Regulatory Regression

The U.S. Department of Transportation is on a curious trajectory in the business of regulating transportation in the U.S.? In order to overcome the limitations of the multi-year (sometimes decade-long) rule-making process in the interest of expediency, the agency opted for voluntary compliance for the adoption of low-speed automatic emergency braking back in 2016.

The voluntary program, which successfully enlisted the support of 20 automakers, each of which rapidly fell into line, appeared promising.? That success may have inspired further exploration of the voluntary process.

More recently the agency adopted a voluntary self-certification process for autonomous vehicle systems.? The voluntary self-certification appeared to override an existing process of granting exemptions to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for robotaxis or other autonomous vehicles lacking steering wheels, mirrors, and brake/accelerator pedals.

The agency granted a single exemption as part of that process – to drone delivery operator Nuro – failing to act on applications from Ford Motor Company and General Motors.? Ultimately, robotaxi operator Zoox indicated its intention to ignore the U.S. DoT and proceed with its launch plans based on its own safety self-certification.

Now the agency has faced down two new bids for exemptions – from Waymo and Aurora – from requirements for deploying emergency warning devices in the event of a vehicle breakdown.? The warning device deployment requirement for broken down autonomous vehicles has served as an effective barrier in the U.S. to implementation of autonomous vehicles in the commercial trucking sector – one that is ripe for AV adoption.? Of course, opponents to AV tech in trucking are numerous including unionized drivers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) delivered the exemption rejections to Waymo and Aurora on the day after Christmas.? Ho ho ho.? Simultaneously, the agency has called for comments and suggestions on potential alternative methods capable of fulfilling the warning device deployment requirement.

The FMCSA is VERY particular as to the manner of placement of emergency warning devices:

“The driver must place the warning devices as soon as possible, but in any event within 10 minutes. Title 49 USC 392.22(b)8 calls for the driver of the CMV to place the warning devices in the following manner:

1. One on the traffic side of and 4 paces (approximately 3 meters or 10 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the direction of approaching traffic;
2. One at 40 paces (approximately 30 meters or 100 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction of approaching traffic;
3. One at 40 paces (approximately 30 meters or 100 feet) from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction away from approaching traffic.

“There are special rules regarding placement of warning devices if the vehicle is stopped within 500 feet of a curve, crest of a hill, or other obstruction, as well as special rules regarding placement on divided or one-way roads. Section 393.95(f)9 defines warning devices for stopped vehicles as one of the following options:

1. Three bidirectional emergency reflective triangles that conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, §571.125 of this title; or
2. At least 6 fusees or 3 liquid-burning flares.

“The vehicle must have as many additional fusees or liquid-burning flares as are necessary to satisfy the requirements of §392.22. (3) Other warning devices may be used in addition to, but not in lieu of, the required warning devices, provided those warning devices do not decrease the effectiveness of the required warning devices.”

So you get the picture that the deployment of emergency devices is a non-trivial requirement.? It’s difficult to see how such stringent requirements can be met with anything other than manual placement of very specific devices in very specific quantities in very specific locations.

When first one hears of the requirement one’s mind might drift to thoughts of catapults, slingshots, drones, or miniature cannons propelling the required devices to their mandated locations.? It’s easy to understand why Waymo and Aurora were seeking exemptions.

Aurora appears to be proceeding with its plans to commence a limited launch of commercial autonomous trucking in Texas in 2025 and reports suggest that it somehow intends to comply with existing regulations.? Waymo appears to have stepped back from the exemption process with no plans to re-apply.

Aurora appears to be following in the footsteps of Zoox which clearly lost patience with what was seen as regulatory overreach.? In essence, voluntary compliance appears to be devolving into outright defiance.? Defiance is not a good look for autonomous vehicle development – just ask General Motors’ Cruise refugees about that.

The emergency device deployment requirement seems simultaneously anachronistic and essential.? It is reminiscent of the old WP.29 (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) regulatory wording, since updated, “Drivers shall at all times be able to control their vehicles or guide their animals.? When approaching other road users, they shall take such precautions as may be required for the safety of the latter.”

Old regulations die hard.? But the requirement for emergency alerting devices is not expected to die at all.

One lonely voice that emerged in the debate over emergency alerting was that of Haas Alert.? Haas Alert executives called for the addition of digital, cloud-based alerts, regardless of the use of external devices.

Haas Alert’s thinking corresponds to the thinking increasingly being adopted throughout the passenger car industry as to adding alerting functions for broken down or crashed vehicles.? The Haas Alert Safety Cloud concept is even "reflected" in concepts proposed by the American Automobile Association.

But the concept is more elemental. Commercial vehicles should be required to deploy physical alerting devices, but every car disabled, parked, or crashed on the side of the road should be able to communicate its location to other travelers wirelessly. This ought to be fundamental - but the industry and regulators are only now coming to grips with the idea.

Whether physical or digital, cars on the side of the road should make every effort using all possible technical means to communicate their presence to oncoming cars.? I am sure there is a reasonable solution to be found.? It is the single regulatory obstacle to autonomous vehicle deployment in the commercial trucking sector. It's a very real problem.