[Senate Report 115-187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 268
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-187
_______________________________________________________________________
AMERICAN VISION FOR SAFER TRANSPORTATION THROUGH ADVANCEMENT OF
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGIES ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1885
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 28, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2017
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fifteenth congress
first session
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARGARETWOODHASSAN,NewHampshire
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Calendar No. 268
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-187
======================================================================
AMERICAN VISION FOR SAFER TRANSPORTATION THROUGH ADVANCEMENT OF
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGIES ACT
_______
November 28, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1885]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1885) to support the
development of highly automated vehicle safety technologies,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
S. 1885, the American Vision for Safer Transportation
through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START)
Act, is intended to advance the development and deployment of
highly automated vehicles (HAVs) in a safe and responsible
manner. The AV START Act is intended to encourage a gradual
introduction of HAV technology in a way that would promote
public safety and build public confidence and trust in the
technology, while at the same time, avoiding unreasonable
restrictions on the introduction of the technology into
interstate commerce.
Background and Needs
HAVs, also known as self-driving vehicles, are poised to
bring transformative benefits to the Nation's transportation
system. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of
Transportation (DOT), approximately 37,000 people died in motor
vehicle crashes in 2016.\1\ NHTSA has estimated that as many as
94 percent of crashes are attributed to human driver error.\2\
If HAVs are safely and widely deployed, the number of lives
saved and injuries avoided could be enormous. In addition, HAVs
could provide the elderly and individuals with disabilities
with increased access to independent mobility, and further
reduce congestion and improve fuel economy.\3\
Despite these potential benefits, HAVs face near-term
regulatory conflicts that can present barriers to their testing
and deployment. That is, NHTSA has promulgated more than 30
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) over the past
several decades that contain references to a driver. In March
2016, the DOT's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center found that once an HAV design begins to diverge from a
conventional vehicle design, such as by removing the steering
wheel and pedals or by rearranging the cabin seating layout, it
would be constrained by the current FMVSS or may not fully meet
the objectives of the FMVSS.\4\
Furthermore, certain State and local laws may pose
challenges to the development of HAVs. Under existing law, a
State cannot prescribe a standard that differs from an existing
FMVSS.\5\ However, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
could take several years to promulgate relevant FMVSS specific
to HAVs given the need for research, real-world experience, and
data to develop standards for a complex new technology. In the
interim, States and localities are able to establish
potentially conflicting regulatory regimes that could inhibit
nationwide deployment of HAVs or their ability to move in
interstate commerce. In fact, 15 States have enacted laws
governing self-driving vehicles this year, and dozens of bills
are currently under consideration in State legislatures.\6\
Some of these bills would impose physical requirements on HAVs,
such as mandating driver controls, certain data recording
equipment, or all-electric power. More subtle issues, such as
discrepancies between the definitions of levels of automation,
could also complicate the introduction of HAVs into interstate
commerce.
In September 2016, the DOT issued the ``Federal Automated
Vehicles Policy,'' a non-binding document intended to provide a
greater degree of certainty to the industry about the Federal
Government's role in regulating HAVs. The DOT released an
updated version of the policy titled, ``Automated Driving
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,'' on September 12, 2017. This
policy, which applies to the design aspects of ``lowspeed
vehicles, motorcycles, passenger vehicles, medium-duty
vehicles, and heavy-duty CMVs [commercial motor vehicles] such
as large trucks and buses,'' consists of a guidance section
outlining best practices for safely testing and deploying HAVs
on public roads, including a voluntary safety self assessment,
and technical assistance to States and State highway safety
officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
USDOT Releases 2016 Fatal Traffic Crash Data (2017), accessed October
18, 2017, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-
fatal-traffic-crash-data.
\2\NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts: A Brief Stat. Summary (2015),
accessed October 18, 2017, at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/812115.
\3\RAND Corporation, Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for
Policymakers (2016), accessed October 18, 2017, at https://
www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR443-2.html.
\4\USDOT, John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Center, Review of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles
(2016), accessed October 18, 2017, at https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/57000/
57000/57076/Review_FMVSS_AV_Scan.pdf.
\5\49 U.S.C. Sec. 30103(b)(2) (1966).
\6\Nat'l Conf. of St. Legs., Autonomous Vehicles Legis. Database,
accessed October 18, 2017, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/
transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislative-database.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
The AV START Act would do the following:
Provide enhanced safety oversight. The bill
would require manufacturers to submit safety evaluation
reports to the DOT containing information about how
they address important factors such as system safety,
crashworthiness, and cybersecurity through documented
testing, validation, and assessment. This new
requirement, based on the voluntary safety assessment
proposed by the DOT, would enhance the DOT's defect
enforcement authority, while providing assurances to
consumers and State and local governments.
Reinforce Federal, State and local roles.
The bill would ensure the DOT's traditional
responsibility for regulating HAVs and automated
driving systems (ADS) with respect to the safety
evaluation report subject areas. Additional research
and coordination with State and local governments on
traffic safety and law enforcement challenges is also
included in the measure.
Reduce barriers to deployment. S. 1885
would expand the Secretary's existing discretionary
authority to implement an enhanced review and approval
process for FMVSS exemptions for up to 80,000 vehicles
per manufacturer in the third year after enactment.
Maintain status quo for trucks and buses.
The bill would clarify that the new authorities for
self-driving technologies in the AV START Act apply to
vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less and maintain
the DOT's existing authority for advancing automated
truck and bus technology in the future.
Prescribe the path for long-term safety
regulation. The bill would provide the DOT with the
technical expertise needed to set new and updated
safety regulations by creating a committee of experts
to identify and develop recommended standards. It would
further direct the DOT to do the following: consider
these recommendations for potential rulemaking
governing HAV safety; and update the crash data
collection database to include new HAV-specific
information.
Bring existing rules up to speed. S. 1885
would direct the DOT to act quickly to modernize
existing FMVSS, which were written before HAVs were
envisioned.
Strengthen cybersecurity protections. The
bill would direct each HAV manufacturer to minimize
cybersecurity risks to HAVs and to increase consumer
cybersecurity awareness. It would authorize the DOT to
work with manufacturers to incentivize coordinated
vulnerability disclosure policies.
Improve vehicle safety and data sharing. S.
1885 would establish a committee to make policy
recommendations to Congress regarding HAV data
ownership, control, and access.
Promote consumer education. The DOT would
be required to work with industry and other government
agencies to advance responsible consumer education and
marketing, including consumer awareness of the
capabilities and limitations of advanced driver
assistance systems and HAV systems.
Increase mobility. The bill would preclude
the States from issuing licenses for dedicated HAVs
that discriminate on the basis of disability. The DOT
would be required to develop best practices regarding
HAV accessibility.
Legislative History
The Committee held the following three hearings on self-
driving vehicles that examined key issues addressed by this
legislation:
Automated Trucks and Our Nation's
Highways.\7\
Paving the Way for Self-Driving
Vehicles.\8\ and
Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving
Cars.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation, Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and Our
Nation's Highways, 115th Congress, 1st session, September 13, 2017.
\8\U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation, Paving the Way for Self-Driving Vehicles, 115th
Congress, 1st session, June 14, 2017.
\9\U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation, Hands Off: The Future of Self-Driving Cars, 114th
Congress, 2nd session, March 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senators Thune and Peters introduced S. 1885 on September
28, 2017, with Senators Blunt and Stabenow as cosponsors. On
June 13, 2017, Senators Thune, Peters, and Nelson publicly
released bipartisan principles for legislation. The principles
include prioritizing safety, promoting continued innovation,
reducing existing regulatory roadblocks, adhering to technology
and business model neutrality, reinforcing separate Federal and
State roles, strengthening cybersecurity, and educating the
public to encourage adoption of self-driving vehicles.
On October 4, 2017, in an open Executive Session, the
Committee, by voice vote, ordered the bill to be reported with
an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). The Committee
accepted 26 amendments en bloc by voice vote. The accepted
amendments are as follows:
An amendment from Senators Nelson, Thune,
and Peters to improve the preemption section of the
bill.
An amendment from Senators Blumenthal and
Wicker to direct the Secretary to issue a rule
requiring all new passenger motor vehicles to be
equipped with a child safety alert system.
An amendment from Senators Blumenthal and
Udall to reduce discretionary exemption caps and to
require the Secretary to review the safety effects of
previously granted exemptions.
Amendments from Senator Blumenthal to
sunset expanded exemption authority after 10 years if
no applicable standard is promulgated; to provide
consumer education information comparing HAVs with non-
HAVs; to include information in safety evaluation
reports comparing HAVs with non-HAVs; to modify the
timing of public availability of safety evaluation
reports; and to modify the provision relating to
inoperative controls.
An amendment from Senator Booker to require
safety evaluation reports to state the expected SAE
level of the HAV or ADS and to establish civil
penalties for the submission of false or misleading
reports.
An amendment from Senators Duckworth and
Schatz to require the Secretary to conduct a study on
the transportation, mobility, environmental, energy
security, and fuel economy impacts of HAVs on public
roads.
An amendment from Senator Duckworth to
clarify the duties of the consumer education working
group, to expand the membership of the consumer
education working group to include safety organizations
and organizations with experience in drivers'
education, and to require the HAV safety study to
include safeguards against the misuse of such vehicles.
An amendment from Senator Gardner to
require safety evaluation reports to address the
mitigation of unreasonable risk from the malfunction of
ADS component parts.
An amendment from Senators Gardner and
Cortez-Masto to require the inclusion of employee
training in manufacturers' cybersecurity plans.
An amendment from Senator Hassan to improve
supply chain cybersecurity.
An amendment from Senators Inhofe, Blunt,
Moran, Heller, and Baldwin to establish the HAV data
access advisory committee and to direct the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to study the deletion of
personal data.
An amendment from Senators Klobuchar,
Duckworth, and Hassan to specify that vehicle
communication with roadway and infrastructure assets be
studied by the HAV technical committee.
An amendment from Senator Klobuchar to
specify that safety evaluation reports include
mechanisms for alerting the human driver or operator of
an HAV about cyber vulnerabilities.
Amendments from Senator Markey to require
the establishment of a motor vehicle privacy database
and to require the Secretary to promulgate a rule on
information consumers would receive at point of sale on
the capabilities and limitations of HAVs and ADSs.
Amendments from Senator Schatz to do the
following: require manufacturers of HAVs or ADSs to
publish summaries of their cybersecurity plans; require
an education working group to consider topics
pertaining to consumer data collection, privacy, and
data ownership; include organizations representing
those with disabilities and older adults in the working
group membership; clarify that each of the stakeholder
categories should be represented on the HAV technical
committee; and require the HAV accessibility working
group to include representatives from national
organizations representing older adults.
An amendment from Senator Udall to require
the Secretary to conduct a study on encouraging
domestic manufacturing of automated driving equipment
and intelligent transportation solutions.
An amendment from Senators Wicker and
Markey to require the Secretary to develop educational
cybersecurity resources to assist consumers in
minimizing motor vehicle cybersecurity risks.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 1885--AV START Act
Summary: S. 1885 would clarify the federal role in
regulating motor vehicles that can drive without a person
controlling the vehicle. Those vehicles are defined in the bill
as Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs). The bill would require the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to
complete several rulemakings and establish two advisory
councils on HAV technology and consumer education. The bill
also would require NHTSA and the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (Volpe Center) within the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to complete several studies on the issues
surrounding the use of HAVs.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost
$22 million over the 2018-2022 period, assuming appropriation
of the necessary amounts.
Enacting S. 1885 would increase revenues from civil
penalties; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However,
CBO estimates that those increases would total less than
$500,000 over the 2018-2027 period. Enacting the bill would not
affect direct spending.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1885 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
S. 1885 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by
preempting the authority of state and local governments to
regulate the design, construction, and performance aspects of
HAVs, unless such regulations are identical to federal
regulations. The bill also would preempt any state regulation
governing operator's licenses for HAVs that discriminates on
the basis of disability. Although it would limit the
application of state and local laws and regulations, the bill
would impose no duty on state or local governments that would
result in additional spending or a loss of revenues.
S. 1885 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA on manufacturers of automobiles. Based on information
about motor vehicle sales in the United States and information
about current business practices from industry sources, CBO
estimates that the cost of complying with those mandates would
exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($156 million
in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 1885 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400
(transportation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
NHTSA:
Estimated Authorization Level............................ 1 4 4 4 4 17
Estimated Outlays........................................ 1 3 4 4 4 16
Volpe Center:
Estimated Authorization Level............................ 0 6 0 0 0 6
Estimated Outlays........................................ 0 4 1 1 0 6
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 1 10 4 4 4 23
Estimated Outlays.................................... 1 7 5 5 4 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NHTSA = National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted before the end of 2017 and that the
necessary amounts will be appropriated each year. Estimated
outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar
activities.
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Based on an analysis of information from NHTSA, CBO
estimates that the agency would need to hire about 20 new
people to prepare the rules and reports required by the bill.
CBO expects that about one-quarter of those people would be
hired in 2018 and the rest in 2019. Based on average wages and
compensation for NHTSA employees and accounting for inflation,
CBO estimates that each additional person would cost about
$180,000 a year, on average. As a result, CBO estimates that
those provisions would cost $14 million over the 2018-2022
period.
Under the bill, NHTSA also would need to create two new
databases to make safety evaluations conducted by HAV
manufacturers and the privacy policies of vehicle manufacturers
available to the public. Based on information from the agency,
CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost
about $2 million over the 2018-2022 period.
Volpe Center
Section 4 would require the Volpe Center to complete a
report to the Congress that identifies necessary safety
standards for HAVs. Subsequently, NHTSA would be required to
complete a rulemaking based on that report. Based on
information from DOT, CBO estimates that enacting the
provisions in section 4 would cost $6 million over the 2018-
2022 period, mostly for equipment and staff to complete the
necessary tests and research.
Other agencies
The bill also would require NHTSA to coordinate with the
Federal Trade Commission and other agencies currently doing
research on HAVs. CBO expects those agencies would include the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission,
the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland
Security and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. CBO
estimates that none of those agencies would have significant
costs associated with the coordination requirement in S. 1885.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. Under S. 1885 CBO estimates that any increase in
penalty collections--which are recorded in the budget as
revenues--would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not
affect direct spending.
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting S. 1885 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 1885 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as defined
in UMRA, by preempting the authority of state and local
governments to regulate the design, construction, and
performance of HAVs, unless such regulations are identical to
federal regulations. State and local governments are not
currently regulating these aspects of HAVs. The bill also would
preempt any state regulation governing operator's licenses for
HAVs that discriminates on the basis of disability. Although
the bill would limit the application of state and local
regulations, it would impose no duty on state or local
governments that would result in additional spending or a loss
of revenues.
Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 1885 would
impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on
manufacturers of automobiles. Specifically, the bill would
require manufacturers to:
Install an alarm system in all passenger
vehicles that would alert drivers to check the rear
seat of their vehicles after turning off the engine;
Submit safety evaluation reports to NHTSA
that describe how safety issues are being addressed in
HAVs; and
Prepare cybersecurity plans for HAVs and
include information in owners' manuals or on
manufacturers' websites directing consumers to
cybersecurity resources.
The bill also would require NHSTA to update or issue new
safety standards for motor vehicles to address automated
systems. Those standards may benefit manufacturers by
facilitating the development of HAVs, but also may require
manufacturers of those vehicles to incur additional costs.
Based on data on vehicle sales from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, CBO estimates that manufacturers would need to
install alarm systems in more than 10 million motor vehicles
annually. The cost of installing a system would depend on the
rule to be issued by DOT. Some vehicles currently contain
systems that may comply with the rule. However, because of the
large number of vehicles that would be affected by the mandate,
CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would exceed $100
million annually. On the basis of information from industry
experts, CBO estimates that the cost of complying with the
mandates to submit safety evaluation reports and prepare
cybersecurity plans would total tens of millions of dollars
over the next five year period.
The net cost of the mandates would equal the additional
costs incurred, offset by any savings associated with complying
with the bill's requirements. For example, some of the costs of
the mandates may be mitigated if the motor vehicle safety
standards for automated systems lower the cost of producing
such vehicles relative to regulations issued by DOT under
current law. However, CBO expects that most of those savings
would be realized a few years after manufacturers have begun to
incur costs to install the rear-seat alarm systems. In
aggregate, CBO estimates that the annual net cost of complying
with all of the mandates in the bill would exceed the threshold
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million
in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation) in at least some of
the first five years the mandates are in effect.
Previous CEO estimate: On September 1, 2017, CBO provided
an estimate for H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on July
27, 2017. That bill included several work requirements for
NHTSA that are included in S. 1885 and would subject vehicle
manufacturers that fail to comply with reporting requirements
to civil penalties. The CBO cost estimates reflect other
differences between the two pieces of legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Sarah Puro;
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates: Jon Sperl.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 1885, as reported, affects manufacturers of motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment currently subject to the
DOT's oversight and therefore the number of persons covered
would be consistent with existing law.
economic impact
S. 1885 is expected to have a significant positive impact
on the Nation's economy. The bill would direct a series of
rulemakings affecting manufacturers. The deployment of HAVs is
expected, among other things, to reduce the number of deaths
and injuries due to motor vehicle crashes and increase
mobility.
privacy
S. 1885 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
personal privacy of individuals. The bill would create a
database containing certain types of privacy-related
information collected during the operation of vehicles and
would create a committee to make recommendations on data
ownership and access with appropriate consideration of customer
privacy.
paperwork
S. 1885 would require manufacturers of HAVs and ADSs to
submit safety evaluation reports. As manufacturers are
anticipated to submit these reports voluntarily in the absence
of this bill, the Committee does not anticipate a large
increase in paperwork burdens resulting from the passage of
this legislation. The bill also would require the development
of a motor vehicle privacy database as well as reports to
Congress on several matters addressed by other provisions.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title; table of contents.
This section would provide that the bill may be cited as
the ``American Vision for Safer Transportation through
Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act'' or ``The AV
START Act.'' This section also would provide a table of
contents for the bill.
Section 2. Definitions.
This section would provide definitions for new terms
relating to automated vehicles, including ``automated driving
system (ADS),'' ``highly automated vehicle (HAV),'' and
``dedicated highly automated vehicle (DHAV).'' A HAV would be
defined as a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of
10,000 pounds or less, equipped with a Level 3, 4, or 5
automated driving system. A DHAV would be defined as a HAV
equipped with a level 4 or 5 system that is operated
exclusively by automation consistent with the SAE international
standard J3016 definition of an ADS-dedicated vehicle. This may
include temporary operation by a conventional or remote driver
to manage transient deviations from the operational design
domain, to address a system failure, or while in a marshalling
yard before being dispatched.
Section 3. Relationship to other laws.
This section would clarify Federal, State, and local roles
for regulating HAVs and ADS to encourage interstate testing and
deployment. It would do so by prohibiting a State or locality
from enacting or enforcing a law or regulation regulating the
design, construction, or performance of HAV or ADS with respect
to any of the safety evaluation report subject areas described
in section 9 of the AV START Act. This provision would cease to
have effect with respect to any particular subject matter area
when an FMVSS applicable to the same aspect of vehicle
performance goes into effect. This provision would not impact
State laws regarding the sale or repair of HAVs or ADSs by a
dealer, manufacturer, or distributor, retaining important
consumer protections while not adversely impacting the intent
of the section with regard to vehicle design, construction, and
performance. Further, subject to the preemption provision
contained in this section, this provision also would not exempt
a person from liability at common law or under a State statute
authorizing a civil remedy for monetary relief. This provision
would not alter current law with respect to FMVSS and common
law liability.
This section also would prohibit a State from issuing
licenses for DHAVs in a way that would discriminate against
individuals with disabilities. The intent of the Committee is
not to endorse or encourage the requirement of licenses for
operation of DHAVs; rather, it is only to establish that, if a
State were to choose to require a license for operation of
DHAVs, it must do so in a manner that does not discriminate
against individuals with disabilities.
The Committee understands that since it was first enacted
in 1966, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Safety Act) has always contained a provision preempting States
and political subdivisions of States from adopting or enforcing
a standard ``applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle'' as a FMVSS. The term ``performance'' in this
section is intended to be consistent with NHTSA's authority
under the Safety Act as it relates to vehicle or equipment
performance and is not intended to be broadened beyond NHTSA's
traditional interpretation, which excludes vehicle compliance
with or the enforcement of State and local traffic laws.
Further, for purposes of this Act, it is the Committee's
understanding that the DOT has a long-standing interpretation
that introduction into interstate commerce occurs if a vehicle
is introduced into a means of interstate traffic, such as being
driven on a public road, whether or not a vehicle crosses State
lines.
Section 4. Expedited resolution of highly automated vehicles conflicts
with standards.
This section would direct an accelerated process for the
Secretary to remove and update references to human drivers and
occupants in FMVSS. Many of these existing references would
prevent DHAVs or HAVs in automated mode from complying with
such standards and associated test procedures. This section
would direct the DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, or another entity the Secretary designates, to issue a
report (at the direction of the Secretary) that identifies each
provision in the standards referencing a human driver and
provides an alternative reference to an automated system. The
section would prohibit changing the purpose of any standard.
This section would further direct the Secretary to incorporate
the report into the standards.
Section 5. Highly automated vehicles testing.
This section would level the playing field so that all
manufacturers can test a vehicle that does not comply with
relevant standards under specified conditions, as certain
vehicle manufacturers are able to test noncompliant vehicles
under current law. This section is intended to apply to all
manufacturers, including those conducting research, not just
manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS
applies.
Section 6. Highly automated vehicles exemptions.
This section would increase the number of vehicles the
Secretary may exempt from one or more FMVSS under her existing
discretionary authority. Under current law, the Secretary has
the discretion to exempt manufacturers temporarily if the
exemption is consistent with the public interest and a finding
of comparable safety has been determined. This section would
raise the maximum number of HAVs for which a manufacturer is
eligible for an exemption from the current conventional vehicle
cap of 2,500 vehicles per manufacturer sold in the United
States in any 12-month period to 15,000 highly automated
vehicles per manufacturer in the first year after enactment,
40,000 vehicles in the second year, and up to 80,000 vehicles
in each year thereafter. After an exemption has been in place
for 4 years, a manufacturer would be eligible to request the
exemption of a higher number of vehicles beyond the cap. Before
granting a renewal of an exemption or otherwise increasing the
number of vehicles exempted, this section would require the
Secretary to evaluate the previous exemption and make the
safety comparison finding required under paragraph (3) of
section 30113(b) of title 49, United States Code. This section
would lift the current cap of 2 years for each exemption. The
expanded exemption authority under this section would sunset
with regard to a particular standard as new standards governing
that aspect of performance of an HAV go into effect, or after
10 years after the date of enactment of the AV START Act,
whichever occurs first. It is the Committee's intent that the
opportunity to receive an exemption would be available to all
manufacturers and not just to traditional manufacturers with a
manufacturer identification number issued prior to date of
enactment.
Section 7. Inoperative controls.
This section would address a barrier in current law to the
introduction of vehicles that can be used in automated mode.
Specifically, it would amend the existing prohibition against
making vehicle controls inoperative by accommodating an HAV
when its steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedals, gear
shift, or other feature or element of design related to the
performance of the dynamic driving task by a human operator is
disabled when in automated mode.
Section 8. Levels of driving automation.
This section would direct the Secretary to adopt the
definitions of the levels of driving automation issued by
standards-setting body SAE International and would provide a
process by which the Secretary could review those definitions
and determine whether to adopt any updates.
Section 9. Safety evaluation report.
This section would require each manufacturer of an HAV or
ADS to submit a safety evaluation report to the Secretary.
Safety evaluation reports would be required to include
descriptions of how the manufacturer is addressing nine subject
areas, through documented testing, validation and assessment,
relating to the development of the HAV or ADS that is the
subject of the report. These subject areas would include the
following: system safety; data recording; cybersecurity; human-
machine interface; crashworthiness; documentation of
capabilities; post-crash behavior; account for applicable laws;
and automation function. The Secretary would have the authority
to sunset a subject area as new standards applicable to the
same aspect are promulgated. All safety evaluation reports
would be made publicly available not later than 60 days after
receipt, except the Secretary would not release any
confidential business information. The section also would
establish civil penalties for false or misleading reports.
Nothing in this section would alter NHTSA's enforcement
authority. However, as the reports are not subject to approval,
NHTSA would not be able to condition the introduction of HAVs
or ADSs into interstate commerce based on a review of the
report or additional information.
Section 10. Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee.
This section would establish a technical committee of
outside experts appointed by the DOT to generate technical
recommendations for rulemakings and standards with respect to
HAVs, including system safety, automated steering and braking,
crashworthiness for vehicles with unconventional seating
positions, event data recording, accessibility, safeguards
against misuse, and potential conflicts between national and
international standards. With guidance from the Secretary, the
committee would provide recommendations on voluntary standards
on a periodic basis and recommendations for rulemaking within 5
years of enactment. The technical committee would be authorized
to create working groups to address specific issues, and would
be required to create a working group to address disability and
limited mobility access.
Section 11. Highly automated vehicles rulemaking.
This section would establish the process by which the
Secretary reviews the recommendations of the safety committee
and begins rulemaking proceedings to implement those
recommendations, consistent with existing authority.
Section 12. Consumer education.
This section would develop guidelines on responsible
consumer education efforts to improve the public's
understanding of advanced driver assistance systems and
automated vehicle technologies, their capabilities, and their
limitations. This section also would direct the Secretary to
promulgate a rule to require information about the capabilities
and limitations of HAVs or ADS at the point of sale and in the
owner's manual.
Section 13. Traffic safety and law enforcement.
This section would direct the Secretary to work with State
and local governments and law enforcement agencies to research
how HAVs would impact law enforcement and traffic safety. This
section also would direct the Secretary to improve crash data
collection system regarding HAVs.
Section 14. Cybersecurity.
This section would require each manufacturer of a HAV or
ADS to develop and execute a written plan for identifying and
reducing cybersecurity risks to the safety of such vehicles and
systems. This section also would authorize the Secretary to
work cooperatively with manufacturers to develop a policy for
coordinated disclosure of cybersecurity vulnerabilities (such
as bug bounty programs), and it would direct other Federal
agencies researching cybersecurity risks associated with HAVs
to coordinate with the Secretary on their findings.
Section 15. HAV data access advisory committee.
This section would create an HAV data access advisory
committee to make policy recommendations to Congress regarding
the ownership of, control of, and access to information or data
that HAVs collect or generate. It is the Committee's intent
that the committee membership, including voting or non-voting
members, would include a representative from academia. The
committee would be directed to report its recommendations to
congressional committees of jurisdiction not later than 2 years
after it is established. This section also would prohibit
departments and administrative agencies from promulgating rules
on these issues until the committee has issued its report. This
section would direct the GAO to study technologies that can
remove personal data from HAVs when they are sold to new owners
or at the conclusion of rentals or leases.
Section 16. Cybersecurity consumer education information.
This section would direct the Secretary to develop
educational cybersecurity resources to maintain awareness of
cybersecurity risks, and to make such resources available on
the NHTSA website.
Section 17. Provision of cybersecurity resource information.
This section would direct manufacturers to include
information in their vehicles' owners' manuals or on the
manufacturers' website directing consumers to the resources
developed in section 16 of the AV START Act.
Section 18. Highly automated vehicle study.
This section would direct the Secretary to initiate a study
on the existing and future impacts of HAVs on transportation
infrastructure, mobility, the environment, and fuel
consumption.
Section 19. Study on encouraging manufacturing in the United States of
automated driving equipment and intelligent transportation
solutions.
This section would direct the Secretary to conduct a study
on recommendations to incentivize domestic manufacturing of
automated driving equipment, including by the use of grant
programs and other funding sources.
Section 20. Privacy protections for users of motor vehicles.
This section would direct the Administrator of NHTSA to
create a public online database containing a description of the
information about individuals collected during motor vehicle
operation, an explanation of how such information would be used
or disclosed, steps manufacturers are taking to protect against
unauthorized disclosure of such information, and manufacturers'
privacy policies.
Section 21. Child safety.
In order to reduce the unintended deaths of children left
in the backseats of vehicles in high temperatures, this section
would direct the Secretary to issue a rule requiring each new
passenger motor vehicle weighing less than 10,000 pounds to be
equipped with a system to alert the operator to check rear
seats after the operator deactivates the engine. This section
also would direct the Secretary to consider technologies that
work with add-on child restraint systems that achieve the same
purpose. This section also would direct the Secretary to
contract with a third party to conduct a study on after-market
systems.
Section 22. Savings provision.
This section would affirm that nothing in this bill should
be construed to alter any existing authority under subtitle VI
of title 49, United States Code, relating to motor vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 23. HIGHWAYS
CHAPTER 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY
Sec. 402. Highway safety programs
(a) * * *
(l) Unattended Passengers.--
(1) In general.--Each State may use a portion of the
amounts it receives under this section to carry out a
program to educate the public on the risks of leaving a
child or unattended passenger in a vehicle after the
vehicle motor is deactivated by the operator.
(2) Program placement.--A State does not need to
carry out the program described in paragraph (1)
through the State transportation or highway safety
office.
(m) * * *
TITLE 49. TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI. MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART A. GENERAL
CHAPTER 301. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
SUBCHAPTER I. GENERAL
Sec. 30103. Relationship to other laws
(a) Uniformity of Regulations.--The Secretary of
Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation related to
a motor vehicle subject to subchapter I of chapter 135 of this
title that differs from a motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may
prescribe, for a motor vehicle operated by a carrier subject to
subchapter I of chapter 135, a safety regulation that imposes a
higher standard of performance after manufacture than that
required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of
manufacture.
(b) Preemption.--
(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a State or a 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. However, the United States
Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a
State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that
imposes a higher performance requirement than that
required by the otherwise applicable standard under
this chapter.
(2) A State may enforce a standard that is identical
to a standard prescribed under this chapter.
(3) Highly automated vehicles.--
(A) No State or political subdivision of a
State may adopt, maintain, or enforce any law,
rule, or standard regulating the design,
construction, or performance of a highly
automated vehicle or automated driving system
with respect to any of the safety evaluation
report subject areas described in section
30107(b).
(B) This paragraph shall cease to have effect
with respect to any particular subject matter
area on the effective date of a standard
applicable to the same aspect of vehicle
performance as identified in section 30107(f).
(C) Nothing in this paragraph 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) Antitrust Laws.--This chapter does not--
(1) exempt from the antitrust laws conduct that is
unlawful under those laws; or
(2) prohibit under the antitrust laws conduct that is
lawful under those laws.
(d) Warranty Obligations and Additional Legal Rights and
Remedies.--Sections 30117(b), 30118-30121, 30166(f), and
30167(a) and (b) of this title do not establish or affect a
warranty obligation under a law of the United States or a
State. A remedy under those sections and sections 30161 and
30162 of this title is in addition to other rights and remedies
under other laws of the United States or a State.
[(e) Common Law Liability.--Compliance with a motor vehicle
safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a
person from liability at common law.]
(e) State Law Liability.--
(1) Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person
from liability at common law.
(2) Subject to subsection (b)(3)(A), nothing in
subsection (b)(3) shall exempt a person from liability
at common law or under a State statute authorizing a
civil remedy for damages or other monetary relief.
Sec. 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 and aggregate
results comparing the safety level of
the vehicle or system with a vehicle
that is not highly automated and is
driven by a human driver.
(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, including any component
therein; 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, including evaluation of elements of
the supply chain to identify and address cybersecurity
vulnerabilities, and the exchange of information about
any vulnerabilities discovered from field incidents,
internal testing, or external security research, and
mechanisms for alerting the human driver or operator
about cyber vulnerabilities.
(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, including its expected SAE level.
(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 not later than 60 days after receipt, 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
this chapter.
(3) Nothing in this section may be construed to
affect discovery, subpoena, other court order, or any
other judicial process otherwise allowed under
applicable Federal or State law.
Sec. 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 evaluation of elements of the supply
chain to identify and address cybersecurity
vulnerabilities;
(G) the use of segmentation and isolation
techniques in vehicle architecture design, as
appropriate;
(H) employee training on the implementation
of and compliance with the requirements under
this paragraph; and
(I) 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.--Each manufacturer
required to develop, maintain, and execute a plan under
paragraph (1) shall develop a summary of the plan that
is suitable for public disclosure and disclose such
summary to the public.
(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.
SUBCHAPTER II. STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE
Sec. 30112. Prohibitions on manufacturing, selling, and importing
noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment
(a) General.--
(1) Except as provided in this section, sections
30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of
this chapter, a person may not manufacture for sale,
sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for
introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the
United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment manufactured on or after the date an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed
under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or
equipment complies with the standard and is covered by
a certification issued under section 30115 of this
title.
(2) Except as provided in this section, sections
30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of
this chapter, a school or school system may not
purchase or lease a new 15-passenger van if it will be
used significantly by, or on behalf of, the school or
school system to transport preprimary, primary, or
secondary school students to or from school or an event
related to school, unless the 15-passenger van complies
with the motor vehicle standards prescribed for school
buses and multifunction school activity buses under
this title. This paragraph does not apply to the
purchase or lease of a 15-passenger van under a
contract executed before the date of enactment of this
paragraph.
(3) Except as provided in this section, section
30114, subsections (i) and (j) of section 30120, and
subchapter III, a person may not sell, offer for sale,
introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import into the United States any motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment if the vehicle or
equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle
safety about which notice was given under section
30118(c) or an order was issued under section 30118(b).
Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit
the importation of a new motor vehicle that receives a
required recall remedy before being sold to a consumer
in the United States.
(b) Nonapplication.--This section does not apply to--
(1) the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the
first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good
faith other than for resale;
(2) a person--
(A) establishing that the person had no
reason to know, despite exercising reasonable
care, that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment does not comply with applicable motor
vehicle safety standards prescribed under this
chapter;
(B) holding, without knowing about the
noncompliance and before the vehicle or
equipment is first purchased in good faith
other than for resale, a certificate issued by
a manufacturer or importer stating the vehicle
or equipment complies with applicable standards
prescribed under this chapter; or
(C) having no reason to know, despite
exercising reasonable care, that a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment contains a
defect related to motor vehicle safety about
which notice was given under section 30118(c)
or an order was issued under section 30118(b);
(3) a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
intended only for export, labeled for export on the
vehicle or equipment and on the outside of any
container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported;
(4) a motor vehicle the Secretary of Transportation
decides under section 30141 of this title is capable of
complying with applicable standards prescribed under
this chapter;
(5) a motor vehicle imported for personal use by an
individual who receives an exemption under section
30142 of this title;
(6) a motor vehicle under section 30143 of this title
imported by an individual employed outside the United
States;
(7) a motor vehicle under section 30144 of this title
imported on a temporary basis;
(8) a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment under section 30145 of this title requiring
further manufacturing;
(9) a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old;
[or]
(10) the introduction of a motor vehicle (except for
a highly automated vehicle) in interstate commerce
solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a
manufacturer that agrees not to sell or offer for sale
the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or
evaluation and that prior to the date of enactment of
this paragraph--
(A) has manufactured and distributed motor
vehicles into the United States that are
certified to comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards;
(B) has submitted to the Secretary
appropriate manufacturer identification
information under part 566 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations; and
(C) if applicable, has identified an agent
for service of process in accordance with part
551 of such title[.]; and
(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. 30113. General exemptions
(a) Definition.--In [this section,] this section--
(1) the term ``low-emission motor vehicle'' means a
motor vehicle meeting the standards for new motor
vehicles applicable to the vehicle under section 202 of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521) when the vehicle is
manufactured and emitting an air pollutant in an amount
significantly below one of those standards[.]; and
(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.
(b) Authority to Exempt and Procedures.--
(1) The Secretary of Transportation may exempt, on a
temporary basis, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle
safety standard prescribed under this chapter or
passenger motor vehicles from a bumper standard
prescribed under chapter 325 of this title, on terms
the Secretary considers appropriate. An exemption may
be renewed. A renewal may be granted only on
reapplication and must conform to the requirements of
this subsection.
[(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 information, this
section and the Secretary require.]
(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.
Before granting a renewal of an exemption or otherwise
increasing the number of highly automated vehicles of a
manufacturer that may be sold or introduced under a
previously granted exemption, the Secretary shall
evaluate the previous exemption and make a safety
equivalence finding consistent with paragraph (3).
(3) The Secretary may act under this subsection on
finding that--
(A) an exemption is consistent with the
public interest and this chapter or chapter 325
of this title (as applicable); and
(B)
(i) compliance with the standard
would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has
tried to comply with the standard in
good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier
the development or field evaluation of
a new motor vehicle safety feature
providing a safety level at least equal
to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the
development or field evaluation of a
low-emission motor vehicle easier and
would not unreasonably lower the safety
level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from
selling or introducing or delivering
into interstate commerce a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at
least equal to the overall safety level
of nonexempt vehicles.
(c) Contents of Applications.--A manufacturer applying for an
exemption under subsection (b) of this section shall include
the following information in the application:
(1) if the application is made under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(i) of this section, a complete financial
statement describing the economic hardship and a
complete description of the manufacturer's good faith
effort to comply with each motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter, or a bumper
standard prescribed under chapter 325 of this title,
from which the manufacturer is requesting an exemption.
(2) if the application is made under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(ii) of this section, a record of the
research, development, and testing establishing the
innovative nature of the safety feature and a detailed
analysis establishing that the safety level of the
feature at least equals the safety level of the
standard.
(3) if the application is made under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(iii) of this section, a record of the
research, development, and testing establishing that
the motor vehicle is a low-emission motor vehicle and
that the safety level of the vehicle is not lowered
unreasonably by exemption from the standard.
(4) if the application is made under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(iv) of this section, a detailed analysis
showing how the vehicle provides an overall safety
level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
(d) Eligibility.--
(1) A manufacturer is eligible for an exemption under
subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) of this section (including an
exemption under subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) relating to a
bumper standard referred to in subsection (b)(1)) only
if the Secretary determines that the manufacturer's
total motor vehicle production in the most recent year
of production is not more than 10,000. [A manufacturer
is eligible for an exemption under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section only if
the Secretary determines the exemption is for not more
than 2,500 vehicles to be sold in the United States in
any 12-month period].
(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 15,000 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 40,000 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 80,000 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 80,000 vehicles in any-12 month period
after the exemption has been in place for 4
years.
(e) Maximum Period.--An exemption or renewal under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(i) of this section may be granted for not more than 3
years. An exemption or renewal under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii),
(iii), or (iv) of this section may be granted for not more than
2 years, unless the vehicle is a highly automated vehicle.
(f) Disclosure.--The Secretary may make public, by the 10th
day after an application is filed, information contained in the
application or relevant to the application unless the
information concerns or is related to a trade secret or other
confidential information not relevant to the application.
(g) Notice of Decision.--The Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of each decision granting an
exemption under this section and the reasons for granting it.
(h) Permanent Label Requirement.--The Secretary shall require
a permanent label to be fixed to a motor vehicle granted an
exemption under this section. The label shall either name or
describe each motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under
this chapter or bumper standard prescribed under chapter 325 of
this title from which the vehicle is exempt. The Secretary may
require that written notice of an exemption be delivered by
appropriate means to the dealer and the first purchaser of the
vehicle other than for resale.
Sec. 30122. Making safety devices and elements inoperative
(a) Definition.--In this section, ``motor vehicle repair
business'' means a person holding itself out to the public to
repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment.
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental
company, or motor vehicle repair business may not
knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or
element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed
under this chapter unless the manufacturer,
distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business
reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not
be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during
maintenance or repair) when the device or element is
inoperative.
(2) The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a manufacturer that intentionally causes a
steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedals, a gear
shift, or other feature or element of design related to
the performance of the dynamic driving task by a human
operator 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.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation may
prescribe regulations--
(1) to exempt a person from this section if the
Secretary decides the exemption is consistent with
motor vehicle safety and section 30101 of this title;
and
(2) to define ``make inoperative''.
SUBCHAPTER IV. ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
Sec. 30165. Civil penalty
(a) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--A person that violates any of
section 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a),
30125(c), 30127, 30141 through 30147, or 31137, or a
regulation prescribed thereunder, is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty of not
more than $5,000 for each violation. A separate
violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal
to allow or perform an act required by any of those
sections. The maximum penalty under this subsection for
a related series of violations is $35,000,000.
(2) School buses.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1), the maximum amount of a civil penalty
under this paragraph shall be $10,000 in the
case of--
(i) the manufacture, sale, offer for
sale, introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce,
or importation of a school bus or
school bus equipment (as those terms
are defined in section 30125(a) of this
title) in violation of section
30112(a)(1) of this title; or
(ii) a violation of section
30112(a)(2) of this title.
(B) Related series of violations.--A separate
violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item
of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure
or refusal to allow or perform an act required
by that section. The maximum penalty under this
paragraph for a related series of violations is
$15,000,000.
(3) Section 30166.--Except as provided in paragraph
(4), a person who violates section 30166 or a
regulation prescribed under that section is liable to
the United States Government for a civil penalty for
failing or refusing to allow or perform an act required
under that section or regulation. The maximum penalty
under this paragraph is $5,000 per violation per day.
The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related
series of daily violations is $35,000,000.
(4) False or misleading reports.--A person who
knowingly and willfully submits materially false or
misleading information to the Secretary, after
certifying the same information as accurate under the
certification process established pursuant to section
30166(o) or under the certification process established
pursuant to section 30107(e), shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day. The
maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related
series of daily violations is $1,000,000.
(b) * * *
PART C. INFORMATION, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 323. CONSUMER INFORMATION
Sec. 32304B. Child safety
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Passenger motor vehicle.--The term ``passenger
motor vehicle'' has the meaning given that term in
section 32101.
(2) Rear designated seating position.--The term
``rear designated seating position'' means designated
seating positions that are rearward of the front seat.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Transportation.
(b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the American Vision for Safer Transportation
through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act, the
Secretary shall issue a final rule requiring all new passenger
motor vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight to be equipped with a system to alert the operator to
check rear designated seating positions after the vehicle
engine or motor is deactivated by the operator.
(c) Means.--The alert required under subsection (b)--
(1) shall include a distinct auditory and visual
alert, which may be combined with a haptic alert; and
(2) shall be activated when the vehicle motor is
deactivated by the operator.
(d) Add-on Child Restraint Systems.--In issuing the final
rule required by subsection (b), the Secretary shall consider
additional technologies that work with add-on child restraint
systems that achieve the same purpose of alerting the driver in
addition to the vehicle-based system.
(e) Phase-in.--The rule issued pursuant to subsection (b)
shall require full compliance with the rule beginning on
September 1st of the first calendar year that begins more than
30 months after the date on which the final rule is issued.
[all]