[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]