On July 26, 2023, the House Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce held a legislative hearing entitled, “A Legislative Framework for Autonomous Vehicles: Improving Safety, Improved Lives and Mobility, and Countering China,” as a first step toward reviving legislation regulating autonomous vehicles (“AVs”) that was introduced in 2017. The hearing focused on the importance of enacting a national framework for autonomous vehicles that addresses the following:
The safe operation and deployment of AVs, the role of AV technology in breaking down transportation barriers for people with disabilities and other mobility challenges, the economic importance of strengthening the United States’ role as a global leader in the automotive industry through the continued expansion of AV technology design and manufacturing in the United States, protecting data privacy and cybersecurity, and the impact of AVs on the U.S. workforce.
The Subcommittee received written and oral testimony from Mark Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind; John Bozzella, President and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation; Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association; and Dr. Philip Koopman, Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Testimony focused on the themes of trust, safety, and mobility. The Subcommittee considered two discussion drafts:
HR __, the Safely Ensuring Human Lives and Studying Future Vehicle Deployment and Evolution Act (SELF DRIVE Act), and HR __, amends title 49, United States Code, to provide for updated and new motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for highly and partially automated vehicles to achieve these objectives.
While any move in Congress on AV regulation is worthy of attention, two key takeaways from the legislative hearings suggest that Congress continues to grapple with the issues that prevented the enactment of previous versions of AV legislation.
Additional data required
Subcommittee members and witnesses generally acknowledged that automation can reduce fatalities and injuries by eliminating human error and increasing transportation options for people with disabilities. However, several participants expressed concerns about whether current AV technology can reduce fatalities and injuries today and suggested that additional data is needed to understand the potential safety benefits of AVs. Recognizing that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently collecting data on certain accidents involving advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and AVs under General Order 2021-01, concerns were expressed about whether that data is complete and accurately reflects the operational safety of these systems. To further increase public trust and understanding of the safe operation of AVs, most participants acknowledged that additional data is needed. Of course, the way to collect this data is through further testing and deployment of AVs on public roads.
The hearing discussed the importance of expanding NHTSA’s exemption authority for AVs from the current 2,500 units per year to 100,000 units per year. The SELF-DRIVE ACT discussion draft proposes such an increase as a way to facilitate the collection of additional information and data about AV use on the road and to strengthen the United States’ role as a leader in automotive innovation.
Federal, state and local regulations remain a patchwork
The hearing also addressed the importance of clarifying the roles of federal, state, and local governments in regulating emerging vehicle technologies. Some Subcommittee members and witnesses suggested that the federal government should have exclusive responsibility for regulating AV accessibility, safety, design, and manufacturing nationwide, while state and local governments should maintain their traditional roles of regulating title registration, road rules, and the deployment of ADAS technology and AVs. Mr. Bozzella specifically noted that NHTSA needs to modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to accommodate new AV technologies. Dr. Koopman recommended that NHTSA move forward with the rulemaking it previously initiated in its Advance Notice of Rulemaking and adopt current engineering industry standards and best practices for AV technologies.
The Subcommittee also discussed the role of federal and state governments in regulating liability for the use of autonomous vehicles. While the auto industry considers liability issues to be outside the scope of federal law, some members and witnesses argued for legislation that would limit manufacturers’ liability or prohibit pre-dispute arbitration. Those who have followed past legislative proposals on vehicle automation will recognize these issues, which caused previous proposals to stall. It remains to be seen whether these issues can be resolved by the end of this Congress.
Impact of Congressional Action
By holding this hearing, Congress has brought AV technology back to the forefront and begun to take steps to revive previous bipartisan and bicameral efforts to regulate the safe adoption of AV technology. Regardless of the fate of this legislation, NHTSA will continue on its current path of reviewing the FMVSS safety standards in accordance with its rulemaking schedule. Along that path, NHTSA recently announced revisions to the FMVSS 200 series (crash safety) safety standards and is currently analyzing the FMVSS 100 series (crash avoidance) safety standards for potential changes that could facilitate the safe adoption of AVs. Additionally, on July 12, 2023, NHTSA Acting Administrator Anne Carlson described what the agency calls the “Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program for ADS-Equipped Vehicles, or AV STEP.” While details of the program have yet to be released, NHTSA has generally described AV STEP as “reviewing applications for the adoption of non-compliant ADS vehicles, subject to the review process, conditions, and procedures required by the agency to ensure public safety and transparency.” 2 NHTSA intends for AV STEP to facilitate the collection of the same types of data that Committee members and witnesses discussed as essential to the advancement of ADAS technology and AVs.
Manufacturers should continue to monitor for additional legislative action and regulatory changes from NHTSA. Manufacturers should also consider how they can present clear data and information about how their advanced technologies operate safely to help shape future regulations of AV technology.
Disclaimer
Close This blog is provided by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or the “Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not intended to convey the firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, you should not act on this information without consulting qualified legal counsel. This blog is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and receipt of this blog does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise does not create an attorney-client relationship with respect to legal matters. Accordingly, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post, or otherwise, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “as is” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, whether express or implied, whether arising from statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any legal theory (contract, tort, negligence or other liability) to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive or consequential claims, losses or damages arising from or caused by the creation, use or reliance on this site (including the information and other content) or any third party website, or any information, resources or materials accessed through such website. In some jurisdictions, the content of this blog may be considered attorney advertising. Please note that previous results are no guarantee of similar results, where applicable. Photos are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likeness does not necessarily imply current client, partnership, or employee status.
