Self-driving guidelines picked apart

Companies from Apple to ZF TRW have weighed in on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's guidelines for self-driving vehicles. The most common concern: whether the guidelines go far enough to prevent a regulatory patchwork among the states.

The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, introduced in September, sets a voluntary framework for design and development of autonomous vehicles before they are offered for sale.

The guidelines leave it open to the states to fill in "gaps in current regulations" on a variety of issues such as occupant safety, insurance, vehicle inspections and environmental impacts. NHTSA received more than 1,100 letters during the public comment period that ended Nov. 22.

"This language could be interpreted to invite states to pursue inconsistent regulatory approaches among states, or between states and the federal government," wrote John Krafcik, head of Google's self-driving car project.

Companies involved in autonomous vehicle development have had to lobby states to enact laws that make it legal to test the technology on public roads. Only 10 states and the District of Columbia have enacted autonomous-vehicle legislation. In the remaining 40 states, it is unclear if the vehicles would be considered legal on public roads.

The guidelines outline a "model state" approach, compiling features from current state legislation for eventual overarching federal regulations. NHTSA will be responsible for regulating vehicles and equipment, but it encourages states to continue to "experiment" with automated vehicle standards.

Feedback on the guidelines included letters from automakers, suppliers, technology companies, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, insurance companies and private citizens.

Other concerns ranged from protecting motorcyclists to consumer education to data privacy, while many issues were specific to individual groups. NHTSA declined to comment on the number and content of the contributions.

In their comments, manufacturers and suppliers, including Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and ZF TRW, opposed submitting regular updates on technology developments for premarket agency approval, saying it could slow progress and reveal proprietary information.

"We have years of experience with the self-certification framework and believe it can be successfully adapted to suit mass deployment of AVs that ensures safety and alignment with existing product development cycles," wrote Wayne Bahr, global director for automotive safety at Ford.

Tech companies such as Apple and Uber said they should receive the same treatment as automakers.

"To maximize the safety benefits of automated vehicles, encourage innovation, and promote fair competition, established manufacturers and new entrants should be treated equally," wrote Steve Kenner, director of product integrity at Apple, in the company's comment.

Interest groups not directly related to the auto industry -- such as AARP and the National School Transportation Association -- also voiced concerns. Mainly, these organizations urged NHTSA to evaluate how self-driving vehicles will be monitored for safety among human-operated vehicles and existing infrastructure.

"It is of critical importance to the school transportation industry, the nation's school children and families across America that we be assured that automated vehicles have the ability to differentiate between different types of vehicles," wrote Ronna Sable Weber, executive director of the school transportation association.

Some states say they've struggled with a lack of strong guidance from the agency.

"NHTSA should have come out and, at the minimum, utilized their existing authority and put in minimum autonomous requirements," Jude Hurin, administrator for the management services and programs division of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, told Automotive News. "They're going to waste several more years trying to come up with minimum requirements."