Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2026, require manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, except as provided, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2026, authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified.

The bill would authorize peace officers, as defined, to issue of notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance upon observing an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code or upon observing an alleged violation of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code by an autonomous vehicle while the autonomous technology is engaged. The bill would require the notice to identify, at minimum, the alleged violation, as specified, the date, time, and location of the alleged violation, and the license plate number of the vehicle. The bill would require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to provide the department with any issued notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance within 72 hours of issuance, or within a timeframe otherwise determined by the department. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the processes related to notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance and would prohibit the above-described provisions from becoming operative until the regulations are adopted.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2026, require manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, except as provided, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2026, authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified.

The bill would authorize peace officers, as defined, to issue of notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance upon observing an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code or upon observing an alleged violation of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code by an autonomous vehicle while the autonomous technology is engaged. The bill would require the notice to identify, at minimum, the alleged violation, as specified, the date, time, and location of the alleged violation, and the license plate number of the vehicle. The bill would require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to provide the department with any issued notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance within 72 hours of issuance, or within a timeframe otherwise determined by the department. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the processes related to notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance and would prohibit the above-described provisions from becoming operative until the regulations are adopted.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would, commencing July 1, 2026, require manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, except as provided, to, by July 1, 2026, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would would, commencing July 1, 2026, authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would require, if an autonomous vehicle does not have a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code, or has a person in the drivers seat but commits the violation while the autonomous technology is engaged, the manufacturer to be cited for the violation. If an autonomous vehicle has a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code while the autonomous technology is not engaged, the bill would require the driver to be cited for the violation.

The bill would require manufacturers of fully autonomous vehicles, autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, except as provided, to, by July 1, 2026, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would require, if an autonomous vehicle does not have a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code, or has a person in the drivers seat but commits the violation while the autonomous technology is engaged, the manufacturer to be cited for the violation. If an autonomous vehicle has a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code while the autonomous technology is not engaged, the bill would require the driver to be cited for the violation.

The bill would require manufacturers of fully autonomous vehicles, by July 1, 2026, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

This bill would require, if an autonomous vehicle does not have a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code, or has a person in the drivers seat but commits the violation while the autonomous technology is engaged, the manufacturer to be cited for the violation. If an autonomous vehicle has a person in the drivers seat and commits a violation of the Vehicle Code while the autonomous technology is not engaged, the bill would require the driver to be cited for the violation.

The bill would require manufacturers of fully autonomous vehicles, by July 1, 2026, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials, as defined, and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. The bill would authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message, as defined, to a manufacturer and would require a manufacturer to direct its fleet to leave or avoid the area identified within 2 minutes of receiving an emergency geofencing message, as specified. The bill would require a manufacturer to report a collision involving a fully autonomous vehicle to the department within 5 days of the collision, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the manufacturer to certify in the application that, among other things, the autonomous technology satisfies specified requirements and the manufacturer has tested the autonomous vehicle on public roads and has complied with the testing standards established by the department, as specified.

Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified, and that application is approved.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation regarding autonomous vehicles, as specified.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1777

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Places various requirements on manufactures of autonomous vehicles by July 1, 2026 and authorizes a peace officer to issue a "notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance" for a violation of the vehicle code or a local traffic ordinance to an AV manufacturer.

Senate Amendments

1. Remove the provisions clarifying when an AV manufacturer is criminally liable for a violation of the vehicle code and instead authorizes a peace officer to issue a "notice of AV noncompliance."
2. Require the manufacturer of an AV to report a notice of AV noncompliance to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) within 72 hours of receiving the notice.
3. Provide that the issuance of a notice of AV noncompliance shall not create a presumption that the AV is unsafe and shall not limit the manufacturer's ability to contest the nature or occurrence of an alleged violation.
4. Provide that the notice of AV noncompliance shall not take effect until DMV issues regulations addressing the notices.
5. Require an AV equipped with an override system in the vehicle to provide access to the override system to law enforcement and firefighters in case of emergency to allow law enforcement and firefighters to immobilize the vehicle or cause the vehicle to move as necessary to address the emergency.
6. Require AV operators to provide training to firefighters and law enforcement on how to override the vehicle.
7. Remove the data reporting provisions of the bill.
8. Remove the requirement for an AV to equip each AV with a communication device.
9. Exempt commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of at least 10,001 pounds from having to have a two way communication device or having to have an emergency override system.
10. Authorize DMV, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, to adopt regulations to ensure the safe interaction between autonomous commercial motor vehicles and emergency response officials.
11. Clarify that only autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle are required to comply with the provisions of this bill related to emergency geofencing, telephone communication and communication devices equipped on the vehicle.
12. Add a severability clause if any the provisions of the bill are held invalid.

COMMENTS

Issuance of citations. There has been an open question by the San Francisco Police Department on whether they can issue a citation for a moving violation an AV makes and to whom they can issue it. This bill provides that a citation may be issued to an AV manufacturer for a moving violation if the AV technology was engaged, regardless of whether there was a human operator in the vehicle. If the technology was not engaged the citation goes to the driver. 

When passed out of the Assembly, this bill clarified when an AV is liable for a violation of the Vehicle Code. This bill now instead creates a new process for a law enforcement officer to issue a "notice of AV noncompliance" for a violation of the vehicle code. This citation is not sent directly to the DMV, and instead the onus is placed on the AV manufacturer to report the violation to DMV within 72 hours.

While, this bill allows law enforcement officers to issue a notice of noncompliance, it does not establish what happens to an AV manufacturer as a result of the notice being issued. Specifically, the bills does not provide what happens to an AV company when they receive a notice of AV noncompliance, what happens when an AV company fails to report the notice to DMV, and what due process rights an AV manufacturer has to contest a notice.

Moreover, this section does not take effect until DMV promulgates regulations, which could take years. Under current regulations, DMV can only has is to suspend or revoke a company's permit to operate—something the DMV has been extremely reluctant to do short of an AV failing to provide DMV with information.

Should this bill become law, DMV may want to consider adopting regulations that give it additional powers beyond suspending or revoking an AV permit to operate. For example, DMV may want consider authorizing a deployment permit with the requirement of a human operator inside, requiring additional reporting data, and requiring proof that an AV company has issued an IT system update to prevent the Vehicle Code violation in the future.

DMV may also want to consider smaller restrictions it could place on a company's ability to operate, including the ability to limit the vehicles' operating domain, restricting the speed the vehicles are allowed to operate at, reducing the size of the fleet, or restricting what hours the company can operate. In order to provide a deterrence, DMV may want to consider seeking authorization from the Legislature to fine AV companies, similar to fines that exist today for drivers for breaking the rules of the road, in order to create a more similar structure for Vehicle Code violations for AV companies and California drivers. DMV also should provide AV companies with due process to contest violations.

It also is still unclear how to hold an AV company criminally liable for a violation of the vehicle code.

This bill seeks to remedy several issues involving AVs that have arisen in San Francisco, including communication with first responders, and citations. This bill also imposes further data requirements on AVs. The bill is a product of negotiations with public safety officials in San Francisco, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and AV manufacturers to address a variety of public safety issues that have arisen in the City of San Francisco with AV testing. 

Communication with AVs: San Francisco has encountered several issues over the last several years with AVs operating in the city. For example, in January 2023, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reject Waymo's request to allow commercial deployment throughout the city. The letter notes a series of 9-1-1 calls that the city had received. The letter states "Managers in the City's Department of Emergency Management began to notice several calls to 9-1-1 from people who witnessed or were affected by driverless AVs obstructing travel lanes. Sometimes these AVs caused extended traffic backups. Callers also complained of erratic driving (including signaling in one direction while moving in the other direction) or a Cruise AV blocking a transit vehicle. In other cases, callers reported evasive maneuvers by other road users such as driving on a sidewalk to get around a blockage caused by a disabled AV. The duration of these unplanned AV stops obstructing travel lanes appeared to range from minutes (extending through many traffic light cycles) to hours. Additional incidents were posted on social media or reported by the media. The number of reported incidents is likely a fraction of the total unplanned stops because most are reported during late night hours when few people are on the streets to notice them and because many people would not think to call 9-1-1 in these circumstances….Unfortunately, the AV failure incidents reported by the public have been significantly concentrated on streets of great importance in the City's transportation network: downtown streets, streets with transit service, streets on the bike network, intersections, and streets on the City's High Injury Network (the 12% of San Francisco streets that account for more than 68% of severe or fatal injury crashes)."

In addition to the events described above, there have been documented incidents where AVs have driven away from law enforcement officers who have stopped them. In June of 2023, a Cruise vehicle came to a complete stop in the middle of a road, blocking emergency vehicles responding to a mass shooting event. 

This bill imposes several requirements on AVs to better effectuate communication between AVs and emergency responders. This bill requires an AV manufacturer to have an emergency response line for cities to call and the ability for a remote operator to take control of the vehicle and move it in case the vehicle gets stuck. 

If the manufacturer does not comply with these provisions of the bill, DMV is authorized to not permit the renewal or expansion of an existing permit. Testing permits expire every two years. Deployment permits do not expire. The bill also requires AVs to be controlled by a remote operator so a vehicle can be safely removed. 

Geofencing to limit AVs to specific areas. Geofencing is a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area. They have become increasingly common in the transportation world as a tool to limit the travel of certain vehicles. Cities have imposed geofencing requirements on motorized scooters, for example, to prohibit their use in areas of the city where they may not be appropriate. DMV permits for AVs have limited operating domains on where they can operate. A company can use geofencing to comply with their operating domain to ensure the AV does not travel outside of the city.

This bill requires AVs to respond to geofencing orders from emergency responders within two minutes. This could provide multiple benefits both to the cities AVs are operating in and manufacturers. The geofencing messages could help make AVs more aware of road closures or emergencies where they should not operate.

According to the Author

"The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We've learned, thus far, that the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents and ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. There must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV."

Arguments in Support

According to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, " Over the past two years, we have seen impressive advances in the ability of driverless vehicles to navigate our streets; however, we have also seen significant unintended impacts from their operation including delays to transit, interference with emergency response and serious injury collisions.

AB 1777 will address regulatory gaps in California's governance and oversight of driverless ridehail services in California by implementing common-sense measures such as enabling the citation of autonomous vehicles for traffic code violations, ensuring safe Interactions with emergency responders (e.g. police, fire), and providing jurisdictions with the information they need to understand the performance of autonomous vehicles on public roadways."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the Teamsters, "The amendments taken on Friday, 8/23/2024, take us significantly backwards. Instead of giving law enforcement officers the ability to fine or ticket AV companies for traffic violations, officers may only issue a "notice of noncompliance" for traffic violations committed by AVs. At the same time, the bill provides that the noncompliance notice "shall not create a presumption that the autonomous vehicle is unsafe" despite the nature or severity of the traffic violation in question.

This creates unequal enforcement, where a human driver can be cited or even charged for traffic violations, but AV companies are only noticed through the DMVs. For example, if a human being drives down the wrong side of the road, they can be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony under Vehicle Code § 21651. Under AB 1777, an officer can only issue a notice of noncompliance. Just this weekend, a Waymo was caught on camera driving the wrong way in San Francisco. This disparate treatment does nothing to make roads safer and shifts accountability off of AV manufacturers.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) estimates one-time costs in the range of $115,000 to develop and adopt regulations related to new requirements imposed on manufacturers operating AVs under a testing or deployment permit. (Motor Vehicle Account)
2. Costs for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) would likely be minor to consult with DMV on regulations to ensure the safe interaction between commercial AVs and emergency response officials. (Motor Vehicle Account)

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-0

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Juan Carrillo, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Ortega, Papan, Sanchez, Ting, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0-8

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0004994

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1777

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Cortese, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, Newman, Nguyen, Seyarto, Umberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/12/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Autonomous vehicles

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill specifies when autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs, and places various requirements on AV manufacturers by July 1, 2026.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 delete the provision specifying that AV manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations and replace that with an as-yet-to-be-determined process where a peace officer may issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance”. When an AV manufacturer receives such notice, it shall provide the notice to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) within 72 hours. The DMV is required to develop regulations to implement this provision. A due date is not specified nor are penalties for non-compliance. Delete the requirement that AV’s be able to communicate to others when their autonomous capabilities have been disabled.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (April, 2021).
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations.
5. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations.
6. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle.

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires that in order to test an AV the manufacturer shall create a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. A link to the Plan shall be provided to all law enforcement agencies and first responders in the vicinity of the area where testing is being conducted and the Plan shall include:
5. how to communicate with a remote vehicle operator who is available at all times and is available via a specified telephone number;
6. how to remove the vehicle from the roadway
7. how to recognize that the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and if possible, how to disengage autonomous mode;
8. how to detect and ensure that the autonomous has been deactivates
9. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
10. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

This bill:

1. Requires an AV manufacturer, by July 1, 2026, to:
2. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
3. Continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
4. Provide the remote human operator with the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
5. For AVs with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds, equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV within 30 seconds. The remote human operator shall have the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response vehicle to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
6. For AVs with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds where the vehicle is equipped with an override system that allows someone physically present to move the vehicle, provide access to the override system to law enforcement and firefighters in case of emergency, and provide appropriate training.
7. Prohibits the DMV from renewing or expanding the service area of a permit unless the manufacturer certifies that it is in full compliance with the above requirements.
8. Authorizes, beginning January 1, 2026, an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes of receiving such message, the manufacturer shall direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer shall provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.
9. Creates a “notice of autonomous vehicle non-compliance” which a peace offer can issue to an AV manufacturer for violation of a traffic ordinance. The notice shall be provided by the manufacturer to the DMV within 72 hours. Through its regulatory process, the DMV shall determine the impact and consequence of receiving such notice.

Comments

1. Recent Amendments Are Controversial. Recent amendments, taken at the request of the Administration, replace the authority to ticket an AV for traffic violations with the establishment of a “notice of autonomous vehicle non-compliance”, the consequence of which will be determined in a DMV rulemaking. This amendment removes the opposition of the Judicial Council. According to the author:

“The notice of non-compliance is intended to address public safety concerns by correcting the violation of the vehicle code in a timely manner versus pursuing a legal process that could further delay or potentially not address correcting the violation. Given the evolving nature of technology, it is important that the legislation not hinder the ability of the DMV and CHP to promulgate regulations that respond to the potential changes in design and development. Further, the notice of non-compliance will provide the DMV with additional information relative to their decision-making for autonomous vehicle permits. Details regarding logistics of this process will be developed via regulations where stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide feedback via the public process.”

This bill previously treated AV manufacturers the same as human drivers in the context of traffic tickets. With these amendments, the bill shifts from punishing violations to making the DMV aware of the violations, with the expectation that the DMV will require timely corrective action. Unfortunately, the DMV has not been an active regulator in the AV space as exemplified by incidents with several autonomous vehicle manufacturers. The bill also has no deadline for the issuance of the regulations for addressing the notices of non-compliance. If history is any guide, it could take several years. Opponents are concerned that the amendments creates unequal enforcement where a human driver can be fined and sanctioned for a traffic violation but AV companies are only noticed through the DMV. They argue that this is a giveaway to AV manufacturers at the expense of roadway safety.

The recent amendments also do not specify whether the notices of non-compliance are public information. Access to the notices increases transparency allowing the press and local governments to bring violations to the public’s attention.

While the recent amendments are controversial, there is far less controversy over the other provisions of the bill, which require better supervision of AVs by the manufacturers and improve the ability of first responders to control the AV in an emergency. Opponents contend that their concerns about unequal enforcement created by the notice of non-compliance outweigh the public safety improvements created by the other provisions in this bill.

1. Experience at Ground Zero. San Francisco has been ground zero in the United States for AV testing and deployment. It presents a complex, congested driving environment, which is why it has been an AV proving ground. Over time, AVs have shown themselves capable of safely navigating this environment. Waymo currently provides robotaxi service pursuant to deployment permits from the DMV and CPUC. However, there have been mistakes and serious accidents^[1] along the way. San Francisco first responders have been particularly concerned, noting several incidents where AVs impaired their efforts by clogging streets and entering areas where emergency responders were working.^[2] This bill responds to San Francisco’s experience.
2. Who is Responsible? When a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the driver is responsible and can receive a citation. When an AV fails to stop at a stop sign there is no “driver” to cite. This bill instead creates a new process where a peace officer can issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle non-compliance” for a traffic violation. That notice is sent to the AV manufacturer who must provide it to the DMV within 72 hours. The DMV, in a future rulemaking, will determine what actions it will take upon receipt of the notice. The expectation is that the DMV will be monitoring these notices and require the AV manufacturer to take corrective action.
3. Smaller Vehicles. Many, but not all, of the provisions of the bill apply to AVs weighing less than 10,000 pounds, which include all passenger vehicles and most light-duty trucks. Because the bill covers vehicles that are “capable of operating without a human driver,” it applies only to Level 4 and Level 5 AVs, not vehicles equipped with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control.
4. Emergency Response Official Vehicle Access. Under current DMV regulations, light duty AV manufacturers are required to provide first responders with a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs them how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. This bill goes beyond the Plan, requiring AV manufacturers to provide remote operators who continuously monitor and can quickly take control of the AV upon request of an emergency response official. The bill defines emergency response official broadly to include, but not be limited to, first responders, emergency dispatchers, and peace officers.
5. Is the Technology Ready? Opponents contend that this bill imposes requirements on AVs that they cannot yet meet. For example, a communication device to inform emergency response officials that the AV is disabled has not been created. Protocols for emergency geofencing have not been established. The bill delays implementation of these provisions until July 1, 2026 with the expectation that the technology will be available by that time.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) estimates one-time costs in the range of $115,000 to develop and adopt regulations related to new requirements imposed on manufacturers operating AVs under a testing or deployment permit. (Motor Vehicle Account)
  
• Costs for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) would likely be minor to consult with DMV on regulations to ensure the safe interaction between commercial AVs and emergency response officials. (Motor Vehicle Account)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/24)

City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco Fire Department
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/24)

ATU California Conference Board

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

California Federation of Labor Unions

California Professional Firefighters

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

Consumer Attorneys of California

Consumer Federation of California

SMART California State Legislative Board

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Ta

Prepared by: Randy Chinn / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

8/29/24 17:05:09

**** END ****

1. In October 2023, a jaywalking pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and thrown in the path of a Cruise AV operating autonomously. The AV dragged the pedestrian as it attempted to move out of traffic causing serious injuries. The DMV and CPUC suspended Cruise’s operating permit, believing they were misled by Cruise. Cruise acknowledged poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, an us-versus-them mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of its obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and public. A settlement was reached with the pedestrian for $8 million to $12 million. ↑

2. Los Angeles Times, “San Francisco’s fire chief is fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks. And LA is next” by Russ Mitchell; June 22, 2023. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1777

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 8/23/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Cortese, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, Newman, Nguyen, Seyarto, Umberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/12/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Autonomous vehicles

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill specifies when autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs, and places various requirements on AV manufacturers by July 1, 2026.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 delete the provision specifying that AV manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations and replace that with an as-yet-to-be-determined process where a peace officer may issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance”. When an AV manufacturer receives such notice it shall provide the notice to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) within 72 hours. The DMV is required to develop regulations to implement this provision. A due date is not specified nor are penalties for non-compliance. Delete the requirement that AV’s be able to communicate to others when their autonomous capabilities have been disabled.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (April, 2021).
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations.
5. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations.
6. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle.

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires that in order to test an AV the manufacturer shall create a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. A link to the Plan shall be provided to all law enforcement agencies and first responders in the vicinity of the area where testing is being conducted and the Plan shall include:
5. how to communicate with a remote vehicle operator who is available at all times and is available via a specified telephone number;
6. how to remove the vehicle from the roadway
7. how to recognize that the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and if possible, how to disengage autonomous mode;
8. how to detect and ensure that the autonomous has been deactivates
9. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
10. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

This bill:

1. Requires an AV manufacturer, by July 1, 2026, to:
2. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
3. Continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
4. Provide the remote human operator with the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
5. For AVs with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds, equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV within 30 seconds. The remote human operator with the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response vehicle to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
6. For AVs with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds where the vehicle is equipped with an override system that allows someone physically present to move the vehicle, provide access to the override system to law enforcement and firefighters in case of emergency, and provide appropriate training.
7. Prohibits the DMV from renewing or expanding the service area of a permit unless the manufacturer certifies that it is in full compliance with the above requirements.
8. Authorizes, beginning January 1, 2026, an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes of receiving such message, the manufacturer shall direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer shall provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.
9. Creates a “notice of autonomous vehicle non-compliance” which a peace offer can issue to an AV manufacturer for violation of a traffic ordinance. The notice shall be provided by the manufacturer to the DMV within 72 hours. Through its regulatory process, the DMV shall determine the impact and consequence of receiving such notice.

Comments

1. According to the author, “The notice of non-compliance is intended to address public safety concerns by correcting the violation of the vehicle code in a timely manner versus pursuing a legal process that could further delay or potentially not address correcting the violation. Given the evolving nature of technology, it is important that the legislation not hinder the ability of the DMV and CHP to promulgate regulations that respond to the potential changes in design and development. Further, the notice of non-compliance will provide the DMV with additional information relative to their decision-making for autonomous vehicle permits. Details regarding logistics of this process will be developed via regulations where stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide feedback via the public process.”

“The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We have learned, thus far, the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents, while ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state, so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.”

1. Experience at Ground Zero. San Francisco has been ground zero in the United States for AV testing and deployment. It presents a complex, congested driving environment, which is why it has been an AV proving ground. Over time, AVs have shown themselves capable of safely navigating this environment. Waymo currently provides robotaxi service pursuant to deployment permits from the DMV and CPUC. However, there have been mistakes and serious accidents^[1] along the way. San Francisco first responders have been particularly concerned, noting several incidents where AVs impaired their efforts by clogging streets and entering areas where emergency responders were working.^[2] This bill responds to San Francisco’s experience.
2. Who is Responsible? When a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the driver is responsible and can receive a citation. When an AV fails to stop at a stop sign there is no “driver” to cite. This bill instead creates a new process where a peace officer can issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle non-compliance” for a traffic violation. That notice is sent to the AV manufacturer who must provide it to the DMV within 72 hours. The DMV, in a future rulemaking, will determine what actions it will take upon receipt of the notice. The expectation is that the DMV will be monitoring these notices and require the AV manufacturer to take corrective action.
3. Smaller Vehicles. Many, but not all, of the provisions of the bill apply to AVs weighing less than 10,000 pounds, which include all passenger vehicles and most light-duty trucks. Because the bill covers vehicles that are “capable of operating without a human driver,” it applies only to Level 4 and Level 5 AVs, not vehicles equipped with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control.
4. Emergency Response Official Vehicle Access. Under current DMV regulations, light duty AV manufacturers are required to provide first responders with a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs them how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. This bill goes beyond the Plan, requiring AV manufacturers to provide remote operators who continuously monitor and can quickly take control of the AV upon request of an emergency response official. The bill defines emergency response official broadly to include, but not be limited to, first responders, emergency dispatchers, and peace officers.
5. Is the Technology Ready? Opponents contend that this bill imposes requirements on AVs that they cannot yet meet. For example, a communication device to inform emergency response officials that the AV is disabled has not been created. Protocols for emergency geofencing have not been established. The bill delays implementation of these provisions until July 1, 2026 with the expectation that the technology will be available by that time.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/24)

City and County of San Francisco
Consumer Attorneys of California
San Francisco Fire Department
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/24)

Aurora Innovation, INC.

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

California Trucking Association

Gatik

Judicial Council of California

Tesla INC

Kodiak Robotics, INC.

Waabi Innovation US Inc.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Ta

Prepared by: Randy Chinn / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

8/26/24 11:53:10

**** END ****

1. In October 2023, a jaywalking pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and thrown in the path of a Cruise AV operating autonomously. The AV dragged the pedestrian as it attempted to move out of traffic causing serious injuries. The DMV and CPUC suspended Cruise’s operating permit, believing they were misled by Cruise. Cruise acknowledged poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, an us-versus-them mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of its obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and public. A settlement was reached with the pedestrian for $8 million to $12 million. ↑

2. Los Angeles Times, “San Francisco’s fire chief is fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks. And LA is next” by Russ Mitchell; June 22, 2023. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1777

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 8/6/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 15-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Cortese, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Dahle, Dodd, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, Newman, Nguyen, Seyarto, Umberg

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/12/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Autonomous vehicles

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill specifies when autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs, and places various requirements on AV manufacturers by July 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (April, 2021).
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations.
5. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations.
6. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle.

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires that in order to test an AV the manufacturer shall create a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. A link to the Plan shall be provided to all law enforcement agencies and first responders in the vicinity of the area where testing is being conducted and the Plan shall include:
5. how to communicate with a remote vehicle operator who is available at all times and is available via a specified telephone number;
6. how to remove the vehicle from the roadway
7. how to recognize that the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and if possible, how to disengage autonomous mode;
8. how to detect and ensure that the autonomous has been deactivates
9. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
10. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

This bill:

1. Specifies that autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs if there is no driver or if there is a driver and the autonomous technology is engaged. If an AV commits a traffic violation while there is a driver and the autonomous technology is not engaged then the responsibility lies with the driver. Citations to AV manufacturers may be mailed.
2. Requires an AV manufacturer, by July 1, 2026, to:
3. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
4. Continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
5. Provide the remote human operator with the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
6. Requires an AV manufacturer operating an AV under a testing or deployment permit, by July 1, 2026, to
7. Equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV within 30 seconds.
8. Provide the remote human operator with the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response vehicle to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
9. Equip each AV with a communication device capable of communicating at a distance of no less than 50 feet that the autonomous technology has been disabled and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and a remote operator is engaged, or the AV and remote human operator is complying with a direction from an emergency response official. Use of a hazard warning light may not be used to fulfill this requirement.
10. For vehicles equipped with an override system that allows someone physically present to move the vehicle, provide access to the override system to law enforcement and firefighters in case of emergency, and provide appropriate training.
11. Prohibits the DMV from renewing or expanding the service area of a permit unless the manufacturer certifies that it is in full compliance with the above requirements.
12. Beginning January 1, 2025, authorizes an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes of receiving such message, the manufacturer shall direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer shall provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.
13. Except for the traffic violations provisions of paragraph (1), the provisions of this bill do not apply to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,001 pounds.

Comments

1. Author’s Statement. “The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We’ve learned, thus far, the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents, while ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state, so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.”
2. Experience at Ground Zero. San Francisco has been ground zero in the United States for AV testing and deployment. It presents a complex, congested driving environment, which is why it has been an AV proving ground. Over time, AVs have shown themselves capable of safely navigating this environment. Waymo currently provides robotaxi service pursuant to deployment permits from the DMV and CPUC. However, there have been mistakes and serious accidents^[1] along the way. San Francisco first responders have been particularly concerned, noting several incidents where AVs impaired their efforts by clogging streets and entering areas where emergency responders were working.^[2] This bill responds to San Francisco’s experience.
3. Who’s Responsible? When a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the driver is responsible and can receive a citation. When an AV fails to stop at a stop sign there is no “driver” to cite. This bill takes the view that the AV manufacturer is the driver so any violation of the rules of the road is the responsibility of the manufacturer. (This provision applies to all AVs.) Citations can be mailed, presumably to the address of the manufacturer on file with the DMV. This bill does not subject AVs to the DMV’s points system where poor drivers accumulate points for violations and when the accrued points exceed a specified threshold, driving privileges are revoked.
4. Smaller Vehicles. This remaining provisions of the bill apply to AVs weighing less than 10,000 pounds, which include all passenger vehicles and most light-duty trucks. The DMV has not yet issued proposed regulations for heavy-duty AVs. Vehicles with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control or lane keeping, are not covered. Because the bill covers vehicles that are “capable of operating without a human driver” it applies to Level 4 and Level 5 AVs.
5. Emergency Response Official Vehicle Access. Under current DMV regulations, light duty AV manufacturers are required to provide first responders with a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs them how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. This bill goes beyond the Plan, requiring AV manufacturers to provide remote operators who continuously monitor and can quickly take control of the AV upon request of an emergency response official. The bill defines emergency response official broadly to include, but not be limited to, first responders, emergency dispatchers, and traffic control officers.
6. Law or Regulation? This bill provides specific performance obligations for AVs, such as requiring a remote human operator with situational awareness to answer a call within 30 seconds, or requiring a device that communicates to a distance of at least 50 feet that the vehicle’s AV capabilities are disabled. Typically, these details would be reserved for the formal regulatory process with scheduled proposals and comment by all involved and vetting by regulatory professionals.
7. Is the Technology Ready? Opponents contend that this bill imposes requirements on AVs that they cannot yet meet. For example, a communication device to inform emergency response officials that the AV is disabled has not been created. Protocols for emergency geofencing have not been established. The bill delays implementation of some of these provisions until July 1, 2026 with the expectation that the technology will be available by that time.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/24)

City and County of San Francisco
Consumer Attorneys of California
San Francisco Fire Department
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/24)

Aurora Innovation, INC.

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

California Trucking Association

Gatik

Judicial Council of California

Tesla INC

Kodiak Robotics, INC.

Waabi Innovation US Inc.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 5/21/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Flora, Friedman, Gabriel, Holden, Mathis, Ta

Prepared by: Randy Chinn / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

8/14/24 15:49:24

**** END ****

1. In October 2023, a jaywalking pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and thrown in the path of a Cruise AV operating autonomously. The AV dragged the pedestrian as it attempted to move out of traffic causing serious injuries. The DMV and CPUC suspended Cruise’s operating permit, believing they were misled by Cruise. Cruise acknowledged poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, an us-versus-them mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of its obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and public. A settlement was reached with the pedestrian for $8 million to $12 million. ↑

2. Los Angeles Times, “San Francisco’s fire chief is fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks. And LA is next” by Russ Mitchell; June 22, 2023. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 1777 (Ting) - Autonomous vehicles

Bill Summary:

AB 1777 would make an autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturer responsible for traffic citations for violations that occur when autonomous technology is engaged. The bill would also require manufacturers that operate AVs without a human driver in the vehicle to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line and equip vehicles with two-way voice communication, as specified, and authorize an emergency response official to issue a geofencing message to a manufacturer who must then direct its fleet to leave or avoid an area.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) estimates one-time costs in the range of $115,000 to develop and adopt regulations related to new requirements imposed on manufacturers operating AVs under a testing or deployment permit. (Motor Vehicle Account)
  
• Costs for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) would likely be minor to consult with DMV on regulations to ensure the safe interaction between commercial AVs and emergency response officials. (Motor Vehicle Account)

Background:

Existing law establishes the statutory framework for the DMV to test and approve the operation of all AVs within the state. In 2014, DMV adopted regulations to authorize the testing of light duty AVs (with a gross weight of 10,000 lbs or less) with a safety driver. The DMV established regulations to authorize the testing of light-duty AVs without a safety driver in 2018, and adopted additional regulations in 2022 to authorize the full deployment of light-duty AVs without a safety driver. In order to receive DMV’s approval to operate, an AV service must do all of the following:

• Identify the Operational Design Domain, or geographic location and conditions, in which the AVs are designed to operate.
• Establish that their technology can detect and respond to roadway situations.
• Establish that their vehicles meet federal motor vehicle safety standards.
• Certify the manufacturer has conducted tests to ensure the AVs are safe for deployment.
• Develop a law enforcement interaction plan to help first responders interact with the AVs.
• Meet specified insurance requirements.

The DMV’s website indicates that there are currently 35 companies authorized to test AVs with a safety driver, six companies authorized to test AVs without a safety driver, and three companies currently authorized to deploy AVs without a safety driver.

An AV company that conducts commercial passenger service must also receive approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to operate as a charter-party carrier that uses public highways for the transportation of passengers for compensation. To receive CPUC approval, the AVS must submit a Passenger Safety Plan (PSP) describing its policies and procedures to minimize risk for AV passengers. The PSP must do all of the following:

• Minimize safety risks to passengers traveling in a ride operated without a driver in the vehicle.
• Minimize safety risks to passengers traveling in a shared, driverless ride, including prevention and response to assaults and harassments.
• Respond to unsafe scenarios outside and within the vehicle, such as hostile individuals.
• Educate and orient passengers about the technology, experience, and safety procedures.
• Ensure customers can safely identify, enter, and exit the AV they requested.
• Enable passengers to contact the AV service provider during the ride and ensure the passengers receive a timely and complete response.
• Collect, respond to, and retain any passenger comments and complaints.
• Ensure the safety measures described above are accessible to and apply to all passengers, including those with limited mobility, vision impairments, or other disabilities.

After the CPUC approves the initial plan, CPUC staff can approve many subsequent changes, including expanding where an AVS can operate, without a vote of the Commission. To date, the CPUC has approved permits for seven companies to provide AV service with passengers, although some remain limited to piloting and testing their service, and one has since had their permit suspended.

Proposed Law:

SB 1777 would require a traffic citation to be issued to an AV manufacturer if an AV commits a violation and it does not have a person in the driver’s seat, or if there is a driver and the autonomous technology is not engaged. If an AV commits a traffic violation while there is a driver and the autonomous technology is not engaged then the responsibility lies with the driver. Citations to AV manufacturers may be mailed.

The bill would also require an AV manufacturer operating an AV under a testing or deployment permit to comply with certain requirements by July 1, 2026. Specifically, this bill would:

• Require an AV manufacturer to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
• Require an AV manufacturer to continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
• Require the remote human operator to have the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
• Require an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV. An emergency response official must be able to reach a remote human operator within 30 seconds.
• Require the remote human operator to have the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause it to move as directed by the emergency response official.
• Require an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a communication device capable of communicating to no less than 50 feet that the autonomous technology has been disabled and the vehicle and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and a remote operator is engaged, or the AV and remote human operator is complying with a direction from an emergency response official. Use of a hazard warning light may not be used to fulfill this requirement.
• Provide access to an override system that allows someone who is physically present to move the vehicle, if equipped, to law enforcement and firefighters in case of an emergency. The AV manufacturer must provide training for law enforcement and firefighters on the use of any override systems.
• Prohibit DMV from renewing, reinstating, or expanding the service area of a permit unless an AV manufacturer certifies full compliance with these requirements.
  

AB 1777 would also authorize an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes, the manufacturer must direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer must provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.

Lastly, the bill would only apply to AV manufacturers that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, and exempts commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds from the requirements to equip an AV with a two-way communications device, a communications device capable of communicating at a distance of 50 feet, and provisions related to override systems.

Related Legislation:

AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry), which is currently pending in this Committee, would restrict an AV with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the AV at the time of operation.

AB 3061 (Haney), which is currently pending in this Committee, would require the manufacturers of AVs to report to the DMV any vehicle collision, traffic violation, or disengagement, or the assault or harassment of any passenger or safety driver that involves a manufacturer’s vehicle in California, beginning on July 31, 2025.

SB 1298 (Padilla), Chap. 570/2012, established conditions for the operation of AVs on public roadways, and required DMV to develop AV regulations.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1777 Hearing Date: 6/25/2024

SUBJECT: Autonomous vehicles

DIGEST: This bill specifies when autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs, and places various requirements on AV manufacturers by July 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021).
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations.
5. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations.
6. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle.

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires that in order to test an AV the manufacturer shall create a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. A link to the Plan shall be provided to all law enforcement agencies and first responders in the vicinity of the area where testing is being conducted and the Plan shall include:
5. how to communicate with a remote vehicle operator who is available at all times and is available via a specified telephone number;
6. how to remove the vehicle from the roadway
7. how to recognize that the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and if possible, how to disengage autonomous mode;
8. how to detect and ensure that the autonomous has been deactivates
9. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
10. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

This bill:

1. Clarifies that light- and heavy-duty autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers, are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs if there is no driver or if there is a driver and the autonomous technology is engaged. If an AV commits a traffic violation while there is a driver and the autonomous technology is not engaged then the responsibility lies with the driver. Citations to AV manufacturers may be mailed.
2. Requires an AV manufacturer to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
3. Requires an AV manufacturer to continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
4. Requires that the remote human operator has the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
5. Requires an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV. An emergency response official must be able to reach a remote human operator within 30 seconds.
6. Requires that the remote human operator have the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response vehicle to move the AV.
7. Requires an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a communication device capable of communicating to no less than 50 feet that the autonomous technology has been disabled and the vehicle and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and a remote operator is engaged, or the AV and remote human operator is complying with a direction from an emergency response official. Use of a hazard warning light may not be used to fulfill this requirement.
8. Authorizes an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes, the manufacturer shall direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer shall provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. “The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We’ve learned, thus far, the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents, while ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state, so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.”
2. Experience at Ground Zero. San Francisco has been ground zero in the United States for AV testing and deployment. It presents a complex, congested driving environment, which is why it has been an AV proving ground. Over time, AVs have shown themselves capable of safely navigating this environment. Waymo currently provides robotaxi service pursuant to deployment permits from the DMV and CPUC. However, there have been mistakes and serious accidents^[1] along the way. San Francisco first responders have been particularly concerned, noting several incidents where AVs impaired their efforts by clogging streets and entering areas where emergency responders were working.^[2] This bill responds to San Francisco’s experience.
3. Who’s Responsible? When a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the driver is responsible and can receive a citation. When an AV fails to stop at a stop sign there is no “driver” to cite. This bill takes the view that the AV manufacturer is the driver so any violation of the rules of the road is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Citations can be mailed, presumably to the address of the manufacturer on file with the DMV. This bill does not subject AVs to the DMV’s points system where poor drivers accumulate points for violations and when the accrued points exceed a specified threshold, driving privileges are revoked.
4. Big and Small. This bill applies to both light-duty and heavy-duty AVs. The DMV has not yet issued proposed regulations for heavy-duty AVs. Vehicles with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control or lane keeping, are not covered. Because the bill covers vehicles that are “capable of operating without a human driver” it applies to Level 4 and Level 5 AVs.
5. Emergency Response Official Vehicle Access. AVs manufacturers are required to provide first responders with a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. This bill goes well beyond the Plan, requiring AV manufacturers to provide remote operators who continuously monitor and can quickly take control of the AV upon request of an emergency response official. The bill defines emergency response official very broadly to include, but not be limited to, first responders, emergency dispatchers, and traffic control officers.

DMV is preparing to update their AV regulations. It is not known whether any of the concerns addressed in this bill are addressed in the DMV’s update.

1. Law or Regulation? This bill provides specific performance obligations for AVs, such as requiring a remote human operator with situational awareness to answer a call within 30 seconds, or requiring a device that communicates to a distance of at least 50 feet that the vehicle’s AV capabilities are disabled. Typically, these details would be reserved for the formal regulatory process with scheduled proposals and comment by all involved and vetting by regulatory professionals.
2. Is the Technology Ready? This bill imposes requirements on AVs that the industry cannot currently meet and doubts they can meet by the bill deadline. A communication device to inform emergency response officials that the AV is disabled has not been created. Protocols for emergency geofencing have not been established. The bill delays implementation of these provisions until July 1, 2026 with the expectation that the technology will be created by that time.
3. Proposed Amendment. The bill allows emergency response officials to contact a remote vehicle operator through a telephone line. The remote operator has the ability to immobilize the AV or cause the AV to move as directed by the emergency response official. Some first responders believe that they should have more direct control of the AV and be able to move the vehicle in case of emergency, bypassing the remote vehicle operator and the AV system. The author may wish to consider accepting this amendment.
4. Opposition. The Teamsters Public Affairs Council oppose this bill. They believe the bill does not go far enough to ensure safe interaction with the public and first responders.
5. Technical amendments. The bill provision requiring emergency geofencing (page 9, line 6) is intended to be effective on July 1, 2026 like much of the rest of the bill. As written, it becomes effective on the date the bill becomes effective.

Related Legislation:

SB 915 (Cortese). Would require local authorization for an AV commercial passenger service to operate within its limits. That bill is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry). Would restrict an AV with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the AV at the time of operation. This bill is pending before the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 3061 (Haney). Would require the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) any vehicle collision, traffic violation, or disengagement, or the assault or harassment of any passenger or safety driver that involves a manufacturer’s vehicle in California starting July 31, 2025. This bill is pending before the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 96 (Kalra, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2023). Requires a public transit employer to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, and that collective bargaining commence within a certain timeframe, among other provisions.

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry, 2023). Was substantially similar to AB 2286. This bill was vetoed.

AB 2441 (Kalra, 2022). Would have required a public transit district to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, among other provisions. This bill was vetoed.

SB 336 (Dodd, 2019). Would have required a transit operator on every fully-automated transit vehicle until January 1, 2025. This bill died in the Assembly.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 19, 2024.)

SUPPORT:

City and County of San Francisco

Consumer Attorneys of California

San Francisco Fire Department

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance (SFTWA)

OPPOSITION:

Aurora Innovation, INC.

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

California Trucking Association

Gatik

Kodiak Robotics, INC.

Tesla INC.

Waabi Innovation US Inc.

-- END --

1. In October 2023, a jaywalking pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and thrown in the path of a Cruise AV operating autonomously. The AV dragged the pedestrian as it attempted to move out of traffic causing serious injuries. The DMV and CPUC suspended Cruise’s operating permit, believing they were misled by Cruise. Cruise acknowledged poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, an us-versus-them mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of its obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and public. A settlement was reached with the pedestrian for $8 million to $12 million. ↑

2. Los Angeles Times, “San Francisco’s fire chief is fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks. And LA is next” by Russ Mitchell; June 22, 2023. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Dave Cortese, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/25/2024

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill specifies when autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs, and places various requirements on AV manufacturers by July 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021).
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations.
5. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations.
6. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle.

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires that in order to test an AV the manufacturer shall create a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. A link to the Plan shall be provided to all law enforcement agencies and first responders in the vicinity of the area where testing is being conducted and the Plan shall include:
5. how to communicate with a remote vehicle operator who is available at all times and is available via a specified telephone number;
6. how to remove the vehicle from the roadway
7. how to recognize that the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and if possible, how to disengage autonomous mode;
8. how to detect and ensure that the autonomous has been deactivates
9. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
10. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

This bill:

1. Clarifies that light- and heavy-duty autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers, are responsible for traffic violations committed by their AVs if there is no driver or if there is a driver and the autonomous technology is engaged. If an AV commits a traffic violation while there is a driver and the autonomous technology is not engaged then the responsibility lies with the driver. Citations to AV manufacturers may be mailed.
2. Requires an AV manufacturer to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available to emergency response officials whenever the AV is operating on a public road.
3. Requires an AV manufacturer to continually monitor its AVs and to staff the emergency response telephone line so that calls are answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who has situational awareness of all AVs on the roads.
4. Requires that the remote human operator has the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or cause the AV to move as directed by an emergency response official.
5. Requires an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the AV. An emergency response official must be able to reach a remote human operator within 30 seconds.
6. Requires that the remote human operator have the ability to immobilize the AV, allow an emergency response vehicle to move the AV.
7. Requires an AV manufacturer to equip each AV with a communication device capable of communicating to no less than 50 feet that the autonomous technology has been disabled and the vehicle and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and a remote operator is engaged, or the AV and remote human operator is complying with a direction from an emergency response official. Use of a hazard warning light may not be used to fulfill this requirement.
8. Authorizes an emergency response official to issue an emergency geofencing message to an AV manufacturer. Within two minutes, the manufacturer shall direct its AV fleet to leave or avoid the area. Within 30 days of receiving a notice that an emergency response official wishes to begin issuing emergency geofencing messages, an AV manufacturer shall provide an emergency response official with the information necessary for the manufacturer to receive and respond to emergency geofencing messages.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. “The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We’ve learned, thus far, the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents, while ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state, so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.”
2. Experience at Ground Zero. San Francisco has been ground zero in the United States for AV testing and deployment. It presents a complex, congested driving environment, which is why it has been an AV proving ground. Over time, AVs have shown themselves capable of safely navigating this environment. Waymo currently provides robotaxi service pursuant to deployment permits from the DMV and CPUC. However, there have been mistakes and serious accidents^[1] along the way. San Francisco first responders have been particularly concerned, noting several incidents where AVs impaired their efforts by clogging streets and entering areas where emergency responders were working.^[2] This bill responds to San Francisco’s experience.
3. Who’s Responsible? When a driver fails to stop at a stop sign the driver is responsible and can receive a citation. When an AV fails to stop at a stop sign there is no “driver” to cite. This bill takes the view that the AV manufacturer is the driver so any violation of the rules of the road is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Citations can be mailed, presumably to the address of the manufacturer on file with the DMV. This bill does not subject AVs to the DMV’s points system where poor drivers accumulate points for violations and when the accrued points exceed a specified threshold, driving privileges are revoked.
4. Big and Small. This bill applies to both light-duty and heavy-duty AVs. The DMV has not yet issued proposed regulations for heavy-duty AVs. Vehicles with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control or lane keeping, are not covered. But other passenger cars which are authorized to operate autonomously in specific conditions and geographies, such as certain Mercedes-Benz vehicles which have received DMV approval, are covered.
5. Emergency Response Official Vehicle Access. AVs manufacturers are required to provide first responders with a law enforcement interaction plan (Plan) that informs first responders how to interact with the AV in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. This bill goes well beyond the Plan, requiring AV manufacturers to provide remote operators who continuously monitor and can quickly take control of the AV upon request of an emergency response official. The bill defines emergency response official very broadly to include, but not be limited to, first responders, emergency dispatchers, and traffic control officers.

DMV is preparing to update their AV regulations. It is not known whether any of the concerns addressed in this bill are addressed in the DMV’s update.

1. Law or Regulation? This bill provides specific performance obligations for AVs, such as requiring a remote human operator with situational awareness to answer a call within 30 seconds, or requiring a device that communicates to a distance of at least 50 feet that the vehicle’s AV capabilities are disabled. Typically, these details would be reserved for the formal regulatory process with scheduled proposals and comment by all involved and vetting by regulatory professionals.
2. Is the Technology Ready? This bill imposes requirements on AVs that the industry cannot currently meet and doubts they can meet by the bill deadline. A communication device to inform emergency response officials that the AV is disabled has not been created. Protocols for emergency geofencing have not been established. The bill delays implementation of these provisions until July 1, 2026 with the expectation that the technology will be created by that time.
3. Proposed Amendment. The bill allows emergency response officials to contact a remote vehicle operator through a telephone line. The remote operator has the ability to immobilize the AV or cause the AV to move as directed by the emergency response official. Some first responders believe that they should have more direct control of the AV and be able to move the vehicle in case of emergency, bypassing the remote vehicle operator and the AV system. The author may wish to consider accepting this amendment.
4. Opposition. The Teamsters Public Affairs Council oppose this bill. They believe the bill does not go far enough to ensure safe interaction with the public and first responders.
5. Technical amendments. The bill provision requiring emergency geofencing (page 9, line 6) is intended to be effective on July 1, 2026 like much of the rest of the bill. As written, it becomes effective on the date the bill becomes effective.

Related Legislation:

SB 915 (Cortese). Would require local authorization for an AV commercial passenger service to operate within its limits. That bill is pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry). Would restrict an AV with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the AV at the time of operation. This bill is pending before the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 3061 (Haney). Would require the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) any vehicle collision, traffic violation, or disengagement, or the assault or harassment of any passenger or safety driver that involves a manufacturer’s vehicle in California starting July 31, 2025. This bill is pending before the Senate Transportation Committee.

AB 96 (Kalra, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2023). Requires a public transit employer to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, and that collective bargaining commence within a certain timeframe, among other provisions.

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry, 2023). Was substantially similar to AB 2286. This bill was vetoed.

AB 2441 (Kalra, 2022). Would have required a public transit district to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, among other provisions. This bill was vetoed.

SB 336 (Dodd, 2019). Would have required a transit operator on every fully-automated transit vehicle until January 1, 2025. This bill died in the Assembly.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

June 19, 2024.)

SUPPORT:

City and County of San Francisco

Consumer Attorneys of California

San Francisco Fire Department

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)

San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance (SFTWA)

OPPOSITION:

Aurora Innovation, INC.

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

California Trucking Association

Gatik

Kodiak Robotics, INC.

Tesla INC.

Waabi Innovation US Inc.

-- END --

1. In October 2023, a jaywalking pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and thrown in the path of a Cruise AV operating autonomously. The AV dragged the pedestrian as it attempted to move out of traffic causing serious injuries. The DMV and CPUC suspended Cruise’s operating permit, believing they were misled by Cruise. Cruise acknowledged poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, an us-versus-them mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of its obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and public. A settlement was reached with the pedestrian for $8 million to $12 million. ↑

2. Los Angeles Times, “San Francisco’s fire chief is fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks. And LA is next” by Russ Mitchell; June 22, 2023. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1777

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Places various requirements on manufacturers of autonomous vehicles (AVs) by July 1, 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Requires an AV manufacturer to comply with the following by July 1, 2026 for vehicles that have the technology capable of driving without a human operator:
2. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials during all hours when an AV is on a public road at no cost to public agencies.
3. Make the remote human operator capable of disabling the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or move the AV as directed by an emergency response official.
4. Have a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the autonomous vehicle. The manufacturer should have the ability to ensure that the emergency response official is able to reach a remote human operator within 30 seconds.
5. Requires the two way communication device to be capable of communicating, at a distance no less than 100 feet in front of or behind the vehicle, and using methods that do not employ hazard warning lights that the AV has been disabled and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and remote human operator is engaged, or the AV or remote human operator has received direction from an emergency response official and is complying with the direction given.
6. Provides that Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall not renew, reinstate, or expand the service area of a permit unless the manufacturer certifies that they complied with everything described above in paragraph 1.
7. Authorizes an emergency response official to issue a geofencing message to a manufacturer.
8. Requires a manufacturer to direct an AV in the effected geofencing area to leave or avoid the area within two minutes of receipt of the geofencing message.
9. Requires a manufacturer, upon request by an emergency response official, to provide the official with the information that is necessary to send geofencing messages to the manufacturer.
10. Provides that if an AV does not have a person in the driver's seat and commits a traffic violation pursuant to this code or if a person is in the driver's seat but the autonomous vehicle technology is engaged then the citation should be issued to the manufacturer. Otherwise the ticket goes to the driver.
11. Requires an AV company to report a collision involving an AV to DMV within five days of the collision.
12. Requires the collision report to include whether the AV technology was engaged within 30 seconds of the collision, and whether a safety driver was present during the collision, the latitude and longitude coordinates of the collision.
13. Requires a manufacturer of an AV with a permit to submit a quarterly report to DMV with the number of vehicles miles traveled by all AVs, the number of times an AV automatically stops on a public right-of-way when it detects that its ability to drive autonomously is impaired, or an operator fails to response appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task, and the vehicle identification numbers of all autonomous vehicles.

COMMENTS

This bill seeks to remedy several issues involving AVs that have arisen in San Francisco, including communication with first responders, and citations. This bill also imposes further data requirements on AVs. The author's office is continuing to work on this bill with public safety officials in San Francisco, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and AV manufacturers to address a variety of public safety issues that have arisen in the City of San Francisco with AV testing. 

Communication with AVs: San Francisco has encountered several issues over the last several years with AVs operating in the city. For example, in January 2023, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reject Waymo's request to allow commercial deployment throughout the city. The letter notes a series of 9-1-1 calls that the city had received. The letter states "Managers in the City's Department of Emergency Management began to notice several calls to 9-1-1 from people who witnessed or were affected by driverless AVs obstructing travel lanes. Sometimes these AVs caused extended traffic backups. Callers also complained of erratic driving (including signaling in one direction while moving in the other direction) or a Cruise AV blocking a transit vehicle. In other cases, callers reported evasive maneuvers by other road users such as driving on a sidewalk to get around a blockage caused by a disabled AV. The duration of these unplanned AV stops obstructing travel lanes appeared to range from minutes (extending through many traffic light cycles) to hours. Additional incidents were posted on social media or reported by the media. The number of reported incidents is likely a fraction of the total unplanned stops because most are reported during late night hours when few people are on the streets to notice them and because many people would not think to call 9-1-1 in these circumstances….Unfortunately, the AV failure incidents reported by the public have been significantly concentrated on streets of great importance in the City's transportation network: downtown streets, streets with transit service, streets on the bike network, intersections, and streets on the City's High Injury Network (the 12% of San Francisco streets that account for more than 68% of severe or fatal injury crashes)."

In addition to the events described above, there have been documented incidents where AVs have driven away from law enforcement officers who have stopped them. In June of 2023, a Cruise vehicle came to a complete stop in the middle of a road, blocking emergency vehicles responding to a mass shooting event.

This bill imposes several requirements on AVs to better effectuate communication between AVs and emergency responders. This bill requires an AV manufacturer to have an emergency response line for cities to call, a two-way communication device on the vehicle, and the ability for a remote operator to take control of the vehicle and move it in case the vehicle gets stuck. 

If the manufacturer does not comply with these provisions of the bill, DMV is authorized to not permit the renewal or expansion of an existing permit. Testing permits expire every two years. Deployment permits do not expire. The bill also requires AVs to be controlled by a remote operator so a vehicle can be safely removed.

Incomplete data on AV incidents. The incidents described above by San Francisco were only known to them because of 9-1-1 calls and were not reported to DMV. This is because DMV only requires disengagement and collision reports for vehicles with a testing permit, but not a deployment permit.

To address this issue, this bill requires collision reporting and a quarterly report to DMV with the number of vehicle miles traveled by all AVs, the number of times an AV automatically stops on a public right-of-way when it detects that its ability to drive autonomously is impaired, or an operator fails to respond appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task, and the vehicle identification numbers of all autonomous vehicles.  

Issuance of citations. There has been an open question by the San Francisco Police Department on whether they can issue a citation for a moving violation of an AV and to whom they can issue it. This bill provides that a citation may be issued to an AV manufacturer for a moving violation if the AV technology was engaged, regardless of whether there was a human operator in the vehicle. If the technology was not engaged the citation goes to the driver.

Geofencing to limit AVs to specific areas. Geofencing is a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area. They have become increasingly common in the transportation world as a tool to limit the travel of certain vehicles. Cities have imposed geofencing requirements on motorized scooters, for example, to prohibit their use in areas of the city where they may not be appropriate. DMV permits for AVs have limited operating domains on where they can operate. A company can use geofencing to comply with their operating domain to ensure the AV does not travel outside of the city.

This bill requires AVs to respond to geofencing orders from emergency responders within two minutes. This could provide multiple benefits both to the cities AVs are operating in and manufacturers. The geofencing messages could help make AVs more aware of road closures or emergencies where they should not operate.

According to the Author

"The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We've learned, thus far, that the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents and ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV."

Arguments in Support

According to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, " Over the past two years, we have seen impressive advances in the ability of driverless vehicles to navigate our streets; however, we have also seen significant unintended impacts from their operation including delays to transit, interference with emergency response and serious injury collisions.

AB 1777 will address regulatory gaps in California's governance and oversight of driverless ridehail services in California by implementing common-sense measures such as enabling the citation of autonomous vehicles for traffic code violations, ensuring safe Interactions with emergency responders (e.g. police, fire), and providing jurisdictions with the information they need to understand the performance of autonomous vehicles on public roadways."

Arguments in Opposition

According to Tesla, "Unfortunately, AB 1777 creates a second set of road rules and equipment requirements with unknown effectiveness and cybersecurity risks.

In addition to being unproven and potentially risky, these types of requirements are arguably under federal jurisdiction to avoid variations across states. Consequently, Tesla recommends that the state work with federal and state regulators to ensure compliance with road rules and accountability, rather than mandate a specific communication protocol or equipment."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee, "This bill creates new requirements of DMV and provides new enforcement authority to the DMV and, therefore, implementation will entail costs to DMV. Specifically, as a result of this bill, DMV will need to manage reports and data that AV manufacturers must provide to DMV, pursuant to this bill. In addition, DMV will need to assess and analyze this data on an ongoing basis, and possibly take enforcement action as a result. One-time cost will be significant—likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars. Ongoing cost will also be significant, but much less than DMV's one-time costs. All cost would be funded by monies in the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA).

DMV contends the bill will require it to develop a new information technology (IT) system to receive and manage reports and data submitted by AV manufacturers and ensure compliance with the requirement to remedy any software or technical issue within 60 days, at a cost of approximately $1.25 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to develop the IT system and $350,000 ongoing to maintain it and monitor the data in it. 

In addition, to implement the requirement DMV assign an entity to conduct a check of an AV proposed for testing to ensure it responds appropriately to audio and visual cues, the DMV contends it would contract with technical consultants who are experts in automotive technology, safety, and AV safety design, and hire additional mechanical engineer staff to perform analyses and assessments and take permitting actions, at an ongoing annual cost of $700,000.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the MVA—DMV's main funding source—is expected to fully exhaust its reserves and become insolvent in fiscal year 2025‑26. The LAO further warns the MVA, absent corrective action will experience a negative fund balance of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2028‑29."

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 15-0-0

YES: Wilson, Davies, Aguiar-Curry, Juan Carrillo, Hart, Hoover, Jackson, Ortega, Papan, Sanchez, Ting, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003318

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1777

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill creates requirements of the operation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on public roadways regarding communications between an AV and emergency response officials and control of an AV in an emergency situations.

Specifically, the bill, among other things:

1. Authorizes an emergency response official, under specified circumstances, to issue a geofencing order to an AV manufacturer, and requires the manufacturer to direct an AV in the affected area to leave or avoid the area within two minutes of receiving the order.
2. Makes numerous requirements of a manufacturer of an AV operating under a testing or deployment permit issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV):
   1. By July 1, 2026, requires such a manufacturer to:
   2. Continuously monitor the status of each of the manufacturer’s AVs operating on a public road.
   3. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line available during all hours that one of the manufacturer’s AVs is on a public road and to which calls are picked up within 30 seconds by a human operator that has situational awareness of all the manufacturer’s AVs on public roads.
   4. Provide the remote human operator the ability to disable an AV about which the operator receives a call, allow an emergency response official to move the AV or move the AV as directed by an emergency response professional.
   5. Equip each of the manufacturer’s AVs with a two-way voice communication device the enables an emergency response official near the AV to communicate effectively with a remote human operator within 30 seconds of a request who is able the disable the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV or move the AV as directed by an emergency response professional.
   6. Directs such an AV manufacturer to report any collision to DMV within five days and include specified information.
   7. Requires such an AV manufacturer to submit a quarterly report to DMV regarding AV operations, driving performance and the inventory of AVs deployed, and directs DMV to make such a report available to a public agency, upon the public agency’s request.
3. Prohibits DMV from renewing, reinstating or expanding the service area of an AV unless the manufacturer certifies it is in full compliance with the requirements described above.
4. Provides DMV authority to assess incremental enforcement measures—such as restrictions on geographic area, operating hours, roadway type, speed or weather conditions—against an AV manufacturer when DMV determines a violation of the requirements described above do not warrant full suspension or revocation of the manufacturers testing permit.
5. Directs DMV to assign an entity to conduct a check of an AV proposed for testing to ensure it responds appropriately to audio and visual cues.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill creates new requirements of DMV and provides new enforcement authority to the DMV and, therefore, implementation will entail costs to DMV. Specifically, as a result of this bill, DMV will need to manage reports and data that AV manufacturers must provide to DMV, pursuant to this bill. In addition, DMV will need to assess and analyze this data on an ongoing basis, and possibly take enforcement action as a result. One-time cost will be significant—likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to low millions of dollars. Ongoing cost will also be significant, but much less than DMV’s one-time costs. All cost would be funded by monies in the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA).

DMV contends the bill will require it to develop a new information technology (IT) system to receive and manage reports and data submitted by AV manufacturers and ensure compliance with the requirement to remedy any software or technical issue within 60 days, at a cost of approximately $1.25 million in fiscal year 2025-26 to develop the IT system and $350,000 ongoing to maintain it and monitor the data in it. 

In addition, to implement the requirement DMV assign an entity to conduct a check of an AV proposed for testing to ensure it responds appropriately to audio and visual cues, the DMV contends it would contract with technical consultants who are experts in automotive technology, safety, and AV safety design, and hire additional mechanical engineer staff to perform analyses and assessments and take permitting actions, at an ongoing annual cost of $700,000.   

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the MVA—DMV’s main funding source—is expected to fully exhaust its reserves and become insolvent in fiscal year 2025‑26. The LAO further warns the MVA, absent corrective action will experience a negative fund balance of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2028‑29.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author intends this bill to strike a “balance” between providing a service to residents and ensuring public safety. According to the author:

The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We’ve learned, thus far, that the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority…This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.

1. Background. State law allows for the operation of driverless AVs on the state’s roadways, subject to regulation and permitting by DMV. Currently, DMV issues two types of AV permits to light-duty passenger vehicles: testing permits and deployment permits. An AV permittee may operate a driverless AV pursuant to a testing permit or a deployment permits. DMV subjects such a permittee to various requirements that, in some cases differ by the type of AV permit. Most notably, for this bill, DMV regulations require an AV testing permitee report a collision to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death.

The CPUC allows an AV, including a driverless AV, to offer passenger service for hire, subject to a Transportation Charter Party (TCP) permit issued by the CPUC. A TCP permittee much comply with DMV’s AV permit requirements.

Driverless AVs provide passenger service in California cities. Such vehicles have caused numerous highly reported disruptions in San Francisco. Most notably, perhaps, in October of last year, a driverless AV operated by Cruise—a unit within General Motors—was struck by another vehicle, which sent the AV into a collision with a pedestrian. The AV dragged the pedestrian about 20 feet, critically injuring the person. Cruise did not properly report the incident to DMV. In response, DMV revoked Cruise’s AV deployment license. In January of this year, the City and County of San Francisco sued the state over the CPUC’s permitting of operation of driverless AVs.

1. Related Legislation.

AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) restricts an AV with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more from operating on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the AV at the time of operation. The bill is pending before this committee.

AB 3061 (Haney) creates a process by which AV manufacturers must report to DMV incidents regarding their AVs and provides DMV substantial new penalty authority to use against an AV manufacture that does not comply with the requirements of the bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Lori D. Wilson, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1777 (

Author:Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2024

SUBJECT: Autonomous vehicles

SUMMARY: Places various requirements on manufacturers of autonomous vehicles (AVs) by July 1, 2026. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an AV manufacturer to comply with the following by July 1, 2026:
2. Maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials during all hours when an AV is on a public road at no cost to public agencies.
3. Make the remote human operator capable of disabling the AV, allow an emergency response official to move the AV, or move the AV as directed by an emergency response official.
4. Have a two-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials that are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator who has situational awareness about the autonomous vehicle. The manufacturer should have the ability to ensure that the emergency response official is able to reach a remote human operator within 30 seconds.
5. Requires the two way communication device to be capable of communicating, at a distance no less than 100 feet in front of or behind the vehicle, and using methods that do not employ hazard warning lights that the AV has been disabled and the vehicle will remain stationary, a remote assistance session has been initiated and remote human operator is engaged, or the AV or remote human operator has received direction from an emergency response official and is complying with the direction given.
6. Provides that Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall not renew, reinstate, or expand the service area of a permit unless the manufacturer certifies that they complied with everything described above in paragraph 1.
7. Requires the DMV to assign an entity to conduct a check of an AV model that is proposed for testing to ensure it responds appropriately o audio and visual cues, including emergency lights and sirens.
8. Authorizes an emergency response official to issue a geofencing message to a manufacturer.
9. Requires a manufacturer to direct an AV in the effected geofencing area to leave or avoid the area within two minutes of receipt of the geofencing message.
10. Requires a manufacturer, upon request by an emergency response official, to provide the official with the information that is necessary to send geofencing messages to the manufacturer.
11. Requires the emergency response official to notify the manufacturer, as soon as practicable, when the situation that gave rise to the geofencing message has been cleared.
12. Authorizes an emergency response official to issue a geofencing message to include, but not be limited to the following:
13. A vehicle collision occurred.
14. There is an impediment on a road.
15. The area is a construction zone.
16. The area is a crime scene.
17. There is a planned event and the area is being closed during the event.
18. Provides that if an AV does not have a person in the driver’s seat and commits a traffic violation pursuant to this code that the citation should be issued to the manufacturer.
19. Provides that if an AV has a person in the driver’s seat and commits a traffic violation while the AV technology is engaged that the citation should be issued to the manufacturer.
20. Provides if an AV has a person in the driver’s seat and commits a traffic violation while the AV technology is not engaged that the citation should be issued to the driver.
21. Authorizes the holder of an AV permit to contest a citation.
22. Requires an AV manufacturer to remedy any technological error that resulted in a traffic violation within 60 days of a conviction.
23. Requires an AV company to report a collision involving an AV to DMV within five days of the collision.
24. Requires the collision report to include whether the AV technology was engaged within 30 seconds of the collision, and whether a safety driver was present during the collision, the latitude and longitude coordinates of the collision.
25. Requires a manufacturer of an AV with a permit to submit a quarterly report to DMV with the number of vehicles miles traveled by all AVs, the number of times an AV automatically stops on a public right-of-way when it detects that its ability to drive autonomously is impaired, or an operator fails to response appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task, and the vehicle identification numbers of all autonomous vehicles.
26. Authorizes a public agency to receive a copy of the collision data and the data be reported quarterly.
27. Authorizes DMV to assess incremental enforcement measures for a violation of this section, including restrictions on the geographic area, operating hours, roadway type, speed or other weather conditions an AV is permitted to operate in.
28. Requires DMV to send a notice to the manufacturer that includes a description of DMV’s rationale and evidence supporting the determination.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations. (Vehicle Code Section (VEH) 38750)
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicle equipped with technology that makes it capable of operation that meets the definition of Levels 3, 4, or 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International's Taxonomy and Testing of Autonomous Vehicles Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, standard J3016 (APR 2021). (VEH 38750)
3. Defines “autonomous technology” to mean technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator. (VEH 38750)
4. States that an AV does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, including, but not limited to, electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, traffic jam and queuing assist, or other similar systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance, but are not capable, collectively or singularly, of driving the vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human operator. (VEH 38750)
5. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes unless the manufacturer of the vehicles submits an application to DMV that is approved pursuant to DMV regulations. (VEH 38750)
6. Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if DMV finds that the applicant has submitted all information and completed testing necessary to satisfy that the AVs are safe to operate on public roads and the applicant has complied with all requirements specified in DMV regulations. (VEH 38750)
7. Authorizes DMV to impose additional requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of AVs if those vehicles are capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle. (VEH 38750)

Existing DMV regulations:

1. Requires AV manufacturers to have a testing or deployment permit to operate an autonomous vehicle in California.
2. Restricts the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles to vehicles under 10,001 pounds and excludes motorcycles.
3. Authorizes both the testing and deployment of AVs without a human operator inside the vehicle.
4. Requires an AV with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report collisions to DMV within 10 days of the collision if the collision resulted in damage of property or in bodily injury or death if they have a testing permit.
5. Requires AVs with a testing permit (but not a deployment permit) to report disengagements on an annual basis.

Existing federal regulations:

1. Requires AVs or level 2 advanced driver assistance systems to report crashes within five calendar days.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to remedy several issues involving AVs that have arisen in San Francisco, including communication with first responders, and citations. This bill also imposes further data requirements on AVs. The author’s office is continuing to work on this bill with public safety officials in San Francisco, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and AV manufacturers to address a variety of public safety issues that have arisen in the City of San Francisco with AV testing.

According to the author, “The autonomous vehicle (AV) industry is still emerging, potentially positioning California as a leader in this field. After proper permitting through the DMV, companies are currently allowed, on a limited basis, to deploy robo-taxis and pick up passengers in cities like San Francisco. Such testing periods provide valuable information and help identify necessary parameters of operation. We’ve learned, thus far, that the absence of a human driver means safety and accountability must be a priority. AB 1777 strikes a balance between providing a service to our residents and ensuring public safety. This legislation would treat driverless cars as if there was a real person behind the wheel. Traffic violations and accidents would be subject to the same consequences, such as citations; and there must be a way for an emergency responder to communicate with the AV company. Data from incidents must also be reported to the state so that problems are transparent and can be addressed. Without slowing innovation, AB 1777 would achieve a higher safety standard for both the customers and the drivers sharing the road with an AV.”

In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla), Chapter 570 which permitted AVs to operate on public roads for testing by a driver under certain conditions. In 2014, DMV released regulations to allow for testing AVs with a test driver, and in April 2018, DMV finalized regulations for the testing and deployment of AVs on public roads without a driver. 36 companies currently have a testing permit with a driver (down from a high of 58), and six companies have received a permit for testing without a driver. Three companies have received a deployment permit without a human driver. One company has a deployment permit for a level three AV, which requires a human operator. One or two companies currently have a deployment permit. One company, Cruise, has lost both its deployment permit and its permit to test without a human operator. Waymo is currently the only autonomous vehicle company authorized to charge fares for its services. Waymo is operating both in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. 

Communication with AVs: San Francisco has encountered several issues over the last several years with AVs operating in the city. For example, in January 2023, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reject Waymo’s request to allow commercial deployment throughout the city. The letter notes a series of 9-1-1 calls that the city had received. The letter states “Managers in the City’s Department of Emergency Management began to notice several calls to 9-1-1 from people who witnessed or were affected by driverless AVs obstructing travel lanes. Sometimes these AVs caused extended traffic backups. Callers also complained of erratic driving (including signaling in one direction while moving in the other direction) or a Cruise AV blocking a transit vehicle. In other cases, callers reported evasive maneuvers by other road users such as driving on a sidewalk to get around a blockage caused by a disabled AV. The duration of these unplanned AV stops obstructing travel lanes appeared to range from minutes (extending through many traffic light cycles) to hours. Additional incidents were posted on social media or reported by the media. The number of reported incidents is likely a fraction of the total unplanned stops because most are reported during late night hours when few people are on the streets to notice them and because many people would not think to call 9-1-1 in these circumstances….Unfortunately, the AV failure incidents reported by the public have been significantly concentrated on streets of great importance in the City’s transportation network: downtown streets, streets with transit service, streets on the bike network, intersections, and streets on the City’s High Injury Network (the 12% of San Francisco streets that account for more than 68% of severe or fatal injury crashes).”

In addition to the events described above, there have been documented incidents where AVs have driven away from law enforcement officers who have stopped them. In June of 2023, a Cruise vehicle came to a complete stop in the middle of a road, blocking emergency vehicles responding to a mass shooting event. 

This bill imposes several requirements on AVs to better effectuate communication between AVs and emergency responders. This bill requires an AV manufacturer to have an emergency response line for cities to call, a two-way communication device on the vehicle, and the ability for a remote operator to take control of the vehicle and move it in case the vehicle gets stuck. 

If the manufacturer does not comply with these provisions of the bill, DMV is authorized to not permit the renewal or expansion of an existing permit. Testing permits expire every two years. Deployment permits do not expire. 

The bill also requires AVs to be controlled by a remote operator so a vehicle can be safely removed. 

Incomplete data on AV incidents. The incidents described above by San Francisco were only known to them because of 9-1-1 calls and were not reported to DMV. This is because DMV only requires disengagement and collision reports for vehicles with a testing permit, but not a deployment permit. Companies also do not consider disengagements where a human operator is not present in the vehicle as a reportable disengagement under DMV regulations, allowing AV companies using remote operators to take over driverless vehicles to avoid reports to the DMV about disengagements. This has led to DMV not having full information about incidents that AVs are involved in.

To address this issue, this bill requires collision reporting and a quarterly report to DMV with the number of vehicle miles traveled by all AVs, the number of times an AV automatically stops on a public right-of-way when it detects that its ability to drive autonomously is impaired, or an operator fails to respond appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task, and the vehicle identification numbers of all autonomous vehicles.  

Issuance of citations. There has been an open question by the San Francisco Police Department on whether they can issue a citation for a moving violation of an AV and to whom can they issue it. This bill provides that a citation may be issued to an AV manufacturer for a moving violation if the AV technology was engaged, regardless of whether there was a human operator in the vehicle. If the technology was not engaged the citation goes to the driver. 

Geofencing to limit AVs to specific areas. Geofencing is a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area. They have become increasingly common in the transportation world as a tool to limit the travel of certain vehicles. Cities have imposed geofencing requirements on motorized scooters, for example, to prohibit their use in areas of the city where they may not be appropriate. DMV permits for AVs have limited operating domains on where they can operate. A company can use geofencing to comply with their operating domain to ensure the AV does not travel outside of the city.

This bill requires AVs to respond to geofencing orders from emergency responders within two minutes. This could provide multiple benefits both to the cities AVs are operating in and manufacturers. The geofencing messages could help make AVs more aware of road closures or emergencies where they should not operate.  

DMV certification of AV response to emergency lights. In August of 2023 a Cruise AV got into a collision with a fire truck with its emergency lights on within a week of receiving approval to operate for profit in San Francisco. Emergency responders have expressed concerns about the AV failing to yield to the emergency vehicle. AVs self-certify that they are capable of following all of the rules of the road, which would include responding to emergency lights. DMV did not take action against Cruise after this incident for potentially violating its permit. However, based on conversations with DMV, Cruise did voluntarily half their fleet in San Francisco

This bill requires an AV to be certified by an entity picked by the DMV to check to see if the vehicle is capable of responding to emergency lights. 

Actions against an AV manufacturer: Existing law only gives DMV a singular tool for regulating AVs—to remove their operating permit. To remedy this “all-or-nothing approach, this bill authorizes DMV to assess incremental enforcement measures for a violation, including restrictions on the geographic area, operating hours, roadway type, speed, or other weather conditions an AV is permitted to operate in.

Where is NHTSA? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hasthe authority to mandate uniform safety standards on new vehicles, such as shoulder-lap belts, collapsible steering columns, shatter proof windshields, and more recently, backup cameras. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act explicitly prohibits states from imposing vehicle safety requirements that are not identical to existing federal law. Specifically, the act states: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” NHTSA has not imposed any safety requirements specific to AVs. They have passed limited exemptions to certain requirements on existing AVs.

Committee comments: This bill is a work in progress. The bill imposes a variety of safety features for AVs, however, all of these provisions are potentially preempted by federal law or may become preempted by federal law, as NHTSA, not the state of California, has the authority to impose safety requirements on vehicles. These provisions may not make sense for all AVs. For example, under the provisions of this bill, Mercedes Benz or any other manufacturer developing level 3 AV technology would be required to have a two-way communication device, a remote operator that can take control of the vehicle, and a dedicated line for law enforcement to communicate with even though a human is behind the wheel of the car and capable of all of those actions.

Even if the provisions above ultimately are not preempted by federal law, they are only enforceable upon the renewal of a permit or an expansion of a permit. While testing permits do expire every two years, deployment permits do not. This would only make these provisions of the bill enforceable, therefore, if the AV company was seeking to expand their authorization to operate beyond the service area of their existing permit.

DMV regulations require a vehicle to self-certify that they are capable of following all of the rules of the road to get a deployment permit. This bill requires third-party certification for a single rule of the road- the ability to respond to emergency lights. Singling out one rule over others for the lack of certification imposes an unnecessary burden. DMV can and should suspend permits if evidence emerges that the self-certification was not correct. Under this bill, DMV could also limit a vehicle’s operating domain or speed if an issue is corrected. The author may wish to consider also permitting DMV to limit the number of vehicles that can operate, as Cruise voluntarily did when their vehicle may have failed to respond to an emergency vehicle.

AB 3061 (Haney) of 2024, and AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) of 2024, which passed out of this committee, have several conflicting previsions with this bill. AB 3061 authorizes DMV to fine companies for failing to turn over data. This bill does not. This bill requires AVs to report the number of times an AV automatically stops on a public right-of-way when it detects that its ability to drive autonomously is impaired, or an operator fails to respond appropriately to a request to take over the dynamic driving task (information that would be highly valuable). AB 3061 does not require that reporting. AB 3061 and AB 2286 require disengagement reports for deployed vehicles. This bill does not. AB 3061 requires collision data and disengagement reports to be posted online (something that is current practice). This bill only requires the data points to be shared with public agencies. This bill requires vehicle miles traveled data to the DMV every quarter. It is unclear what value this data would have to the DMV.   

Should this bill, AB 3061, and AB 2286 continue to move through the process, the authors and the Legislature may want to reconcile the differences between these three bills on what data should be collected and what should happen if DMV does not receive the data.

This bill makes it clear that an autonomous vehicle manufacturer is liable for a citation when a vehicle is found in violation of the Vehicle Code. Moving violations and other Vehicle Code offenses come with negligent operator points. Negligent operator points both affect insurance rates and lead to the suspension of a person’s driver’s license. It is unclear how a negligent operator point would apply to an AV. Further, the vehicles have self-certified they are capable of following all of the rules of the road, so a citable offense would, in theory, be proof of a violation of their operating permit. This bill requires a manufacturer within 60 days of a conviction to fix any flaw that resulted in a violation. However, it is unclear what, if anything should happen if an AV fails to come into compliance with this requirement.

Related Legislation: AB 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) of 2024 restricts an AV with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 pounds or more from being operated on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the AV at the time of operation. That bill passed out of this committee and is pending before Communications and Conveyance Committee.

AB 3061 (Haney) of 2024 requires the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) any vehicle collision, traffic violation, or disengagement, or the assault or harassment of any passenger or safety driver that involves a manufacturer’s vehicle in California starting July 31, 2025. That bill passed out of this committee and is pending before Communications and Conveyance Committee.

SB 915 (Cortese) of 2024 requires local authorization for an AV commercial passenger service to operate within its limits. That bill is pending before Senate Local Government Committee.

AB 96 (Kalra), Chapter 419, Statutes of 2023 requires a public transit employer to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, and that collective bargaining commence within a certain timeframe, among other provisions.

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry) of 2023 was substantially similar to AB 2286. That bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

AB 2441 (Kalra) of 2022 would have required a public transit district to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology, among other provisions. That bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SB 336 (Dodd) of 2019 would have required a transit operator on every fully-automated transit vehicle until January 1, 2025. That bill died in this committee.

AB 1141 (Berman) of 2017 would have required DMV to adopt regulations setting standards for AVs operating freight by September 30, 2018. That bill died in Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee.

SB 1298 (Padilla), Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012 established conditions for the operation of AVs upon public roadways.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Mission Street Neighbors
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance

Four Individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093