American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act
A BILL
To support the development of highly automated vehicle safety technologies, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2 Definitions
“(1) Automated driving system—In describing a Level 3, 4, or 5 automated driving system (as defined by SAE International standard J3016, published on September 30, 2016, or subsequently adopted by the Secretary), the term automated driving system means the hardware and software that is collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task on a sustained basis, regardless of whether the system is limited to a specific operational design domain.”
“(4) Dedicated highly automated vehicle—The term dedicated highly automated vehicle means a highly automated vehicle designed to be operated exclusively (as defined by the SAE International standard J3016, published on September 30, 2016) by a Level 4 or 5 automated driving system (as defined by the SAE International standard J3016, published on September 30, 2016, or subsequently adopted by the Secretary) for all trips.”
“(7) Highly automated vehicle—The term highly automated vehicle means a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less that is equipped with a Level 3, 4, or 5 automated driving system (as defined by SAE International standard J3016, published on September 30, 2016, or subsequently adopted by the Secretary).”
Sec. 3 Relationship to other laws
“(b) Preemption
“(1) Highly automated vehicles—No State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law or regulation regarding the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems unless such law or regulation is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.
“(2) Motor vehicle standard—When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.
“(3) Rules of construction
“(A) In general—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit a State or a political subdivision of a State from maintaining, enforcing, prescribing, or continuing in effect any law or regulation regarding registration, licensing, driving education and training, insurance, law enforcement, crash investigations, safety and emissions inspections, congestion management of vehicles on the street within a State or political subdivision of a State, or traffic unless the law or regulation is an unreasonable restriction on the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems.
“(B) Motor vehicle dealers—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit a State or political subdivision of a State from maintaining, enforcing, prescribing, or continuing in effect any law or regulation regarding the sale, distribution, repair, or service of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems by a dealer, manufacturer, or distributor.
“(C) Conformity with Federal law—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to preempt, restrict, or limit a State or political subdivision of a State from acting in accordance with any other Federal law.
“(4) Higher performance requirement—However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle, motor vehicle equipment, highly automated vehicle, or automated driving system obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.
“(5) State enforcement—A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.”
“(e) Common law liability
“(1) In general—Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.
“(2) Rule of construction—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt common law claims.”
Sec. 4 Expedited resolution of highly automated vehicles conflicts with standards
Sec. 5 Highly automated vehicles testing
“(11) the introduction of a motor vehicle into interstate commerce solely for the purposes of testing, evaluation, or demonstration of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system if—
“(A) the testing, evaluation, or demonstration of the vehicle is only conducted by employees, agents, or fleet management contractors of the manufacturer of the highly automated vehicle, the automated driving system, or any component thereof;
“(B) such manufacturer agrees not to sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease, the vehicle or system at the conclusion of the testing, evaluation, or demonstration; and
“(C) such manufacturer has submitted appropriate manufacturer identification information that is similar to information submitted by manufacturers subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under part 566 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, before the commencement of such testing or evaluation.”
Sec. 6 Highly automated vehicles exemptions
“(1) the term”
“(2) the term new motor vehicle safety feature includes any feature that enables a highly automated vehicle or an automated driving system, regardless of whether an exemption has already been granted for a similar feature on another model or models.”
“(2) The Secretary may begin a proceeding under this subsection when a manufacturer applies for an exemption or a renewal of an exemption. The Secretary shall publish notice of the application and provide an opportunity to comment. An application for an exemption or for a renewal of an exemption shall be filed at a time and in the way, and contain such information, this section and the Secretary require. The Secretary shall grant or deny an exemption for a highly automated vehicle not later than 180 days after receiving an application for such exemption from a manufacturer.”
“(2) A manufacturer is eligible for an exemption under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subsection (b)(3)(B) only if the Secretary determines that—
“(A) the exemption is for not more than 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the United States in any 12-month period; or
“(B) the vehicle is a highly automated vehicle; and
“(i) during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the AV START Act, the exemption is for not more than 50,000 vehicles to be sold or introduced into interstate commerce in the United States;
“(ii) during the 12-month period immediately following the period described in clause (i), the exemption is for not more than 75,000 vehicles to be sold or introduced into interstate commerce in the United States; and
“(iii) during any 12-month period following the period described in clause (ii), the exemption is for not more than 100,000 vehicles to be sold or introduced into interstate commerce in the United States.
“(C) A manufacturer of a highly automated vehicle may petition the Secretary to expand the exemption under paragraph (2)(B) to more than 100,000 vehicles in any 12-month period after the exemption has been in place for 5 years.”
Sec. 7 Inoperative controls
“(2) The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not apply to a manufacturer that intentionally allows a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard to be temporarily disabled during the time that an automated driving system is performing the entire dynamic driving task.”
Sec. 8 Levels of driving automation
Sec. 9 Safety evaluation report
“30107. Highly automated vehicles safety evaluation report
“(a) In general
“(1) Requirement—Each manufacturer introducing a new highly automated vehicle or automated driving system into interstate commerce shall provide a safety evaluation report, in accordance with this section, that describes how the manufacturer is addressing the safety of such vehicle or system.
“(2) Submission—Each manufacturer described in paragraph (1) shall—
“(A) submit a report to the Secretary—
“(i) upon testing a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system; and
“(ii) not later than 90 days before selling, offering for sale, or otherwise commercializing a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system; and
“(B) annually submit, until the vehicle or system is no longer being sold, offered for sale, or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce by the manufacturer or until the system is no longer being incorporated into new motor vehicles by the manufacturer, an updated report to the Secretary that—
“(i) may disclose that no significant changes were made to the vehicle or system; and
“(ii) shall provide aggregate results of any significant safety deviation from expected performance disclosed in the previous report.
“(3) Review—The Secretary—
“(A) shall review each report submitted under paragraph (2); and
“(B) may require that the manufacturer submit additional or clarifying information.
“(4) Limitation—The Secretary may not condition the manufacture, testing, sale, offer for sale, or introduction into interstate commerce of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system based on a review of a safety evaluation report or additional information submitted under this section.
“(b) Safety evaluation report subject areas—Each report submitted by a manufacturer under subsection (a) shall describe how the manufacturer is addressing, through a documented assessment, testing, and validation process, each of the subject areas described in paragraphs (1) through (9).
“(1) System safety—The avoidance of unreasonable risks to safety, including—
“(A) assurance that systems, including hardware and software, perform intended functions;
“(B) the mitigation of unreasonable risks to safety caused by a malfunction of the automated driving system; and
“(C) sense of objects, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and animals in or crossing the path of travel through the automated driving system.
“(2) Data recording—The collection by the vehicle of automated driving system performance information and incident and crash data—
“(A) to record the occurrence of malfunctions, disengagements, degradations, or failures;
“(B) to aid in the analysis of the cause of any issues described in subparagraph (A);
“(C) to enable efforts to work with other entities to address data recording and sharing; and
“(D) with respect to event data recorder information, that complies with the collection and sharing requirements under the FAST Act (Public Law 114–94).
“(3) Cybersecurity—The minimization of cybersecurity risks to safety and the exchange of information about any vulnerabilities discovered from field incidents, internal testing, or external security research.
“(4) Human-machine interface
“(A) The methods of informing the human driver or operator about whether the automated driving system is functioning properly.
“(B) For a Level 3 vehicle, the methods to address driver reengagement.
“(C) The use of a human-machine interface by people with disabilities through visual, auditory, or haptic displays, or other methods.
“(5) Crashworthiness—Practicable protection for all occupants given any planned seating positions or interior configurations.
“(6) Capabilities—The capabilities and limitations of the highly automated vehicle or automated driving system.
“(7) Post-crash behavior—The post-crash behavior of the highly automated vehicle or automated driving system if sensors or critical systems are damaged in a crash.
“(8) Account for applicable laws—The account of applicable traffic laws and rules of the road, based on operational design domain, in the development of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system.
“(9) Automation function
“(A) The expected operational design domain in which the highly automated vehicle or automated driving system is designed to operate, including any roadway and infrastructure assets required for the operation of the highly automated vehicle or automated driving system, such as roadside equipment, pavement markings, signage, and traffic signals, and how it will respond if that operational design domain unexpectedly changes.
“(B) The automated driving system’s expected object and event detection and response capabilities, including behavioral competencies and crash avoidance capability.
“(C) The ability of the highly automated vehicle or automated driving system to transition to a minimal risk condition when a malfunction is encountered.
“(D) The performance of the vehicle through the manufacturer’s development and implementation of tests, including simulation, test track, and on-road testing.
“(c) Certification of inapplicable categories—A manufacturer that is solely testing a vehicle or system may certify that one or more of the categories set forth in subsection (b) do not apply.
“(d) Publicly available—The Secretary shall make any report submitted by a manufacturer under this section publicly available as soon as practicable, except the Secretary may not make publicly available any information relating to a trade secret or confidential business information, or which is privileged. The manufacturer may submit information related to a trade secret or confidential business information separately from the report.
“(e) Official signature—Each report submitted by an entity under this section shall be reviewed by a senior official of the entity who—
“(1) is knowledgeable about the information contained in the report; and
“(2) shall certify that, based on the official’s knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact.
“(f) Termination of obligation To disclose information
“(1) In general—A manufacturer’s obligation to provide information on a specific category under subsection (b) shall end on the effective date of a motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the same aspect of vehicle or system performance as is covered by the category, with due consideration for any lead time specified for compliance.
“(2) Effect of new standard—In adopting any standard applicable to highly automated vehicle performance, the Secretary shall—
“(A) identify the category under subsection (b) to which the standard relates, if any; and
“(B) specify what information is no longer required to be included in the report as a result of the new standard.
“(g) Rule of construction
“(1) Submissions—A manufacturer may submit a safety evaluation report for vehicles introduced into interstate commerce before the date of the enactment of the AV START Act.
“(2) Savings provisions—Nothing in this section may be construed to amend, limit the authority, or prohibit the use of the information included in the report under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code.”
Sec. 10 Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee
Sec. 11 Highly automated vehicles rulemaking
Sec. 12 Consumer education
Sec. 13 Traffic safety and law enforcement
Sec. 14 Cybersecurity
“30108. Cybersecurity risks to the safety of highly automated vehicles
“(a) Definitions—In this section:
“(1) Cybersecurity incident—The term cybersecurity incident has the meaning given the term incident in section 227(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 148(a)).
“(2) Cybersecurity risk—The term cybersecurity risk has the meaning given the term in section 227(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 148(a)).
“(3) Cybersecurity vulnerability—The term cybersecurity vulnerability has the meaning given the term “security vulnerability” in section 102 of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1501).
“(b) Cybersecurity plan
“(1) In general—Each manufacturer of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system shall develop, maintain, and execute a written plan for identifying and reducing cybersecurity risks to the motor vehicle safety of such vehicles and systems.
“(2) Requirements—The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include a process for—
“(A) the risk-based prioritized identification and protection of safety-critical vehicle control systems and the broader transportation ecosystem, as applicable;
“(B) the efficient detection and response to potential vehicle cybersecurity incidents in the field;
“(C) facilitating expeditious recovery from incidents as they occur;
“(D) the institutionalization of methods for the accelerated adoption of lessons learned across industry through voluntary exchange of information pertaining to cybersecurity incidents, threats, and vulnerabilities, including the consideration of a coordinated cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure policy or other related practices for collaboration with third-party cybersecurity researchers;
“(E) the identification of the point of contact of the manufacturer with responsibility for the management of cybersecurity;
“(F) the use of segmentation and isolation techniques in vehicle architecture design, as appropriate; and
“(G) supporting voluntary efforts by industry and standards-setting organizations to develop and identify consistent standards and guidelines relating to vehicle cybersecurity, consistent, and to the extent appropriate, with the cybersecurity risk management activities described in section 2(e) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(e)).
“(3) Inspection—The Secretary may inspect any cybersecurity plan developed by a manufacturer under this subsection to enable the Secretary to decide whether the manufacturer has complied, or is complying, with this chapter or a regulation prescribed or order issued pursuant to this chapter.
“(4) Protections for disclosure—The Secretary may, by notice and comment rulemaking, establish a requirement that manufacturers subject to subsection (b) develop a summary of its plan that is suitable for public disclosure, as appropriate.
“(c) Coordinated cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure—The Secretary may work cooperatively with manufacturers of highly automated vehicles and automated driving systems to incentivize manufacturers to voluntarily adopt 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—
“(1) so that manufacturers build relationships with security researchers to mitigate cybersecurity risks; and
“(2) to discover and mitigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities in highly automated vehicles or automated driving systems that present a risk to motor vehicle safety (as defined in section 30102 of title 49, United States Code).
“(d) Coordination—All Federal agencies undertaking research on cybersecurity risks associated with highly automated vehicles shall coordinate with the Secretary on their findings.”