Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Bill Canis
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business

September 19, 2017

Congressional Research Service

7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44940
 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Summary
Autonomous motor vehicles have been a topic of congressional hearings in recent years.
Congress is considering legislation that would, for the first time, provide new regulatory tools to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to oversee autonomous vehicles.
As the capacity of compact computers has gone up and their cost has dropped, the prospect of
converting many driver-controlled functions to technology-control has increased significantly.
Consumers are demanding that their vehicles have more telecommunications applications, while
ride-sharing has prompted new concepts of mobility for the elderly and disabled, and people who
do not own cars. In addition, more autonomous vehicles are seen as a way to reduce U.S. motor
vehicle fatalities. There were over 40,000 deaths from traffic accidents in 2016, nearly all caused
by driver error.
The federal government and the states share motor vehicle regulation, with the federal
government responsible for vehicle safety and states for driver-related aspects such as licensing
and registration. While NHTSA has the statutory authority to regulate all types of motor vehicles,
its traditional standard-setting process would take many years at a time when vehicle innovation
is changing rapidly; standards envisioned now could be obsolete by the time they took effect. In
the absence of NHTSA regulation of autonomous vehicles, nearly half the states have enacted
laws on different aspects of autonomous vehicle deployment, resulting in a patchwork of state
regulation.
On September 6, 2017, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote H.R. 3388. The
legislation, which incorporates some provisions recommended in a 2016 U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) report and also in a later 2017 DOT report, would preempt state regulation
of some aspects of autonomous vehicle deployment, while providing new regulatory tools to
NHTSA. H.R. 3388 would
preempt states from regulating the design of autonomous vehicles, unless those
laws are identical to federal law;
expand NHTSAs authority to grant exemptions from its standards to encourage
innovation;
require each manufacturer to submit a safety assessment certification showing
how it is addressing autonomous vehicle safety;
mandate within one year of enactment a NHTSA report indicating what federal
safety standards must be updated and listing its vehicle safety priorities; and
require manufacturers to develop and publicize to consumers their cybersecurity
and data privacy plans.
The legislation would also establish an advisory committee, a new regulation for rear-seat
occupant alerts (to reduce infant fatalities), and a review of headlamp standards. H.R. 3388 has
been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; members of
that committee have issued principles to guide them in developing similar legislation.

Congressional Research Service

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Technology of Autonomous Vehicles .............................................................................................. 1
Federal Regulatory Issues ............................................................................................................... 3
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 4
Model State Policy .................................................................................................................... 4
Current Federal Regulatory Tools ............................................................................................. 5
Proposed New Regulatory Tools ............................................................................................... 5
Trump Administration Revises DOT Guidelines ...................................................................... 6
State Concerns ................................................................................................................................. 7
Cybersecurity and Data Privacy ...................................................................................................... 8
Educating Motorists and Pedestrians ............................................................................................. 10
Congressional Action .....................................................................................................................11
House of Representatives .........................................................................................................11
Controversy with the Legislation ...................................................................................... 13
Senate ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Figures
Figure 1. Autonomous Vehicle Technologies .................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. States with Enacted Autonomous Vehicle Measures ........................................................ 8
Figure 3. Entry Points for Vehicle Hacking ..................................................................................... 9

Tables
Table 1. Levels of Vehicle Automation ........................................................................................... 2

Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 14

Congressional Research Service

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Introduction
Autonomous vehicles, which would carry out many or all of their functions without the
intervention of a driver, may bring sweeping social and economic changes in their wake. The
elderly, disabled Americans, urban residents, and those who do not own a car may have new
travel options. Travel on public roads and highways could become less congested. Highway travel
could become safer as well: U.S. roadway fatalities rose in 2015 and 2016, the first annual
increases in more than 50 years,1 and a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has shown that 94% of crashes are due to human errors2 that
autonomous vehicles could reduce. As a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) report noted,
highly automated vehicles hold a learning advantage over humans. While a human driver may
repeat the same mistakes as millions before them, a [highly automated vehicle] can benefit from
the data and experience drawn from thousands of other vehicles on the road.3
Congressional committees have held numerous hearings on federal policy regarding automated
vehicles, and have debated changes in federal regulation to encourage vehicular innovation while
protecting passenger safety. In July 2017, the House Energy and Commerce Committee
unanimously ordered to be reported the first major legislation on autonomous vehicles (H.R.
3388); the House of Representatives passed that legislation by voice vote on September 6, 2017.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
members of that committee have issued principles to guide them in developing similar legislation.

Technology of Autonomous Vehicles

The technologies used in autonomous vehicles are very different from the predominantly
mechanical, driver-controlled technology of the 1960s, when the first federal vehicle safety laws
were enacted. Increasingly, vehicles can be controlled through electronics, requiring little human
involvement. Performance can be altered via over-the-air software updates. A range of advanced
driver assistance systems is being introduced to motor vehicles, many of them bringing
automation to vehicular functions once performed only by the driver. These features automate
lighting and braking, connect the car and driver to the Global Positioning System (GPS) and
smartphones, and keep the vehicle in the correct lane. Three forces drive motor vehicle
innovation:
technological advances enabled by new materials and more powerful, compact
electronics;
consumer demand for telecommunications connectivity and new types of vehicle
ownership and ridesharing; and
regulatory mandates pertaining to emissions, fuel efficiency, and safety.

1
In 2016, there were 40,200 fatalities from motor vehicles, a 6% increase over 2015; there were 37,757 motor vehicle
fatalities in 2015, a 7% increase over 2014. These two years reverse over 50 years of declining fatalities on U.S.
roadways. National Safety Council, NSC Motor Vehicle Fatality Estimates, http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/
Pages/Fatality-Estimates.aspx.
2
S. Singh, Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 115, February 2015.
3
U.S. Department of Transportation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, September 2016, p. 5, https://www.transportation.gov/
AV/federal-automated-vehicles-policy-september-2016.

Congressional Research Service 1

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Increasingly, such innovations are being combined as manufacturers produce vehicles with higher
levels of automation. Vehicles do not fall neatly into two categories of automated and
nonautomated, because all of todays motor vehicles have some element of automation.
The Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE), an international standards-setting
organization, has developed six categories of vehicle automationranging from a human driver
doing everything to automated systems performing all the tasks once performed by a driver. This
classification system (Table 1) has been adopted by DOT to foster standardized nomenclature to
aid clarity and consistency in discussions about vehicle automation and safety.

Table 1. Levels of Vehicle Automation

SAE Automation Category Vehicle Function

Level 0 Human driver does everything.

Level 1 An automated system in the vehicle can sometimes assist the human driver
conduct some parts of driving.
Level 2 An automated system can conduct some parts of driving, while the human driver
continues to monitor the driving environment and performs most of the driving.
Level 3 An automated system can conduct some of the driving and monitor the driving
environment in some instances, but the human driver must be ready to take back
control if necessary.
Level 4 An automated system conducts the driving and monitors the driving environment,
without human interference, but this level operates only in certain environments
and conditions.
Level 5 The automated system performs all driving tasks, under all conditions that a
human driver could.

Source: DOT and NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, September 2016, p. 9,
https://www.transportation.gov/AV/federal-automated-vehicles-policy-september-2016.
Note: SAE is the Society of Automotive Engineers International, http://www.sae.org.

Vehicles sold today are in levels 1 and 2 of SAEs automation rating system. Views differ as to
how long it may take for full automation to become standard. Some forecast market-ready
autonomous vehicles at levels 3 to 5 within five years.4 Others argue that it will take much longer,
as more testing, regulation, and policy work should be done before autonomous vehicles beyond
level 2 are widely deployed.5
Technologies that could guide an automated vehicle (Figure 1) include a wide variety of
electronic sensors that would determine the distance between the vehicle and obstacles; detect
lane markings, pedestrians, and bicycles; park the vehicle; use GPS, inertial navigation, and a
system of built-in maps to guide the vehicle direction and location; employ cameras that provide
360-degree views around the vehicle; and use dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) to
monitor road conditions, congestion, crashes, and possible rerouting. These technologies are
being offered in various combinations on vehicles currently on the market, while manufacturers
study how to combine them in vehicles that could safely transport passengers without drivers.

4
Dr. James Hedlund, Autonomous Vehicles Meet Human Drivers: Traffic Safety Issues for States, Governors Highway
Safety Association, February 2, 2017, p. 5, http://www.ghsa.org/resources/spotlight-av17.
5
Jeremy Gelbart, You May Not Live Long Enough to Ride a Driverless Car, Newsweek, April 1, 2017,
http://www.newsweek.com/you-may-not-live-long-enough-ride-driverless-car-575305.

Congressional Research Service 2

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Figure 1. Autonomous Vehicle Technologies

Source: CRS, based on Autonomous Vehicles fact sheet,

Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan.

While private-sector development has focused on vehicle equipment, federal and academic
researchers, along with industry, have spent over a decade developing complementary sensor
technologies that could improve safety and vehicle performance. These include vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) capabilitiesoften referred to with the composite term
V2X.
V2X technology relies on communication of information to warn drivers about dangerous
situations that could lead to a crash, using DSRC to exchange messages about vehicles speeds,
braking status, stopped vehicles ahead, or blind spots to warn drivers so they can take evasive
action. V2X messages have a range of 300 meters (a fifth of a mile)up to twice the distance of
onboard sensorscameras, and radar.6 These radio messages can see around corners and
through other vehicles.
NHTSA has evaluated V2X applications and estimates that just two of them could reduce the
number of crashes by 50%: intersection movement assist warns the driver when it is not safe to
enter an intersection, and left turn assist warns a driver when there is a strong probability of
colliding with an oncoming vehicle when making a left turn. V2V communications may also
permit technologies such as forward collision warning, blind spot warning, and do-not-pass
warnings. NHTSA estimated in 2014 that installing V2V communications capability will cost
about $350 per vehicle.7

Federal Regulatory Issues

DOT has issued two reports on federal regulatory issues with regard to autonomous vehicles,
based on consultations with industry, technology and mobility experts, state governments, safety
advocates, and others. DOT anticipates that it will continue to issue annual updates on federal
regulatory guidance, in light of the pace of autonomous vehicle innovation.

6
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication Technology, p. 1,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/vehicle-vehicle-communications.
7
Ibid., p. 3.

Congressional Research Service 3

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

The first report issued by DOT, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy,8 laid the foundation for
regulation and legislation by clarifying DOTs thinking in four areas:
a set of guidelines outlining best practices for autonomous vehicle design,
testing, and deployment;
a model state policy that identifies where new autonomous vehicle-related issues
fit in the current federal and state regulatory structures;
a streamlined review process to expedite requests for DOT regulatory
interpretations to spur autonomous development; and
identification of new tools and regulatory structures for NHTSA that could aid in
autonomous deployment, such as expanded exemption authority and premarket
testing to assure that autonomous vehicles will be safe.

Guidelines
The 2016 guidelines identified 15 practices and procedures that DOT expected manufacturers,
suppliers, and service providerssuch as driverless taxi companiesto follow in testing
autonomous vehicles.9 It was expected that the data generated from this research would be widely
shared with government and the public while still respecting competitive interests.
Manufacturers, researchers, and service providers were urged to ensure that their test vehicles
meet applicable NHTSA safety standards10 and that their vehicles be tested through simulation,
on test tracks, or on actual roadways. To assist in the regulatory oversight, NHTSA requested
each entity testing autonomous vehicles to submit Safety Assessment letters that will outline how
it is meeting the guidelines, addressing such issues as data recording, privacy, system safety,
cybersecurity, and crashworthiness. DOT specified that vehicle software must be capable of being
updated through over-the-air means (similar to how smartphones are currently updated), so
improvements can be diffused quickly to vehicle owners.11

Model State Policy

Any vehicle operating on public roads is subject to dual regulation by the federal government and
the states in which it is registered and driven. Traditionally, NHTSA has regulated auto safety,
while states have licensed automobile drivers and established traffic regulations.12 DOTs 2016
report clarified and restated that division for the transition to fully autonomous vehicles where the
automobile is the driver.

8
U.S. Department of Transportation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, September 2016, https://www.transportation.gov/AV/
federal-automated-vehicles-policy-september-2016.
9
The 15 practices and procedures: data recording and sharing; privacy; system safety; vehicle cybersecurity; human
machine interface; crashworthiness; consumer education and training; registration and certification; post-crash
behavior; federal, state, and local laws; ethical considerations; operational design domain; object and event detection
and response; fall back; and validation methods. Ibid., p. 15.
10
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
11
Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, pp. 11-36.
12
State responsibilities include driver and vehicle licensing, enforcement of traffic laws, vehicle safety inspections, and
regulating motor vehicle insurance and liability. Ibid., p. 38.

Congressional Research Service 4

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

The model state policy, developed by NHTSA in concert with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators and other safety advocates, suggested state roles and procedures,13
including administrative issues (designating a lead state agency for autonomous vehicle testing),
an application process for manufacturers that want to test vehicles on state roads, coordination
with local law enforcement agencies, changes to vehicle registration and titling, and liability and
insurance. Liability may change significantly with autonomous vehicles, as states will have to
reconsider the extent to which vehicle owners, operators, passengers, vehicle manufacturers, and
component suppliers bear responsibility for accidents when no one is actively driving the vehicle.

Current Federal Regulatory Tools

In addition to its existing authority to issue federal vehicle safety standards and order recalls of
defective vehicles, NHTSA has other tools it can use to address the introduction of new
technologies: letters of interpretation, exemptions from current standards, and rulemakings to
issue new standards or amend existing standards.
NHTSA uses letters of interpretation when it receives requests seeking clarifications of existing
law. It may take NHTSA several months or even years to issue a letter of interpretation, which
cannot make substantive changes to regulations.
The agency can grant exemptions from safety standards in certain circumstances. They are not
granted indefinitelyan exemption may last for two or three yearsor for a large number of
vehicles.14 The approval process may take months or years. Rulemaking to adopt new standards
or modify existing ones generally takes several years and requires extensive public comment
periods.

Proposed New Regulatory Tools

Federal Automated Vehicles Policy identified potential new tools and authorities that could affect
the way autonomous vehicles are regulated. These included the following:
Premarket safety assurance tools such as premarket testing, data, and analyses
reported by a manufacturer to demonstrate that a new vehicle met standards
before being deployed on public roads. The report asserted that some of these
tools could be used without new statutory authority.
Premarket approval authority,15 as distinct from safety assurance as well as from
the self-certification process used for the past 50 years.16 The report indicated this
could be used to replace self-certification for autonomous vehicles, requiring
NHTSA to test prototype vehicles to ensure that they met all federal motor
vehicle safety standards. It said NHTSA would need new statutory authority and
additional resources to take on certification procedures now handled by
manufacturers.

13
Ibid., p. 37.
14
In most cases, NHTSA can consider an exemption for up to 2,500 vehicles per year. Ibid., p. 56.
15
Other federal agencies use this process now. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration uses it to regulate
software such as autopilot programs used on commercial aircraft. Ibid., p. 71.
16
Automakers self-certify that their vehicles meet all federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA does not test new
models before they come on the road, but later spot tests to ensure that new vehicles are in compliance.

Congressional Research Service 5

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Imminent hazard authority to permit NHTSA to take immediate action to curtail

serious safety risks that could harm the public. The Obama Administration
unsuccessfully argued that this new tool be included in the 2015 surface
transportation bill.17
Expanded exemption authority for autonomous vehicles. The report
recommended raising the current limit of 2,500 vehicles that can be exempted
from federal safety standards in order to provide a larger database of real-world
experience for analyzing on-road safety readiness of exempted vehicles. The
report described several alternative ways in which an expanded exemption could
operate, and noted that it would be important to guard against overuse of the
authority such that exemptions might displace rulemaking as the de facto primary
method of regulating motor vehicles and equipment.18
Enhanced data collection tools allowing NHTSA to utilize the large amounts of
data collected by autonomous vehicles. One example would be to employ event
data recordersnow used in a limited way on nearly all motor vehicles to record
vehicle and driver information in the seconds before a crashfor use in
autonomous vehicles to identify safety-related defects. NHTSA said it has the
statutory authority now for this tool.

Trump Administration Revises DOT Guidelines

The Trump Administration issued changes to Federal Automated Vehicles Policy on September
12, 2017, announcing at the same time that DOT expects to issue annual automated driving
systems (ADS) policy updates in light of the pace of vehicle innovation. The new voluntary
guidance, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,19 clarifies for manufacturers,
service providers, and states some of the issues raised in the Obama Administrations predecessor
report and replaces some parts of the earlier guidance; the new policy recommendations took
effect immediately.20 In developing the revised autonomous vehicle policy, DOT evaluated
comments, public meeting proceedings, recent congressional hearings, and state activities.
Among the clarifications, which affect Level 3 through 5 vehicles, are the following:
Whereas the 2016 DOT report listed 15 vehicle performance guidelines for testing practices and
procedures, the 2017 DOT report cites 12, eliminating recommendations concerning privacy;
registration and certification; and ethical considerations. A DOT web page notes that elements
involving privacy, ethical considerations, registration, and the sharing of data beyond crash data
remain important and are areas for further discussion and research.21
These vehicle performance guidelines, and the manufacturers compliance with them, which had
to be reported to NHTSA in a mandatory Safety Assessment letter under the 2016 policy, have
now been made voluntary and no reports are required. Instead, organizations testing autonomous
vehicles are encouraged to address the 12 procedures and processes by publishing a voluntary
safety self-assessment of how their testing procedures align with NHTSAs recommended

17
Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, P.L. 114-94.
18
Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, p. 76.
19
DOT and NHTSA, Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, DOT HS 812 442, September 2017,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/13069a-ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf.
20
Ibid., p. 1.
21
https://www.nhtsa.gov/manufacturers/automated-vehicles-manufacturers.

Congressional Research Service 6

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

procedures, and sharing it with consumers, governments, and the public so a better understanding
of autonomous vehicle capabilities is developed.22
The 2016 policy indicated that in the future NHTSA might make these guidelines mandatory and
subject to a rulemaking. That language has been replaced with a statement that assessments are
not subject to federal approval.23
The 2017 report provides best practices recommended for state legislatures with regard to Level
3 and 4 vehicles, building on DOTs Model State Policy issued in 2016. DOT notes that it is not
necessary that all state laws with regard to autonomous vehicles be uniform, but rather that they
promote innovation and the swift, widespread, safe integration of ADSs.24 In the 2017 report,
NHTSA recommends states adopt four safety-related types of legislation covering the following:
A technology-neutral environment. Legislation proposed in some states would
grant motor vehicle manufacturers special standing over other organizations in
testing autonomous vehicles, but the 2017 report states that no data suggests that
experience in vehicle manufacturing is an indicator of the ability to safely test or
deploy vehicle technology,25 and DOT counsels that all organizations meeting
federal and state law prerequisites should be able to test vehicles in that state.
Licensing and registration procedures.
Reporting and communications methods for public safety officials.
Review of traffic laws and regulations that could be barriers to ADS testing and
deployment.
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety also includes best practices for state highway
safety officials, including registration and titling and liability and insurance.26

State Concerns
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 states plus the District of
Columbia have enacted legislation related to autonomous vehicles (Figure 2), and related bills
have been introduced in 33 states in 2017. DOTs model state policy and H.R. 3388, as passed by
the House of Representatives, reflect concerns that the absence of federal regulation covering
autonomous vehicles may encourage states to move forward on their own, potentially resulting in
diverse and even conflicting state regulations.
State laws with regard to autonomous vehicles vary widely. Florida was the first state to permit
anyone with a valid drivers license to operate an autonomous vehicle on public roads, and it does
not require an operator to be in the vehicle. In California, the regional Contra Costa
Transportation Authority approved the testing on certain public roads of autonomous vehicles not
equipped with a steering wheel, brake pedal, or accelerator. A Tennessee law bars local
governments from prohibiting the use of autonomous vehicles and established a new vehicle tax.
North Dakota and Utah enacted laws to study safety standards and report back to the legislature

22
NHTSA will feature a template on its website, illustrative of the type of information an organization might provide,
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, p.16.
23
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, p. 16.
24
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, p. 20.
25
Ibid., p. 21.
26
Ibid., pp. 22-24.

Congressional Research Service 7

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

with recommendations. Michigan enacted several bills in 2016 that permit autonomous vehicles
to be driven on public roads, address testing procedures, and establish the American Center for
Mobility for testing vehicles.27

Figure 2. States with Enacted Autonomous Vehicle Measures

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, viewed on September 15, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/
research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx.
Note: States in gray have not issued executive orders or enacted legislation on autonomous vehicles.

Cybersecurity and Data Privacy

The more automated vehicles become, the more sensors and computer components are employed
to provide functions now handled by the driver. Many of these new automated components will
generate large amounts of data about the vehicle, its location at precise moments in time, driver
behavior, and vehicle performance, thereby opening new portals for possible unauthorized access
to vehicle systems and the data generated by them.
Protecting autonomous vehicles from hackers is of paramount concern to federal and state
governments, manufacturers, and service providers. A well-publicized hacking of a conventional
vehicle by professionals28 demonstrated to the public that such disruptions can occur. Hackers
could use more than a dozen portals to enter even a conventional vehicles electronic systems
(Figure 3), including seemingly innocuous entry points such as the airbag, lighting systems, and
tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS).29 Requirements that automated vehicles accept remote

27
Ben Husch and Anne Teigen, Regulating Autonomous Vehicles, National Conference of State Legislatures,
LegisBrief, Vol. 15, No. 13, April 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/legisbriefs/2017/lb_2513.pdf.
28
Hackers showed that they could remotely disable a Jeeps engine and brakes; Fiat Chrysler later addressed the
vulnerability. Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the HighwayWith Me in It, Wired, July 21, 2015,
pp. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/.
29
TPMS is an electronic system designed to monitor the air pressure inside pneumatic tires.

Congressional Research Service 8

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

software updates, so that owners do not need to take action each time software is revised, are in
part a response to concerns that security weaknesses be rectified as quickly as possible.

Figure 3. Entry Points for Vehicle Hacking

Source: Tom Huddleston Jr., This graphic shows all the ways your car can be hacked, Fortune, September 15,
2015, pp. http://fortune.com/2015/09/15/intel-car-hacking/.
Note: Graphic courtesy of Intel Corp.

To address these concerns, motor vehicle manufacturers established the Automotive Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (Auto-ISAC),30 which released a set of cybersecurity principles in
2016. DOTs automated vehicle policies address cybersecurity, calling for a product development
process that engineers into vehicle electronics a thorough cybersecurity threat mitigation system,
and sharing of incidents, threats, and violations to the Auto-ISAC so that the broader vehicle
industry can learn from them.
Aside from hackers, many legitimate entities would like to access vehicle data, including the
manufacturer, the supplier providing the technology and sensors, the vehicle owner and
occupants, urban planners, insurance companies, law enforcement, and first responders (in case of
an accident). Relevant types of data include the following:
Vehicle testing crash data. DOTs autonomous vehicle policy reports address how data from
vehicle crashes during a test should be handled, with entities conducting the testing adopting best
practices established by standard-setting organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
NHTSA recommended that the data from autonomous vehicle crashes be stored and made
available for retrieval and shared with the government for crash reconstruction.31

30
https://www.automotiveisac.com.
31
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, p. 14.

Congressional Research Service 9

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

Data Ownership. Current law does not address ownership of most of the data collected by
vehicle software and computers. Most new conventional vehicles on the road have an event data
recorder (EDR), which captures a limited amount of information about a vehicle, the driver, and
passengers in the few seconds before a crash (e.g., speed and use of seat belts). The most recent
surface transportation legislation32 enacted the Driver Privacy Act of 2015 to address data
ownership with regard to EDRsestablishing that EDR data is property of the vehicle owner
but it does not govern the other types of data that will be accumulated by autonomous vehicles.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials has recommended that the federal
government identify these data, their ownership, and instances where they should be shared.33
Consumer Privacy. The 2016 DOT report included a section on privacy, but the 2017 DOT
report omits that discussion. In the earlier report, DOT discussed elements that testing
organizations policies should include, such as transparency for consumers and owner access to
data.34 Separately, two motor vehicle trade associations have developed Privacy Principles for
Vehicle Technologies and Services, which are similar to the practices discussed in the 2016 DOT
report.35

Educating Motorists and Pedestrians

There may not be a consensus on when large numbers of autonomous vehicles will hit U.S. roads,
but whenever that time comes, those vehicles will be a small segment of the more than 264
million passenger cars and light trucks now registered in the United States.36 With Americans
keeping their cars for an average of more than 11 years, traditional vehicles are likely to have a
highway presence for decades.
Several recent studies and surveys reveal public skepticism about autonomous vehicles. A recent
survey by IHS Markit, a market research firm, shows that motorists overwhelmingly approve of
some Levels 1 and 2 automated vehicle technologiessuch as blind spot detection and automatic
emergency brakingbut that fully autonomous vehicles are not as popular.37 A similar 2017
study by J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, found that most Americans are becoming more
skeptical of self-driving motor vehicle technology, although strong interest exists in some of the
elements of autonomy, such as collision protection and driving assistance technologies. The
report noted that automated driving is a new and complex concept for many consumers; theyll
have to experience it firsthand to fully understand it.38 The Governors Highway Safety
Association also reported on three additional surveys with similar results.39

32
Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
33
Paul Lewis, Gregory Rogers, and Stanford Turner, Beyond Speculation: Automated Vehicles and Public Policy, Eno
Center For Transportation, May 2, 2017, https://www.enotrans.org/etl-material/beyond-speculation-automated-
vehicles-public-policy/.
34
Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, p. 19.
35
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers, https://autoalliance.org/
connected-cars/automotive-privacy-2/principles/.
36
Jack Walsworth, Average age of vehicles on road hits 11.6 years, Automotive News, November 22, 2016,
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years.
37
IHS Markit, Survey Finds Varied Autonomy and Safety Technology Preferences for New Vehicles, IHS Markit
Says, press release, August 3, 2017, http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/automotive/survey-finds-varied-
autonomy-and-safety-technology-preferences-new-vehicles.
38
Over the three years it has been surveying on this topic, J.D. Power reported in U.S. Tech Choice Study that all U.S.
generational groups except Gen Y (individuals born between 1977 and 1994) are showing less acceptance of
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service 10

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

To address the lack of understanding about autonomous vehicles, the 2017 DOT report calls for
major consumer education and training as vehicles are tested and deployed. Organizations testing
vehicles are encouraged to develop, document, and maintain employee dealer, distributor, and
consumer education and training programs to address the anticipated differences in the use and
operation of ADSs from those of the conventional vehicles that the public owns and operates
today.40
DOT underscores the need for a wide range of potential autonomous vehicle users to become
familiar before vehicles are sold to consumers, using on- and off-road demonstrations, virtual
reality, and onboard vehicle systems. Others have made suggestions for consumer education
about autonomous vehicles, including the following:
the vehicle should let people on the roadincluding pedestriansknow when a
vehicle is in self-driving mode;
vehicle sales representatives should be trained about the technical aspects of the
vehicle and the benefits and risks of such vehicles compared to conventional
vehicles; and
manufacturers should hold training seminars, including crashworthiness and fall
back options (should a system fail), with updates as new levels of autonomy are
introduced.41

Congressional Action
Committees in the House of Representatives and Senate have held numerous hearings on the
technology of autonomous vehicles and possible federal issues that could result from their
deployment.

House of Representatives
On September 6, 2017, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote H.R. 3388, the Safely
Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution Actor SELF DRIVE
Act. The bill addresses concerns about state action replacing some federal regulation, while also
empowering NHTSA to take unique regulatory actions to ensure safety and encouraging
innovation in autonomous vehicles. It retains and clarifies the current arrangement of states
controlling most driver-related functions and the federal government being responsible for
vehicle safety. The major provisions focus on the following:
State Preemption. States would not be allowed to regulate the design, construction, or
performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or their components
unless those laws are identical to federal law.42 The legislation reiterates that vehicle registration,
driver licensing, driving education, insurance, law enforcement, and crash investigations should

(...continued)
autonomous vehicles. J.D. Power, Hands Off? Not Quite. Consumers Fear Technology Failures with Autonomous
Vehicles, press release, April 18, 2017, http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/jd-power-2017-us-tech-choice-study.
39
Autonomous Vehicles Meet Human Drivers: Traffic Safety Issues for State, p. 6.
40
Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, p.15.
41
Charles Mollenberg Jr., Managing Consumer Expectations for Autonomous Vehicles, Law 360, August 28, 2017.
42
The bill would permit states and the federal government to prescribe higher standards for autonomous vehicles they
purchase for their own use.

Congressional Research Service 11

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

remain in state jurisdiction as long as they do not restrict autonomous vehicle development. H.R.
3388 states that nothing in the preemption section should prohibit states from enforcing their laws
and regulations on the sale and repair of motor vehicles.
New Safety Standards. Within two years of enactment, DOT would have to issue a final rule
requiring each manufacturer to show how it is addressing safety in its autonomous vehicles, with
updates every five years thereafter. DOT would not be allowed to condition vehicle deployment
on review of these certificates, however. The regulation establishing the safety assessment
certifications would have to specify the testing requirements and data necessary to demonstrate
safety in the operation of the autonomous vehicle. In the interim, manufacturers would have to
submit safety assessment letters.43
Safety Priority Plan. DOT would be expected to submit a safety priority plan within a year of
enactment, indicating which existing federal safety standards must be updated to accommodate
autonomous vehicles, the need for new standards,44 and NHTSAs safety priorities for
autonomous vehicles and other vehicles.
Cybersecurity. Highly autonomous vehicles will rely on computers, sensors, and cameras to
navigate, so cybersecurity protections will be necessary to ensure vehicle performance. The
legislation stipulates that no highly autonomous vehicle, or vehicle with partial driving
automation, could be sold domestically unless a cybersecurity plan has been developed by the
automaker. The plan would have to include
a written policy on mitigation of cyberattacks, unauthorized intrusions, and
malicious vehicle control commands;
a point of contact at the automaker with cybersecurity responsibilities;
a process for limiting access to automated driving systems; and
the manufacturers plans for employee training and for maintenance of the
policies.
Exemption Authority. As recommended in DOTs 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, the
bill would expand DOTs ability to issue exemptions from existing safety standards to encourage
autonomous vehicle testing.45 To qualify for an exemption, a manufacturer would have to show
that the safety level of the automated vehicle equals or exceeds the safety level of that standard
for which an exemption is sought.
Whereas current laws limit exemptions to 2,500 vehicles per manufacturer per year, the bill
would phase in increases over four years of up 100,000 vehicles per manufacturer per year. DOT
would be directed to establish a publicly available and searchable database of motor vehicles that
have been granted an exemption.
Privacy. Before selling highly automated vehicles, manufacturers would be required to develop
written privacy plans concerning the collection and storage of data generated by the vehicles, as
well as a method of conveying that information to vehicle owners and occupants. However, a
manufacturer would be allowed to exclude processes from its privacy policy that encrypt or make

43
The concept of safety assessment letters was identified as an interim tool in DOTs 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy.
44
New standards might include human machine interface, sensors, software, and cybersecurity.
45
For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 governs the performance and location of the rearview
mirror. Fully autonomous vehicles would not need to be equipped with such mirrors because they rely on rear-facing
sensors.

Congressional Research Service 12

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

anonymous the sources of data. The Federal Trade Commission would be tasked with developing
a report for Congress on a number of vehicle privacy issues.
Consumer Information. DOT would be directed to complete a research program within three
years that would lay the groundwork for a consumer education program about the capabilities and
limitations of highly automated vehicles. DOT would be mandated to issue a regulation requiring
manufacturers to explain the new systems to consumers.
Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Council. A new NHTSA advisory group would be
established with up to 30 members from business, academia, states and localities, and labor,
environmental, and consumer groups to advise on mobility access for senior citizens and the
disabled; cybersecurity; labor, employment, environmental, and privacy issues; and testing and
information sharing among manufacturers.
The legislation also addresses several vehicle safety standards not directly related to autonomous
vehicles:
Rear Seat Occupant Alert System. In an effort to reduce or eliminate infant fatalities, the bill
would direct DOT to issue a final regulation within two years requiring all new passenger
vehicles to be equipped with an alarm system to alert the driver to check the back seats after the
vehicles motor or engine is shut off.
Headlamps. DOT would be directed to initiate research into updating motor vehicle safety
standards to improve performance and safety, and to revise the standards if appropriate. If
NHTSA chooses not to revise the standards, it must report to Congress on its reasoning.

Controversy with the Legislation

Although H.R. 3388 was passed the House of Representatives without objection, several groups
have raised specific concerns about the legislation. These groups include the following:
Five state and local government associations46contend the bill goes beyond the
traditional definition of motor vehicle safety and expands federal preemption to
encroach on vehicle operations, currently under states purview. They argue
that this may imply that the federal government will take on the role of being
the sole regulator of vehicle operations. They ask that the legislation reaffirm
the traditional state and federal vehicle regulatory roles and provide for state
government representation on the Highly Autonomous Vehicle Advisory Council.
They also ask that the legislation direct NHTSA to immediately notify state and
local officials when it grants an exemption for testing of autonomous vehicles.
A coalition of seven vehicle safety advocacy groups47 contends that H.R. 3388
takes an unnecessary and unacceptable hands-off approach to hands-Free
driving. The signatories warn that the large number of exemptions that could be
permitted by NHTSA could allow potentially millions of vehicles on Americas
roads that do not meet federal safety standards. They are also critical of

46
Letter to House and Senate leadership from the National Governors Association, National Conference of State
Legislatures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, and the Governors Highway Safety Association, September 5, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/
Documents/standcomm/scnri/Final_State_House_AV_Bill_9.5.pdf.
47
Letter to Members of the House of Representatives from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League,
Trauma Foundation and Truck Safety Coalition, September 5, 2017, http://www.nclnet.org/av_letter_hr3388.

Congressional Research Service 13

 Issues in Autonomous Vehicle Deployment

allowing crashworthiness standards to be relaxed for autonomous vehicles,

believe the data collected should be more widely and publicly shared, and
contend that the preemption of state authority is too broad, undermining the
ability of states to ensure public safety. The group also calls on Congress to
provide more NHTSA resources and the inclusion of imminent hazard authority.
Transportation for America, a nonprofit organization advocating for urban
transportation solutions, contends that the legislation was not developed with a
broad enough consultation with stakeholders who will be affected by autonomous
vehicles. It argues that the new exemption policy may allow too many
experimental vehicles on the road, that provisions to require test data sharing
with cities, states, and independent researchers are inadequate, and that the
preemption provisions will prevent local governments from managing their own
streets.48

Senate
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has not voted on autonomous
vehicle legislation, but the committees chairman and ranking member49 issued a set of principles
in June 2017 that may form the basis of future legislation that the committee may consider. Their
principles call for legislation that will
prioritize safety, acknowledging that federal standards will eventually be as
important for self-driving vehicles as they are for conventional vehicles;
promote innovation and address the incompatibility of old regulations written
before the advent of self-driving vehicles;
remain technology-neutral, not favoring one business model over another;
reinforce separate but complementary federal and state regulatory roles;
strengthen cybersecurity so that manufacturers address potential vulnerabilities
before occupant safety is compromised; and
educate the public through government and industry efforts so that the
differences between conventional and self-driving vehicles are understood.

Author Contact Information

Bill Canis
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business
[email protected], 7-1568

48
T4America blog posting, September 6, 2017, http://t4america.org/2017/09/06/house-abdicates-methodical-
policymaking-new-regulations-automated-vehicles.
49
Bipartisan Principles for Self-Driving Vehicles were announced by Senators John Thune, Bill Nelson, and Gary
Peters on June 13, 2017. Senator Gary Peters, Senators Release Bipartisan Principles for Self-Driving Vehicles
Legislation, press release, June 13, 2017.

Congressional Research Service 14