AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
Thank you. As a Californian, it’s great to be back in the Golden State. Jane Lappin and Ed Straub, thank you so much for the invitation to join you today. SAE is an incredible safety partner, and I truly appreciate all that you do to help advance vehicle safety and spur innovation. A conference like this don’t organize itself – it’s the product of hundreds, even thousands of hours of work. Thank you to everyone who helped make this wonderful conference a reality.
I also want to express my appreciation to all of you, our stakeholders from every perspective. Over the last year, we’ve asked for many meetings and for your continued input and feedback. You’ve engaged with us, and I truly appreciate how much time and effort you’ve devoted to our conversations. Our door is always open for mature conversation and technical engagement, as I think you have seen that quite clearly over the last year.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has charged the Department of Transportation with ushering in the Golden Age of Transportation, and we stand at a moment in time at which technology provides the opportunity to radically change the way we live and move people and freight. Automated vehicle technology is revolutionary. And this is the moment to make decisions that will enable the United States to be the leader in AVs well into the 21st century.
The promise of AV technology is nearly limitless - It will never doze off, will never drive drunk or high, and will never be distracted. It can open up the world for people with disabilities and the elderly giving them a new level of personal freedom A well-developed, safely deployed automated driving system offers tremendous potential benefits for our nation and our people.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the potential changes to personal mobility enabled by automated driving systems are greater than any technological innovation since we’ve moved from the horse and buggy to the automobile.
However: Whether we reach this promising future depends on each of you. This technology needs to be developed appropriately, safely, and responsibly. Whether AVs succeed or fail, whether they become the transportation of the future or a passing fad, that’s up to you.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is encouraging the pursuit of innovation, but both we, and public trust in general, demand that pursuit takes place responsibly and safely. And so our approach is one of balance, combining policy choices that enable innovation with an unapologetic exercise of our oversight and enforcement authorities. We believe this approach will make our vehicles both safer and more innovative than ever. And we are moving quickly on both fronts. I call it deliberate urgency – moving ahead with purpose but at a pace that never puts safety second.
This is the foundation of our Federal Automated Vehicle Framework, which is based upon three pillars:
- Prioritizing the safety of ongoing AV operations on public roads.
- Enabling the commercial deployment of AVs to enhance safety and mobility for the American public.
- Unleashing innovation by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the safe development of the technology.
The first pillar: safety. Safety is at the heart of everything we do. We are the cop on the beat ensuring that we’re fulfilling our safety obligations to the American people. If we see unreasonable safety risks, you’re going to hear from us. We’ve already opened several investigations into ADS-equipped vehicles and secured multiple recalls.
Over the past few months, we’ve identified a clear pattern of AVs interfering with law enforcement and other first responders, and so I issued a call to action to the AV community to develop solutions to these far-too-common issues. We expect you to prioritize first responder interactions, and we’ve already seen very positive responses from many developers—including issuing a recall. We’ve already heard from a number of developers with plans, and we’re meeting with several companies, starting this morning, to discuss their plans of action. The conversations thus far have been fruitful, and we will continue to keep a close eye on these interactions to ensure meaningful changes and solutions.
We won’t hesitate to take further action as we see issues in the field—be that opening defect investigations for manufacturer-unique safety issues, or calls to action if we see general industry concerns—which may precede defect investigations into individual developers. Our balanced approach means we can conduct oversight while we remove barriers to innovation without compromising safety.
But it’s not fair or good public policy to play whack-a-mole and taking enforcement action while remaining silent on expectations. This is why we’ve been so active in engaging with industry, our co-regulators in State and local government, safety experts, and first responders, and why we’re focused on developing guidance.
AV GUIDANCE
States, cities, law enforcement, safety advocates, and AV developers all look to NHTSA and the federal government for leadership and guidance on AVs. Our current voluntary guidance document, AV 2.0, dates back to 2017, and the technology and our understanding of it has changed dramatically since then. As risks have evolved, so has the need for updated Federal guidance.
We’re moving ahead with developing new guidance, which we expect will help shape the industry’s approach to safety for years to come. While we have ideas and strong opinions on safety assurance, this guidance will be improved by participation from other safety and technical experts.
Seeking to modernize our 2017 “Automated Driving Systems 2.0” guidance, NHTSA is soliciting feedback on proposed new draft technical chapters. This updated guidance aims to support the industry’s strategic transition from test-centric operations to mid-scale driverless deployments. The guidance focuses on critical safety elements, such as emergency responder interactions, safety management systems, remote assistance, crashworthiness, and post-crash behavior.
I signed a Federal Register notice announcing the creation of a docket to be open for one year. We’ll be issuing individual chapters of draft guidance, which will be compiled into one document after reviewing and reacting to the comments we receive.
We want to hear from you on all aspects of this proposed guidance. What topics should we include? How should the topics be prioritized? Don’t be shy. We also plan to hold periodic public meetings to discuss technical input. As a matter of fact, we’re hosting a working session this afternoon where we’ll be talking about first responder interactions, ADS performance, and more. I invite you to stop by and help put this into practice.
We look forward to your knowledge, thoughts, and opinions, which will help us form the best possible guidance to industry.
ZOOX
That leads me into another pillar of the AV Framework: Enabling the commercial deployment of AVs to enhance safety and mobility for the American people. Federal law authorizes NHTSA to grant exemptions that allow manufacturers to produce vehicles for a limited period that do not comply with certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or FMVSS.
Today, we announced that NHTSA is granting the country’s first-ever commercial deployment exemption for a novel-designed automated vehicle for passenger service. NHTSA is granting an exemption to Zoox for its purpose-built robotaxi, which is designed without manual controls or mirrors and has a “campfire” seating arrangement instead of a traditional forward-facing cabin.
We are granting this exemption because Zoox demonstrated that their vehicle design has an equivalent level of safety as a vehicle that meets all FMVSS. Given the unique nature of the vehicle and the fact that it is operated by an automated driving system, the grant is subject to conditions that provide increased operational transparency and provide the agency with enhanced oversight.
With Zoox’s exemption, we are establishing what we’re calling an “operational authorization.” This means that the exempted vehicles will be subject to continued operational oversight, while also prescribing specific operating conditions that can be tailored to different operating environments. These authorizations offer much more flexibility, allowing the agency to modify approvals as appropriate.
NHTSA is issuing its first “operational authorization” to Zoox along with this exemption. It is tailored to the company, its robotaxi, and the ADS’ existing capabilities. And, of course, Zoox, and this vehicle, will be subject to NHTSA’s broad enforcement authorities and the same vehicle safety act requirements as any other vehicle.
PART 555
I’m pleased to share several other updates to our general exemption process, which you’ll also hear called Part 555—referring to the specific Part in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
We’re issuing a new interim final rule to amend Part 555 to allow exemptions to be granted for vehicles manufactured prior to NHTSA’s grant of a petition, provided they are substantially the same as the vehicles covered by the exemption. This regulatory change removes the previous restriction that limited eligibility solely to vehicles manufactured after the grant date, which provides NHTSA with greater flexibility.
This would allow vehicles already operating under a FAST Act exception, or a research or development exemption to remain on the roads under a new exemption allowing commercial deployment. Instead of permanently barring these vehicles from public road operations once testing concludes, they can remain in service if NHTSA finds they are as safe as compliant vehicles and grants a Part 555 exemption.
Additionally, we are continuously working to streamline, clarify, and improve the exemption application process. To that end, we are publishing interim Part 555 guidance, which will provide applicants with more detail on which types of information are most helpful to NHTSA to determine whether a vehicle has an equivalent level of safety as a compliant one. We’ve learned from the exemption petition process that it can be challenging for AV developers to understand what information we need and want. This guidance will help developers file improved petitions so we can process them faster. We’re publishing a Federal Register notice asking stakeholders to comment on our proposal.
Speaking of exemption applications, we’ve received a new Part 555 application from a US company called Robomart, for its ADS-equipped, occupantless low-speed delivery vehicle. This is the second application NHTSA has received for this type of vehicle, having previously granted Nuro’s application in 2020. We’re actively reviewing this application and will publish a separate notice seeking public comment soon. We welcome your thoughts on this exemption request.
FMVSS UPDATES
It’s important to reflect upon why we have an exemption process in the first place. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that manufacturers certify vehicles to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—but those are really hard to draft in the objective manner demanded by Federal law, which doesn’t allow for the types of subjective standards you see in Europe. The Vehicle Safety Act included an exemption process in large part in anticipation that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards cannot, and should not, be amended so quickly to keep pace with every potential vehicle design. An exemption allows market access to innovative technologies, and the agency to learn from deployments. And we are all aware the existing FMVSS were not written with AVs in mind.
The final pillar of our AV Framework is: Removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the safe development automated vehicle technologies, and thereby unleashing innovation that the United States creates better than anywhere else.
We are working diligently on much-needed FMVSS updates to account for AVs without compromising safety. While I tend to believe FMVSS operate best when establishing performance requirements, our current safety standards require certain pieces of equipment.
You’ve likely heard about our recent proposal to amend FMVSS 135 to remove the requirement for a brake pedal in a vehicle designed never to be operated by a human.
If you have a vehicle that’s designed never to be operated by a human, it simply doesn’t make sense to require a brake pedal. What’s important is that the vehicle meets reasonable stopping distance requirements. A brake pedal isn’t just unnecessary in a fully driverless AV; it could actually be a safety hindrance if misused by a passenger.
Our approach isn’t to eliminate rules for AVs or say they’re exempt from braking requirements—that would be using a hatchet, when what we really need is a scalpel. We propose that purpose-built vehicles must still meet braking requirements. By updating the rules to prioritize the safety performance requirements over design specifications, we restore logic to the FMVSS in line with design of the Vehicle Safety Act. This is common sense. When the predecessor to FMVSS 135 was created, NHTSA didn’t envision a day when an automated driving system could control all aspects of the driving task without a human. And we shouldn’t have to—we don’t have a crystal ball to predict how automotive technology may change in the future—and by orienting our standards toward performance requirements, we won’t need to.
So far, we’ve published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for five FMVSS, including the braking requirement. These would have no detrimental effect on safety but would replace unnecessary equipment requirements with performance requirements.
With no possibility for a human driver, there would be no safety need for a transmission shift display, windshield defrosting and defogging systems, or wiping and washing systems engineered to support a human driver. We have also proposed removing the requirement for a tire and loading informational placard at the driver’s door. After all, there’s no driver, and developers should be allowed to place the placard where it makes the most sense for that specific vehicle. These are the sorts of iterative changes to FMVSS that reflects NHTSA’s approach today—moving with a deliberative sense of urgency, but looking to get things right.
The comment periods for these rules have closed or are closing soon, and our fantastic team or engineers and lawyers is working diligently to consider and respond to comments to arrive at the right answer, but also to deliver these final rules as soon as possible.
We have also announced several upcoming rulemakings in the recently released Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan. One involves updating FMVSS 126, which refers to a driver in the definition of an electronic stability control system and to the angle of the steering wheel in the test procedure. We plan to modernize the standard to ensure that the level of safety performance currently required is maintained in an AV, including the stability and responsiveness criteria for electronic stability control performance.
That same philosophy is behind our plans to amend FMVSS 111, the requirements for mirrors and rearview image displays. Mirrors are there to help drivers see objects and people around vehicles. An ADS, however, has no need for these mirrors.
In the same spirit, we’re planning to update FMVSS 108, which addresses vehicle lighting. Clearly, every vehicle needs lights for visibility and conspicuity. That’s a clear safety regulation and benefit. However, with no human driver, an ADS wouldn’t need manual controls specified in the standards—such as turn signal stalks. But the way the FMVSS is written right now, a vehicle must have manual controls to meet the requirements. So that’s something we are looking to modernize to remove barriers that don’t have a safety need.
But not all FMVSS are so straightforward. One standard we’re working on is FMVSS 101—controls and displays, which specifies requirements over telltales and indicators. While some may argue that telltales are designed to inform the human driver of underlying conditions and therefore aren’t relevant for vehicles designed never to be operated with a human in mind, others can observe that certain telltales provide information necessary to provide human occupants with agency over deciding whether to ride in the vehicle—think airbag malfunction telltales. We look forward to delivering a thoughtful proposal and taking comments from the public.
ADS COMPETENCY AND ASCEND
All of these FMVSS updates involve specific performance tests to ensure compliance with applicable safety standards. However, there’s a larger question people are naturally asking as ADS vehicles deploy – how do we know if an AV is a safe driver?
NHTSA plans to seek public comment on behavioral competencies for AVs and how to assess the safety performance of these vehicles. Any competency requirements would need to be objective, practicable, and repeatable, just like all of our FMVSS. We also plan to establish metrics associated with each behavioral competency, and methods and means of assessment.
Since announcing our development for these standards in March, we’ve initiated work to develop AV competency tests and have reached out to AV companies inviting them to come to our Vehicle Research and Test Center in Ohio to participate in this effort. We’ll continue to have these hands-on discussions moving forward.
I invite you to join us for a working session this afternoon on ADS performance, where we’ll expand more on this important topic.
But developing competency requirements in a vacuum or with limited external input would almost be assured to yield imperfect results—we need to expand the conversation. So I am very pleased to announce that we’re entering into a cooperative agreement with SAE to launch the Advancing America’s Safety and Competitiveness for the Evolution of National Deployments, or ASCEND, consortium.
This joint government and industry initiative will expedite the development of data-driven AV performance standards and directly support NHTSA’s AV Framework. Our top priority for the consortium is ADS competency, which we hope will inform and accelerate a corresponding FMVSS.
Other projects that may be considered include efforts to develop repeatable methods to measure good driving under normal conditions, and surrogate safety metrics that could serve as reliable, proactive indicators of driving competency.
SAE has a proven track record of advancing consensus automotive standards and, as the consensus standards setting organization for the automotive industry, is the right entity to work with to bring together industry and safety experts to work alongside NHTSA. The goal is to complete this work within the next three years, including development of competency standards within the first year that will support near-term rulemaking. I am personally very excited about this collaboration and will be actively engaged.
Ultimately, our ADS performance rulemaking will provide federal leadership in this space, as ADS entities are currently navigating various state and local laws and regulations. By delivering a uniform ADS safety performance standard, we will encourage American innovation and promote the continued safe deployment and operation of these vehicles on our roads.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
Everything I have talked about today advances our country’s role as the leader in automated driving system technologies worldwide. We want this technology developed right here in America, and there’s a great deal of interest from other countries who want to bring our AV advancements to their shores.
Earlier this year I visited Japan and South Korea to discuss AVs, our regulatory approaches, our system of self-certification, and more. The leaders in Korea have a tremendous interest in our technology, and we had some very fruitful discussions. We also held a bilateral meeting in Japan with senior regulatory officials, as well as a workshop with American and Japanese AV developers. In fact, I had another meeting with Japanese leaders yesterday, so the discussions are ongoing.
Globally, countries have come together through the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations on a regulatory framework, although much more work still needs to be done. In its current state, the framework isn’t specific enough to work with our FMVSSs, which require objective standards based upon science. The framework is more in line with the less objective approaches we see with European regulations—in fact, I think the Europeans have already adopted this as a standard. It’s a starting point for continued discussions but not nearly robust enough for US regulations. We look forward to active engagement in fleshing out the GTR to a more meaningful standard.
We welcome your feedback on this global regulatory framework, along with NHTSA’s work across the entire AV space.
In addition to the NHTSA workshop this afternoon, we invite you to stay connected with us throughout the year. We will host our annual research public meeting on Dec. 1 and 2 in Washington, D.C., and the first day will look closely at AVs. The morning will feature AV research topics, with an AV workshop following in the afternoon for further guidance development. This will be similar in format to our National AV Safety Forum back in March. Please mark your calendar for these two exciting days of research and discussion.
As always, our doors are open for mature discussion and technical engagement. We have incredibly knowledgeable employees working in our Enforcement, Rulemaking and Research teams, and I appreciate how hard they’ve worked to advance these administration priorities.
I’ve mentioned a number of new initiatives over the last few minutes, and with all of the moving pieces, it can be hard for people to keep track. So we’re launching a new one-stop shop online for all of our AV resources. Our new page, nhtsa.gov/AVresources, serves as your launching point for NHTSA’s AV work.
As we move forward on these exciting initiatives, we want to hear from you, not only when you have suggestions, but when you have problems. Transparency is important to ensure the safety of everyone on our roads, and I strongly encourage AV developers to adopt the same transparency practices with State and local governments as well.
AV technology needs to develop appropriately, and it needs to be deployed responsibly. From NHTSA’s perspective, we want to encourage and enable this balanced approach.
At the same time, as you all know, NHTSA will remain the cop on the beat when it comes to safety. We won’t hesitate to act when safety concerns arise, and we expect your full cooperation.
After all, if we’re to realize the potential benefits from AVs to society, safety has to be the bedrock of every decision. For the public to adopt AVs, they must be able to trust you. Whether that trust is established – and whether it’s sustained – is up to you. I hope you all will join Secretary Duffy, USDOT, and NHTSA as we navigate this incredibly consequential time for our country.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this distinguished conference. I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.