AVs.~~
	While each piece of [http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx legislation] attempts to ensure public safety while encouraging innovation, they all vary in approach, creating
	challenges for AV developers operating or planning to operate across state lines. This patchwork of legislation ranges from basic to robust requirements
	for automated vehicles which has resulted in the AV industry advocating for federal (rather than state-by-state) regulation of autonomous vehicles to		for automated vehicles which has resulted in the AV industry advocating for federal (rather than state-by-state) regulation of autonomous vehicles to
	ensure consistency and encourage innovation.		ensure consistency and encourage innovation.