FTA Publishes Automated Transit Bus RFI

Today, DOT’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register (87 FR 33574-33576) for “Transit Bus Automation Research and Demonstrations”. The RFI is in support of the FTA’s formulation of their second five-year Strategic Transit Automation Research Plan (STAR Plan 2.0). The first STAR Plan can be found here.

The FTA's transit bus automation research plan has been organized around four complementary work areas:

• Enabling research,

• Integrated demonstrations,

• Strategic partnerships, and

• Stakeholder engagement, knowledge transfer, and technical assistance.

While none of those work areas specifically targets cybersecurity issues, the RFI does include cybersecurity related topics. They include:

Reassessing the priorities and areas of activity for the next five years, including cybersecurity,

Possible FTA-supported foundational research within the next five years, including cybersecurity, and

What types of new skills, training, and resources may be required?

FTA is soliciting public input on these topics. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # FTA-2022-0012). Comments need to be submitted by August 1^st, 2022.

NHTSA Sent Automated Driving Systems ANPRM to OIRA for Review

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) from the DOT’s National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning “Safety Principles for Automated Driving Systems”.

According to the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda abstract for this rulemaking:

“This notice solicits comments on regulatory approaches to motor vehicles equipped with Automatic Driving System (ADS). The agency seeks public comments on the creation of a safety framework for objectively and transparently assessing and validating the success of each ADS vehicle or developer in designing safety into its vehicles. More specifically, it asks commenters about developing and establishing a regulatory approach such as amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) or developing alternative safety regulations relating to ADS vehicle performance.”

 Commentary

We are starting to get to that point in time where we have to consider whether the current Administration’s OMB will complete action on this rulemaking. In the normal course of events, it would not be beyond ‘reasonable’ for OIRA action on this rulemaking to be delayed beyond January 21^st, 2021. If Biden is elected, I do not expect that this would be one of the rulemakings that the Trump Administration would try to press through to early, lame duck approval.

On the other hand, if this ANPRM were to be published before January 21^st, I do not expect that there would be any serious opposition to the continuation of the rulemaking in the Biden Administration. In short, this is an issue that the Federal government is going to have to address in the regulatory near term. The face of the final rule would almost certainly be different under Trump or Biden administrations, but this early stage of the rulemaking is more about collecting information than actually regulating.

HR 7248 Introduced – STARTER Act

Way back in June Rep Graves (R,MO) introduced HR 7248, the Surface Transportation Advanced through Reform, Technology, and Efficient Review (STARTER) Act. The bill is effectively a Republican alternative to a highway authorization bill that has yet to be introduced by the Democrats. It includes three grant programs that could affect automated driving system development and deployment.

Advanced Technologies Grant Program

Section 6001 of the bill would add a new §520 to 23 USC Chapter 25. It would require DOT to “establish a program to provide grants to eligible entities to deploy, install, and operate advanced transportation technologies to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, mobility, intermodal connectivity, and infrastructure return on investment” {new §520(a)}.

The grant program would favor technology deployments that {new§520(b)}:

• Reduces costs and improves return on investments, including through the optimization of existing transportation capacity,
• Delivers environmental benefits by alleviating congestion and streamlining traffic flow,
• Measures and improves the operational performance of the applicable transportation net- work,
• Reduces the number and severity of traffic accidents and increases driver, passenger, and pedestrian safety,
• Collects, disseminates, and uses information on real-time traffic, work zone, weather, transit, paratransit, parking, and other transportation-related information to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and provide for more efficient, accessible, and integrated transportation and transportation services,
• Monitors transportation assets to improve infrastructure management, reduce maintenance costs, prioritize investment decisions, and ensure state of good repair,

• Delivers economic benefits by reducing delays, improving system performance, and providing for the efficient and reliable movement of goods and services, or

• Accelerates the deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, and other technologies.

Among the allowable uses listed for this grant program are “cybersecurity protection measures and activities to protect against cybersecurity threats” {new §502(e)(15)}.

Connected Vehicle Deployment Grants

Section 6002 would add a new §521 to Chapter 5. This would require DOT to develop a grant program to “to spur operational deployments to meet the transportation needs of eligible entities through the use of the best available and emerging intelligent transportation systems” {new §521(a)(1)}. The goals of the grant program would be to {new §521(a)(2)}:

• Spur connected vehicle technology deployment through wirelessly connected vehicles that interact with a connected environment, including mobile devices, infrastructure, and other elements,

• Realize safety, mobility, and environmental impacts through operational deployments,

• Capture and use new forms of connected vehicle and mobile device data to support improved surface transportation system performance and enhanced performance-based management,

• Encourage partnerships of multiple stakeholders (including private companies, State and local agencies, transit agencies, commercial vehicle operators, freight shippers, and transportation network companies),

• Deploy applications using data captured from multiple sources (including vehicles, mobile devices, and infrastructure) across all elements of the surface transportation system (including transit, highway, arterial highways, parking facilities, and toll highways), and

• Support deployment sites that create foundations for future expanded and enhanced deployments

Automated Driving Systems Demonstration Grants

Section 6003 adds a new §522 to Chapter 5. It would require DOT to establish an automated driving system demonstration grant program. The program would be designed to {new §522(a)(1)}:

• Test the safe integration of automated driving system technologies into the on-road transportation system of the United States and demonstrate how challenges to the safe integration of such technologies can be addressed, and

• Encourage collaboration and partnerships of multiple stakeholders.

The grant program would also be required to {§522(a)(1)(B)}:

• A baseline of safety metrics needed to characterize the safety risk of integrating automated driving system technologies into the transportation system;

• A baseline for the safety of automated driving system technology integration; and

• A baseline of roadway characteristics needed for the safe and efficient operation of automated driving system technologies.

Paragraph (C) amends 23 USC 133(b), adding a new authorized use for the Surface transportation block grant program. That new use would be {new §133(b)(16)} “Capital and maintenance expenses for infrastructure improvements to ensure the proper and safe operation of automated driving system technologies for which a demonstration project was carried out under section 522.”

Moving Forward

Graves (and most of the 22 Republican cosponsors to the bill) is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, one of the two committees to which this bill was assigned for consideration. While this would normally mean that the bill would have a good chance of being considered in the Committee, but this bill is a direct challenge to the Committee leadership’s ability to craft a consensus highway transportation authorization bill. This bill is not going anywhere.

OMB Approves NHTSA Automated Driving System NPRM

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had approved a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) from the DOT’s National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning “Occupant Protection for Automated Driving Systems”.

The 2019 Fall Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking notes:

“This action proposes to amend crashworthiness regulations that may be necessary to facilitate the certification of motor vehicles equipped without driver controls. The agency published a Federal Register notice on January 18, 2018, requesting comment on existing regulatory barriers that may block the introduction and certification of ADS-equipped vehicles, particularly those without human controls. In response to comments received from the January notice, the agency initiated this NPRM to begin the rulemaking process. NHTSA will consider comments received from this notice, agency research, stakeholder engagement, and internal agency analysis to remove crashworthiness-related regulatory barriers.”

I wrote about the 2018 request for comments.

NHTSA Publishes Automated Driving Systems ANPRM

Today the DOT’s National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (84 FR 24433-24449) concerning possible changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that would be necessary to support the introduction of automated driving systems (ADS-DV). This rulemaking would specifically address changes to the 100-series (crash avoidance) FMVSS.

Barriers in FMVSS

The current rulemaking will seek to address barriers in the current crash avoidance FMVSS that would impede the introduction of ADS-DV designed without traditional manual controls. NHTSA has identified three categories of such impedances:

• The standard requires a manual control.

• The standard specifies how the agency will use manual controls in the regulatory description of how it will test.

• The definition or use of terms (e.g., “driver”) in the FMVSS that assume human control of vehicles.

The first two categories are addressed in this rulemaking. The last will be common to other sections of the FMVSS (which will be covered in separate rulemakings), so NHTSA is considering a completely separate rulemaking for the definitions problem.

Manual Control

After a brief discussion of one of the potential barriers in the FMVSS to ADS-DV introduction, NHTSA proposes four possible solutions to the manual control issue:

• First, if the required control is necessary for motor vehicle safety on all vehicles, NHTSA would retain the requirement for all vehicles, even if that requires potentially redundant technologies for certain ADS-DVs without traditional manual controls.

• Second, if the required control is no longer necessary for motor vehicle safety for any vehicle, NHTSA could remove or otherwise modify the requirement, if permitted to by law.

• Third, if the required control is still necessary for motor vehicle safety for traditional vehicles, but not necessary for the safety of ADS-DVs without traditional manual controls, NHTSA could retain the requirement only for traditional vehicles and, if permitted by law, exclude ADS-DVs without manual controls.

• Fourth, if the required control is necessary for motor vehicle safety, but a different control (i.e., a non-human-actuated control) would be necessary for an ADS-DV to perform the same function, NHTSA may retain the existing requirement for traditional vehicles, but have a separate, different control or equipment requirement for ADS-DVs without traditional manual controls.

Testing

Currently, the FMVSS “outline performance requirements that must be met under certain test procedures and NHTSA will conduct compliance verification tests in accordance with these procedures”. Where the existing language requires the use of manual controls that may not exist in ADS-DV these requirements would impede the introduction of ADS-DV. Removing these impedances will almost certainly require the development of new testing methods.

NHTSA has identified the following potential approaches to this testing dilemma:

• Normal ADS-DV operation;

• Test Mode with Pre-Programmed Execution (TMPE);

• Test Mode with External Control (TMEC);

• Simulation;

• Technical Documentation for System Design and/or Performance Approach; and

• Use of Surrogate Vehicle with Human Controls

Questions

The ANPRM provides a table that lists the current crash prevention FMVSS provisions that may impeded the introduction of ADS-DV. NHTSA is requesting comments on the general approaches to the manual control and testing problems identified above. It also proposes a series of questions (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)   that it would like commenters to address.

The list of questions includes only two that address (even broadly) cybersecurity issues. They are:

22. How could vehicle-based electronically accessible libraries for conducting FMVSS testing be developed in a way that would allow NHTSA to access the system for compliance testing but not allow unauthorized access that could present a security or safety risk to an ADS-DV?

27. Could a means of manual control be developed that would allow NHTSA to access the system for compliance testing but not allow unauthorized access that could present a security or safety risk to an ADS-DV?

Comments on this rulemaking are due by July 29^th, 2019. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # NHTSA-2019-0036).

Commentary

There is a lot of interesting problems identified in this rulemaking that are going to have a profound impact on the introduction of automated driving systems. To add to the complexity, the fact that NHTSA is considering at least two (probably 3) more rulemakings addressing FMVSS compliance issues and it becomes clear that engineering for these ADS-DV systems is much further along that the regulatory scheme. Inevitably, these regulatory changes are going to cause additional problems for the engineers.

I continue to be concerned with how NHTSA is apparently glossing over the cybersecurity issue in their regulatory schema. Acknowledging that there are effectively no current cybersecurity requirements in the FMVSS, NHTSA needs to start the public comment process on how such requirements should be addressed in any modified  FMVSS requirements supporting ADS-DV introduction. Since automated controls are not going to have driver backup in vehicles designed without manual controls, security systems and requirements for those automated controls is going to be even more important than in existing cyber-augmented vehicles.

I applaud NHTSA for learning the lesson from the Volkswagen diesel mileage testing fiasco and recognizing that any automated testing program needs to be protected from on-board gaming of the test. I just wish that it could be as forward thinking in identifying potential requirements in the FMVSS for general cybersecurity protections for the vehicle.

NHTSA Barriers to Automated Driving Systems ANPRM to OMB

On Thursday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it had received from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on “Removing Regulatory Barriers for Automated Driving Systems” for review.

The Fall 2018 Unified Agenda listing for this rulemaking explains:

“This notice seeks comment on existing motor vehicle regulatory barriers to the introduction and certification of automated driving systems. NHTSA is developing the appropriate analysis of requirements that are necessary to maintain existing levels of safety while enabling innovative vehicle designs and removing or modifying those requirements that would no longer be appropriate if a human driver will not be operating the vehicle. NHTSA previously published a Federal Register notice requesting public comment on January 18, 2018.”

DOT Publishes Two Automated Driving Requests for Comment

Earlier this week the Department of Transportation published two separate requests for comments in the Federal Register; one from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA; 83 FR 2719-2721) and one from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA; 83 2607-2614). Both deal with automated driving systems (ADS).

FHWA Request for Comments

The FHWA is looking for comments on a range of issues related to assessing the infrastructure requirements and standards that may be necessary for enabling safe and efficient operations of ADS. After a brief introduction to the topic, the FHA notice asks for responses to several specific questions, including:

• What roadway characteristics are important for influencing the safety, efficiency, and performance of ADS? Are there certain physical infrastructure elements (e.g., lane markings, signage, signals, etc.) that are necessary for ADS?

• What challenges do non-uniform traffic control devices present for ADS technologies?

• How does the state of good repair (e.g., pavement and road markings quality) impact ADS?

• How should FHWA engage with industry and automation technology developers to understand potential infrastructure requirements?

• What is the role of digital infrastructure and data (including cybersecurity) in enabling needed information exchange between ADS and roadside infrastructure?

• What concerns do State and local agencies have regarding infrastructure investment and planning for ADS, given the level of uncertainty around the timing and development of this technology?

• Are there existing activities and research in the area of assessing infrastructure-ADS interface needs and/or associated standards?

• What are the priority issues that road owners and operators need to consider in terms of infrastructure requirements, modifications, investment, and planning, to accommodate integration of ADS?

• What variable information or data would ADS benefit from obtaining and how should that data be best obtained?

• What issues do road owners and operators need to consider in terms of infrastructure modifications and traffic operations as they encounter a mixed vehicle fleet (e.g., fully-automated, partially-automated, and non-automated; cooperative and unconnected) during the transition period to a potentially fully automated fleet?

Public comments on the FHWA request may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # FHWA-2017-0049). Comments should be submitted by March 5^th, 2018.

NHTSA Request for Comments

The NHTSA request document is much more extensive and targets information necessary to help the agency to avoid impeding progress with unnecessary or unintended regulatory barriers to motor vehicles that have Automated Driving Systems (ADS). The preamble comments address automotive automation revolution, changes in vehicular design, initial agency attempts to address testing, certification and compliance issues, as well as providing an executive summary of the Volpe Report on Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles: Identifying Potential Barriers and Challenges for the Certification of Automated Vehicles Using Existing FMVSS.

The questions for which NHTSA is seeking public feedback are also much more extensive, and fall into two major categories:

• Barriers to Testing, Certification and Compliance Verification; and

• Research Needed to Address Those Barriers and NHTSA's Role in Conducting it.

Some of the questions on barriers to testing, certification and compliance verification include:

• What are the different categories of barriers that the FMVSS potentially create to the testing, certification and compliance verification of a new ADS vehicle lacking manual driving controls?

• Do you agree (or disagree) that the FMVSS provisions identified in the Volpe report or Google letter as posing barriers to testing and certification are, in fact, barriers?

• What research would be necessary to determine how to instruct a vehicle with ADS but without manual means of control to follow a driving test procedure? 

• Is there a safety need for the telltales and other displays in Table 1 and 2 of FMVSS 101 to be visible to any of the occupants in vehicles without manual driving controls?

• Would the informational safety needs of the occupants of vehicles with ADSs differ according to whether the vehicle has a full set of manual driving controls, just an emergency stop button or no controls whatsoever?

• If vehicles with ADSs have emergency controls that can be accessed through unconventional means, such as a smart phone or multi-purpose display and have unconventional interiors, how should the Agency address those controls?

The some of the research questions include:

• For issues about FMVSS barriers that NHTSA needs research to resolve, do commenters believe that there are specific items that would be better addressed through research by outside stakeholders, such as industry or research organizations, instead of by NHTSA itself?

• Are there industry standards, existing or in development, that may be suitable for incorporation by reference by NHTSA?

Public comments on the NHTSA request may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.REgulations.gov; Docket # NHTSA-2018-0009). Comments should be submitted by March 5^th, 2018.

Commentary

While both the FHWA and the NHTSA request for comments raise important and very interesting issues, there is a strange dearth of mention of the topic of cybersecurity. In fact, the only mention of the topic was in Question #5 on the FHWA request, and it looked like the mention was almost an afterthought.

The failure of NHTSA to even mention cybersecurity in their lengthy discussions and questions about federal motor vehicle safety standard seems to reflect an agency failure to recognize that all levels of automotive automation (including those currently in widespread use on the road) pose a potential safety risk due to inadequate and mostly missing cybersecurity standards.

In most of the NHTSA questions about the barriers to testing, certification and compliance, we could easily add specific questions about cybersecurity issues. Here are some of the questions that could have been asked:

• In question 1: How can NHTSA confirm that test methods developed for certification purposes have not been gamed by the manufacturer (see the EPA-VW testing issues on diesel exhaust emissions)?

• In question 12: How can NHTSA ensure that the data from various automated sensor provided to the ADS have not been tampered with?

• In question 13: Should the automated driving system cybersecurity controls provide information to vehicle occupants about identified or suspected attempts to gain unauthorized access to the vehicle automation systems?

• In question 17: What cybersecurity protections should be included for remote access to safety controls?

Perhaps what is really needed is a specific request for comments from both agencies on the cybersecurity regulatory needs for the safe implementation of automated driving systems.

OMB Approves NHTSA Automated Driving Guidance

Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs announced that it had approved the DOT’s National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)’s voluntary guidance document on automated driving systems.

A similar sounding document was published by the Obama Administration last year, but that was directed at pre-deployment development of automated vehicles. That document included a very broadly worded section on cybersecurity. It will be interesting from both a system development/introduction perspective and a change in regulatory theory perspective how this document differs from the one published last year.