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 require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to report to the department a collision on a public road that involved one of its autonomous vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more that is operating under a testing permit that resulted in damage of property, bodily injury, or death within 10 days of the collision.

The bill would require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to annually submit to the department specified information regarding the deactivation of the autonomous mode for its autonomous vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more that were operating under a testing permit that authorized the vehicle to operate on public roads.

The bill would prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation.

The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, by January 1, 2029, or 5 years after commencement of testing, whichever occurs later, and upon appropriation by the Legislature, to submit a report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature evaluating the performance of autonomous vehicle technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for autonomous vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more. The bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the Department of Transportation, the State Air Resources Board, and other relevant state agencies to provide additional information needed to research the report.

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 require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to report to the department a collision on a public road that involved one of its autonomous vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more that is operating under a testing permit that resulted in damage of property, bodily injury, or death within 10 days of the collision.

The bill would require a manufacturer of an autonomous vehicle to annually submit to the department specified information regarding the deactivation of the autonomous mode for its autonomous vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more that were operating under a testing permit that authorized the vehicle to operate on public roads.

The bill would prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation.

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.

The bill would prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 10,001 pounds or more on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation.

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 prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers without a human safety operator physically present in the autonomous vehicle at the time of operation.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Aguiar-Curry and Friedman)

As Enrolled Ver:September 12, 2023

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Restricts an autonomous vehicle (AV) with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 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.

Major Provisions

1. Defines a "human safety operator" to mean a person operating an autonomous vehicle or vehicle equipped with autonomous technology who is trained in operating and shutting off the vehicle. A human safety operator shall meet all federal and state qualifications for the type of vehicle being operated, whether in automated or nonautomated mode.
2. Requires manufacturers to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) disengagements and collisions for AVs with a GVW over 10,001 pounds.
3. Requires DMV to issue a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2029, or five years after the commencement of testing, whichever occurs later, evaluating the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for AVs with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more. The report is required to include a recommendation on whether the Legislature should remove, modify, or maintain the requirement for an AV with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more to operate with a human safety operator physically present in the vehicle.

Governor's Veto Message

Among its provisions, this bill would ban driverless testing and operations of heavy-duty autonomous vehicles.

Assembly Bill 316 is unnecessary for the regulation and oversight of heavy-duty autonomous vehicle technology in California, as existing law provides sufficient authority to create the appropriate regulatory framework.

In 2012, the California Legislature provided the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with the authority to regulate the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles on public roads in California. As part of its oversight and regulatory responsibilities, DMV consults with the California Highway Patrol, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and others with relevant expertise to determine the regulations necessary for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.

DMV continuously monitors the testing and operations of autonomous vehicles on California roads and has the authority to suspend or revoke permits as necessary to protect the public's safety.

Autonomous vehicle technology is evolving and DMV remains committed to keeping our rules up to date to reflect its continued development in California. DMV held public workshops with interested stakeholders earlier this year to inform the development of future rulemakings for both light-duty and heavy-duty autonomous vehicles. This rulemaking will be a transparent, public process where subject matter experts and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to shape the regulations related to the safe operations of autonomous vehicles in California. The draft regulations are expected to be released for public comment in the coming months.

In addition to safety, my Administration has long been concerned with the impact of technology on the future of work - so much so that in 2019 we convened, with participation from a variety of organized labor leaders including the Teamsters, UFCW, and SEIU, a robust Future of Work Task Force. That effort led to the publication of a report that guides our work on issues of emerging technology and its impacts on California's workforce.

But our efforts don't end there. I am committed to incentivizing career pathways and training for the necessary workforce specifically associated with this technology. As such, I am directing the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to lead a stakeholder process next year to review and develop recommendations to mitigate the potential employment impact of testing and deployment of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles.

Considering the longstanding commitment of my Administration to addressing the present and future challenges for work and workers in California, and the existing regulatory framework that presently and sufficiently governs this particular technology, this bill is not needed at this time. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

My Administration remains open to working with the author, sponsors, and other stakeholders on the right approach to safely test and deploy this evolving technology in California, while also addressing and mitigating any potential impacts to jobs.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California’s public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty AVs in California has been fraught with malfunctions including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California’s transportation workforce adapt to AV technology."

Arguments in Support

The California Labor Federation, the co-sponsor of this bill, argues "The havoc created by passenger vehicles that can be moved by first responders would be exponentially worse when caused by an 80,000 pound truck or bus. Accidents due to malfunction are just the beginning. Hard-braking, which was an issue with passenger vehicles, could cause mass casualty accidents if a big rig suddenly braked on the freeway. Another risk is that autonomous technology can be hacked to turn trucks into weapons, which is especially dangerous when they are carrying hazardous freight. Technology could also be used to monitor and track drivers and pedestrians without their knowledge. Autonomous technology also raises complicated issues for law enforcement when pulling over vehicles and investigating accidents.

AB 316 strikes a balance between technological advancement and the public good. It allows for the testing and further development of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles on public roads. Companies can continue to test fully driverless technology on private tracks as they work out the bugs and further develop the technology. The bill also protects jobs and public safety as the technology is tested and advanced.

Arguments in Opposition

The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a broader coalition of industry groups write in opposition to this bill stating we should trust the regulator. They argue "SB 1298 established a thoughtful framework to ensure that autonomous vehicles were allowed on state roads only at such time as they were demonstrably safe. Rather than legislating safety standards, the Legislature tasked safety experts at the CHP and DMV, in consultation with NHTSA, to determine rules for testing, and then deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is the framework currently in place for light duty vehicles, and the Administration recently held a public workshop in advance of initiating a regulatory process to consider the appropriate regulatory structure for heavy-duty vehicles. We strongly believe this is the appropriate way for the state to fully, and thoughtfully, develop appropriate safety standards – not a one-size-fits all technology ban.

California’s economy has swelled in recent decades based largely on the success of its robust technology sector. We believe California policymakers should focus on promoting and encouraging continued growth in this sector – rather than crafting harsh legislative barriers to future growth."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. DMV estimates minor one-time costs to promulgate regulations and establish a process for receiving collision and disengagement reports, and ongoing costs of approximately $1.15 million annually for five years (Motor Vehicle Account) for the following:
   1. $500,000 annually for consultant contracts with technical experts on AV technology to conduct an evaluation of the performance of AV technology and impact on public safety using data from AV manufacturers;
   2. $250,000 annually for a project management contract for oversight, coordination between relevant agencies, managing scope and timeline, and preparing the report; and,
   3. $396,000 annually for DMV staff work, including coordination and oversight of the consultant contracts, management and oversight of the required elements of the report, coordinating with specified state agencies, and completing the analysis.

Staff notes that it is unclear whether the full magnitude of these estimated resources would be necessary, absent further justification, based upon the requirements specified in the bill. See staff comments.

1. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) estimates costs of approximately $100,000 annually for five years to collect and analyze data on traffic and safety impacts, and to assist in the preparation of the final report. (Motor Vehicle Account)
2. The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWD Agency), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the State Air Resources Board (CARB) all estimate minor and absorbable costs to consult with DMV. (various special funds)

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 12-0-3

YES: Friedman, Juan Carrillo, Davies, Gipson, Hart, Kalra, Lowenthal, Stephanie Nguyen, Sanchez, Wallis, Ward, Wicks

ABS, ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson, Berman, Jackson

ASM COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE: 10-1-2

YES: Boerner Horvath, Connolly, Davies, Holden, Maienschein, Papan, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Schiavo, Weber

NO: Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson, Low

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-1-2

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-4-7

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

NO: Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Berman, Flora, Low, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Ta

SENATE FLOOR: 36-2-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Dahle, Glazer

ABS, ABST OR NV: Caballero, Nguyen

UPDATED

VERSION: September 12, 2023

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002468

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 316

Author: Aguiar-Curry (D) and Friedman (D), et al.

Amended: 4/24/23 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 14-0, 7/11/23

AYES: Gonzalez, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Cortese, Durazo, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Seyarto, Umberg

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, Nguyen

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-4, 5/31/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Vehicles: autonomous vehicles

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a process for authorizing autonomous trucks on public roads without a driver.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulations.
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicles 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). (Vehicle Code (VEH) Section 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 Section 38750)
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes without the DMVs approval.
5. Requires the DMV, by January 1, 2015, to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the application to operate AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes. (VEH Section 38750(d))
6. Requires the DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if it 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 its regulations.
7. Authorizes the 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.

This bill:

1. Prohibits an AV with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than 10,001 pounds from operating on public roads without a safety operator on board subject to future Legislative action.
2. Requires, by January 1, 2029, or five years after commencement of testing of AVs with a safety operator, whichever is later, and upon appropriation by the Legislature, the DMV shall submit a report, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the California Air Resources Board, to the Legislature evaluating the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds.
3. States the intent of the Legislature to conduct a hearing on AVs after the issuance of the DMV’s report.
4. Prohibits the DMV from issuing a deployment permit for AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds without a human safety operator earlier than one year after the Legislative hearing and only after express authorization of the Legislature and the Governor.
5. Establishes numerous reporting requirements on manufacturers of AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds when testing those vehicles. Those requirements include reporting on collisions and annual reports on the circumstances under which human drivers had to take over the operation of the AV.

Comments

1. Author’s Statement. “AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California’s public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty autonomous vehicles (AVs) in California has been fraught with malfunctions, including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California’s transportation workforce adapt to AV technology. Further, this bill requires that companies report safety data to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and that the DMV, California Highway Patrol and other state experts issue a report to examine the public safety impacts and broader impacts of the technology on California. This report would trigger legislative reconsideration of the human safety operator requirement.”
2. How Big? This bill draws a line at GVWs of 10,001 pounds. Passenger vehicles, SUVs and most pickup trucks are below the line and not subject to this bill. But some pickup trucks, such as the Ford F-250 are above it. AVs with GVWs greater than 10,000 pounds will be referred to as AV trucks.
3. Mistaken Identity. AVs should be distinguished from vehicles with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control and auto-steering. AVs are formally regulated by the DMV and are tested to ensure that they can function without a driver. Vehicles with driver assistance features are not regulated by the DMV, except to the extent that they misadvertise their driver assistance capabilities, and are intended to be operated only with a driver. Many published reports of AV crashes are instead crashes of vehicles where the driver assistance features are misused, often with Teslas. Teslas are not AVs authorized by the DMV.
4. What’s the Experience with AVs? Concerns about robotic 80,000 pound trucks running amok at freeway speeds are understandable. The technology is very new and experience with these vehicles is brief. Only with substantial and transparent testing can the public have confidence in these vehicles. Some states have been very welcoming to AV trucks and imposed minimal regulation, such as Texas, Arizona and Arkansas. For the most part AV trucks are operated with safety drivers. An exception is in Arkansas where Gatik, an AV delivery truck operator, has been operating without a safety driver delivering goods between a distribution center and a Walmart since late 2021.

The safety record of AV trucks appears to be fine so far. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires incident reporting by all AVs. While those records don’t easily distinguish between AV trucks and light-duty vehicles, there were four crashes in Texas, 12 in Arizona and none in Arkansas through May 2022.^[1] An internet search of AV truck crashes revealed two, one where another vehicle was at fault and the second the result of the AV operator error while engaging the AV function. The company in the second crash, TuSimple, is considering withdrawing from the U.S. market. While AV trucks have so far operated safely that does not mean that they their driverless deployment is safe. A Rand study^[2] noted that it will take hundreds of millions of miles of testing to prove they are safe, which would take tens of years, though the study indicates there are other ways to evaluate safety including developing manufacturer safety processes and AV performance thresholds. The performance standard for AV trucks should not be perfection, but they should be safer than non-AV trucks.

California has no experience with AV trucks as testing hasn’t been authorized. But California’s experience with light-duty AVs demonstrates that they are safe and have resulted in no major injuries, albeit with limited operating hours and geographic locations.^[3] That’s not to say that the testing has been problem-free. Recently the Police and Fire Chiefs in San Francisco, home to the most intensive AV deployment, have objected to the expansion of that deployment because of concerns about street blockages and interference with public safety vehicles^[4]. Despite those objections that expansion was approved in August 2023, allowing driverless taxis from Cruise and Waymo to operate without restriction in the city. Recent continuing problems with these AVs, including an incident where multiple AVs simultaneously stopped and blocked streets, have resulted in a DMV investigation and a request to greatly reduce the number of operating AVs.

1. Current Safety Testing for Light-Duty AVs. In 2012, the Legislature established the statutory framework for the DMV to test and approve the operation of all AVs. In 2014, the DMV established regulations to authorize the testing of AVs with gross vehicle weights of less than 10,001 pounds (e.g. light duty AVs) with safety drivers. In 2018, the DMV established regulations to authorize testing of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. In 2022, the DMV established regulations to authorize the deployment of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. Layered on top of the DMV process is approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Though not required as part of the 2012 legislation, the CPUC has been involved as a second layer of approval for light-duty AVs. This is because the AVs are carrying fare-paying passengers and the CPUC has the duty to ensure passenger safety. Unless specified in a new statute, the CPUC would have no role in the approval of AV trucks.

The DMV testing process for AVs of less than 10,000 pounds GVW (e.g. passenger vehicles) appears relatively thorough though reliant on reporting and self-assessment. Before an AV is allowed on a public road with a safety driver the manufacturer must apply for a permit where they demonstrate that they have validated the technology. The safety driver must be properly trained and enrolled in the DMV’s commercial driver program that tracks driver safety and revokes the license of unsafe drivers (pull-notice program). Evidence of financial responsibility (e.g. insurance) by the manufacturer is required. Extensive reporting by the AV manufacturer is required including all collisions and disengagements of the AV system. As of April 2023, 40 companies are authorized to test with a safety driver. One authorization has been revoked.

To test an AV without a safety driver the DMV looks at the performance of the manufacturer when testing with a safety driver. A real-time communication link between the AV and a remote operator must be maintained. A plan for interacting with law enforcement must be created, which is reviewed by the California Highway Patrol. As of November 2021 seven companies are authorized to test without a safety driver.

To obtain final approval to deploy the AV the manufacturer must identify the geographic location and conditions under which the AV will operate, certify compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards, equip the vehicle with data recorders which capture all vehicle functions, and provide other safety-related certifications. As of September 2021 three companies are authorized to operate autonomously without a driver.

It took the DMV nearly 10 years to produce its AV regulations but the result has been a relatively safe deployment. There have been no fatalities and few injuries from these AVs. A committee review of the most recent collision reports found that all injuries were minor and most were not the fault of the AV.

1. Truck AV Deployment in California. In California, testing and deployment of AVs with GVWs greater than 10,001 pounds (AV trucks) is not permitted. Earlier this year the DMV held a public workshop to consider ideas regarding the development of proposed regulations for AV trucks. A second workshop was held in mid-July. There is no timetable for proposed or final regulations. In the absence of new statutes the DMV has the authority to establish the testing criteria and protocols for authorizing driverless AV trucks on public roads.
2. AV Truck Approval Process Established in This Bill. This bill creates a process for approving the deployment of AV trucks. Instead of leaving the decision to the DMV, this bill establishes an authorization framework which culminates in the need for additional action by the Legislature and the Governor. This bill requires a human safety operator in all AV truck testing, at least five years of testing, a subsequent report from the DMV on the performance of truck AVs and recommendations on whether human safety operators should continue to be required, and an oversight hearing on the status of truck AVs. Finally, deployment of truck AVs without human safety drivers is permitted only upon enactment of a new statute which cannot occur earlier than one year after the oversight hearing. AV trucks without human safety drivers would not be permitted on California’s public roads until January 1, 2031, at the earliest.
3. California Companies. Many of the companies developing the AV trucks and associated technology are California-based. But this should not be taken for granted as other states are actively encouraging AV development. In particular, Texas has chosen to impose minimal regulation on the AV industry. The same is true in Arizona, Colorado and Florida. As testing has been permitted, the AV companies have created jobs in those states.
4. A Different Model. The AV industry has been promoting their technology as a substitute for the driver. But another industry has deployed autonomous technology as a supplement to the operator, not a replacement. The airline industry introduced a crude form of autopilot technology in 1912 as a way to help pilots fly for longer periods of time. Modern commercial aircraft carrying more than 20 passengers are required to have autopilot technology. That technology is used for more than 90% of most flights, according to an industry publication.^[5] Takeoffs and landings, the most difficult parts of the flight, are performed by the pilot while the routine parts of the flight are done by the autopilot. Perhaps this combination of technology and human operator can be a viable operational model for autonomous truck technology.

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

• DMV estimates minor one-time costs to promulgate regulations and establish a process for receiving collision and disengagement reports, and ongoing costs of approximately $1.15 million annually for five years (Motor Vehicle Account) for the following:
  • $500,000 annually for consultant contracts with technical experts on AV technology to conduct an evaluation of the performance of AV technology and impact on public safety using data from AV manufacturers.
  • $250,000 annually for a project management contract for oversight, coordination between relevant agencies, managing scope and timeline, and preparing the report.
  • $396,000 annually for DMV staff work, including coordination and oversight of the consultant contracts, management and oversight of the required elements of the report, coordinating with specified state agencies, and completing the analysis.

Staff notes that it is unclear whether the full magnitude of these estimated resources would be necessary, absent further justification, based upon the requirements specified in this bill. See staff comments.

• The California Highway Patrol (CHP) estimates costs of approximately $100,000 annually for five years to collect and analyze data on traffic and safety impacts, and to assist in the preparation of the final report. (Motor Vehicle Account)
• The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWD Agency), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the State Air Resources Board (CARB) all estimate minor and absorbable costs to consult with DMV. (various special funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)

Abate of California - Motorcyclists Rights & Safety Organization

AFSCME, AFL-CIO California

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union

California Conference of Machinists

California Democratic Party

California IATSE Council

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California Professional Firefighters

California School Employees Association

California State Council of Laborers

California State Legislative Board, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

City of Oakland

City of Sacramento

Consumer Federation of California

Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety

Engineers & Scientists of California, Local 20, IFPTE, AFL-CIO

International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference

Jakara Movement

Mayor of City & County of San Francisco London Breed

Orange County Board of Supervisors - Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

UAW Region 6

Unite-Here, AFL-CIO

Utility Workers Union of America

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)

Abate-a-weed

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

At Industrial Products

Aurora Innovation, INC.

Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

Bay Area Council

BizFed LA

Boma California

Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce

California Alliance for Freight Innovation

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Delivery Association

California Department of Motor Vehicles

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

California Manufacturers and Technology Association

California Small Business Association

Central City Association

Chamber of Progress

Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Consumer Technology Association

Contra Costa Transportation Authority

Daimler Truck North America

EMA Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association

Family Business Association of California

Flasher Barricade Association

Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development

Inland Empire Chamber Alliance

Inland Empire Economic Partnership

International Warehouse Logistics Association

Kodiak Robotics, INC.

Long Beach Chamber of Commerce

Los Altos Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles Business Council

Los Angeles Business Federation

Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation

Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association

Mountain View Chamber of Commerce

NAIOP California

Navistar, INC.

Orange County Business Council

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

Plus

Safe Kids Worldwide

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

San Jose Chamber of Commerce

Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce

Seabreeze Books & Charts

SF CITI

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

STAR Milling Co.

Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce

Technet

Tesla

Tusimple

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Waymo

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-4, 5/31/23

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

NOES: Dixon, Essayli, Vince Fong, Hoover

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Berman, Flora, Low, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Ta

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

9/7/23 13:59:21

**** END ****

1. The state with the most crashes by far is California with 90. This is probably because while California does not have an AV truck testing, it leads the nation in light-duty AV testing and deployment. ↑

2. Blumenthal, Marjory S., Laura Fraade-Blanar, Ryan Best, and J. Luke Irwin, Safe Enough: Approaches to Assessing Acceptable Safety for Automated Vehicles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA569-1.html. Also available in print form. ↑

3. AV companies are required to report all collisions to the DMV. So far this year (as of mid-June) there have been 57 reported collisions. The committee reviewed the most recent 30 collision reports, from March 21 through May 21, which included six different AV operators. Twelve of those 30 collisions occurred when the vehicle was being driven by a human driver. In five of those 30 collisions there were injuries, all of which were minor. In most cases the AV appears not at fault, though this can’t be reliably judged based on the collision reports. ↑

4. 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. ↑

5. Travel Radar, “The Importance of Autopilot in Commercial Flights” by Leo Cheung; October 11, 2021. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 316 (Aguiar-Curry) - Vehicles: autonomous vehicles

Bill Summary:

AB 316 would prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle (AV) with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of over 10,000 pounds on public roads without a human safety operator physically present in the AV. The bill would also require the manufacturers of AVs with a GVW of over 10,000 pounds operating under a testing permit to report collision and disengagement date to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and require DMV, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to submit a specified evaluation of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment on the transportation sector by January 1, 2029, or five years after commencement of testing, whichever is later.

Fiscal Impact:

• DMV estimates minor one-time costs to promulgate regulations and establish a process for receiving collision and disengagement reports, and ongoing costs of approximately $1.15 million annually for five years (Motor Vehicle Account) for the following:
  • $500,000 annually for consultant contracts with technical experts on AV technology to conduct an evaluation of the performance of AV technology and impact on public safety using data from AV manufacturers.
  • $250,000 annually for a project management contract for oversight, coordination between relevant agencies, managing scope and timeline, and preparing the report.
  • $396,000 annually for DMV staff work, including coordination and oversight of the consultant contracts, management and oversight of the required elements of the report, coordinating with specified state agencies, and completing the analysis.

Staff notes that it is unclear whether the full magnitude of these estimated resources would be necessary, absent further justification, based upon the requirements specified in the bill. See staff comments.

• The California Highway Patrol (CHP) estimates costs of approximately $100,000 annually for five years to collect and analyze data on traffic and safety impacts, and to assist in the preparation of the final report. (Motor Vehicle Account)
  
• The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWD Agency), Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the State Air Resources Board (CARB) all estimate minor and absorbable costs to consult with DMV. (various special funds)

Background:

Existing law defines “autonomous vehicle” as a 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). Existing law authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in DMV regulations, and prohibits operation of AVs on public roads without DMV approval.

Existing law requires DMV to adopt regulations by January 1, 2015 setting forth the requirements for the application to operate AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes. In 2014 the DMV established regulations to authorize the testing of AVs with gross vehicle weights of less than 10,001 pounds with safety drivers. In 2018 the DMV established regulations to authorize testing of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. In 2022 the DMV established regulations to authorize the deployment of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. To date, 40 companies are authorized to test light-duty AVs with a safety driver, seven companies are authorized to test without a safety driver, and four companies are authorized to commercially deploy light-duty AVs. Nearly 3,000 safety drivers are enrolled in DMV’s Employer Pull Notice system and over 2,000 vehicles are registered in the testing program.

In California, testing and deployment of AVs with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more is not permitted, but DMV has held workshops in January and July of this year to discuss topics which will inform the development of future rulemakings for both light-duty and heavy-duty AVs, and has invited all interested parties, including AV manufacturers, technical experts, consumer, labor, and public interest groups, and governmental entities to participate in the process to inform regulations governing the safe operation of AVs in the state.

Proposed Law:

AB 316 would prohibit the operation of an AV with a GVW of over 10,000 pounds (heavy-duty AVs) on public roads without a human safety operator, require manufacturers of those vehicles to report specified collision and disengagement information to DMV, and require DMV to submit an evaluation of public safety and employment to the Legislature. Specifically, this bill would:

• Prohibit the operation of a heavy-duty AV 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 safety operator must be trained in operating and shutting off the vehicle, and meet all federal and state qualifications for the type of vehicle being operated.
• Require the manufacturer of a heavy-duty AV to report any collision to DMV within 10 days that originated from the operation of that vehicle on a public road that resulted in damage of property, bodily injury, or death while operating under a valid testing permit.
• Require a manufacturer of a heavy-duty AV operating under a valid testing permit to submit annual disengagement reports to DMV that summarize the circumstances or conditions at the time of disengagement, including the location of the disengagement, whether the AV was operated with or without a driver, a description of the facts causing disengagement, and the party initiating disengagement, as specified.
• Require DMV, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for heavy-duty AVs by January 1, 2029, or five years after commencement of testing, whichever is later. The report must include a summary of disengagements, collision, and any other relevant information, as well as a recommendation of whether the Legislature should remove, modify, or maintain the requirement for a heavy-duty AV to operate with a human safety operator physically present in the vehicle.
• Require DMV to consult with the following entities while preparing the report:
  • CHP on traffic impacts, driver and passenger safety risks, and impacts on other motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
  • LWD Agency on any job-related impacts, including worker displacement and shortcomings in retraining opportunities.
  • Caltrans on infrastructure impacts, deficiencies, and needs.
  • CARB on how heavy-duty AVs impact the 2022 Scoping Plan.
  • Independent experts on the performance of the technology, public safety impacts, and other relevant factors in considering deployment of heavy-duty AVs.
• State legislative intent to conduct an oversight hearing upon issuance of the report to assess the state of AV technology for heavy-duty AVs.
• Prohibit DMV from issuing a deployment permit for use of a heavy-duty AV without a human safety operator earlier than one year after the specified oversight hearing, and only after express authorization by the Legislature and Governor.

Related Legislation:

SB 1298 (Padilla), Chap. 570/2012, established conditions for the operation of AVs on public roads, including DMV approval of a manufacturer’s application to operate on public roads, and subject to regulations adopted by DMV.

Staff Comments:

DMV indicates that it would incur costs of approximately $1.15 million annually for five years for contracts with technical experts, contracts for project management oversight, and for DMV staff work. It is unclear whether this level of resources is necessary to comply with the specified requirements of the bill. Staff assumes that DMV would incur one-time costs to enter into a contract with independent experts to assess AV technology, public safety impacts, and other relevant factors, as well as conducting data analysis, and that DMV would incur some level of ongoing staffing costs to coordinate with manufacturers on collision and disengagement reports, consult with specified entities, compile information, and draft the report, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature. DMV indicates that its assessment of contracting costs is based upon existing consulting contracts related to AV deployment. Ultimately, however, any requests for additional resources would be evaluated through the budget process and subject to approval by the Legislature.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 316 Hearing Date: 07/11/2023

SUBJECT: Vehicles: autonomous vehicles

DIGEST: This bill establishes a process for authorizing autonomous trucks on public roads without a driver.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the operation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulations.
2. Defines “autonomous vehicle” to mean vehicles 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). (Vehicle Code (VEH) Section 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 Section 38750)
4. Prohibits the operation of AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes without the DMVs approval.
5. Requires the DMV, by January 1, 2015, to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the application to operate AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes, and does not provide for a different deadline depending on the AVs gross vehicle weight. (VEH Section 38750(d))
6. Requires the DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer for the operation of AVs for non-testing purposes if it 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 its regulations.
7. Authorizes the 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.

This bill:

1. Prohibits an autonomous vehicle (AV) with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than 10,001 pounds from operating on public roads without a safety operator on board subject to future Legislative action.
2. Requires, by January 1, 2029, or five years after commencement of testing of AVs with a safety operator, whichever is later, and upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall submit a report, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the California Air Resources Board, to the Legislature evaluating the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds.
3. States the intent of the Legislature to conduct a hearing on AVs after the issuance of the DMV’s report.
4. Prohibits the DMV from issuing a deployment permit for AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds without a human safety operator earlier than one year after the Legislative hearing and only after express authorization of the Legislature and the Governor.
5. Establishes numerous reporting requirements on manufacturers of AVs with a GVW of greater than 10,001 pounds when testing those vehicles. Those requirements include reporting on collisions and annual reports on the circumstances under which human drivers had to take over the operation of the AV.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. “AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California’s public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty autonomous vehicles (AVs) in California has been fraught with malfunctions, including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California’s transportation workforce adapt to AV technology. Further, this bill requires that companies report safety data to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and that the DMV, California Highway Patrol and other state experts issue a report to examine the public safety impacts and broader impacts of the technology on California. This report would trigger legislative reconsideration of the human safety operator requirement.”
2. How Big? The bill draws a line at GVWs of 10,001 pounds. Passenger vehicles, SUVs and most pickup trucks are below the line. But some pickup trucks, such as the Ford F-250 are above it. AVs with GVWs greater than 10,000 pounds will be referred to as AV trucks.
3. Mistaken Identity. AVs should be distinguished from vehicles with driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control and auto-steering. AVs are formally regulated by the DMV and are tested to ensure that they can function without a driver. Vehicles with driver assistance features are not regulated by the DMV, except to the extent that they misadvertise their driver assistance capabilities, and are intended to be operated only with a driver. Many published reports of AV crashes are instead crashes of vehicles where the driver assistance features are misused, often with Teslas. Teslas are not AVs authorized by the DMV.
4. What’s the Experience with AVs? Concerns about robotic 80,000 pound trucks running amok at freeway speeds are understandable. The technology is very new and experience with these vehicles is brief. Only with substantial and transparent testing can the public have confidence in these vehicles. Some states have been very welcoming to AV trucks and imposed minimal regulation, such as Texas, Arizona and Arkansas. For the most part AV trucks are operated with safety drivers. An exception is in Arkansas where Gatik, an AV delivery truck operator, has been operating without a safety driver delivering goods between a distribution center and a Walmart since late 2021.

The safety record of AV trucks appears to be fine so far. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires incident reporting by all AVs. While those records don’t easily distinguish between AV trucks and light-duty vehicles, there were 4 crashes in Texas, 12 in Arizona and none in Arkansas through May 2022.^[1] An internet search of AV truck crashes revealed two, one where another vehicle was at fault and the second the result of the AV operator error while engaging the AV function. The company in the second crash, TuSimple, is considering withdrawing from the U.S. market. While AV trucks have so far operated safely that does not mean that they their driverless deployment is safe. A Rand study^[2] noted that it will take hundreds of millions of miles of testing to prove they are safe, which would take tens of years, though the study indicates there are other ways to evaluate safety including developing manufacturer safety processes and AV performance thresholds. The performance standard for AV trucks should not be perfection, but they should be safer than non-AV trucks.

California has no experience with AV trucks as testing hasn’t been authorized. But California’s experience with light-duty AVs demonstrates that they are safe and have resulted in no major injuries, albeit with limited operating hours and geographic locations.^[3] That’s not to say that the testing has been problem-free. Recently the Police and Fire Chiefs in San Francisco, home to the most intensive AV deployment, have objected to the expansion of that deployment because of concerns about street blockages and interference with public safety vehicles^[4].

1. Current Safety Testing for Light-Duty AVs. In 2012 the Legislature established the statutory framework for the DMV to test and approve the operation of all AVs. In 2014 the DMV established regulations to authorize the testing of AVs with gross vehicle weights of less than 10,001 pounds (e.g. light duty AVs) with safety drivers. In 2018 the DMV established regulations to authorize testing of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. In 2022 the DMV established regulations to authorize the deployment of light-duty AVs without safety drivers. Layered on top of the DMV process is approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Though not required as part of the 2012 legislation, the CPUC has been involved as a second layer of approval for light-duty AVs. This is because the AVs are carrying fare-paying passengers and the CPUC has the duty to ensure passenger safety. Unless specified in a new statute, the CPUC would have no role in the approval of AV trucks.

The DMV testing process appears relatively thorough though reliant on reporting and self-assessment. Before an AV is allowed on a public road with a safety driver the manufacturer must apply for a permit where they demonstrate that they have validated the technology. The safety driver must be properly trained and enrolled in the DMV’s commercial driver program that tracks driver safety and revokes the license of unsafe drivers (pull-notice program). Evidence of financial responsibility (e.g. insurance) by the manufacturer is required. Extensive reporting by the AV manufacturer is required including all collisions and disengagements of the AV system. As of April 2023, 40 companies are authorized to test with a safety driver. One authorization has been revoked.

To test an AV without a safety driver the DMV looks at the performance of the manufacturer when testing with a safety driver. A real-time communication link between the AV and a remote operator must be maintained. A plan for interacting with law enforcement must be created, which is reviewed by the California Highway Patrol. As of November 2021 seven companies are authorized to test without a safety driver.

To obtain final approval to deploy the AV the manufacturer must identify the geographic location and conditions under which the AV will operate, certify compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards, equip the vehicle with data recorders which capture all vehicle functions, and provide other safety-related certifications. As of September 2021 three companies are authorized to operate autonomously without a driver.

It took the DMV nearly 10 years to produce its AV regulations but the result has been a relatively safe deployment. There have been no fatalities and few injuries from these AVs. A committee review of the most recent collision reports found that all injuries were minor and most were not the fault of the AV.

1. Truck AV Deployment in California. In California, testing and deployment of AVs with GVWs greater than 10,001 pounds (AV trucks) is not permitted. Earlier this year the DMV held a public workshop to consider ideas regarding the development of proposed regulations for AV trucks. A second workshop is scheduled for mid-July. There is no timetable for proposed or final regulations. In the absence of new statutes the DMV has the authority to establish the testing criteria and protocols for authorizing driverless AV trucks on public roads.
2. AV Truck Approval Process Established in This Bill. This bill creates a process for approving the deployment of AV trucks. Instead of leaving the decision to the DMV, this bill establishes an authorization framework which culminates in the need for additional action by the Legislature and the Governor. The bill requires a human safety operator in all AV truck testing, at least five years of testing, a subsequent report from the DMV on the performance of truck AVs and recommendations on whether human safety operators should continue to be required, and an oversight hearing on the status of truck AVs. Finally, deployment of truck AVs without human safety drivers is permitted only upon enactment of a new statute which cannot occur earlier than one year after the oversight hearing. AV trucks without human safety drivers would not be permitted on California’s public roads until January 1, 2031 at the earliest.
3. Options. Concern about the safety of AV trucks and their potential for greater damage than light-duty AVs motivates the bill supporters to take the decision to allow driverless AV trucks from the regulatory agency and return it to the Legislature. Their second concern is job loss and the impact that AV trucks will have on employment. Resolving those two concerns will be essential to developing the public support for this technology. But there may be alternative ways to address these concerns that are less stringent than this bill.
   1. Safety – Rather than requiring a final decision by the Legislature and Governor on whether driverless AV trucks can be allowed on the road, an alternative could include specific AV truck performance benchmarks for the DMV to assess before authorizing driverless AV trucks. Alternatively, a multi-year prohibition on DMV authorization of driverless AV trucks with regular reporting to the public, but without the need for legislative approval, would provide the space needed to address employment issues and for the industry to earn the trust of the public before the DMV authorizes deployment.
   2. Jobs – It stands to reason that AV trucks will reduce the need for truck drivers, just as AV taxis will reduce the need for taxi and TNC drivers. But AV trucking companies argue that they are focused on long-haul truck routes for which there is currently a driver shortage. They contend that increasing the amount of long-haul trucking will increase the amount of short-haul trucking as the AV trucks pass their freight onto local drivers who are better able to navigate the more complex local streets and road environment.^[5]

It may be useful for the state to engage its own agencies on the effects of automation. The Labor and Workforce Development Agency could be required to conduct an analysis of the impacts of AV trucks on employment and develop recommendations on appropriate workforce development.

1. California Companies. Many of the companies developing the AV trucks and associated technology are California-based. But this should not be taken for granted as other states are actively encouraging AV development. In particular, Texas has chosen to impose minimal regulation on the AV industry. The same is true in Arizona, Colorado and Florida. As testing has been permitted, the AV companies have created jobs in those states.
2. A Different Model. The AV industry has been promoting their technology as a substitute for the driver. But another industry has deployed autonomous technology as a supplement to the operator, not a replacement. The airline industry introduced a crude form of autopilot technology in 1912 as a way to help pilots fly for longer periods of time. Modern commercial aircraft carrying more than 20 passengers are required to have autopilot technology. That technology is used for more than 90% of most flights, according to an industry publication.^[6] Takeoffs and landings, the most difficult parts of the flight, are performed by the pilot while the routine parts of the flight are done by the autopilot. Perhaps this combination of technology and human operator can be a viable operational model for autonomous truck technology.

Related Legislation:

AB 96 (Kalra) requires public transit districts to notify, in writing, their employees’ unions of the district’s intention to begin any procurement process to acquire or deploy any autonomous transit vehicle technology for public transit services that would eliminate job functions or jobs of the workforce at least 10 months before beginning that procurement process. Pending on the Senate Floor.

AB 2441 (Kalra) of 2022 requires a public transit district to provide written notice to an exclusive representative of the workforce affected by autonomous transit vehicle technology. Vetoed.

SB 336 (Dodd) of 2019 requires a transit operator on every fully-automated transit vehicle until January 1, 2025. Failed in the Assembly.

AB 1141 (Berman) of 2017 requires the DMV to adopt regulations setting standards for AVs operating freight by September 30, 2018. Failed in the Assembly.

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

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

From the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

At the time this analysis was finalized, DMV did not provide the committee an estimate of the costs it would face as a result of this bill. However, it is reasonable to assume costs to DMV to accept and organize disengagement data from AV manufacturers and to evaluate the performance of the AV technology will exceed $150,000.

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

July 6, 2023.)

SUPPORT:

Abate of California - Motorcyclists Rights & Safety Organization
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Afl-cio California
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Conference Board of The Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Labor Federation, Afl-cio
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California State Legislative Board, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division (SMART-TD)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety
Engineers & Scientists of California, Local 20, Ifpte, Afl-cio
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-nevada Conference
Jakara Movement
Oakland; City of
Owner-operator Independent Drivers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
State Building and Construction Trades Council of Ca
UAW Region 6
Unite-here, Afl-cio
Utility Workers Union of America

OPPOSITION:

Abate-a-weed
Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
At Industrial Products
Aurora Innovation, INC.
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
Bay Area Council
Bizfed LA
Boma California
Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Alliance for Freight Innovation
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Delivery Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Small Business Association
Chamber of Progress
Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Consumer Technology Association
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Daimler Truck North America
Ema Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association
Family Business Association of California
Flasher Barricade Association
Inland Empire Chamber Alliance
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Kodiak Robotics, INC.
Long Beach Chamber of Commerce
Los Altos Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles Business Federation
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
Naiop California
Navistar, INC.
Orange County Business Council
Plus
Safe Kids Worldwide
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Seabreeze Books & Charts
Sf.citi
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
STAR Milling Co.
Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce
Technet
Tusimple
Waymo

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Tesla

-- END --

1. The state with the most crashes by far is California with 90. This is probably because while California does not have an AV truck testing, it leads the nation in light-duty AV testing and deployment. ↑

2. Blumenthal, Marjory S., Laura Fraade-Blanar, Ryan Best, and J. Luke Irwin, Safe Enough: Approaches to Assessing Acceptable Safety for Automated Vehicles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA569-1.html. Also available in print form. ↑

3. AV companies are required to report all collisions to the DMV. So far this year (as of mid-June) there have been 57 reported collisions. The committee reviewed the most recent 30 collision reports, from March 21 through May 21, which included six different AV operators. Twelve of those 30 collisions occurred when the vehicle was being driven by a human driver. In five of those 30 collisions there were injuries, all of which were minor. In most cases the AV appears not at fault, though this can’t be reliably judged based on the collision reports. ↑

4. 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. ↑

5. This is supported by a study commissioned by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group performed by Victoria University. In contrast, a recent study published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences Communications by the University of Michigan and Carnegie Mellon University, “Impact of Automation on Long-Haul Trucking Operator-Hours in the United States”, casts doubt on this assertion. ↑

6. Travel Radar, “The Importance of Autopilot in Commercial Flights” by Leo Cheung; October 11, 2021. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Aguiar-Curry and Friedman)

As Amended Ver:April 24, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Restricts an autonomous vehicle (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.

Major Provisions

1. Defines a "human safety operator" to mean a person operating an autonomous vehicle or vehicle equipped with autonomous technology who is trained in operating and shutting off the vehicle. A human safety operator shall meet all federal and state qualifications for the type of vehicle being operated, whether in automated or nonautomated mode.
2. Requires manufacturers to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) disengagements and collisions for AVs with a GVW over 10,001 pounds.
3. Requires DMV to issue a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2029, or five years after the commencement of testing, whichever occurs later, evaluating the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector for AVs with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more. The report is required to include a recommendation on whether the Legislature should remove, modify, or maintain the requirement for an AV with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more to operate with a human safety operator physically present in the vehicle.

COMMENTS

In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla), Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012, which permitted AVs to be operated on public roads for testing purposes 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 AV's on public roads without a driver, with certain limitations. 41 companies currently have a testing permit with a driver (down from a high of 58), and seven companies have received a testing permit without a driver. Three companies has received a deployment permit without a human driver (For a time one company had a deployment permit with a human driver.)

DMV regulations prohibit the testing or deployment of AVs over with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more. This was initially done for safety reasons, as vehicles with heavier weights are capable of causing significantly more damage in a collision. DMV held a public workshop on January 27, 2023 to receive public comment to potentially start a new regulatory process to consider authorizing the testing and deployment of AVs over 10,000 pounds after years of lobbying efforts to expand testing and deployment permits for heavier vehicles.

AVs performance in California. The vast majority of AV testing and deployment in California has occurred in San Francisco. 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 entire city. The letter notes a series of 9-1-1 calls that the city has received related to AVs. The letter states "managers in the City's Department of Emergency Management began to notice a number of 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)."

The incidents described by San Francisco were only known to them because of 9-1-1 calls and will never be reported to DMV because DMV only requires disengagement 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 DMV about disengagements.

Cruise LLC vehicles have a deployment and testing permit. In order to get a deployment permit from DMV, a company must self-certify that the "autonomous technology is designed to detect and respond to roadway situations in compliance with all provisions of the California Vehicle Code and local regulation applicable to the performance of the dynamic driving task in the vehicle's operational design domain, except when necessary to enhance the safety of the vehicle's occupants and/ or other road users."

DMV is permitted to suspend or revoke a deployment permit based upon the performance of the vehicles if they determine the vehicles are not safe for public operation. To date, DMV has not suspended or revoked a deployment permit for this reason, even after Cruise LLC in June of 2022 had to issue a recall for 80 vehicles after one of their vehicles got into a crash in San Francisco injuring two people after making an unprotected left turn (law enforcement contributed the other vehicle with mostly being at fault).

Despite the numerous incidents of Cruise LLC vehicles documented by San Francisco above, Cruise LLC has not only never had their deployment permit suspended or revoked, but has received approval from DMV to expand their hours of service operation, increase their allowable speed, and test a vehicle incapable of being operated by a human operator that still has a pending application for approval for use by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA). The only time an AV testing or deployment permit has been suspended has been for a failure to report to DMV in a timely manner the suspension of several test drivers who received traffic tickets while operating personal vehicles.

Committee comments: The fundamental question this bill asks is if the Legislature should trust DMV to properly decide when an AV over 10,001 pounds is capable of operating without a human operator, or whether the Legislature should have a say on when that moment has arrived, if it ever does.

DMV has permitted companies to test AVs without a human driver since 2018 and issued the first deployment permit in 2021. Since that time, DMV has never suspended or revoked any deployment permits issued for operational failures, including vehicles operating against their own permit restricting their operation in heavy rain, an incident where at least five vehicles stopped operating for hours until they could be physically reviewed, a collision that injured several individuals that resulted in a recall, AVs continuously getting stuck in a dead-end street in a residential neighborhood, an AV temporarily fleeing a police stop by driving several hundred feet away without operating headlights at night, and an AV driving into a construction zone. All of these actions occurred after under penalty of perjury the companies certified with DMV their vehicles were capable of driving themselves and follow all of the rules of the road in California. DMV not only never suspended a permit for operational reasons, but also often within a manner of weeks of the events described above expanded the hours these vehicles were permitted to operate and permitted the testing of an AV incapable of being operated without a human operator that was still in the process of seeking NHTSA approval to operate on public roads.

According to the Author

"AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California's public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty AVs in California has been fraught with malfunctions including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California's transportation workforce adapt to AV technology."

Arguments in Support

The California Labor Federation, the co-sponsor of this bill, argues "The havoc created by passenger vehicles that can be moved by first responders would be exponentially worse when caused by an 80,000 pound truck or bus. Accidents due to malfunction are just the beginning. Hard-braking, which was an issue with passenger vehicles, could cause mass casualty accidents if a big rig suddenly braked on the freeway. Another risk is that autonomous technology can be hacked to turn trucks into weapons, which is especially dangerous when they are carrying hazardous freight. Technology could also be used to monitor and track drivers and pedestrians without their knowledge. Autonomous technology also raises complicated issues for law enforcement when pulling over vehicles and investigating accidents.

AB 316 strikes a balance between technological advancement and the public good. It allows for the testing and further development of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles on public roads. Companies can continue to test fully driverless technology on private tracks as they work out the bugs and further develop the technology. The bill also protects jobs and public safety as the technology is tested and advanced.

Arguments in Opposition

The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a broader coalition of industry groups write in opposition to this bill stating we should trust the regulator. They argue "SB 1298 established a thoughtful framework to ensure that autonomous vehicles were allowed on state roads only at such time as they were demonstrably safe. Rather than legislating safety standards, the Legislature tasked safety experts at the CHP and DMV, in consultation with NHTSA, to determine rules for testing, and then deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is the framework currently in place for light duty vehicles, and the Administration recently held a public workshop in advance of initiating a regulatory process to consider the appropriate regulatory structure for heavy-duty vehicles. We strongly believe this is the appropriate way for the state to fully, and thoughtfully, develop appropriate safety standards – not a one-size-fits all technology ban.

California's economy has swelled in recent decades based largely on the success of its robust technology sector. We believe California policymakers should focus on promoting and encouraging continued growth in this sector – rather than crafting harsh legislative barriers to future growth."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee, "At the time this analysis was finalized, DMV did not provide the committee an estimate of the costs it would face as a result of this bill. However, it is reasonable to assume costs to DMV to accept and organize disengagement data from AV manufacturers and to evaluate the performance of the AV technology will exceed $150,000."

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 12-0-3

YES: Friedman, Juan Carrillo, Davies, Gipson, Hart, Kalra, Lowenthal, Stephanie Nguyen, Sanchez, Wallis, Ward, Wicks

ABS, ABST OR NV: Joe Patterson, Berman, Jackson

ASM COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE: 10-1-2

YES: Boerner Horvath, Connolly, Davies, Holden, Maienschein, Papan, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Schiavo, Weber

NO: Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson, Low

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-1-2

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Sanchez, Weber, Ortega

NO: Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Megan Dahle, Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: April 24, 2023

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000560

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 316

Author:(Aguiar-Curry) – As Amended Ver:April 24, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits an autonomous vehicle (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 also requires the manufacturer of an AV weighing 10,001 pounds or more to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) information regarding any accidents or “disengagements” of the autonomous system. Finally, the bill requires DMV to provide to the Legislature, by January 1, 2029, or five years after the beginning of testing, an evaluation of the performance of AV technology and its impact on public safety and employment in the transportation sector. 

FISCAL EFFECT:

At the time this analysis was finalized, DMV did not provide the committee an estimate of the costs it would face as a result of this bill. However, it is reasonable to assume costs to DMV to accept and organize disengagement data from AV manufacturers and to evaluate the performance of the AV technology will exceed $150,000.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author describes this bill as allowing the continued testing of heavy-duty AVs while protecting public safety. According to the author:

Testing and deployment of lightduty AVs in California has been fraught with malfunctions including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies.

1. Background. Existing law allows operation of an AV on public roadways for testing purposes. To operate an AV on the roadways, a manufacturer must receive permission from DMV, but only after the manufacturer has submitted to DMV an application that includes various legally required elements.

DMV regulations have allowed dozens of companies to test and deploy light-duty AVs on California roadways. DMV’s website lists 40 companies permitted by DMV to test light-duty AVs with a driver, seven companies to test light-duty vehicles without a driver and three companies to deploy AV without a driver.

DMV’s existing AV regulations do not allow testing or deployment of an AV with a gross vehicle weight of over 10,000 pounds. However, in January of this year, DMV held an initial public workshop to consider a new regulatory process to authorize the testing and deployment of AVs that weigh over 10,000 pounds.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by a long list of organizations, including the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco and the League of California Cities, the last of which writes:

In California, light-duty AVs have mostly been tested and deployed without a driver on public roads in San Francisco. AVs have repeatedly created large traffic jams after they stopped working in traffic lanes and blocked emergency vehicles from responding to calls. As a result, city officials wrote to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) detailing 92 incidents occurring over 7 months and asking the CPUC to narrow and constrain AV expansions…AB 316 strikes a balance between technological advancement and the public good.

A large number of industry associations and many AV manufacturers support the bill, asserting that California’s economy has benefitted greatly by fostering innovation. These supporters assert the current AV regulatory process, established via Legislation (AB 218 (Padilla), Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012), has it right:

SB 1298 established a thoughtful framework to ensure that autonomous vehicles were allowed on state roads only at such time as they were demonstrably safe. Rather than legislating safety standards, the Legislature tasked safety experts at the CHP and DMV, in consultation with NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], to determine rules for testing, and then deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is the framework currently in place for light duty vehicles, and the Administration recently held a public workshop in advance of initiating a regulatory process to consider the appropriate regulatory structure for heavy-duty vehicles. We strongly believe this is the appropriate way for the state to fully, and thoughtfully, develop appropriate safety standards – not a one-size-fits all technology ban.

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

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE

Tasha Boerner Horvath, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 316 (

Author:Aguiar-Curry) – As Amended Ver:April 11, 2023

SUBJECT: Vehicles: autonomous vehicles

SUMMARY: This bill would prohibit the operation of an autonomous vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more on public roads for testing purposes, transporting goods, or transporting passengers unless a human safety operator is physically present at the time operation. Specifically, this bill:

1. States the intent of the Legislature to:
   1. To prioritize public safety, job security, and infrastructure needs in the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles on California roads.
   2. To ensure that public policy adapts to rapid advancements in autonomous vehicle technology.
   3. To revisit and amend applicable laws as necessary to reflect advancements that address threats to public safety and jobs.
2. Requires a manufacturer whose autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision to report the collision to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) within 10 days of the collision, as specified.
3. Requires a manufacturer with a testing permit to submit disengagement reports on an annual basis to the DMV, as specified.
   1. Defines “disengagement” to means a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle, or in the case of driverless vehicles, when the safety of the vehicle, the occupants of the vehicle, or the public requires that the autonomous technology be deactivated.
4. Defines “human safety operator” to mean a person operating an autonomous vehicle or vehicle equipped with autonomous technology who is trained in operating and shutting off the vehicle. Requires a human safety operator to meet all federal and state qualifications for the type of vehicle being operated, whether in automated or nonautomated mode.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in regulations established by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
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). (Vehicle Code (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.
6. Requires DMV, by January 1, 2015, to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the application to operate AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes.
7. 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.
8. 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]:

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.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the bill. The author posits that this bill is primarily about safety and jobs. “AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California’s public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty AVs in California has been fraught with malfunctions including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California’s transportation workforce adapt to AV technology.”
2. Legislative and Regulatory Background. In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla), Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012, which permitted AVs to be operated on public roads for testing purposes 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 AV’s on public roads without a driver, with certain limitations. 41 companies currently have a testing permit with a driver (down from a high of 58), and seven companies have received a testing permit without a driver. Three companies have received a deployment permit without a human driver. DMV regulations prohibit the testing or deployment of AVs over with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 pounds or more. The weight threshold was initially adopted or safety reasons, as vehicles with heavier weights are capable of causing significantly more damage in a collision. More recently, DMV held an initial public workshop on January 27, 2023 to receive public comment to potentially start a new regulatory process to consider authorizing the testing and deployment of AVs over 10,000 pounds.
3. AV Testing in California. AV manufacturers are required to obtain a testing or deployment permit to operate on public roads in California. Under existing regulations, only the operation of AVs less than 10,000 pounds is authorized, henceforth referred to as “
   light-duty AVs”. There are currently three permits manufactures can apply for: tester permit with driver, tester permit for driverless vehicles, and approval to deploy on public roads. To obtain a tester permit with a driver, the manufacturer must self-certify that the AV has been tested under controlled conditions that stimulate operational design domain in which the manufacturer intends the vehicle to operate on public roads. There are also insurance requirements, and certain requirements to qualify a driver to operate the vehicle.

To obtain a driverless test permit, the barriers to entry are not significantly higher, although there are more requirements. For example, the manufacturer must notify local jurisdictions where the vehicle will be operated, including the list of public roads where the vehicle will be tested, the date that testing will begin, the days and times testing will be conducted, and the number of vehicles to be tested. The DMV regulations do not require that operators incorporate feedback from local jurisdictions on where the AVs will operate. The manufacturer must also self-certify that the vehicle is capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle and that the vehicle meets the description of a level 4 or 5 automated driving system under international standards. While these regulations apply specifically to light-duty AVs, it’s unclear at this point whether DMV is planning more robust testing requirements for heavy-duty AVs.

1. AV Deployment in California. DMV regulations define deployment to mean:

“the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads by members of the public who are not employees, contractors, or designees of a manufacturer or for the purpose of sale, lease, providing transportation services or transportation property for a fee, or otherwise making commercially available outside of a testing program.”

In summary, the key distinction of the deployment phase under the regulations is authorization to have passengers in the vehicle who are not affiliated with the manufacturer. To obtain a deployment permit for an AV in California, manufacturers are required to provide additional information about the vehicle’s design domain and identify commonly-occurring or restricted conditions such as: fog, black ice, wet surfaces, or construction zones.

DMV is permitted to suspend or revoke a deployment permit based upon the performance of the vehicles if they determine the vehicles are not safe for public operation. To date, DMV has suspended one manufacturer’s deployment permit for this reason.

In addition to the deployment programs operated by the DMV, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also administers an autonomous-vehicle program. The Commission authorized Drivered (with driver) and Driverless Pilot and Deployment AV passenger service programs to provide pre-arranged transportation in autonomous vehicles with or without a safety driver. To be eligible to participate in the CPUC’s program, operators must first obtain the proper testing or deployment permits from the DMV. Under the CPUC’s program, some operators are in the deployment phase and carrying passengers.

1. This bill would prohibit the operation of heavy-duty AVs without a human safety operator under most circumstances. While this bill falls short of an outright ban on the operation of AVs with a GVW of 10,001 or more pounds, referred to henceforth as “heavy-duty AVs”, it comes close. The bill lists specified circumstances under which the prohibition applies: on public roads for testing purposes, while transporting goods, or transporting passengers. It’s unclear whether the author intends to cover scenarios which arguably might not be covered such as operation on private roads, when the vehicle is empty, or on public roads when the vehicle is empty but not testing. Regardless, the prohibition is broadly applicable and clearly intends to cover most scenarios where a heavy-duty AV could pose a danger to the general public.
2. Driving is dangerous, period. It’s unclear if AVs will be safer. Vehicles operating at any speed are inherently dangerous. While the requirement for autonomous vehicles to operate with a human safety operator would purport to make driving safer, vehicles operated by humans cause a lot of destruction. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) estimates that nearly 43,000 traffic deaths occurred in 2021—representing a 16-year high and an 11% increase in fatalities from 2020. In California alone more than 4,000 lives were lost in motor vehicle crashes in 2021. Nearly 14% of crashes in the United States involve a truck, and 1 in 3 long-haul truck drivers experience a serious crash in their career. In one study, the U.S. Department of Transportation found that drivers of trucks over 10,000 pounds were responsible in 87% of incidents in which the truck caused the crash. Autonomous vehicles can potentially make driving safer, but it’s unclear whether they will. Without sufficient data and rigorous testing that question cannot be answered definitively.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), “It is likely that fully self-driving cars will eventually identify hazards better than people, but we found that this alone would not prevent the bulk of crashes.” IIHS estimates that only a third of the collisions caused by human error would be expected to be avoided because AVs will potentially have more accurate perception than human drivers and are not vulnerable to incapacitation. Avoiding the other two thirds would require AVs that are programmed to prioritize safety over speed and convenience.”

1. How much testing is needed to make a determination about AV safety? Existing law or regulations do not establish discrete benchmarks for light-duty AVs to enter the testing phase or full deployment. For example, there is not a minimum number of miles that are required to be traveled or a maximum number of incidents before a manufacturer would be deemed qualified to deploy on public. While the regulatory process would likely benefit from more structure, those topics are outside the scope of this bill as drafted. Instead, the bill contains intent language expressing the intent of the Legislature to “revisit and amend applicable laws as necessary to reflect advancements that address threats to public safety and jobs.”

How much testing would be needed anyway to make an informed decisions about the safety impacts of heavy-duty AVs? According to a RAND Corporation report Driving to Safety: How Many Miles of Driving Would it Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability, it may take decades before we know if AVs are safer than human drivers. Due primarily to the fact that humans drive trillions of miles per year, with comparatively low accident rates, it is difficult to compare the two even when controlling for distance. For example, Americans drive 3 trillion miles every year. In 2013, there were 2.3 million injuries reported, a rate of 77 injuries per 100 million miles driven. The 32,719 deaths from car crashes that year correspond to a rate of about one fatality per 100 million miles driven. AVs have not driven anywhere near that many miles, and already at least one person has been killed by an AV in Tempe, Arizona. It’s unclear whether manufactures will ever be able to meet the benchmarks needed to provide a definitive answer on the relative safety AVs, but in the meantime it’s possible that continued robust testing and minimal safety incidents can build the public’s and policymaker’s support for full driverless deployment in the future.

1. Arguments in support. The California Labor Federation, a co-sponsor of this legislation, argues that “The introduction of autonomous vehicles without guardrails puts jobs and safety at risk.” They add, “The havoc created by passenger vehicles…would be exponentially worse when caused by an 80,000 pound truck or bus. Accidents due to malfunction are just the beginning. Hard-braking, which was an issue with passenger vehicles, could cause mass casualty accidents if a big rig suddenly braked on the freeway. Another risk is that autonomous technology can be hacked to turn trucks into weapons, which is especially dangerous.”
2. Arguments in opposition. This bill is opposed by a coalition of AV manufacturers and industry-aligned organizations. Opposition argues that this effectively bans autonomous truck deployment, which would stifle further innovation and investment in California. They write, “California was among the first states to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework for AV testing and deployment over a decade ago. AV technology has since been tested and deployed in states across the country and across modalities, and it maintains an incredible safety record. Other states have taken notice, and now, a majority of U.S. states have recognized the numerous benefits of AVs by authorizing AV deployment, including deployment of autonomous trucks.”
3. Committee amendments. The author may wish to consider the following amendments:
   1. Require by January 1, 2029 or five years after commencement of testing, whichever occurs later, and upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Department of Motor Vehicles to submit a report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature evaluating the performance of autonomous vehicle technology.
   2. Upon the issuance of the report, state the intent of the Legislature to conduct an oversight hearing to assess the state of autonomous vehicle technology for vehicles over 10,001 lbs.
   3. Prohibit the DMV from issuing a deployment permit earlier than one year after the oversight hearing.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Afscme
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Afl-cio
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Labor Federation, Afl-cio
California New Car Dealers Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (crla Foundation)
California School Employees Association
California State Legislative Board, Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Diivsion (SMART-TD)
Consumer Attorneys of California
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 3
International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-nevada Conference
League of California Cities
Mayor of City & County of San Francisco London Breed
State Building and Construction Trades Council of Ca
UAW Region 6
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council

Opposition

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
Aurora Innovation, INC.
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
Bay Area Council
Cal Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Alliance for Freight Innovation
California Chamber of Commerce
California Delivery Association
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Small Business Association
Chamber of Progress
Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce
Coalition of California Chambers – Orange County
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Consumer Technology Association
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Daimler
Ema Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association
Family Business Association of California
Inland Empire Chamber Alliance
Inland Empire Chamber Legislative Alliance
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
International Warehouse Logistics Association
Kodiak Robotics, INC.
Los Altos Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Supervisor District 3
Safe Kids Worldwide
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
Sf.citi
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce
Technet
Tusimple
Waymo

Analysis Prepared by: Emilio Perez / C. & C. / (916) 319-2637

1. California Autonomous Vehicle Regulations. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/adopted-regulatory-text-pdf/ ↑

Date of Hearing: March 13, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Laura Friedman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 316 (

Author:Aguiar-Curry) – As Introduced Ver:January 26, 2023

SUBJECT: Vehicles: autonomous vehicles

SUMMARY: Restricts an autonomous vehicle (AV) with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 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. Specifically, this bill:

Defines a “human safety operator” to mean a person operating an autonomous vehicle or vehicle equipped with autonomous technology who is trained in operating and shutting off the vehicle. A human safety operator shall meet all federal and state qualifications for the type of vehicle being operated, whether in automated or nonautomated mode.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the operation of AVs on public roads for testing purposes under certain circumstances specified in regulations the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has.
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). (Vehicle Code (VEH) Section 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 Section 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 Section 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.
6. Requires DMV, by January 1, 2015, to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the application to operate AVs on public roads for non-testing purposes.
7. 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.
8. 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.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: In 2012, the Legislature passed SB 1298 (Padilla), Chapter 570, Statutes of 2012, which permitted AVs to be operated on public roads for testing purposes 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 AV’s on public roads without a driver, with certain limitations. 41 companies currently have a testing permit with a driver (down from a high of 58), and seven companies have received a testing permit without a driver. Three companies has received a deployment permit without a human driver (For a time one company had a deployment permit with a human driver.)

DMV regulations prohibit the testing or deployment of AVs over with a GVW of 10,001 pounds or more. This was initially done for safety reasons, as vehicles with heavier weights are capable of causing significantly more damage in a collision. DMV held a public workshop on January 27, 2023 to receive public comment to potentially start a new regulatory process to consider authorizing the testing and deployment of AVs over 10,000 pounds after years of lobbying efforts to expand testing and deployment permits for heavier vehicles.

According to the author, “AB 316 places a needed guardrail on the deployment of autonomous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on California’s public roads. Testing and deployment of light-duty AVs in California has been fraught with malfunctions including AVs blocking traffic by suddenly stopping in the middle of the road, driving through emergency response scenes, impeding emergency vehicles, and causing accidents. As California considers expanding autonomous technology to include trucks, buses and other large vehicles, AVs have greater potential to injure and kill Californians and displace large portions of the workforce. This bill requires that a certified human safety operator supervise AVs when they are on public roads, so that a human can respond to unanticipated driving situations and emergencies. By requiring a human safety operator, this bill allows the technology to continue to develop, while also protecting public safety and providing a path to help California’s transportation workforce adapt to AV technology.”

Unclear if AVs are safer than humans. According to a RAND Corporation report Driving to Safety: How Many Miles of Driving Would it Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability, it may take decades before we know if AVs are safer than human drivers. Despite tens of thousands of deaths on the road every year, humans are capable of driving a remarkable number of miles between collisions. Americans drive 3 trillion miles every year. In 2013, there were 2.3 million injuries reported, a rate of 77 injuries per 100 million miles driven. The 32,719 deaths from car crashes that year correspond to a rate of about one fatality per 100 million miles driven.  AVs have not driven anywhere near that many miles, and already at least one person has been killed by an AV in Tempe, Arizona.

AV companies often cite a report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that concluded that 94% of all collisions are because of human error, and because of that AVs have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), “It is likely that fully self-driving cars will eventually identify hazards better than people, but we found that this alone would not prevent the bulk of crashes.” IIHS estimates that only a third of the collisions caused by human error would be expected to be avoided because AVs will potentially have more accurate perception than human drivers and are not vulnerable to incapacitation. Avoiding the other two thirds would require AVs that are programmed to prioritize safety over speed and convenience.”

AVs performance in California. The vast majority of AV testing and deployment in California has occurred in San Francisco. 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 entire city. The letter notes a series of 9-1-1 calls that the city has received related to AVs. The letter states “managers in the City’s Department of Emergency Management began to notice a number of 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).”

The incidents described by San Francisco were only known to them because of 9-1-1 calls and will never be reported to DMV because DMV only requires disengagement 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 DMV about disengagements.

The Cruise LLC vehicles involved in these incidents have a deployment permit. In order to get a deployment permit from DMV, a company must self-certify that the “autonomous technology is designed to detect and respond to roadway situations in compliance with all provisions of the California Vehicle Code and local regulation applicable to the performance of the dynamic driving task in the vehicle’s operational design domain, except when necessary to enhance the safety of the vehicle’s occupants and/ or other road users.”

DMV is permitted to suspend or revoke a deployment permit based upon the performance of the vehicles if they determine the vehicles are not safe for public operation. To date, DMV has not suspended or revoked a testing or deployment permit for this reason, even after Cruise LLC in June of 2022 had to issue a recall for 80 vehicles after one of their vehicles got into a crash in San Francisco injuring two people after making an unprotected left turn (law enforcement contributed the other vehicle with mostly being at fault).

Despite the numerous incidents of Cruise LLC vehicles documented by San Francisco above, Cruise LLC has not only never had their deployment permit suspended or revoked, but has received approval from DMV to expand their hours of service operation, increase their allowable speed, and test a vehicle incapable of being operated by a human operator that still has a pending application for approval for use by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA). The only time an AV testing or deployment permit has been suspended has been for a failure to report to DMV in a timely manner the suspension of several test drivers who received traffic tickets while operating personal vehicles.

Truck safety implications to consider. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in 2020, 4,998 large trucks and buses were involved in fatal crashes, a 5% decrease from 2019. From 2019 to 2020, large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by all motor vehicles increased from 0.162 to 0.177, 14% below the 21st-century peak of 0.205 in 2000, but higher than the total fatality rate for all vehicles, which was 1.34 deaths per 100 million miles. According to NHTSA, from 2016 to 2020, large truck and bus injury crashes decreased 4% (from 112,000 in 2016 to 108,000 in 2020). The majority, 83%, of fatalities were not occupants of the large truck.

The critical precrash event for 63% of the large trucks in fatal crashes was another vehicle, person, animal, or object in the large truck’s lane or encroaching into it. Twenty-three percent of the large trucks in fatal crashes had critical precrash events of their own movement or loss of control. In 2020, at least one driver-related factor was recorded for 32% of the large truck drivers in fatal crashes, compared to 55% of the passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes. Speeding was the most frequent driver-related factor for drivers of both vehicle types.

The encroachment collisions for trucks can potentially be reduced by AVs that have faster brake time reaction than a human operator. However, simpler technology may already play a role in reducing those collisions. The Bipartisan Infrastructure and Investment Act of 2021 required NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to require automated emergency braking (AEB) technology in two years. NHTSA is currently seeking public comment on the matter. NHTSA in a November 2022 study found AEB technology reduced injury crash collisions by 54% an overall crash reductions of 49%.

Another safety implication to be taken into account are road fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association, large trucks have a higher rate of deaths per 1,000 fires than highway vehicle fires over all, with tires playing a large role in large truck fires. An estimated 212,500 vehicle fires in 2018 caused 560 civilian deaths, 1,500 civilian injuries, and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US. Truck drivers are required to carry fire extinguishers in their vehicles. Removing a human safety driver would potentially remove hundreds of thousands of individuals from California roads that could help put out those fires, including ones caused by AV trucks.

The California Labor Federation, the co-sponsor of this bill, argues “The havoc created by passenger vehicles that can be moved by first responders would be exponentially worse when caused by an 80,000 pound truck or bus. Accidents due to malfunction are just the beginning. Hard-braking, which was an issue with passenger vehicles, could cause mass casualty accidents if a big rig suddenly braked on the freeway. Another risk is that autonomous technology can be hacked to turn trucks into weapons, which is especially dangerous when they are carrying hazardous freight. Technology could also be used to monitor and track drivers and pedestrians without their knowledge. Autonomous technology also raises complicated issues for law enforcement when pulling over vehicles and investigating accidents.

AB 316 tackles the challenge of autonomous vehicle technology by requiring a human safety operator on autonomous medium and heavy-duty vehicles. The human safety operator will be trained and licensed appropriately. They will have the ability to take over the vehicle in case of malfunction, takeover by hackers, or to make human decisions in emergencies. The human operator will make sure that technology benefits the public and not just the company that patented it.

AB 316 strikes a balance between technological advancement and the public good. It allows for the testing and further development of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles on public roads. Companies can continue to test fully driverless technology on private tracks as they work out the bugs and further develop the technology. The bill also protects jobs and public safety as the technology is tested and advanced.

This bill helps ensure that technology benefits workers and is not just a cost-cutting strategy borne on the backs of workers. Human drivers also have what the technology can never replicate – compassion and solidarity. Those human qualities are what move drivers to risk their lives to save lives and are critical as autonomous vehicles are tested on our streets.”

Economic opportunities and job losses from AV Trucking.: According to the American Trucking Association, long haul trucking has been characterized by turnover rates of nearly 100% in recent years. The profession has become unattractive because of concerted efforts to pay drivers less and the increased movement towards encouraging drivers to operate as independent contractors.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an opponent of this bill, released a study in April 2022 that found that AV trucks in California could increase the state’s economy by upwards of $6.5 billion or more and that the industry could generate 2,400 new jobs in California.

The report estimates that approximately 461,481 long distance tractor-trailer drivers may be at risk of having their jobs eliminated upon full adoption of AV trucks, but estimates the layoff rate will be slow and that long distance drivers will be able to get jobs as short distance drivers (making an assumption that short distance truck drivers will not be automated).

According to Impact of Automation on Long Haul Trucking Operator-Hours in the United States, an additional 70,000 jobs for employment associated with operating truck stops may also be impacted. Further, “Automation is likely to dramatically reduce the need for labor, which constitutes roughly 40% of the cost of trucking. It is also likely to eliminate hours of service (HOS) requirements. As a consequence, automation will reduce the amortized capital cost of the truck, which constitutes another 16% of the cost of trucking (Finally, the elimination of HOS requirements will make trucking faster than it is today, since the trucks will no longer have to stop for driver breaks. Cost and delivery time reductions in the delivery of freight through automated trucking may result in increased demand for trucking shipments.” Researchers estimate this could shift freight currently being routed through air, train, or inter-modal services to long haul trucking.

Some job increase models for trucking are based on the transfer-hub model where long haul trucks are automated while short haul trucks are not because of the increased difficulty of AV trucks operating in urban areas. Some in the AV industry have suggested this model will increase short haul truck jobs because automation will allow more goods to be shipped. However, Impact of Automation on Long Hall Trucking, noted that 40% of long hall truck workers they interviewed for the research currently level in rural areas and its possible the geographical shift would prove a barrier to transitioning current operations to short haul jobs.

Legislating Safety Standards. The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a broader coalition of industry groups write in opposition to this bill stating we should trust the regulator. They argue “SB 1298 established a thoughtful framework to ensure that autonomous vehicles were allowed on state roads only at such time as they were demonstrably safe. Rather than legislating safety standards, the Legislature tasked safety experts at the CHP and DMV, in consultation with NHTSA, to determine rules for testing, and then deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is the framework currently in place for light duty vehicles, and the Administration recently held a public workshop in advance of initiating a regulatory process to consider the appropriate regulatory structure for heavy-duty vehicles. We strongly believe this is the appropriate way for the state to fully, and thoughtfully, develop appropriate safety standards – not a one-size-fits all technology ban.

Finally, this bill is part of a wave of troubling legislation. In recent weeks, a number of proposals have been advanced that, in one way or another, seek to stymie innovation and the development of cutting edge technologies that have the potential to benefit all Californians. California’s economy has swelled in recent decades based largely on the success of its robust technology sector. We believe California policymakers should focus on promoting and encouraging continued growth in this sector – rather than crafting harsh legislative barriers to future growth.”

Committee comments: The fundamental question this bill asks is if the Legislature should trust DMV to properly decide when an AV over 10,000 pounds is capable of operating without a human operator, or whether the Legislature should have a say on when that moment has arrived, if it ever does.

DMV has permitted companies to test AVs without a human driver since 2018 and issued the first deployment permit in 2021. Since that time, DMV has never suspended or revoked any deployment permits issued for operational failures, including an incident where at least five vehicles stopped operating for hours until they could be physically reviewed, a collision that injured several individuals that resulted in a recall, AVs continuously getting stuck in a dead-end street in a residential neighborhood, an AV temporarily fleeing a police stop by driving several hundred feet away without operating headlights at night, and an AV driving into a construction zone. All of these actions occurred after under penalty of perjury the companies certified with DMV their vehicles were capable of driving themselves and follow all of the rules of the road in California. DMV not only never suspended a permit for operational reasons, but also often within a manner of weeks of the events described above expanded the hours these vehicles were permitted to operate and permitted the testing of an AV incapable of being operated without a human operator that was still in the process of seeking NHTSA approval to operate on public roads.

Related Legislation:

AB 96 (Kalra) of 2023 requires 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 is pending before the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee.

Previous Legislation:

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

CA Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union (co-sponsor)

CA Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-sponsor)

ABATE of California

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

CA Association of Highway Patrolment

CA Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union

CA Conference of Machinists

CA Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

CA Professional Firefighters

CA School Employees Association

CA State Legislative Board of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division

Engineers and Scientists of CA, IPTE Local 20, AFL-CIO

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 3

International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference

League of California Cities

UAW Region 6

UNITE HERE International Union, AFL-CIO

Utility Workers Union of America

Opposition

Abate-A-Weed

Alliance for Automotive Innovation

Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

AT Industrial Products

Aurora
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association

AUVSI
Bay Area Council
California Alliance for Freight Innovation

California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Chamber of Commerce

California Clothing Recyclers

California Delivery Association

California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturing & Technology Association

California Retail Hardware Association

California Small Business Association

Cavnue
Chamber of Progress

Coalition of Small Disabled Veteran Businesses
Consumer Technology Association

Einride

Fairfax Lumber and Hardware

Family Business Association of California

Gatik

Inland Empire Chamber Alliance

Inland Empire Economic Partnership

International Warehouse and Logistics Association

Kodiak Robotics

MEMA, the Vehicle Suppliers Association

Mountain View Chamber of Commerce

Rich Desmond, Board Chair, Sacramento County

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

San Jose Chamber of Commerce

Seabreeze Charts and Books
Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Spartan Radar

Star Milling Co.

Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce

Silicon Valley Leadership Group
TechNet

TuSimple

Uber Freight

US Xpress

Waabi

Waymo

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