2016美国自动驾驶汽车政策指南（英文版）

Federal Automated Vehicles Policy Summary

Core Content

The Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in September 2016, outlines a comprehensive framework to support the safe introduction and deployment of Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs). It emphasizes the potential of HAVs to revolutionize roadway safety, mobility, and efficiency, while also acknowledging the need for regulatory clarity and public engagement.

Main Points

1. Introduction and Purpose

• The DOT recognizes the transformative potential of automated vehicles, especially in improving road safety.
• Over 94% of crashes are due to human error, and HAVs could significantly reduce this number.
• The policy aims to accelerate the safe integration of HAVs into the transportation system.
• The policy is not a final rule but an initial guidance to establish a framework for future regulations.

2. Levels of Automation

• The policy adopts the SAE International (SAE) definitions for levels of automation.
• HAVs are defined as SAE Levels 3-5 vehicles, where the automated system is primarily responsible for monitoring the driving environment.
• SAE Level 0: Full human control
• SAE Level 1: Partial automation (e.g., adaptive cruise control)
• SAE Level 2: Combined automation (e.g., lane-keeping systems)
• SAE Level 3: Conditional automation (e.g., hands-free driving in certain conditions)
• SAE Level 4: High automation (e.g., self-driving in specific environments)
• SAE Level 5: Full automation (e.g., no human involvement)

3. Vehicle Performance Guidance

• This section provides best practices for the pre-deployment testing and development of HAVs.
• It defines "deployment" as the operation of an HAV by the public, not just the manufacturer or testing entities.
• Key areas addressed include:
  • Operational Design Domain (ODD): Defines the conditions under which the HAV operates (e.g., road types, speed ranges, weather).
  • Object and Event Detection and Response (OEDR): Ensures the system can detect and respond to potential hazards.
  • Fallback Minimum Risk Condition: Ensures the vehicle can be brought to a safe state in case of system failure or transition to manual control.
• The Guidance is not mandatory but may be made so through future rulemaking.

4. Model State Policy

• The policy supports a consistent national framework for HAV regulation.
• It confirms that state governments retain traditional responsibilities such as vehicle registration, traffic laws, and insurance.
• The goal is to avoid a patchwork of state laws that could hinder the development and deployment of HAVs.
• Manufacturers should be able to develop a single HAV fleet rather than multiple versions to meet state-specific requirements.

5. NHTSA's Current Regulatory Tools

• NHTSA will continue using its existing regulatory tools, including:
  • Interpretations
  • Exemptions
  • Notice-and-comment rulemaking
  • Defects and enforcement authority
• These tools will be used to ensure HAVs meet safety standards and to address any safety concerns.
• NHTSA plans to issue simple interpretations within 60 days and exemption rulings within six months.

6. New Tools and Authorities

• The policy identifies the need for new regulatory tools and authorities to keep pace with HAV advancements.
• These tools will enable the DOT to be more nimble and flexible in regulating HAVs.
• The focus is on developing standards, testing protocols, and regulatory structures that reflect the evolving nature of HAV technology.

Key Information

• The policy is effective immediately upon publication, except for elements involving data collection, which require Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) review.

• Public comment is encouraged and expected to shape future revisions of the policy.

• A Request for Comment (RFC) is issued alongside the policy, open for 60 days.

• A Safety Assessment Letter is required for HAV systems, covering:

  • Data recording and sharing
  • Privacy
  • System safety
  • Cybersecurity
  • Human-Machine Interface (HMI)
  • Crashworthiness
  • Consumer education and training
  • Registration and certification
  • Post-crash behavior
  • Ethical considerations
  • Operational design domain
  • Object and event detection and response
  • Fallback (minimal risk condition)
  • Validation methods

• The Safety Assessment is voluntary initially but may become mandatory through future rulemaking.

• Manufacturers must submit a Safety Assessment if any significant update to an HAV system affects one of the 15 safety assessment areas.

• Software and hardware updates are expected, and the policy encourages over-the-air updates to maintain compliance with the Guidance.

Conclusion

The policy highlights the importance of collaboration between the government, industry, and the public in shaping the future of HAVs. It aims to promote innovation while ensuring safety, and it is designed to evolve over time based on new data, stakeholder input, and technological progress. The DOT is committed to iterative updates and public engagement to support the responsible and safe development of HAV technology.