With the development of automated vehicles, 

American creativity and innovation hold the potential to 

once again transform mobility.
Preparing for the 

Future of Transportation

Automated Vehicles 3.0
LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY

Secretary Elaine L. Chao

U.S. Department of Transportation

America has always been a leader in 

transportation innovation. From the mass 

production of automobiles to global positioning 

system navigation, American ingenuity has 

transformed how we travel and connect 

with one another. With the development of 

automated vehicles, American creativity and 

innovation hold the potential to once again 

transform mobility.

Automation has the potential to improve 

our quality of life and enhance the mobility 

and independence of millions of Americans, 

especially older Americans and people 

with disabilities.

Moreover, the integration of automation across 

our transportation system has the potential 

to increase productivity and facilitate freight 

movement. But most importantly, automation 

has the potential to impact safety significantly—

by reducing crashes caused by human error, 

including crashes involving impaired or 

distracted drivers, and saving lives.

Along with potential benefits, however, 

automation brings new challenges that need 

to be addressed. The public has legitimate 

concerns about the safety, security, and 

privacy of automated technology. So I have 

challenged Silicon Valley and other innovators 

to step up and help address these concerns 

and help inform the public about the benefits 

of automation. In addition, incorporating these 

technologies into our transportation systems 

may impact industries, creating new kinds 

of jobs. This technology evolution may also 

require workers in transportation fields to gain 

new skills and take on new roles. As a society, 

we must help prepare workers for this transition. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation is 

taking active steps to prepare for the future 

by engaging with new technologies to ensure 

safety without hampering innovation. With 

the release of Automated Driving Systems 

2.0: A Vision for Safety in September 2017, 

the Department provided voluntary guidance 

to industry, as well as technical assistance 

and best practices to States, offering a path 

forward for the safe testing and integration of 

automated driving systems. The Department 

also bolstered its engagement with the 

automotive industry, technology companies, 

ii PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION
and other key transportation stakeholders and 

innovators to continue to develop a policy 

framework that facilitates the safe integration of 

this technology into our transportation systems.

Preparing for the Future of Transportation: 

Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) is another 

milestone in the Department’s development 

of a flexible, responsible approach to a 

framework for multimodal automation. It 

introduces guiding principles and describes 

the Department’s strategy to address existing 

barriers to safety innovation and progress. It 

also communicates the Department’s agenda 

to the public and stakeholders on important 

policy issues, and identifies opportunities for 

cross-modal collaboration.

The Department is committed to engaging 

stakeholders to identify and solve policy issues. 

Since the publication of Automated Driving 

Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, the Department 

has sought input on automation issues from 

stakeholders and the general public through a 

wide range of forums including formal Requests 

for Information and Comments. In March 

2018, I hosted the Automated Vehicle Summit 

to present the Department’s six Automation 

Principles and discuss automation issues 

with public and private sector transportation 

stakeholders across every mode. The ideas and 

issues raised by stakeholders through these 

forums are reflected in this document. The 

goal of the Department is to keep pace with 

these rapidly evolving technologies so America 

remains a global leader in safe automation 

technology.

AV 3.0 is the beginning of a national discussion 

about the future of our surface transportation 

system. Your voice is essential to shaping 

this future.

Working together, we can 

help usher in a new era of 

transportation innovation 

and safety, and ensure 

that our country remains 

a global leader in 

automated technology.

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION iii
U.S. DOT AUTOMATION PRINCIPLES

The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has established a clear and consistent Federal approach to shaping 

policy for automated vehicles, based on the following six principles. 

1. We will prioritize safety. 

Automation offers the potential to improve safety for vehicle operators and occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, 

and other travelers sharing the road. However, these technologies may also introduce new safety risks. U.S. DOT will lead 

efforts to address potential safety risks and advance the life-saving potential of automation, which will strengthen public 

confidence in these emerging technologies. 

2. We will remain technology neutral.

To respond to the dynamic and rapid development of automated vehicles, the Department will adopt flexible, technologyneutral policies that promote competition and innovation as a means to achieve safety, mobility, and economic goals. 

This approach will allow the public—not the Federal Government—to choose the most effective transportation and 

mobility solutions.

3. We will modernize regulations. 

U.S. DOT will modernize or eliminate outdated regulations that unnecessarily impede the development of automated vehicles 

or that do not address critical safety needs. Whenever possible, the Department will support the development of voluntary, 

consensus-based technical standards and approaches that are flexible and adaptable over time. When regulation is needed, 

U.S. DOT will seek rules that are as nonprescriptive and performance-based as possible. As a starting point and going forward, 

the Department will interpret and, consistent with all applicable notice and comment requirements, adapt the definitions of “driver” 

and “operator” to recognize that such terms do not refer exclusively to a human, but may in fact include an automated system.

iv PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION
4. We will encourage a consistent regulatory and operational environment. 

Conflicting State and local laws and regulations surrounding automated vehicles create confusion, introduce barriers, and present 

compliance challenges. U.S. DOT will promote regulatory consistency so that automated vehicles can operate seamlessly across the 

Nation. The Department will build consensus among State and local transportation agencies and industry stakeholders on technical 

standards and advance policies to support the integration of automated vehicles throughout the transportation system. 

5. We will prepare proactively for automation. 

U.S. DOT will provide guidance, best practices, pilot programs, and other assistance to help our partners plan and make the 

investments needed for a dynamic and flexible automated future. The Department also will prepare for complementary technologies 

that enhance the benefits of automation, such as communications between vehicles and the surrounding environment, but will not 

assume universal implementation of any particular approach.

6. We will protect and enhance the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. 

U.S. DOT embraces the freedom of the open road, which includes the freedom for Americans to drive their own vehicles. We 

envision an environment in which automated vehicles operate alongside conventional, manually-driven vehicles and other road 

users. We will protect the ability of consumers to make the mobility choices that best suit their needs. We will support automation 

technologies that enhance individual freedom by expanding access to safe and independent mobility to people with disabilities 

and older Americans. 

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION v
SAE AUTOMATION LEVELS 

0 No Automation

The full-time 

performance by the 

human driver of all 

aspects of the dynamic 

driving task, even when 

enhanced by warning or 

intervention systems.

1 Driver Assistance

The driving modespecific execution by 

a driver assistance 

system of either 

steering or acceleration/

deceleration using 

information about the 

driving environment and 

with the expectation 

that the human driver 

perform all remaining 

aspects of the dynamic 

driving task.

2 Partial Automation

The driving modespecific execution by 

one or more driver 

assistance systems 

of both steering 

or acceleration/

deceleration using 

information about the 

driving environment and 

with the expectation 

that the human driver 

perform all remaining 

aspects of the dynamic 

driving task.

3 Conditional

Automation

The driving modespecific performance by 

an automated driving 

system of all aspects of 

the dynamic driving 

task with the expectation 

that the human driver 

will respond 

appropriately to a 

request to intervene.

4 High Automation 

The driving modespecific performance by 

an automated driving 

system of all aspects 

of the dynamic driving 

task, even if a human 

driver does not respond 

appropriately to a 

request to intervene.

5 Full Automation 

The full-time 

performance by an 

automated driving 

system of all aspects 

of the dynamic driving

task under all roadway 

and environmental 

conditions that can 

be managed by a 

human driver.

1 SAE International, J3016_201806: Taxonomy and Definitions 

for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for 

On-Road Motor Vehicles (Warrendale: SAE International, 

15 June 2018), https://www.sae.org/standards/content/

j3016_201806/.

A Note on Terminology

Clear and consistent definition and use of terminology is critical to advancing the discussion around automation. To date, a 

variety of terms (e.g., self-driving, autonomous, driverless, highly automated) have been used by industry, government, and 

observers to describe various forms of automation in surface transportation. While no terminology is correct or incorrect, this 

document uses “automation” and “automated vehicles” as general terms to broadly describe the topic, with more specific 

language, such as “Automated Driving System” or “ADS” used when appropriate. A full glossary is in the Appendix.

vi PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION

1
CONTENTS

Letter from the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . ii

U.S. DOT Automation Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

SAE Automation Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

A Note on Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Operating Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Automation and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Roles in Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 The Federal Government and Automation . . . . . . . . .5

 Integrating Safety into

 Surface Transportation Automation . . . . . . . . . . .5

 The Federal Role in Automation Research . . . . . . . 13

 U.S. DOT Role in Key Cross-Cutting Policy Issues . . . 13

 State, Local, and Tribal Governments and Automation . . 18

 Best Practices for State Legislatures and

 State Highway Safety Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 Considerations for Infrastructure 

 Owners and Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Considerations for State Commercial Vehicle 

 Enforcement Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Considerations for Public Sector Transit Industry 

 and Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Considerations for Local Governments . . . . . . 24

 State, Local, and Tribal Roles in

 Transportation Sector Cybersecurity . . . . . . . . 24

The Private Sector and Automation . . . . . . . . . . 25

The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

 Automation Implementation Strategies . . . . . . . . 35

 Safety Risk Management Stages along the Path to

 Full Commercial Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

 Learning from the History of Automation

 in the Aviation Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendix A: Key Terms and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix B: Stakeholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix C: Voluntary Technical Standards for Automation 49

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preparing for the Future of Transportation: 

Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) advances U.S. 

DOT’s commitment to supporting the safe, 

reliable, efficient, and cost-effective integration 

of automation into the broader multimodal 

surface transportation system. AV 3.0 builds 

upon—but does not replace—voluntary 

guidance provided in Automated Driving 

Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety.

Automation technologies are new and rapidly 

evolving. The right approach to achieving 

safety improvements begins with a focus on 

removing unnecessary barriers and issuing 

voluntary guidance, rather than regulations 

that could stifle innovation.

In AV 3.0, U.S. DOT’s surface transportation 

operating administrations come together for 

the first time to publish a Departmental policy 

statement on automation. This document 

incorporates feedback from manufacturers 

and technology developers, infrastructure 

owners and operators, commercial motor 

carriers, the bus transit industry, and State and 

local governments.2 This document considers 

automation broadly, addressing all levels of 

automation (SAE automation Levels 1 to 5), and 

recognizes multimodal interests in the full range 

of capabilities this technology can offer.3

AV 3.0 includes six principles that guide U.S. 

DOT programs and policies on automation 

and five implementation strategies for how the 

Department translates these principles into 

action (see facing page).

AV 3.0 Provides New Multimodal 

Safety Guidance

In accordance with the Department’s first 

automation principle, AV 3.0 outlines how 

automation will be safely integrated across 

passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, 

on-road transit, and the roadways on which 

they operate. Specifically, AV 3.0: 

• Affirms the approach outlined in A Vision 

for Safety 2.0 and encourages automated 

driving system developers to make their 

Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments public to 

increase transparency and confidence in 

the technology.

• Provides considerations and best practices 

for State and local governments to support 

the safe and effective testing and operation 

of automation technologies. 

• Supports the development of voluntary 

technical standards and approaches as an 

effective non-regulatory means to advance 

the integration of automation technologies 

into the transportation system.

• Describes an illustrative framework of safety 

risk management stages along the path to 

full commercial integration of automated 

vehicles. This framework promotes the 

benefits of safe deployment while managing 

risk and provides clarity to the public 

regarding the distinctions between various 

stages of testing and full deployment.

• Affirms the Department is continuing its work 

to preserve the ability for transportation 

safety applications to function in the 5.9 GHz 

spectrum. 

2 See Appendix B for a summary of public input received. 

3 SAE International, J3016_201806: Taxonomy and Definitions 

for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road 

Motor Vehicles (Warrendale: SAE International, 15 June 2018), 

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/.

viii PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION
Automation Principles and Implementation Strategies

STRATEGIES

Stakeholder 

engagement

Best 

practices

Voluntary 

standards

Targeted 

research

Regulatory 

modernization

PRINCIPLES

AV 3.0 Clarifies Policy and Roles

AV 3.0 responds to issues raised by 

stakeholders and includes the following key 

policy and role clarifications:

• States that U.S. DOT will interpret and, 

consistent with all applicable notice 

and comment requirements, adapt the 

definitions of “driver” and “operator” 

to recognize that such terms do not 

refer exclusively to a human, but may 

include an automated system.

• Recognizes that given the rapid increase in 

automated vehicle testing activities in many 

locations, there is no need for U.S. DOT to 

favor particular locations or to pick winners 

and losers. Therefore, the Department 

no longer recognizes the designations of 

ten Automated Vehicle Proving Grounds 

announced on January 19, 2017.

• Urges States and localities to work to 

remove barriers—such as unnecessary and 

incompatible regulations—to automated 

vehicle technologies and to support 

interoperability. 

• Affirms U.S. DOT’s authority to establish 

motor vehicle safety standards that allow for 

innovative automated vehicle designs—

such as vehicles without steering wheels, 

pedals, or mirrors—and notes that such an 

approach may require a more fundamental 

revamping of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) approach 

to safety standards for application to 

automated vehicles. 

• Reaffirms U.S. DOT's reliance on a selfcertification approach, rather than type 

approval, as the way to balance and 

promote safety and innovation; U.S. DOT will 

continue to advance this approach with the 

international community. 

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION ix
• Clarifies that, rather than requiring a onesize-fits-all approach, the Federal Transit 

Administration will provide transit agencies 

with tailored technical assistance as they 

develop an appropriate safety management 

system approach to ensuring safe testing 

and deployment of automated transit bus 

systems.

AV 3.0 Outlines How to Work 

with U.S. DOT as Automation 

Technology Evolves

It identifies opportunities for partnership and 

collaboration among the private sector, State and 

local agencies, and U.S. DOT on issues ranging 

from accessibility to workforce development to 

cybersecurity. Specifically, AV 3.0:

• Announces a forthcoming notice of 

proposed rulemaking, which includes the 

possibility of setting exceptions to certain 

safety standards—that are relevant only 

when human drivers are present—for 

automated driving system (ADS)-equipped 

vehicles. 

• Informs stakeholders that U.S. DOT will seek 

public comment on a proposal to streamline 

and modernize the procedures NHTSA 

will follow when processing and deciding 

exemption petitions.

• Defines a targeted Federal role in 

automation research.

• Informs stakeholders of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) 

intent to initiate an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to better understand 

areas of responsibility between the State and 

Federal governments in the context of ADSequipped commercial motor vehicles and 

commercial carriers. 

• States that FMCSA will also consider changes 

to its motor carrier safety regulations to 

accommodate the integration of ADSequipped commercial motor vehicles.

• Informs stakeholders that U.S. DOT plans to 

update the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices, taking new technologies 

into consideration.

• Identifies automation-related voluntary 

standards being developed through 

standards development organizations 

and associations.

• Announces a study of the workforce impacts 

of automated vehicles, in collaboration 

among U.S. DOT, U.S. Department of Labor, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

and the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services.

U.S. DOT’s Operating 

Administrations are United in Their 

Commitment to Safety

We act as “One DOT” in pursuing strategies to 

successfully integrate automation technologies 

into the transportation system. The operating 

administrations shown on the facing page 

contributed to AV 3.0.

Each of these U.S. DOT operating 

administrations actively encourages the 

integration of automation in ways guided by 

the U.S. DOT’s automation principles and 

strategies noted above.4 AV 3.0 focuses on the 

automation of motor vehicles on roadways and 

the roles of NHTSA, FMCSA, FHWA, and FTA, 

with consideration of intermodal points (e.g., 

motor vehicles at ports and highway-rail grade 

crossings). 

x PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION

4 See https://www.transportation.gov/av for more information on 

automation efforts at U.S. DOT. 
OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS

For more information on how U.S. DOT agencies engage with automation, see www.transportation.gov/av

Federal Highway 

Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is 

responsible for providing stewardship over the 

construction, maintenance, and preservation of the 

Nation’s highways, bridges, and tunnels. Through 

research and technical assistance, the FHWA supports 

its partners in Federal, State, and local agencies to 

accelerate innovation and improve safety and mobility.

Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

(FMCSA) mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA 

partners with industry, safety advocates, and State 

and local governments to keep the Nation’s roads 

safe and improve commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

safety through regulation, education, enforcement, 

research, and technology.

Federal Aviation 

Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides 

the safest and most efficient aviation system in the 

world. Annually, FAA manages over 54 million flights, 

approaching a billion passengers.

Federal Railroad 

Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 

mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient 

movement of people and goods for a strong 

America. FRA is advancing the use of new 

technology in rail.

Federal Transit 

Administration

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides 

financial and technical assistance to local public 

transit systems, including buses, subways, light 

rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. FTA also 

oversees safety measures and helps develop 

next-generation technology research.

Maritime 

Administration

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) promotes 

the use of waterborne transportation and its 

seamless integration with other segments of the 

transportation system, and the viability of the 

U.S. merchant marine.

National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and 

reduce the economic costs of road traffic crashes 

through education, research, safety standards, and 

enforcement activity. NHTSA carries out highway 

safety programs by setting and enforcing safety 

performance standards for motor vehicles and 

equipment, identifying safety defects, and through 

the development and delivery of effective highway 

safety programs for State and local jurisdictions.

Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety 

Administration

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) protects people and the 

environment by advancing the safe transportation 

of energy and other hazardous materials that are 

essential to our daily lives. To do this, PHMSA 

establishes national policy, sets and enforces 

standards, educates, and conducts research to 

prevent incidents.

PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION xi
Automated vehicles that accurately detect, recognize, anticipate, 

and respond to the movements of all transportation system users 

could lead to breakthrough gains in transportation safety.
INTRODUCTION: AUTOMATION AND SAFETY

The United States surface transportation system 

provides tremendous mobility benefits, including 

widespread access to jobs, goods, and services. 

It also connects many remote regions of the 

country to the larger economy. These benefits, 

however, come with significant safety challenges, 

as motor vehicle crashes remain a leading cause 

of death, with an estimated 37,133 lives lost on 

U.S. roads in 2017. Traditional safety programs 

and policies have made road travel significantly 

safer than in the past, but there is much room to 

improve traffic fatality and injury rates. 

Automated vehicles that accurately detect, 

recognize, anticipate, and respond to the 

movements of all transportation system 

users could lead to breakthrough gains in 

transportation safety. Unlike human drivers, 

automation technologies are not prone to 

distraction, fatigue, or impaired driving, which 

contribute to a significant portion of surface 

transportation fatalities. Automated vehicle 

technologies that are carefully integrated into 

motor vehicles could help vehicle operators 

detect and avoid bicyclists, motorcyclists, 

pedestrians, and other vulnerable users on our 

roadways, and increase safety across the surface 

transportation system. Their potential to reduce 

deaths and injuries on the Nation’s roadways 

cannot be overstated.

Automated vehicles rely on sensors and 

software that allow an expansive view of the 

environment across a range of lighting and 

weather conditions. They can quickly learn and 

adapt to new driving situations by learning 

from previous experience through software 

updates. Fully realizing the life-saving potential 

of automated vehicles, however, will require 

careful risk management as new technologies 

are introduced and adopted across the surface 

transportation system. 

To support the deployment of safe automation 

technologies, the Department released A Vision 

for Safety 2.0 in September 2017, which included 

12 automated driving system (ADS) safety 

elements to help industry partners analyze, 

identify, and resolve safety considerations using 

best practices—all before deployment. The 

voluntary guidance outlined in A Vision for Safety 

2.0 on the design, testing, and safe deployment 

of ADS remains central to U.S. DOT’s approach. 

ADS developers are encouraged to use 

these safety elements to publish safety selfassessments to describe to the public how they 

are identifying and addressing potential safety 

issues. 

On-road testing and early deployments are 

important to improving automated vehicle 

performance and allowing them to reach their 

full performance potential. Careful real-world 

testing allows developers to identify and rapidly 

fix system shortcomings, not just on individual 

vehicles but across fleets. Reasonable risks 

must be addressed through the application of 

robust systems engineering processes, testing 

protocols, and functional safety best practices, 

such as those documented in A Vision for Safety 

INTRODUCTION: AUTOMATION AND SAFETY 1
2.0.5 However, delaying or unduly hampering 

automated vehicle testing until all specific 

risks have been identified and eliminated means 

delaying the realization of global reductions 

in risk.

AV 3.0 maintains U.S. DOT’s primary focus on 

safety, while expanding the discussion to other 

aspects and modes of surface transportation. 

AV 3.0 introduces a comprehensive, multimodal 

approach toward safely integrating automation. 

AV 3.0 introduces a 

comprehensive, multimodal 

approach toward safely 

integrating automation. 

5 As documented in A Vision for Safety 2.0, ADS developers 

should consider employing systems engineering guidance, 

best practices, design principles, and standards developed 

by established and accredited standards-developing 

organizations (as applicable) such as the International 

Standards Organization (ISO) and SAE International as well 

as standards and processes available from other industries, 

such as aviation, space, and the military and other applicable 

standards or internal company processes as they are relevant 

and applicable. They should also consider available and 

emerging approaches to risk mitigation, such as methodologies 

that focus on functional safety (e.g., ISO 26262) and safety of the 

intended functionality. 

2 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF T R A N S P O R TAT I O N 
Safety by the Numbers

• An estimated 39,141 people lost their lives 

on all modes of our transportation system in 2017. The vast 

majority—37,133 deaths—were from motor vehicle crashesA,B

• In 2017, 82 percent of victims in fatal large truck 

crashes were road users who were not an occupant of the truck(s) 

involved.B

• Driver Factors: Of all serious motor vehicle crashes, 

94 percent involve driver-related factors, such as 

impaired driving, distraction, and speeding or illegal maneuvers. 

 In 2017:

• Professional Drivers: Professional drivers are ten times

more likely to be killed on the job, and nearly nine times more likely 

to be injured on the job compared to the average worker.C

• Nearly 11,000 fatalities involved drinking 

and driving.B

• Speeding was a factor in nearly 10,000 

highway fatalities.B

• Pedestrians:5,977 pedestrians were killed by 

motor vehicles in 2017, representing 16 percent of all motor 

vehicle fatalities.B

• Nearly 3,500 fatal crashes* involved distracted drivers.

B

• Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Over the past decade, highway 

rail grade crossing fatalities averaged 253 per year, 

representing about one-third of total railroad-related fatalities.A

• Commercial Vehicles:13 percent of annual

roadway fatalities occur in crashes involving large trucks.B

Sources: 

A U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, 

September 8, 2018 

B NHTSA 2017 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT HS 812 603)

C Beede, David, Regina Powers, and Cassandra Ingram, The Employment Impact of Autonomous 

Vehicles, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/

default/files/Employment%20Impact%20Autonomous%20Vehicles_0.pdf 

* This number is likely underreported.

INTRODUCTION: AUTOMATION AND SAFETY 3
Only by working in partnership can the public and the private sector 

improve the safety, security, and accessibility of automation 

technologies and address the concerns of the general public.
ROLES IN AUTOMATION 

The traditional roles of the Federal 

Government, State and local governments, 

and private industry are well suited for 

addressing automation. The Federal 

Government is responsible for regulating the 

safety performance of vehicles and vehicle 

equipment, as well as their commercial 

operation in interstate commerce, while States 

and local governments play the lead role in 

licensing drivers, establishing rules of the 

road, and formulating policy in tort liability 

and insurance. Private industry remains a 

primary source of transportation research 

investment and commercial technology 

development. Governments at all levels should 

not unnecessarily impede such innovation. The 

Department relies on partners to play their 

respective roles, while continuing to encourage 

open dialogue and frequent engagement. 

The Department seeks to address policy 

uncertainty and provide clear mechanisms by 

which partners can participate and engage with 

the U.S. DOT.

The Federal Government 

and Automation

U.S. DOT’s role in transportation automation 

is to ensure the safety and mobility of the 

traveling public while fostering economic 

growth. As a steward of the Nation’s roadway 

transportation system, the Federal Government 

plays a significant role by ensuring that 

automated vehicles can be safely and effectively 

integrated into the existing transportation 

system, alongside conventional vehicles, 

pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other 

road users. U.S. DOT also has an interest in 

supporting innovations that improve safety, 

reduce congestion, improve mobility, and 

increase access to economic opportunity for all 

Americans. Finally, by partnering with industry 

in adopting market-driven, technology-neutral 

policies that encourage innovation in the 

transportation system, the Department seeks to 

fuel economic growth and support job creation 

and workforce development.

To accomplish these goals, the Department 

works closely with stakeholders in the private 

and public sectors to pursue the following 

activities: 

• Establish performance-oriented, consensusbased, and voluntary standards and 

guidance for vehicle and infrastructure 

safety, mobility, and operations.

• Conduct targeted research to support the 

safe integration of automation.

• Identify and remove regulatory barriers to 

the safe integration of automated vehicles.

• Ensure national consistency for travel in 

interstate commerce.

• Educate the public on the capabilities and 

limitations of automated vehicles.

Integrating Safety into Surface 

Transportation Automation

Each operating administration has its respective 

area of authority over improving the safety of 

the Nation’s transportation system. Assuring 

the safety of automated vehicles will not only 

rely on the validation of the technology, such as 

the hardware, software, and components, but 

it will also depend on appropriate operating 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 5
rules, roadway conditions, and emergency 

response protocols. The following sections 

outline the primary authorities and policy 

issues for the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) to demonstrate how the 

U.S. DOT is incorporating safety throughout 

the surface transportation system as it relates 

to automated vehicles. These sections also 

discuss ADS-equipped vehicles (SAE automation 

Levels 3 to 5) and lower level technologies (SAE 

automation Levels 0 to 2), depending on the role 

of each operating administration and its current 

engagement with automation. 

NHTSA Authorities and 

Key Policy Issues

Safety Authority Over ADS-Equipped 

Vehicles and Equipment

NHTSA has broad authority over the safety of 

ADS-equipped vehicles and other automated 

vehicle technologies equipped in motor vehicles. 

NHTSA has authority to establish Federal safety 

standards for new motor vehicles introduced into 

interstate commerce in the United States, and 

to address safety defects determined to exist in 

motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment used 

in the United States.6 The latter authority focuses 

on the obligations that Federal law imposes on 

the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor 

vehicle equipment to notify NHTSA of safety 

defects in those vehicles or vehicle equipment 

and to remedy the defects, subject to NHTSA’s 

oversight and enforcement authority.7

Under Federal law, no State or local government 

may enforce a law on the safety performance of 

a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that 

differs in any way from the Federal standard.8

The preemptive force of the Federal safety 

standard does not extend to State and local 

traffic laws, such as speed limits. Compliance 

with the Federal safety standard does not 

automatically exempt any person from liability 

at common law, including tort liability for harm 

caused by negligent conduct, except where 

preemption may apply.9 The Federal standard 

would supersede if the effect of a State law 

tort claim would be to impose a performance 

standard on a motor vehicle or equipment 

manufacturer that is inconsistent with the 

Federal standard.10

NHTSA’s application of Federal safety standards 

to the performance of ADS-equipped vehicles 

6 49 U.S.C. §§ 30111 and 30166.

7 49 U.S.C. § 30118(c).

8 49 U.S.C. § 30103(b).

9 49 U.S.C. § 30103(e).

10 See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

and equipment is likely to raise questions about 

preemption and the future complementary 

mix of Federal, State and local powers. The 

Department will carefully consider these 

jurisdictional questions as NHTSA develops 

its regulatory approach to ADS and other 

automated vehicle technologies so as to strike 

the appropriate balance between the Federal 

Government’s use of its authorities to regulate 

the safe design and operational performance 

of an ADS-equipped vehicle and the State and 

local authorities’ use of their traditional powers.

Federal Safety Standards for 

ADS-Equipped Vehicles

Several NHTSA safety standards for motor 

vehicles assume a human occupant will be 

able to control the operation of the vehicle, 

and many standards incorporate performance 

requirements and test procedures geared 

toward ensuring safe operation by a human 

driver. Some standards focus on the safety 

of drivers and occupants in particular seating 

arrangements. Several standards impose specific 

requirements for the use of steering wheels, 

brakes, accelerator pedals, and other control 

features, as well as the visibility for a human 

driver of instrument displays, vehicle status 

indicators, mirrors, and other driving information. 

NHTSA’s current safety standards do not 

prevent the development, testing, sale, or 

6 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
use of ADS built into vehicles that maintain 

the traditional cabin and control features 

of human-operated vehicles. However, 

some Level 4 and 5 automated vehicles may 

be designed to be controlled entirely by an 

ADS, and the interior of the vehicle may be 

configured without human controls. There 

may be no steering wheel, accelerator pedal, 

brakes, mirrors, or information displays for 

human use. For such ADS-equipped vehicles, 

NHTSA’s current safety standards constitute an 

unintended regulatory barrier to innovation.

The Department, through NHTSA, intends to 

reconsider the necessity and appropriateness 

of its current safety standards as applied to 

ADS-equipped vehicles. In an upcoming 

rulemaking, NHTSA plans to seek comment 

on proposed changes to particular safety 

standards to accommodate automated 

vehicle technologies and the possibility of 

setting exceptions to certain standards—that 

are relevant only when human drivers are 

present—for ADS-equipped vehicles.

Going forward, NHTSA may also consider a 

more fundamental revamping of its approach to 

safety standards for application to automated 

vehicles. However, reliance on a self-certification 

approach, instead of type approval, more 

appropriately balances and promotes safety and 

innovation; U.S. DOT will continue to advance 

this approach with the international community. 

NHTSA's current statutory authority to establish 

motor vehicle safety standards is sufficiently 

flexible to accommodate the design and 

performance of different ADS concepts in new 

vehicle configurations.

NHTSA recognizes that the accelerating 

pace of technological change, especially 

in the development of software used in 

ADS-equipped vehicles, requires a new 

approach to the formulation of the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). 

The pace of innovation in automated vehicle 

technologies is incompatible with lengthy 

rulemaking proceedings and highly prescriptive 

and feature-specific or design-specific safety 

standards. Future motor vehicle safety standards 

will need to be more flexible and responsive, 

technology-neutral, and performance-oriented 

to accommodate rapid technological innovation. 

They may incorporate simpler and more general 

requirements designed to validate that an ADS 

can safely navigate the real-world roadway 

environment, including unpredictable hazards, 

obstacles, and interactions with other vehicles 

and pedestrians who may not always adhere 

to the traffic laws or follow expected patterns 

of behavior. Existing standards assume that 

a vehicle may be driven anywhere, but future 

standards will need to take into account that the 

operational design domain (ODD) for a particular 

ADS within a vehicle is likely to be limited in 

some ways that may be unique to that system. 

For example, not all Level 3 vehicles will have the 

same ODD.

Performance-based safety standards could 

require manufacturers to use test methods, 

such as sophisticated obstacle-course-based 

test regimes, sufficient to validate that their 

ADS-equipped vehicles can reliably handle the 

normal range of everyday driving scenarios as 

well as unusual and unpredictable scenarios. 

Standards could be designed to account for 

factors such as variations in weather, traffic, and 

roadway conditions within a given system’s ODD, 

as well as sudden and unpredictable actions by 

other road users. Test procedures could also 

be developed to ensure that an ADS does not 

operate outside of the ODD established by 

the manufacturer. Standards could provide for 

a range of potential behaviors—e.g., speed, 

distance, angles, and size—for surrogate 

vehicles, pedestrians, and other obstacles that 

ADS-equipped vehicles would need to detect 

and avoid. Other approaches, such as computer 

simulation and requirements expressed in terms 

of mathematical functions could be considered, 

as Federal law does not require that NHTSA’s 

safety standards rely on physical tests and 

measurements, only that they be objective, 

repeatable, and transparent. 

Exemptions from FMVSS for 

ADS Purposes

NHTSA values a streamlined and modernized 

exemptions procedure, and removing 

unnecessary delays. NHTSA intends to seek 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 7
public comment on a proposal to streamline 

and modernize procedures the Agency 

will follow when processing and deciding 

exemption petitions. Among other things, the 

proposed changes will remove unnecessary 

delays in seeking public comment as part of the 

exemption process, and clarify and update the 

types of information needed to support such 

petitions. The statutory provision authorizing 

NHTSA to grant exemptions from FMVSS 

provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate a 

wide array of automated operations, particularly 

for manufacturers seeking to engage in research, 

testing, and demonstration projects.11

FMCSA Authorities and 

Key Policy Issues

Safety Authority Over Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Operations, Drivers, and 

Maintenance

The Department, through FMCSA, regulates the 

safety of commercial motor carriers operating 

in interstate commerce, the qualifications and 

safety of commercial motor vehicle drivers, and 

the safe operation of commercial trucks and 

motor coaches.12 The best way to accomplish 

FMCSA’s core mission of reducing fatalities and 

crashes involving large trucks and buses is to 

avoid unnecessary barriers to the development 

of ADS in commercial vehicles. 

As automation introduces new policy questions, 

FMCSA will work with (1) industry, State 

governments, and other partners to further the 

safe operation of ADS-equipped commercial 

vehicles, and (2) law enforcement, inspection 

officers, and first responders to create new 

techniques and protocols.

In order to develop experience with the 

technology, demonstrate its capabilities, and 

socialize the idea of automated vehicles on 

the road with traditional vehicles, FMCSA will 

continue to hold public demonstrations of the 

technology—such as the recent truck platooning 

demonstration on the I-66 Corridor co-hosted 

with FHWA—with key stakeholders such as law 

enforcement. 

FMCSA consults with NHTSA on matters related 

to motor carrier safety.13 NHTSA and FMCSA 

have different but complementary authorities 

over the safety of commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) and commercial vehicle equipment. 

NHTSA has exclusive authority to prescribe 

Federal safety standards for new motor vehicles, 

including trucks and motor coaches, and 

oversees actions that manufacturers take to 

remedy known safety defects in motor vehicles 

and motor vehicle equipment.14 NHTSA and 

FMCSA collaborate and consult to develop 

and enforce safety requirements that apply 

to the operation and maintenance of vehicles 

by existing commercial motor carriers. They 

will continue to do so in the context of ADSequipped commercial motor vehicles. FMCSA 

also works closely with States and private 

stakeholders to develop and enforce safety 

standards related to the inspection, maintenance, 

and repair of commercial motor vehicles.

12 49 U.S.C. § 31502; 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III; 49 

U.S.C. chapter 313. Additional statutory authority includes the 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 

(Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244), codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

51; and the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 

Stat. 803), codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapters 135-149. Note that 

FMCSA’s statutory authority also authorizes the Agency’s 

enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) 

and the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial Regulations 

(FMCCRs),. 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III; chapter 

313; and section 31502

13 49 U.S.C. § 113(i).

11 49 U.S.C. § 30114 14 See 49 U.S.C. §§ 30111 and 30166

8 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Operating ADS-Equipped CMVs under 

Existing Regulations

In the context of ADS-equipped CMVs, FMCSA 

will continue to exercise its existing statutory 

authority over the safe operation of the vehicle.15 

When driving decisions are made by an ADS 

rather than a human, FMCSA’s authority over 

the safe and proper operating condition of the 

vehicle and its safety inspection authority may 

be even more important, particularly between 

when ADS operations begin and when a 

revised regulatory framework is established. In 

addition, FMCSA retains its authority to take 

enforcement action if an automated system 

inhibits safe operation.16 

In exercising its oversight, FMCSA will first ask 

whether the ADS-equipped CMV placed into 

operation complies with the requirements for 

parts and accessories for which there are no 

FMVSS (e.g., fuel tanks and fuel lines, exhaust 

systems, and rear underride guards on single 

unit trucks). A motor carrier may not operate 

an ADS-equipped CMV—or any CMV—

until it complies with the requirements and 

specifications of 49 CFR Part 393, Parts and 

Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation. 

If the ADS is installed aftermarket, any 

equipment that decreases the safety of 

operation could subject the motor carrier to 

a civil penalty.17 In addition, ADS-equipped 

vehicles that create an “imminent hazard” may 

be placed out of service and the motor carrier 

that used the vehicle similarly fined. 18

FMCSA will then consider whether the motor 

carrier has complied with the operational 

requirements of the current Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). These 

include, for example, compliance with rules on 

driving CMVs, including the laws, ordinances, 

and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the 

vehicle is operated. Notably, however, in the 

case of vehicles that do not require a human 

operator, none of the human-specific FMCSRs 

(i.e., drug testing, hours-of-service, commercial 

driver’s licenses (CDL)s, and physical qualification 

requirements) apply. 

If the motor carrier cannot fully comply with the 

FMCSRs through use of its ADS-equipped CMV, 

then the carrier may seek an exemption.19 The 

carrier would need to demonstrate that the ADSequipped CMV likely achieves an equivalent 

level of safety. Ultimately, a motor carrier would 

not be permitted to operate an ADS-equipped 

CMV on public highways until it complies with 

the operational requirements or until the carrier 

obtains regulatory relief.

In general, subject to the development and 

deployment of safe ADS technologies, the 

Department’s policy is that going forward 

FMCSA regulations will no longer assume 

that the CMV driver is always a human or that 

a human is necessarily present onboard a 

commercial vehicle during its operation.

The Department and FMCSA are aware of 

the concerns that differing State regulations 

present for ADS technology development, 

testing, and deployment in interstate commerce. 

If FMCSA determines that State or local 

legal requirements may interfere with the 

application of FMCSRs, the Department has 

preemptive authority. The Department works 

with State partners to promote compatible 

safety oversight programs. U.S. DOT will carefully 

consider the appropriate lines of preemption in 

the context of ADS-equipped commercial motor 

vehicles and commercial carriers.

FMCSA also has authority, in coordination with 

the States, to set the Federal qualifications 

required for CDLs20. States have an essential role 

in training commercial drivers and issuing CDLs, 

but they must follow the FMCSA regulations 

that set minimum qualifications and limitations 

on CDLs in order to stay eligible for Federal 

grants21. The Department will carefully consider 

the appropriate division of authority between 

15 49 U.S.C. §§ 31136(a)(1) and 31502(b)(1))

16 49 CFR 396.7(a).

17 49 CFR 393.3

18 49 U.S.C. § 5122(b); 49 CFR 386.72.

19 49 U.S.C. §§ 31315 and 31136(e).

20 49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(3).

21 Section 4124 of Public Law 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 

Public Law No.109–59, §§ 4101(c)(1), 4124, 119 Stat. 1144, 1715, 

1736–37 (2005), as amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century, Pub. L. No.112–141, §§ 32603(c) and 32604 (c)(1) 

(2012), 49 U.S.C. §31313 (2006), as amended. 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 9
FMCSA and the States on how or whether CDL 

qualifications should apply to computerized 

driving systems.

Considering Changes to Existing 

Regulations

FMCSA is in the process of broadly considering 

whether and how to amend its existing 

regulations to accommodate the introduction 

of ADS in commercial motor vehicles. As noted 

above, some FMCSA regulatory requirements for 

commercial drivers have no application to ADS—

such as drug and alcohol testing requirements—

but many regulations, such as those involving 

inspection, repair, and maintenance 

requirements, can be readily applied in the 

context of ADS-equipped commercial trucks and 

motor coaches. Current FMCSRs would continue 

to apply, and motor carriers can seek regulatory 

relief if necessary. Carriers therefore may deploy 

ADS-equipped CMVs in interstate commerce, 

using existing administrative processes.

In adapting its regulations to accommodate 

automated vehicle technologies, FMCSA 

will seek to make targeted rule changes and 

interpretations, and will supplement its rules as 

needed to account for significant differences 

between human operators and computer 

operators. FMCSA is soliciting feedback through 

various mechanisms to understand which 

parts of the current FMCSRs present barriers 

to advancing ADS technology. FMCSA plans 

Automated vehicles could have implications 

for the millions of Americans who 

perform driving-related jobs or work in 

related industries. There is a high level of 

uncertainty regarding how these impacts 

will evolve across job categories with 

differing levels of driving and non-driving 

responsibilities. Past experience with 

transportation technologies suggests 

that there will be new and sometimes 

unanticipated business and employment 

opportunities from automation. For 

example, the advent of widespread 

automobile ownership after World War 

II led not only to direct employment in 

vehicle manufacturing and servicing, but 

also to new markets for vehicle financing 

and insurance, and ultimately to larger 

shifts in American lifestyles that created 

a wave of demand for tourism, roadside 

services, and suburban homebuilding. 

Automation will create jobs in programming, 

cybersecurity, and other areas that will likely 

Workforce and Labor

create demand for new skills and associated 

education and training. At the same time, 

the Department is also aware of the need 

to develop a transition strategy for manual 

driving-based occupations. U.S. DOT is 

working with other cabinet agencies on a 

comprehensive analysis of the employment 

and workforce impacts of automated 

vehicles. Individual operating administrations 

within the Department have also begun 

reaching out to stakeholders and sponsoring 

research on workforce issues affecting their 

respective modes of transportation. 

Entities involved in developing and 

deploying automation technologies may 

want to consider how to assess potential 

workforce effects, future needs for new skills 

and capabilities, and how the workforce 

will transition into new roles over time. 

Identifying these workforce effects and 

training needs now will help lead to an 

American workforce that has the appropriate 

skills to support new technologies.

to update regulations to better accommodate 

ADS technology with stakeholder feedback 

and priorities in mind. FMCSA will also consider 

whether there is a reasonable basis to adapt its 

CDL regulations for an environment in which the 

qualified commercial driver may be an ADS.

Finally, FMCSA recognizes emerging concerns 

and uncertainty around potential impacts of 

ADS on the existing workforce. U.S. DOT is 

working with the Department of Labor to assess 

the impact of ADS on the workforce, including 

the ability of ADS to mitigate the current driver 

10 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
shortage in the motor carrier industry. The 

study will also look at longer-term needs for 

future workforce skills and at the demand for 

a transportation system that relies on ADS 

technology.

FHWA’s Authorities Over Traffic 

Control Devices 

U.S. DOT recognizes that the quality and 

uniformity of road markings, signage, and other 

traffic control devices support safe and efficient 

driving by both human drivers and automated 

vehicles. 

As part of its role to support State and local 

governments in the design, construction, and 

maintenance of the Nation’s roads, FHWA 

administers the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD).22 The MUTCD is 

recognized as the national standard for all traffic 

control devices installed on any street, highway, 

bikeway, or private road open to public travel. 

Traffic control devices generally refer to signs, 

signals, markings, and other devices used to 

regulate or guide traffic on a street, highway, 

and other facilities. FHWA, in partnership with 

key stakeholder associations and the practitioner 

community, is conducting research and device 

experimentation for overall improvements 

to the manual, and to better understand the 

specific needs of the emerging automated 

vehicle technologies. Incorporating existing 

interim approved devices, experimentations, 

and other identified proposed changes into 

the updated MUTCD will help humans and 

emerging automated vehicles to interpret the 

roadway. FHWA will use current research to 

supplement knowledge regarding different 

sensor and machine vision system capabilities 

relative to interpreting traffic control devices. 

As part of this effort, FHWA will pursue an 

update to the 2009 MUTCD that will take 

into consideration these new technologies 

and other needs.

FTA’s Safety Authority Over Public 

Transportation 

Safety issues are the highest priority for all 

providers of public transportation. In recent 

years, Congress has granted FTA significant 

new safety authorities that have expanded the 

Agency’s role as a safety oversight regulatory 

body.23 Consequently, FTA developed and 

published a National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan (NSP).24 The NSP functions as FTA's 

strategic plan and primary guidance document 

for improving transit safety performance; a 

policy document and communications tool; 

and a repository of standards, guidance, best 

practices, tools, technical assistance, and other 

resources. 

A key foundational component of FTA’s safety 

authority is the new Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) rule.25 The PTASP 

rule, which FTA issued on July 18, 2018, and 

which becomes effective on July 19, 2019, is 

applicable to transit agencies that operate rail 

fixed-guideway and/or bus services. Transit 

agencies must develop, certify, and implement 

an agency safety plan by July 20, 2020. The 

PTASP rule requires transit agencies to 

incorporate Safety Management System (SMS) 

policies and procedures as they develop their 

individual safety plans. The PTASP rule sets 

scalable and flexible requirements for public 

transportation agencies by requiring them 

to establish appropriate safety objectives; to 

identify safety risks and hazards and to develop 

plans to mitigate those risks; to develop and 

implement a process to monitor and measure 

their safety performance; and to engage in safety 

promotion through training and communication. 

An overview of the PTASP is available here: 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP.

This new PTASP rule provides a flexible approach 

to evaluating the safety impacts of automated 

buses. FTA recognizes that operating 

domains and vehicle types and capabilities 

differ significantly. That is why FTA is not 

proposing a one-size-fits-all approach 

25 49 C.F.R. Part 673 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 11

22 23 CFR 655.603

23 49 U.S.C. § 5329

24 Federal Transit Administration, National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan (Washington: Federal Transit Administration, 2007), 

www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/nationalpublic-transportation-safety-plan.
Disability, Accessibility, and

Universal Design

Automation presents enormous potential 

for improving the mobility of travelers 

with disabilities. Through the Accessible 

Transportation Technologies Research 

Initiative (ATTRI), the Department is initiating 

efforts to partner with the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL), U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), and the broader 

disability community to focus research 

efforts and initiatives on areas where 

market incentives may otherwise lead to 

underinvestment. 

ATTRI focuses on emerging research, 

prototyping, and integrated demonstrations 

with the goal of enabling people to travel 

independently and conveniently, regardless 

of their individual abilities. ATTRI research 

focuses on removing barriers to transportation 

for people with disabilities, veterans with 

disabilities, and older adults, with particular 

attention to those with mobility, cognitive, 

vision, and hearing disabilities. By leveraging 

principles of universal design and inclusive 

information and communication technology, 

these efforts are targeting solutions that could 

be transformative for independent mobility. 

ATTRI applications in development include 

wayfinding and navigation, pre-trip concierge 

and virtualization, safe intersection crossing, and 

robotics and automation. Automated vehicles 

and robotics are expected to improve mobility for 

those unable or unwilling to drive and enhance 

independent and spontaneous travel capabilities 

for travelers with disabilities. One area of particular 

interest among public transit agencies is exploring 

the use of vehicle automation to solve first mile/

last mile mobility issues, possibly providing 

connections for all travelers to existing public 

transportation or other transportation hubs. 

In addition, machine vision, artificial 

intelligence (AI), assistive robots, and facial 

recognition software solving a variety of travelrelated issues for persons with disabilities 

in vehicles, devices, and terminals, are also 

included to create virtual caregivers/concierge 

services and other such applications to guide 

travelers and assist in decision making.

12 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
or providing a paper checklist for safety 

certification. Rather, FTA will provide transit 

agencies with tailored technical assistance as 

they develop an appropriate SMS approach 

to ensuring safe testing and deployment of 

its automated transit bus system.

FTA recognizes the benefits that automated 

transit bus operations may introduce, but also 

new types of risks, ranging from technology 

limitations, hardware failures, and cybersecurity 

breaches, to subtler human factors issues, such 

as overreliance on technology and degradation 

of skills. FTA’s transit bus automation research 

program is outlined in the five-year Strategic 

Transit Automation Research (STAR) Plan.26 FTA 

aims to advance transit readiness for automation 

by conducting enabling research to achieve safe 

and effective transit automation deployments, 

demonstrating market-ready technologies in 

real-world settings, and transferring knowledge 

to the transit stakeholder community, among 

other objectives.

The Federal Role in 

Automation Research

U.S. DOT has a limited and specific role in 

conducting research related to the integration 

of automation into the Nation’s surface 

transportation system. U.S. DOT’s research 

focuses on three key areas:

Removing barriers to innovation. U.S. DOT 

identifies and develops strategies to remove 

unnecessary barriers to innovation, particularly 

barriers stemming from existing regulations. 

In order to identify and evaluate solutions, 

U.S. DOT employs research to establish safety 

baselines; supports cost-benefit analysis for 

rulemaking; develops and implements processes 

to make the government more agile (e.g., 

updates to exemption and waiver processes to 

support the testing and deployment of novel 

technologies); and supports the development 

of voluntary standards that can enable the safe 

integration of automation.

Evaluating impacts of technology, particularly 

with regard to safety. U.S. DOT develops 

and verifies estimates of the impacts of 

automation on safety, infrastructure conditions 

and performance, mobility, and the economic 

competitiveness of the United States. The 

Department employs a variety of methods 

including simulation, modeling, and field and 

on-road testing. The Department also develops 

innovative methodologies to support the 

broader transportation community in estimating 

and evaluating impacts.

Addressing market failures and other 

compelling public needs. Public investments 

in research are often warranted to support 

the development of potentially beneficial 

technologies that are not easily commercialized 

because the returns are either uncertain, 

distant, or difficult to capture. This can include 

research that responds to safety, congestion, 

cybersecurity, or asymmetric information (e.g., 

public disclosures), or where a lack of private 

sector investment may create distributional 

issues that disadvantage particular groups (e.g., 

access for individuals with disabilities). 

Across the areas outlined above, U.S. DOT 

collaborates with partners in the public and 

private sectors and academia, shares information 

with the public on research insights and 

findings, and identifies gaps in public and private 

sector research.

U.S. DOT Role in Key 

Cross-Cutting Policy Issues 

Cooperative Automation and 

Connectivity

Connectivity enables communication among 

vehicles, the infrastructure, and other road users. 

Communication both between vehicles (V2V) 

and with the surrounding environment (V2X) is 

an important complementary technology that is 

expected to enhance the benefits of automation 

at all levels, but should not be and realistically 

cannot be a precondition to the deployment of 

automated vehicles. 26 Federal Transit Administration, Strategic Transit Automation 

Research Plan, Report No. 0116 (Washington: Federal 

Transit Administration, 2018), www.transit.dot.gov/researchinnovation/strategic-transit-automation-research-plan.

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 13
to pick up or deliver a load. MARAD and 

FMCSA are evaluating how automation 

might relieve the burden on a driver under 

these circumstances, and, in particular, the 

regulatory and economic feasibility of using 

automated truck queueing as a technology 

solution to truck staging, access, and parking 

issues at ports. The study will investigate 

whether full or partial automation of 

queuing within ports could lead to increased 

productivity by altering the responsibilities 

and physical presence of drivers, potentially 

allowing them to be off-duty during the 

loading and unloading process.

Automation to Support Intermodal Port Facility Operations

Automation has the potential to transform 

the Nation’s freight transportation system, a 

vital asset that supports every sector of the 

economy. Intermodal port facilities could 

benefit from applications of automation, 

enabling more seamless transfers of 

goods and a less strenuous experience for 

operators. The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) and FMCSA are jointly exploring 

how SAE Level 4 truck automation might 

improve operations at intermodal port 

facilities. Currently at many of the Nation’s 

busiest ports, commercial vehicle drivers 

must wait in slow-moving queues for hours 

Throughout the Nation there are over 70 

active deployments of V2X communications 

utilizing the 5.9 GHz band. U.S. DOT currently 

estimates that by the end of 2018, over 18,000 

vehicles will be deployed with aftermarket 

V2X communications devices and over 1,000 

infrastructure V2X devices will be installed at 

the roadside. Furthermore, all seven channels 

in the 5.9 GHz band are actively utilized in these 

deployments. 

In addition to the Dedicated Short-Range 

Communication (DSRC)-based deployments, 

private sector companies are already researching 

and testing Cellular-V2X technology that would 

also utilize the 5.9 GHz spectrum. 

An effort led by State and local public-sector 

transportation infrastructure owner operators 

is the Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) 

Challenge.27 This initiative has plans to deploy 

a V2X communications infrastructure with SPaT 

broadcasts in at least one corridor in each 

of the 50 States by January 2020. Over 200 

infrastructure communications devices are already 

deployed with over 2,100 planned by 2020 under 

this initiative in 26 States and 45 cities with a total 

investment of over $38 million. The SPaT message 

is designed to enhance both safety and efficiency 

of traffic movements at intersections.

Also underway are the U.S. DOT-funded 

deployment programs such as the Ann Arbor 

27 https://transportationops.org/spatchallenge

14 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Planned and Operational Connected Vehicle Deployments

Where Infrastructure and In-Vehicle Units are Planned or In Use

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 15
FHWA is conducting research to measure 

the efficiency and safety benefits of 

augmenting automated vehicle capabilities 

with connected vehicle technologies 

to enable cooperative automation. 

Cooperative automation allows automated 

vehicles to communicate with other vehicles 

and the infrastructure to coordinate 

movements and increase efficiency and 

safety. It uses a range of automation 

capabilities, including automation 

technologies at SAE Level 1 and Level 

2. Examples of cooperative automation 

applications include:

• Vehicle platooning to enable safe close 

following between vehicles and improve 

highway capacity.

• Speed harmonization using wireless 

speed control to reduce bottleneck 

conditions.

• Cooperative lane change and merge 

functions to mitigate traffic disruptions 

at interchanges.

Cooperative Automation

• Coordination of signalized intersection 

approach and departure, using Signal 

Phase and Timing (SPaT) data to enable 

automated vehicles to enter and exit 

signalized intersections safely and 

efficiently, to mitigate delays and reduce 

fuel consumption.

Current activities focus on technical 

assessments, traffic modeling, and proofof-concept/prototype tests to understand 

how to improve safety, smooth traffic flow, 

and reduce fuel consumption. FHWA is 

partnering with automotive manufacturers 

to further develop these concepts and 

is conducting modeling and analysis of 

corridors in several States. FHWA may 

pursue further proof-of-concept testing 

on test tracks and on public roads in the 

future. Additionally, studies are underway to 

consider how early automation applications 

like lane keeping and adaptive cruise control 

are being used and accepted by everyday 

drivers.

($72 million) to deploy V2X communications 

throughout the State highways by 2021.28 

Over the past 20 years, the U.S. DOT has 

invested over $700 million in research and 

development of V2X through partnerships 

with industry and state/local governments. 

As a result of these investments and 

partnerships, V2X technology is on the verge 

of wide-scale deployment across the Nation. 

The Department encourages the automotive 

industry, wireless technology companies, IOOs, 

and other stakeholders to continue developing 

technologies that leverage the 5.9 GHz spectrum 

for transportation safety benefits. Yet, the 

Department does not promote any particular 

technology over another. The Department also 

encourages the development of connected 

infrastructure because such technologies offer 

the potential to improve safety and efficiency. 

As IOOs consider enabling V2X deployment in 

their region, the Department encourages 

IOOs to engage with the U.S. DOT for guidance 

and assistance. 

As part of this approach, U.S. DOT is continuing 

its work to preserve the ability for transportation 

safety applications to function in the 5.9 GHz 

spectrum while exploring methods for sharing 

Connected Vehicle Environment, Connected the spectrum with other users in a manner 

Vehicle Pilots Program, and the Advanced 

Transportation and Congestion Management 

Technologies Deployment Program, which have 

combined over $150 million in Federal and State 

funding to deploy V2X communications. Finally, 

states such as Colorado are combining Federalaid highway program funding with State funding 

28 https://www.codot.gov/about/transportation-commission/

documents/2018-agendas-and-supporting-documents/june2018/7-tech-committee.pdf

16 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
that maintains priority use for vehicle safety 

communications. A three-phase test plan was 

collaboratively developed with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, and the FCC 

has completed29 the first phase. Phases 2 and 

3 of the spectrum sharing test plan will explore 

potential sharing solutions under these more 

real-world conditions. 

Pilot Testing and Proving Grounds 

U.S. DOT supports and encourages the testing 

and development of automation technologies 

throughout the country with as few barriers as 

needed for safety. ADS developers are already 

testing automated vehicle technologies at test 

tracks, on campuses, and on public roadways 

across the United States. Pilots on public roads 

provide an opportunity to assess roadway 

infrastructure, operational elements, user 

acceptance, travel patterns, and more. 

The Department appreciates that there are 

significant automated vehicle research and 

testing activities occurring in many States 

and locations across the country, and there is 

considerable private investment in these efforts. 

The Department does not intend to pick winners 

and losers or to favor particular automated 

vehicle proving grounds over others. Therefore, 

the Department no longer recognizes the 

designations of ten “Automated Vehicle 

Proving Grounds” as announced on January 

19, 2017. The Department has taken no actions 

to direct any Federal benefits or support 

to those ten locations on the basis of these 

designations, and these designations will 

have no effect—positive or negative—going 

forward on any decisions the Department may 

make regarding Federal support or recognition 

of research, pilot or demonstration projects, 

or other developmental activities related to 

automated vehicle technologies.

Instead, if and when the Department is called 

upon to provide support or recognition of any 

kind with regard to automated vehicle proving 

grounds, the Department intends to apply 

neutral, objective criteria and to consider all 

locations in all States where relevant research 

and testing activities are actually underway.

Cybersecurity

Transportation systems are increasingly 

complex, with a growing number of advanced, 

integrated functions. Transportation systems 

are also more reliant than ever on multiple 

paths of connectivity to communicate and 

exchange data, and they depend on commodity 

technologies to achieve functional, cost, and 

marketing objectives. 

Surface transportation is a broad sector of the 

economy and requires coordination across all 

levels of government and the private sector 

in the event of a significant cyber incident to 

enable shared situational awareness and allow 

for a unified approach to sector engagement. 

U.S. DOT will work closely with the U.S. 

Department of Justice; the U.S. Department 

of Commerce and its National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST); the Federal 

Trade Commission; the Federal Communications 

Commission; the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS); industry subject matter experts; 

and other public agencies to address cyber 

vulnerabilities and manage cyber risks related to 

automation technology and data.

Transportation-related cyber vulnerabilities 

and exploits can be shared with Government 

partners anonymously through various 

Information Sharing and Analysis Centers 

(ISACs). DHS's National Cybersecurity and 

Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) 

is a 24x7 cyber situational awareness, 

incident response, and management 

center that is a national nexus of cyber and 

communications integration for the Federal 

Government, intelligence community, and 

law enforcement.

If a transportation sector entity deems 

Federal assistance may be warranted, they are 

encouraged to contact NCCIC30 and the relevant 

29 Letter to Congress proposing the test plan: https://apps.fcc.

gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-337251A1.pdf 

 FCC Phase 1 test plan: https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/fcclab/

DSRC-Test-Plan-10-05-2016.pdf

30 https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/Report-Incident 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: FEDERAL 17
ISACs (e.g., Auto-ISAC,31 Aviation ISAC,32 

Maritime ISAC,33 and Surface Transportation 

ISAC34). 

Privacy

While advanced safety technologies have 

the potential to provide enormous safety, 

convenience, and other important benefits to 

consumers, stakeholders frequently raise data 

privacy concerns as a potential impediment 

to deployment. U.S. DOT takes consumer 

privacy seriously, diligently considers the 

privacy implications of our safety regulations 

and voluntary guidance, and works closely with 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—the 

primary Federal agency charged with protecting 

consumers’ privacy and personal information—

to support the protection of consumer 

information and provide resources relating to 

consumer privacy. The Department suggests 

that any exchanges of data respect consumer 

privacy and proprietary and confidential 

business information. Additional information is 

available here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/

media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy.

State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments and 

Automation

State, local, and Tribal governments hold 

clearly defined roles in ensuring the safety and 

mobility of road users in their jurisdictions. 

They are responsible for licensing human 

drivers, registering motor vehicles, enacting 

and enforcing traffic laws, conducting safety 

inspections, and regulating motor vehicle 

insurance and liability. They are also responsible 

for planning, building, managing, and operating 

transit and the roadway infrastructure. Many of 

those roles may not change significantly with the 

deployment of automated vehicles. 

There are many ways these governments can 

prepare for automated vehicles: 

• Review laws and regulations that may create 

barriers to testing and deploying automated 

vehicles. 

• Adapt policies and procedures, such as 

licensing and registration, to account for 

automated vehicles. 

• Assess infrastructure elements, such as 

road markings and signage, so that they are 

conducive to the operation of automated 

vehicles. 

• Provide guidance, information, and training 

to prepare the transportation workforce and 

the general public. 

This section provides best practices and 

considerations for State, local and Tribal 

government officials as they engage with new 

transportation technologies. 

Best Practices for State 

Legislatures and State 

Highway Safety Officials

A Vision for Safety 2.0 provided best practices for 

both State legislatures and State highway safety 

officials. In reviewing recent State legislation 

and executive orders, and in engaging with 

stakeholders, U.S. DOT identified new insights, 

commonalities, and elements that States should 

consider including when developing legislation. 

Additional best practices for State highway 

safety officials are also discussed in this section. 

The best practices provided here are not 

intended to replace recommendations made in 

A Vision for Safety 2.0, but rather are meant to 

supplement them. For more information, refer to 

www.transportation.gov/av.

31 https://www.automotiveisac.com/

32 https://www.a-isac.com/ 

33 http://www.maritimesecurity.org/

34 https://www.surfacetransportationisac.org/ 

18 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Automated Vehicles at Rail Crossings

To explore the interaction between automated 

vehicles and highway-rail grade crossings 

and identify what information automated 

vehicles will need in order to negotiate 

highway-rail intersections, the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) has conducted a literature 

review, engaged with stakeholders, and 

used scenarios to develop and demonstrate 

a concept of operations, including system 

requirements (technology and sensors). 

A broad stakeholder set was identified to 

represent researchers, manufacturers, transit 

agencies, and infrastructure owner-operators, 

among others. Currently, FRA is expanding 

the research with U.S. DOT partners and the 

Association of American Railroads to develop 

a closed loop safety system to support the 

safe interaction of connected and automated 

vehicles with grade crossings. 

Best Practices for State 

Legislatures 

States are taking differing legislative approaches 

and have enacted varying laws related to testing 

and operating automated vehicles. U.S. DOT 

regularly monitors legislative activities in 

order to support the development of a 

consistent national framework for automated 

vehicle legislation. 

A Vision for Safety 2.0 recommended that 

State legislators follow best practices, such as 

providing a technology-neutral environment, 

licensing and registration procedures, and 

reporting and communications methods for 

public safety officials. States should consider 

reviewing and potentially modifying traffic 

laws and regulations that may be barriers to 

automated vehicles. For example, several States 

have following distance laws that prohibit 

trucks from following too closely to each 

other, effectively prohibiting automated truck 

platooning applications. 

In addition to the best practices identified 

in A Vision for Safety 2.0, the Department 

recommends that State officials consider the 

following safety-related best practices when 

crafting automated vehicle legislation:

Engage U.S. DOT on legislative technical 

assistance. State legislatures are encouraged 

to routinely engage U.S. DOT on legislative 

activities related to multimodal automation 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL 19
safety. State legislatures may want to first 

determine if there is a need for State legislation. 

Unnecessary or overly prescriptive State 

requirements could create unintended 

barriers for the testing, deployment, and 

operations of advanced vehicle safety 

technologies. U.S. DOT stands ready to provide 

technical assistance to States on request.

Adopt terminology defined through 

voluntary technical standards. Different use 

and interpretations of terminology regarding 

automated vehicles can be confusing for the 

public, State and local agencies, and industry. 

In the interest of supporting consistent 

terminology, State legislatures may want to use 

terminology already being developed through 

voluntary, consensus-based, technical standards. 

SAE terminology on automation represents 

one example and includes terms such as ADS, 

the Dynamic Driving Task (DDT), minimal risk 

conditions, and ODD. 

Assess State roadway readiness. States may 

want to assess roadway readiness for automated 

vehicles, as such assessments could help 

infrastructure for automated vehicles, while 

improving safety for drivers today. Automated 

vehicle developers are designing their 

technologies with the assumption that these 

technologies will need to function with existing 

infrastructure. There is general agreement that 

greater uniformity and quality of road markings, 

signage, and pavement condition would 

be beneficial for both human drivers and 

automated vehicles.

Best Practices for State Highway 

Safety Officials

States are responsible for reducing traffic crashes 

and resulting deaths, injuries, and property 

damage for all road users in their jurisdictions. 

States use this authority to establish and 

maintain highway safety programs addressing 

driver education and testing, licensing, 

pedestrian safety, and vehicle registration and 

inspection. States also use this authority to 

address traffic control, highway design and 

maintenance, crash prevention, investigation 

and recordkeeping, and law enforcement and 

emergency service considerations. 

The following best practices build on those 

identified in A Vision for Safety 2.0 and provide 

a framework for States looking for assistance 

in developing procedures and conditions for 

the operation of automated vehicles on public 

roadways. For additional best practices, see 

Section 2 of A Vision for Safety 2.0.

Consider test driver training and licensing 

procedures for test vehicles. States may 

consider minimum requirements for test 

drivers who operate test vehicles at different 

automation levels. States may want to coordinate 

and collaborate with a broad and diverse set 

of stakeholders when developing and defining 

jurisdictional guidelines for safe testing and 

deployment of automated vehicles.

Recognize issues unique to entities offering 

automated mobility as a service. Automated 

mobility providers are exploring models to move 

people and goods using automated vehicle 

technology. States may consider identifying and 

addressing issues that are unique to companies 

providing mobility as a service using automated 

vehicle technologies. These could include such 

issues as congestion or the transportation of 

minors, persons with disabilities, and older 

individuals. 

Considerations for 

Infrastructure Owners 

and Operators 

Infrastructure owners and operators are 

involved in the planning, design, construction, 

maintenance, and operation of the roadway 

infrastructure. Infrastructure owners and 

operators have expressed interest in more 

information and guidance on how to prepare 

for automated vehicle deployment and testing 

on public roadways. FHWA is conducting the 

National Dialogue on Highway Automation, a 

series of workshops with partners, stakeholders, 

and the public to obtain input regarding the safe 

20 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
and efficient integration of automated vehicles 

into the roadway system.35 U.S. DOT provides 

the following considerations for infrastructure 

owners and operators, including State DOTs, 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and 

local agencies. FHWA, in particular, will continue 

to update these considerations as informed 

by continued research efforts, stakeholder 

engagement, and testing. Suggested 

considerations include:

Support safe testing and operations of 

automated vehicles on public roadways. State 

DOTs and local agencies want to understand 

under what conditions automated vehicles can 

safely operate in automated mode and how 

they will affect the highway infrastructure and 

surrounding communities. Where testing is 

taking place, State and local agencies should 

consider ways to establish consistent crossjurisdictional approaches and work with first 

responders to develop commonly understood 

traffic law enforcement practices and emergency 

response plans for automated vehicle testing 

and operation. 

Learn from testing and pilots to support 

highway system readiness. State and local 

agencies may consider collaborating with 

automated vehicle developers and testers to 

identify potential infrastructure requirements 

that support readiness for automated vehicles 

and to understand their expectations for 

automated vehicle operations under varying 

roadway and operational conditions. This 

interaction could assist with identifying what 

balance of capabilities (for both vehicles and the 

roadway) promotes safe and efficient operations 

of automated vehicles. Testing, research, 

and pilot programs can help State and local 

agencies understand automation and identify 

opportunities to inform transportation planning, 

infrastructure design, and traffic operations 

management.

Build organizational capacity to prepare 

for automated vehicles in communities. 

State and local agencies may need to assess 

their workforce capacity and training needs to 

address new issues that emerge from having 

automated vehicles on public roads. State and 

local agencies will want to work with peers, 

industry, associations, the research community, 

and FHWA to build knowledge of automated 

vehicle technologies and identify technical 

assistance resources. 

Identify data needs and opportunities to 

exchange data. The exchange of data and 

information in the roadway environment can help 35 More information can be found at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/

automationdialogue/ 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL 21
automated vehicles address static and dynamic 

elements that otherwise may be challenging for 

ADS (e.g., work zones, rail crossings, managed 

lanes, and varying traffic laws). State and local 

agencies and industry may work together to 

identify data elements that will help automated 

vehicles navigate challenging, unique roadway 

environments and alter operational behavior in 

relation to changing traffic laws.

Collaborate with stakeholders to review 

the existing Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC). 

Each State creates its own laws governing 

traffic codes, and many municipalities enact 

ordinances as allowed in the State. The 

UVC is a model set of traffic laws developed 

years ago by stakeholders that States can 

consult when considering legislation. FHWA 

suggests working with automated vehicle 

developers, traffic engineers, and law 

enforcement stakeholders to revise the UVC 

to be consistent with automated vehicle 

operations. 

Support scenario development and 

transportation planning for automation.

There is uncertainty around how automation 

will change travel behavior, land use, and public 

revenues across the transportation landscape in 

the long term. State and local policymakers must 

wrestle with the effects of automation when 

conducting long-term transportation planning. 

Scenario planning tools allow States and 

MPOs to review multiple scenarios for how 

automation technologies could be adopted 

and used, and analyze issues including 

infrastructure investment, congestion, 

operations, and other transportation needs.36

To assist in this process, FHWA is supporting 

scenario development for State and local 

agencies to use for incorporating automation 

into transportation planning processes.

Considerations for State 

Commercial Vehicle 

Enforcement Agencies

U.S. DOT recommends that State agencies 

responsible for enforcing commercial vehicle 

operating rules and regulations consider 

the following as ADS-equipped commercial 

motor vehicles are tested and operated on 

public roads:

Compatibility between intrastate and 

interstate commercial motor vehicle 

regulations. State enforcement agencies 

should monitor prevailing regulatory activity, 

including regulatory guidance by FMCSA—

including a forthcoming Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)—and consider 

whether amendments of their intrastate 

motor carrier safety regulations are needed 

in order to be compatible with the Federal 

requirements concerning the operation of 

36 For more information on scenario planning, see https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_

planning/

ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles. 

Ensuring compatibility between intrastate 

and interstate commercial vehicle regulations 

is important for maintaining eligibility for 

grant funding under the Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program (MCSAP).

Continued application of roadside inspection 

procedures. State enforcement agencies should 

continue to apply existing inspection selection 

procedures to identify which CMVs should 

be examined during a roadside inspection. 

State enforcement agencies should refrain 

from selecting ADS-equipped CMVs solely 

because the vehicle is equipped with advanced 

technology. States can partner with FMCSA as 

it develops appropriate roadside inspection 

procedures and inspection criteria for use in 

examining ADS-equipped CMVs, so that the 

movement of such vehicles is not delayed unless 

there are problems that are likely to adversely 

impact safety.

Considerations for Public 

Sector Transit Industry and 

Stakeholders

U.S. DOT offers the following for consideration 

by public sector transit industry stakeholders 

(e.g., transit agencies) when developing, 

demonstrating, deploying, and evaluating 

transit bus automation:

22 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Needs-based implementation. Transit 

agencies should consider automation as a 

means of addressing specific needs and solving 

particular problems. Implementation of new 

technologies and service models should not 

be based merely on novelty. Agencies should 

obtain input from stakeholders to determine 

unmet needs and identify potential solutions 

that might be addressed through automation. 

Ongoing dialogue with community residents, 

original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), 

technology developers, integrators, and 

industry associations will help identify the most 

appropriate transit bus automation technology 

solutions for their communities.

Realistic expectations. Public transportation 

operators should establish realistic expectations 

when implementing transit bus automation 

projects and demonstrations. As an example, 

transit agencies engaged in pilots to retrofit 

vehicles with advanced driver assistance 

capabilities, such as pedestrian avoidance and 

automatic emergency braking, might find that 

implementation may take longer than expected 

for a variety of reasons. Integration, test 

planning, contracting, and data management 

can present significant challenges that cause 

delay. Another example may be where transit 

providers are conducting pilots of low-speed 

automated vehicles or shared automated 

vehicles. Although these service approaches 

could potentially address first-mile/last-mile 

needs, agencies may find that the vehicles 

themselves currently have technological 

limitations such as lower speeds and passenger 

capacity constraints.

Workforce and labor. An important 

consideration for public transportation operators 

is to begin preparing for workforce changes that 

may accompany an automated bus fleet. The 

transit workforce will require new, high-tech skills 

for inspecting and maintaining automated transit 

buses at all levels of automation. The transit 

industry should begin thinking about retraining 

the current workforce to help transit operators 

transition into new roles and to adapt to a 

transforming surface transportation industry. 

Transit agencies should recognize emerging 

workforce needs and requirements, identify 

new future career paths, and conduct 

succession planning in this new, hightechnology environment. Transit agencies can 

work with FTA, industry associations, and private 

sector consultants to identify core training 

needs; academic institutions may be able to 

assist in implementing training. 

Complete Streets. Transit agencies should 

seek out and work with local partners to review 

complete streets policies and practices when 

planning and deploying transit automation. 

Early consideration of complete streets will help 

make automation-enhanced mobility safer, more 

convenient, and more reliable for all travelers, 

while reducing the overall cost of widespread 

deployment. Transit agencies, MPOs, and local 

governments may seek assistance from industry 

associations, private sector consultants, and 

automation technology developers to create and 

implement complete streets concepts.37

Accessibility. It is critical that all agencies 

considering automated transit vehicles in 

revenue service ensure accessibility for persons 

with disabilities. Although some users will likely 

continue to require the human assistance that 

existing paratransit service provides, automation 

has the potential to offer improved levels of 

service for persons with disabilities. Transit 

agencies must ensure that infrastructure, such as 

stations and stops, is accessible and Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant. Transit 

agencies should continue to partner with 

local governments as appropriate to create 

and maintain an accessible environment for 

all travelers. Transit agencies may work with 

industry associations, private sector consultants, 

and technology developers for new accessibility 

tools and solutions such as those in the U.S. 

DOT’s ATTRI. FTA can provide guidance and 

clarification regarding ADA requirements.

Engagement and education. To fully realize 

the benefits of automated transit vehicles, 

transit operators, riders, and other road users 

37 Complete Streets are streets designed and operated to 

enable safe use and support mobility for all users. Those 

include people of all ages and abilities, regardless of whether 

they are traveling as drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, or public 

transportation riders.

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL 23
must understand and be wholly comfortable 

with the technology. Transit agencies seeking 

to test and pilot automated transit vehicles 

may wish to develop appropriate messaging 

as well as public engagement and education 

activities to promote awareness, understanding, 

and acceptance of automated transit buses. 

Public-facing technology demonstrations 

can create opportunities for members of the 

public to experience and learn about new 

technologies. Other knowledge transfer and 

stakeholder engagement activities can help 

align demonstrations and pilots with local needs 

and increase local stakeholder confidence and 

buy-in.

Considerations for Local 

Governments

Local governments control a substantial part of 

the Nation’s roadway and parking infrastructure, 

and have considerable influence over land use, 

via zoning and permitting. Local governments 

are closest to citizens. Automation provides an 

opportunity to address local goals, including 

making more land available for housing and 

business, as well as improving transportation 

options for citizens who are not motorists. U.S. 

DOT suggests that local governments may 

wish to consider the following topics as they 

formulate local policies.

Facilitate safe testing and operation of 

automated vehicles on local streets. Local 

streets, with their variety of uses, offer a 

challenging environment for automated vehicles. 

As owner-operators of this infrastructure, local 

governments have an opportunity to partner 

with automated vehicle suppliers to test on their 

streets, learn from testing, and be prepared to 

enable safe deployment. 

Understand the near-term opportunities that 

automation may provide. In the near term, 

automation provides increased driver assistance 

capabilities—such as automatic emergency 

braking and pedestrian detection—which may 

be useful for municipal fleets. Several low-speed 

passenger shuttle tests are also underway. Local 

governments should be aware of these efforts 

and the opportunities that they may provide, 

while being realistic about their limitations.

Consider how land use, including curb space, 

will be affected. A shared vehicle environment 

in which automated vehicles are used by a 

number of travelers over the course of a day 

could result in a significant reduction in private 

vehicle ownership, leading to less need for 

on- and off-street parking. At the same time, 

such an environment will require curb space for 

pick-up and drop-off activities. There may be an 

opportunity to reallocate curb space from longterm parking to other uses, including pick-up 

and drop-off. Furthermore, if vehicle ownership 

declines, minimum parking requirements in 

zoning may need to be revisited, freeing up 

land for other purposes. Finally, in such an 

environment, revenue from parking fees and 

fines may be reduced.

Consider the potential for increased 

congestion, and how it might be managed.

If automation provides a convenient, low-cost 

option for single occupant vehicle trips, it 

may lead to more congestion. For example, 

some current transit users may shift to loweroccupancy automated vehicles. Automated 

vehicles may engage in zero-occupant vehicle 

trips, for vehicle repositioning. Automation 

will also provide new mobility options for 

people who do not travel much today. Local 

and State governments may need to consider 

appropriate policies to manage the potential 

for increased congestion.

Engage with citizens. Local governments 

are in an ideal position to engage with 

citizens, to address their concerns and to 

ensure that automation supports local needs. 

Such engagement may include public events 

associated with automated vehicle testing, 

educational forums, and consideration of 

automation in public planning and 

visioning meetings. 

State, Local, and Tribal Roles 

in Transportation Sector 

Cybersecurity 

State, local, and Tribal governments face 

unique cybersecurity threats that can endanger 

24 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
NIST Cybersecurity 

Framework

See www.nist.gov/cyberframework

critical infrastructure. Transportation systems 

that depend on digital infrastructure are at risk 

when they do not prioritize maintaining security, 

modernizing systems to reduce vulnerabilities, 

and implementing enhancements to increase 

the resiliency of digital infrastructure. Significant 

service degradation has occurred when 

technology, people, and processes failed to 

prevent security failures; including data encrypting 

ransomware, other malware, and insider-threat 

activities. To mitigate potential threats, appropriate 

investments in the digital infrastructure that 

supports ADS should include strong security and 

functional testing of the technology, people, and 

processes. As threats evolve, key decision makers 

should have an effective and flexible security 

program in place to assess and manage risk, 

including evaluating technology, key facilities, 

engaged personnel, and security processes. 

Plans to respond to cyber-attacks should be 

exercised, and should be aligned with emergency 

management and recovery protocols shared across 

all industry sectors. 

State, local, and Tribal governments play an 

important role in managing cyber risks by 

investing in improvements to cyber defenses and 

infrastructure. Those governments also identify, 

prioritize, and allocate resources to counteract 

cybersecurity threats, especially where a threat 

may affect transportation critical infrastructure. 

U.S. DOT encourages States, local, Tribal, and 

Territorial governments to fully utilize the resources 

provided by United States Computer Emergency 

Readiness Team (US-CERT).38

Local governments 

are in an ideal position to 

engage with citizens, to 

address their concerns and 

to ensure that automation 

supports local needs. 

The Private Sector 

and Automation

While the initial development of automated 

vehicle technologies received strong support 

from government-funded research projects, such 

as the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA),39 over the past decade 

private sector innovators have taken the lead 

in developing and commercializing automation 

technologies. Today, private sector leadership is 

critical to advancing the development, testing, 

and commercialization of automated vehicles. 

U.S. DOT does not expect the private sector 

to be singularly responsible for addressing 

issues introduced alongside new technologies. 

The public sector—as planners, owners, and 

38 See: https://www.us-cert.gov/ccubedvp/sltt

39 See, for example: Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, The DARPA Grand Challenge: Ten Years Later, 

(Arlington: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 2014), 

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2014-03-13.

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: PRIVATE 25
operators of transportation infrastructure, 

regulators and enforcers of transportation safety, 

and representatives of public concerns—must 

play a critical, complementary role in engaging 

automation technologies to improve safety and 

meet the public interest without hampering 

innovation. 

In addition to developing and commercializing 

automation technology, the private sector also 

should play a critical role in promoting consumer 

acceptance in two distinct ways. First, companies 

developing and deploying automation 

technology need to be transparent about 

vehicle safety performance. Second, companies 

should engage with consumers through public 

education campaigns. 

The exchange of information between the public 

and private sector is also critical for helping 

policymakers understand the capabilities and 

limitations of these new technologies, while 

ensuring that the private sector understands 

the priorities of policymakers and the issues 

they face. Only by working in partnership can 

the public and the private sector improve 

the safety, security, and accessibility of 

automation technologies, address the 

concerns of the general public, and prepare 

the workforce of tomorrow.

The sections below outline several critical areas 

where the private sector’s role will be significant.

Demonstrate Safety through 

Voluntary Safety SelfAssessments

Demonstrating the safety of ADS is critical for 

facilitating public acceptance and adoption. 

Entities involved in the development and 

testing of automation technology have an 

important role in not only the safety assurance 

of ADS-equipped vehicles, but also in providing 

transparency about how safety is being 

achieved. 

A Vision for Safety 2.0 provided voluntary 

guidance to stakeholders regarding the 

design, testing, and safe deployment of ADS. 

It identified 12 safety elements that ADS 

developers should consider when developing 

and testing their technologies. A Vision for 

Safety 2.0 also introduced the Voluntary Safety 

Self-Assessment (VSSA), which is intended to 

demonstrate to the public that entities are: 

considering the safety aspects of an ADS; 

communicating and collaborating with the U.S. 

DOT; encouraging the self-establishment of 

industry safety norms; and building public trust, 

acceptance, and confidence through transparent 

testing and deployment of ADS. Entities are 

encouraged to demonstrate how they address 

the safety elements contained in A Vision for 

Safety 2.0 by publishing a VSSA, as it is an 

important tool for companies to showcase their 

approach to safety, without needing to reveal 

proprietary intellectual property. 

VSSAs allow the public to see that designers, 

developers, and innovators are taking safety 

seriously and that safety considerations are built 

into the design and manufacture of vehicles 

that are tested on our roadways. Therefore, 

U.S. DOT encourages entities to make 

their VSSA available publicly as a way to 

promote transparency and strengthen 

public confidence in ADS technologies. The 

Department currently provides a template for 

one of the elements in a VSSA, which entities can 

use to construct their own VSSA.40 NHTSA also 

established a website where entities who have 

disclosed and made the Agency aware of their 

VSSAs can be listed in one central location.41

Entities developing ADS technology may want to 

consider making available their VSSAs through 

this website.

Incorporate New Safety 

Approaches for Automation 

in Commercial Vehicle 

Operations 

U.S. DOT recommends that motor carrier 

owners and operators consider the following as 

they explore the adoption of advanced driver 

assistance features and ADS in their vehicle 

fleets. As automation technology evolves, 

40 Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/

files/documents/voluntary_safety_self- assessment_for_

web_101117_v1.pdf 

41 Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-drivingsystems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment 

26 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Hazardous Materials 

Documentation

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) is 

exploring alternatives to longstanding 

requirements for providing paper 

documentation to accompany hazmat 

shipments, while ensuring that the 

information is readily available to transport 

workers and emergency responders. This 

capability may become increasingly 

important as transporters of 

hazardous materials explore the use 

of automation in their operations. As 

motor carriers and railroads explore the 

use of automation to move hazardous 

materials, the ability to create electronic 

documentation also raises the potential 

to electronically transmit information to 

first responders before they arrive at an 

incident. PHMSA is also collaborating 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency on the development of an 

e-manifest system that will digitize the 

exchange of information on hazardous 

material shipments.

FMCSA and PHMSA plan to solicit stakeholder 

input and provide more detailed guidance 

regarding the use of ADS in commercial vehicle 

operations.

System knowledge. If a motor carrier of 

passengers or property plans to begin operating 

a commercial motor vehicle equipped with driverassist systems and/or ADS, the motor carrier’s 

personnel should understand the capabilities 

and limitations of these systems, as well as 

ODD limitations (e.g., the types of roadway 

environments or environmental conditions under 

which they can operate). The motor carrier should 

also ask the equipment’s manufacturer about 

the capabilities and limitations of these systems. 

Motor carriers may also wish to inquire about 

whether the manufacturer has completed a 

voluntary safety self-assessment, as described in 

A Vision for Safety 2.0.

System functionality. Motor carriers should 

ensure the driver assist system and/or ADS is 

functioning properly before activating these 

systems. This functionality should be able to be 

validated during a roadside inspection.

System training. Motor carriers should 

implement a training program to familiarize 

fleet managers, maintenance personnel, and 

drivers with the equipment and how it operates, 

including the procedures to follow in the event of 

an ADS malfunction.

Equipment maintenance. Motor carriers should 

be aware of maintenance requirements of driverassist systems and/or ADS to enable safe and 

optimal operation. This includes understanding 

self-diagnostic capabilities of the system and the 

status or error messages the system may display.

Information exchange. Motor carriers should 

be aware that under certain situations such as 

a safety inspection or roadway crash, it may be 

necessary to exchange critical safety-oriented 

vehicle performance data with Federal and 

State officials. The motor carrier should maintain 

records of the systems it is using, the training 

provided, and the operation of those vehicles.

Safety inspections. Motor carriers should 

be prepared to interact and cooperate with 

roadside and other safety inspections of 

driver assist systems and ADS. This includes 

responding to law enforcement instructions, 

resolving any identified mechanical or software 

malfunction, implementing the equipment’s 

safe shutdown procedures, and demonstrating 

system functionality.

Develop Safe and Accessible 

Transit Buses and Applications: 

Considerations for Private 

Sector Transit Industry

U.S. DOT offers the following considerations 

for private sector transit industry stakeholders 

when developing, demonstrating, deploying, 

and evaluating transit bus automation:

Accessibility. It is important to think about 

how to make automated vehicles and their 

technological capabilities accessible to persons 

with disabilities (including those with physical, 

sensory, and cognitive impairments) early in 

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: PRIVATE 27
the design process. This vital element is more 

easily integrated at the initial stages of vehicle 

research and development, rather than trying 

to incorporate it into the design through 

retrofits, which may be more difficult. Bus OEMs, 

technology developers, and integrators should 

work with transit agencies, industry associations, 

and the disability community to obtain input on 

functional and performance needs as well as 

the consequent human factors considerations. 

The Federal Government (e.g., FTA) can provide 

guidance and clarification with respect to the 

requirements of ADA.

Human factors. Consider human factors in the 

design of buses and vehicles for all levels of 

automation—for all participants in the system 

(transit operators, passengers, and other road 

users). The interaction between human and 

machine, ease of use, and comprehensibility 

of human-machine interfaces (HMI) should be 

explored thoroughly, particularly with respect 

to maintaining safety under all operating 

conditions. Where possible, technology 

companies should partner with transit agencies 

and passenger organizations to test various userinterface technologies and designs. 

Testing. Open a dialogue and seek a 

collaborative relationship with FTA when 

developing and testing new bus technologies 

and products. FTA can provide guidance, 

feedback, and clarification on policies, 

requirements, and recommendations as they 

pertain to transit automation. 

Provide Information to 

the Public

The understanding of automation technologies 

varies considerably across the general public, 

caused in part by a lack of consistency 

in terminology and confusion about the 

technology’s limitations. The public needs 

accurate sources of information regarding 

automation to better understand the technology 

so that they can use it safely and make informed 

decisions about its integration. This can be done 

through direct communications with consumers 

and other users, demonstrations, public 

outreach in areas where vehicles are being 

tested, and a variety of other means. 

28 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
With respect to currently available Level 1 and 

Level 2 automation technologies and Level 3 

technologies under development, consumers 

and other users should understand what the 

technology is and is not capable of, when 

human monitoring of the system is needed, and 

where it should be operated (i.e., appropriate 

ODD). The private sector may need to consider 

new approaches for providing information so 

that consumers can use the technology safely 

and effectively. As part of their education and 

training programs and before consumer release, 

automated vehicle dealers and distributors 

may want to consider including an on-road or 

on-track experience demonstrating automated 

vehicle operations and how humans interact with 

vehicle controls. Other innovative approaches 

(e.g., virtual reality (VR) or onboard vehicle 

systems) may also be considered, tested, and 

employed.

Public education challenges are different for 

automated vehicle technologies at higher levels 

of automation or Level 4 and Level 5 systems, 

where the consumer becomes a passenger 

rather than a driver. For these systems, the 

members of the public may require more 

general information and awareness of what the 

technology is and how they should interact with 

it, either as passengers or as others sharing the 

road with automated vehicles. 

Developers of automated vehicle technologies 

are encouraged to develop, document, and 

An estimated 25.5 million Americans have 

disabilities that make traveling outside 

the home difficult, according to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics report 

Travel Patterns of American Adults with 

Disabilities.42 An estimated 3.6 million with 

disabilities do not leave their homes.

People with travel-limiting disabilities are less 

likely to own a vehicle or have vehicle access 

than people without disabilities. 

Travel Patterns of American Adults with Disabilities

When people with disabilities do use 

vehicles, they are often passengers. People 

with disabilities are less likely to have jobs, 

are more likely to live in very low-income 

households, and use smartphones and ridehailing services less often than the general 

population. An estimated 71 percent reduce 

their day-to-day-travel, while an estimated 41 

percent rely on others for rides. 

Automated vehicles and other assistive 

technologies may provide substantial 

mobility benefits to people with disabilities 

who cannot drive.

42 Brumbaugh, Stephen. Travel Patterns of American Adults 

with Disabilities (Washington: Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, 2018), https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-withdisabilities

Compensating Strategies for People with Travel-Limiting Disabilities (age 18–64)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey.

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: PRIVATE 29
maintain employee, dealer, distributor, and 

consumer education and training programs to 

address the anticipated differences in the use 

and operation of automated vehicles from 

those of the conventional vehicles that the 

public owns and operates today. Successful 

programs will provide target users with the 

necessary level of understanding to utilize these 

technologies properly, efficiently, and in the 

safest manner possible. 

Consider All Possible Surface 

Transportation Conditions 

and Different Roadway 

Landscapes

Entities that are testing and operating on 

public roadways will want to consider the 

whole roadway environment, which could 

include different infrastructure conditions 

and operating rules. It will be important to 

account for all possible surface transportation 

conditions an ADS may encounter within its 

ODD. Such conditions, when appropriate, 

include maneuvering at-grade rail crossings, 

roundabouts, bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways 

and special designated traffic lanes or crossing 

areas, entrances and driveways, and other 

potential hazards, especially in different roadway 

landscapes (e.g., urban versus rural). As part 

of their important role in the safety assurance 

of ADS-equipped vehicles, entities are also 

encouraged to consider such conditions in the 

design, testing, and validation of the designated 

fallback method. Entities are encouraged to 

engage with the U.S. DOT and infrastructure 

owners and operators to understand the 

full ODD for safe and efficient operations of 

automated vehicles.

Work with All Potential 

User Groups to Incorporate 

Universal Design Principles

The potential for automation to improve mobility 

for all Americans is immense, but if products and 

technologies are not designed with usability by 

a broad spectrum of travelers in mind, it may not 

be achieved. 

U.S. DOT encourages developers and deployers 

to work proactively with the disability community 

to support efforts that focus on the array of 

accommodations needed for different types of 

disabilities, and ways to improve mobility as a 

whole—not just from curb to curb, but also from 

door to door.

Anticipate Human Factors and 

Driver Engagement Issues

Consider human factors design for surface 

transportation—at all levels of automation—

for all road users. Safety risks, such as driver 

distraction and confusion, should influence early 

stages of design and vehicle development. Userinterface usability and comprehension need 

to be explored, particularly during emergency 

situations, and in maintaining safety if vehicle 

functions are compromised. 

In addition, it will be important to recognize 

human factors challenges related to driver 

awareness and engagement. Entities could 

consider methods that ensure driver awareness 

and engagement during ADS-equipped vehicle 

testing, to mitigate the potential for distraction, 

fatigue, and other possible risks. 

Testing on public roadways is necessary 

for vehicle automation development and 

deployment. Public trust can be built 

during testing by using an in-vehicle driver 

engagement monitoring system, a second 

test driver, or other methods. It can be helpful 

for entities developing ADS technologies to 

share information with Federal agencies and 

appropriate organizations about the testing of 

user interface technologies and designs. 

Identify Opportunities for 

Voluntary Data Exchanges

Voluntary data exchanges can help improve 

the safety and operations of ADS and lead to 

the development of industry best practices, 

voluntary standards, and other useful tools. 

30 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Work Zone Data Exchanges

The Work Zone Data Exchange project 

responds to priorities identified by public 

and private sector stakeholders. The goal is 

to develop a harmonized specification for 

work zone data that infrastructure owners 

and operators can make available as open 

feeds that automated vehicles and others 

can use.

Accurate and up-to-date information 

about dynamic conditions occurring on 

the roads—such as work zones—can help 

automated vehicles navigate safely and 

efficiently. Many infrastructure owners 

and operators maintain data on work zone 

activity, but a common specification for 

this type of data does not currently exist. 

This makes it difficult and costly for third 

parties—including vehicle manufacturers 

and makers of navigation applications—to 

access and use work zone data across various 

jurisdictions.

Several State DOT agencies and private 

companies are voluntarily participating in the 

project, with U.S. DOT acting as a technical 

facilitator. U.S. DOT has been working with 

these partners to help define the core data 

elements that should be included in an initial 

work zone specification and to determine 

what types of technical assistance the data 

producers will need to implement it, expand 

it over time, and address broader work zone 

data management challenges. 

In U.S. DOT’s Guiding Principles on Data for 

Automated Vehicle Safety, available at www.

transportation.gov/av/data, the Department 

defines an approach that seeks to prioritize and 

enable voluntary data exchanges to address 

critical issues that could slow the safe integration 

of ADS technologies. These principles include:

• Promote proactive, data-driven safety, 

cybersecurity, and privacy-protection 

practices.

• Act as a facilitator to inspire and enable 

voluntary data exchanges.

• Start small to demonstrate value, and scale 

what works toward a larger vision. 

• Coordinate across modes to reduce costs, 

reduce industry burden, and accelerate 

action.

The industry as a whole should consider working 

with Federal, State, and local agencies as 

well as relevant standards bodies (IEEE, SAE 

International, etc.) to identify opportunities to 

establish voluntary exchanges of data that can 

provide mutual benefit and help accelerate 

the safe integration of automation into the 

surface transportation system. This can include 

exchanges of data between the public and 

private sector regarding infrastructure conditions 

as well as exchanges among private sector 

entities to enable mutual learning and risk 

mitigation.

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: PRIVATE 31
Any exchanges of data should respect consumer 

privacy43 as well as proprietary and confidential 

business information. 

Contribute to the 

Development of Voluntary, 

Consensus-Based, and 

Performance-Oriented 

Technical Standards

Voluntary standards offer flexibility and 

responsiveness to the rapid pace of innovation, 

can encourage investment and bring costeffective innovation to the market more 

quickly, and may be validated by private sector 

conformity assessment and testing protocols. 

There are existing processes followed by 

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), 

such as SAE International or IEEE, where industry 

participates in the development of voluntary 

standards. Industry and SDOs can continue to 

provide leadership in this area and collaborate 

with each other, as well as with U.S. DOT and 

other stakeholders, to address key issues. 

Areas where industry can support standards 

development include—but are not limited to—

topics such as definitions, taxonomy, testing, 

interoperability, and performance characteristic 

definitions.

The Department supports the development 

and continuing evolution of stakeholder-driven 

voluntary standards, which in many cases can be 

an effective non-regulatory means to support 

interoperable integration of technologies into 

the transportation system. The Department 

supports these efforts through multiple 

mechanisms, including cooperation and funding 

support to SDOs; cooperation with industry and 

governmental partners; making Federal, State, 

and local technical expertise available; and 

through international coordination. 

Appendix C provides more information 

on key topic areas and work underway in 

standards development for automation. 

Adopt Cybersecurity 

Best Practices

It is the responsibility of ADS developers, 

vehicle manufacturers, parts suppliers, and all 

stakeholders who support transportation to 

follow best practices, and industry standards, 

for managing cyber risks in the design, 

integration, testing, and deployment of ADS. 

As documented in A Vision for Safety 2.0, 

these entities are encouraged to consider 

and incorporate voluntary guidance, best 

practices, and design principles published by 

NIST, NHTSA, SAE International, the Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association 

of Global Automakers, the Auto ISAC, and 

43 The Federal Trade Commission maintains oversight over, and 

provides resources related to, protecting consumer privacy. 

Additional information is available at https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy 

32 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
other relevant organizations, as appropriate. 

Stakeholders are also encouraged to report 

to the Auto ISAC—or another mode-specific 

ISAC44—all discovered incidents, exploits, 

threats, and vulnerabilities from internal testing, 

consumer reporting, or external security 

research as soon as possible, and provide 

voluntary reports of such information to the DHS 

NCCIC when and where Federal assistance may 

be warranted in response and recovery efforts.

Engage with First Responders 

and Public Safety Officials

To ensure public safety, first responders 

and public safety officials need to have 

ways to interact with automated vehicles 

during emergencies. During traffic incidents, 

emergencies, and special events automated 

vehicles may need to operate in unconventional 

ways. Police officers responsible for traffic 

enforcement may need new procedures to 

signal an ADS-equipped vehicle to pull over and 

determine whether the occupant is violating the 

law or using the ADS appropriately. Responder 

personnel across many disciplines (including 

police, fire, emergency medical services, and 

towing) will need training to safely interact 

with partially or fully disabled ADS-equipped 

vehicles at the scene of a crash. Also, laws 

covering distracted driving, operating under the 

influence, and open alcohol containers may not 

be applicable or may be modified for operators 

or occupants of ADS-equipped vehicles. 

Public safety officials also see the potential for 

automated vehicles to improve emergency 

response by improving data about traffic 

incidents and providing first responders with 

new tools to respond to traffic incidents quickly, 

effectively, and safely. 

To educate, raise awareness, and develop 

emergency response protocols, automated 

vehicle developers should consider 

engaging with the first responder community 

when developing and testing automation 

technologies. Through such engagement, 

technology developers could potentially identify 

new applications of automation technologies 

that can enhance emergency response. The 

Federal Government may also act as a convener 

between public safety officials, technology 

companies, automobile manufacturers, and 

other stakeholders to build consensus around 

uniform voluntary data-sharing standards, 

protocols, and practices.

Private sector leadership is 

critical to advancing the 

development, testing, 

and commercialization of 

automated vehicles.

44 Including the Aviation ISAC (https://www.a-isac.com/), the 

Maritime Security ISAC (http://www.maritimesecurity.org/), 

and the Public Transit ISAC and Surface Transportation ISAC 

(https://www.surfacetransportationisac.org/)

ROLES IN AUTOMATION: PRIVATE 33
U.S. DOT sees a bright future for automation technology and great 

potential for transforming our surface transportation system for the 

better, toward a future with enhanced safety, mobility, and economic 

competitiveness across all transportation modes.
THE ROAD AHEAD 

This section discusses U.S. DOT’s approach to 

moving forward on automation, informed by 

lessons from experience with the adoption of 

new technologies. 

Automation 

Implementation 

Strategies 

U.S. DOT is implementing five core strategies to 

accelerate the integration of automated vehicles 

and to understand their impact across all modes 

of the surface transportation system. The 

Department will put its six automation principles 

into action through these strategies. The 

strategies appear below in roughly sequential 

order, though some may occur in parallel. 

Stakeholders will be engaged throughout 

the process. 

1. Engage stakeholders and the public as 

a convener and leader to address the issues 

automation raises. The Department will engage 

a broad range of stakeholders and provide 

them with opportunities to voice their concerns, 

expectations, and questions about the future 

of automation, to inform future research and 

policy development. U.S. DOT will also work to 

leverage knowledge and experience from across 

academia, industry, public sector agencies, and 

research organizations.

2. Provide best practices and policy 

considerations to support stakeholders as 

they work to better understand automation, how 

it may impact their roles and responsibilities, 

and how best to integrate automated vehicles 

into existing and future transportation networks. 

The Department is committed to providing best 

practices and updated policies as supported by 

research and will provide additional and more 

detailed information as the technology develops.

3. Support voluntary technical standards by 

working with stakeholders and SDOs to support 

technical standards and policies development. 

When in the public interest, the Department 

will support the integration of automation 

technologies throughout the Nation’s 

transportation system. See Appendix C for 

more information.

4. Conduct targeted technical research to 

inform future policy decisions and agency 

actions. Research is critical for producing and 

analyzing data to inform policy decisions, 

moving beneficial applications and technologies 

toward deployment, and evaluating the safety of 

new technologies.

5. Modernize regulations as existing Federal 

regulations and standards may pose challenges 

to the widespread integration of automated 

vehicles. U.S. DOT developed many of its 

regulations over a period of decades, generally 

with the assumption that a human driver would 

always be present. U.S. DOT is in the process 

of identifying and modifying regulations 

that unnecessarily impede the testing, sale, 

operation, or use of automation across the 

surface transportation system.

THE ROAD AHEAD 35
Safety Risk Management 

Stages along the Path 

to Full Commercial 

Integration

In addition to meeting any regulatory or 

statutory requirements, U.S. DOT envisions that 

entities testing and eventually deploying ADS 

technologies will employ a mixture of industry 

best practices, consensus standards, and 

voluntary guidance to manage safety risks along 

the different stages of technology development. 

Reflecting the breadth of industry activity and 

the variety of entities engaged in developing 

ADS technologies, it is useful to describe a 

general conceptual framework to help provide 

clarity to the public regarding the general 

distinctions between the stages of testing and 

full deployment. 

This conceptual framework provides an 

opportunity for discussion around one potential 

vision for promoting safety, managing risk, and 

encouraging the benefits possible from the 

adoption of automated vehicle technologies. 

The following description is in no way intended 

to imply that there is only one path for ADS 

development. Collaboration is needed among 

manufacturers, technology developers, 

infrastructure owners and operators, and 

relevant government agencies to establish 

protocols that will help to advance safe 

operations in these testing environments.

ADS developers may decide that this path 

does not make sense for them or that they will 

combine different phases in unique ways, all of 

which the Department fully supports, as long 

as safety risks are appropriately managed and 

all testing is conducted in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations. Likewise, to 

the extent an ADS developer wishes to use 

this framework, it is not intended to provide 

benchmarks for when a developer may move 

from one phase to another, as that is best left to 

the ADS developer.

Development and Early Stage 

Road Testing 

ADS development does not start with public 

road testing. Significant engineering and safety 

analysis are performed prior to on-road testing 

with a prototype ADS to understand safety 

risks and implement mitigation strategies. 

The primary purpose of this stage is to further 

develop the technology (software and hardware). 

There are many existing industry standards 

that guide general technology development. 

Conceptually, this stage can be characterized by 

these general characteristics: 

Conceptual Framework: 

Safety Risk Management Stages for AV 

Development 

and Early Stage 

Road Testing 

Further Develop the 

Technology—understand 

safety risks and implement 

mitigation strategies

Expanded ADS 

Road Testing

Build Confidence in the 

Technology Within the 

Intended Operational 

Environment—observe 

system failures, receive 

safety driver feedback, and 

execute fail-safe systems

Limited to Full ADS 

Deployment

Move Towards Commercial 

Operation and Widely 

Engaging with the Public—

validate underlying safety 

assumptions, gather user/

public feedback, and identify 

fine-tuning opportunities

U.S. DOT ENGAGEMENT

A collaborative approach to discuss key issues

36 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
• The system would generally be characterized 

as a prototype that already passed 

laboratory and/or closed-course testing.45

The hardware and the vehicle platform may 

be comprised of development or rapid 

prototyping-level equipment. 

• ADS use cases and associated ADS functions 

are identified and implemented, and 

requisite software validation and verification 

are performed in controlled environments 

prior to this stage. The primary purpose of 

this stage of road testing is to validate the 

completeness of use cases and to verify 

that implemented software can perform 

associated functions. 

• Controlled environment (track, simulation, 

etc.) testing and software development are 

continuing alongside ADS prototype road 

testing. Known use cases are being tested in 

controlled environments and new use cases 

identified in road testing are being evaluated 

and stored. 

• Development of use cases could include 

initial assessments of a broad range of 

roadway characteristics (e.g., lane markings, 

signage) and operational scenarios (e.g., 

work zones, road weather) to inform ADS 

performance in the roadway environment. 

• In conjunction, additional software 

development is taking place in failure 

handling, crash imminent scenario 

handling, and edge case handling (nonnominal scenarios).46 

• Safety drivers serve as the main risk 

mitigation mechanism at this stage. 

Safety-driver vigilance and skills are critical 

to ensuring safety of road testing and 

identifying new scenarios of interest. 

• Some safety items (such as cybersecurity 

and human-machine interface) may be 

addressed in alternative ways when 

compared to production systems.

• Usually, in addition to a safety driver, an 

employee engaged in the ADS function/

software development track is also present 

in the vehicle. Software changes could 

happen frequently (both for safety-critical 

issues and other reasons) but are tracked 

and periodically harmonized.

• Members of the public are not in ADS 

prototype vehicles during early stage road 

testing. 

Progressing through 

Testing Stages

The stage of testing and deployment 

of “an ADS in one ODD” does not 

adequately represent the maturity 

of all ADS development activities 

an entity may be pursuing. For 

example, an entity may be at a “limiteddeployment stage” in one specific ODD 

giving limited rides to members of the 

public (e.g., daytime-only, less than 35 

miles per hour, no precipitation, on a few 

streets in a metropolitan area). However, 

simultaneously that same entity may 

be developing its technologies to 

advance its ADS capabilities and expand 

the ODD elsewhere (e.g., to include 

nighttime, higher speeds, precipitation, 

or larger or different geographical areas). 

45 For general guidance in safety of road testing associated 

with these types of systems, see: SAE International, SAE 

J3018_201503, Guidelines for On-Road Testing of SAE Level 3, 

4, and 5 Prototype Automated Driving Systems (Warrendale: 

SAE International, 2015), https://www.sae.org/standards/

content/j3018_201503/

46 These scenarios are more suitable to develop, test, and 

validate in controlled environments for several reasons, 

including testing non-nominal scenarios in naturalistic realworld environments can involve high risk, probabilities of 

natural encounters are too low, and repeatability of tests is 

very difficult to establish.

Expanded ADS Road Testing

Once the development progresses and 

specifications and software components are 

validated to be generally complete, software 

handling of non-nominal cases is integrated 

into an ADS. The primary purpose of this stage 

of testing is to build statistical confidence 

in matured software and hardware within 

the intended operational environment and 

observe system failures, safety driver subjective 

THE ROAD AHEAD 37
feedback, and execution of fail-safe/failoperational system behaviors. Conceptually, 

this stage can be characterized by these 

general attributes: 

• The ADS has matured both in terms 

of hardware and software. Information 

necessary to establish a safety selfassessment should be available and 

reasonably stable. 

• Targeted operational design domain is more 

clearly identified and near fully specified. 

This could include an understanding of how 

the ADS-equipped vehicle interprets the 

standard roadway environment, such as 

lane markings, signage, varying traffic laws, 

dynamic roadway conditions, and other 

users. 

• The functional safety approach has been 

carried out; safety goals are identified and 

risk management controls implemented.

• ADS use cases are validated to be nearly 

complete. Implemented ADS functions are 

validated and verified to meet engineering 

requirements in both controlled and on-road 

environments. 

• Most elements of the ADS—such as fallback 

(minimal risk condition) mechanisms—are 

identified and implemented. Safety drivers 

are still in the loop, but they are expected 

to serve as the secondary risk mitigation 

strategy. 

The Role of On-Road Testing in Validation/Verification and 

Safety Assurance

an important part of the overall development 

process in identifying and validating the 

completeness of use cases, gaining statistical 

confidence in a system’s ability to handle 

use cases, and identifying edge cases and 

otherwise interesting/difficult cases, as well 

as public perceptions and expectations. 

However, once a new scenario of interest is 

identified in road-testing, it is usually added 

to a library and retested many times in 

controlled environments (simulation, track, 

hardware-in-the-loop, software-in-the-loop, 

etc.) and integrated as part of each software 

update release readiness assessment. 

Advancing an ADS function from prototyping 

stages to production release involves 

numerous development objectives. These 

include the ability for the ADS to perform 

nominal driving functions in known use cases, 

perform crash-avoidance maneuvers, revert to 

a safe state when there are identified system 

and sensor failures, and react reasonably safely 

in edge cases. On-road testing cannot 

be expected to address all aspects of 

testing needs towards deployment. For 

example, crash avoidance and failure response 

tests that put systems in imminent crash 

encounters cannot be safely performed in a 

naturalistic environment. On-road testing is 

• Depending on the vehicle platform, some 

safety items (such as cybersecurity and 

human-machine interface) may still be 

addressed in alternative ways.

• The safety driver may be the only person in 

the vehicle. Time between subsequent safety 

driver actions may be extending. Ensuring 

that safety drivers can maintain their 

vigilance in reduced workload is important. 

• Members of the public are still not in 

ADS prototype vehicles during expanded 

road testing. 

Limited to Full ADS 

Deployment 

Limited ADS deployment is similar to what the 

public understands as demonstrations. Full 

deployment of automated vehicles represents 

an ADS that is able to, for example, operate 

commercially and widely engage with the 

public. The main purpose of this stage is to 

reach statistical confidence in the software for 

the intended operational environment, validate 

underlying safety assumptions, gather user 

and public feedback, and identify fine-tuning 

38 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
opportunities in user compatibility areas. 

Conceptually, this stage can be characterized by 

these general characteristics: 

• Complete engineering requirements for 

ADS are specified by the entity developing 

the technology, and internally documented. 

Engineering design reviews are performed, 

and documented.

• The operational design domain is specified 

clearly and ADS operation only takes place 

within that ODD. Relevant ODD elements 

are monitored to ensure full coverage. Any 

ODD expansions go through requisite 

validation and verification processes, 

are documented, and are appropriately 

communicated when applied as a software 

update in deployed units.

• Near-full software, hardware, system 

failure validation, and verification processes 

have been carried out with near 

production hardware.

• Software is stable. Software changes are 

centrally managed at the fleet level. Any 

major change goes through new release 

readiness testing.

• Nearly all elements of ADS—such as fallback 

(minimal risk condition) mechanisms—are 

identified and implemented. Safety drivers 

(including remote safety drivers) may still 

be used, but their roles are limited and 

may eventually be eliminated. Risk-based 

assessments are performed to assure safety 

of these approaches.

• Safety and key performance indicators are 

set and monitored.

• All safety items (including cybersecurity and 

human-machine interface) are addressed in a 

production manner.

• Members of the public are allowed in ADSequipped vehicles on public roads, initially 

on a limited basis.

• Systems move toward full operation by being 

offered for sale, lease, or rent (to include 

free ridesharing) or otherwise engaged in 

commerce in the form of the transport of 

goods or passengers.

• In specified deployment areas, law 

enforcement, first responders, and relevant 

State and local agencies know of operational 

protocols and administrative procedures 

following a crash or other roadway event 

related to an ADS-equipped vehicle in 

the ODD.

Engaging with U.S. DOT along 

the Way

As ADS developers move along their respective 

paths from development to full commercial 

integration, it is useful to identify opportunities 

to further engage with U.S. DOT and the broader 

stakeholder community. The path discussed 

in the previous section illustrates example 

phases of testing and deployment, with sample 

general characteristics defining each stage. This 

framework can help lay out points at which the 

U.S. DOT, ADS developers, and stakeholders 

can engage with each other throughout the 

technology development process and align 

to prioritize safety and manage risks. Rather 

than waiting to interact at the very end of the 

technology development cycle, the U.S. DOT 

prefers a collaborative approach for working with 

industry to address and solve major challenges 

together, where possible. 

In the near-term, the U.S. DOT and its modal 

agencies will continue to pursue its safety 

oversight role within its existing authorities (as 

discussed in Section 2). NHTSA, for example, 

has authority over the safety of ADS-equipped 

vehicles, including establishing Federal safety 

standards for new motor vehicles and addressing 

known safety defects in motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment. 

FMCSA’s oversight begins once the vehicles 

are placed into commercial operation in 

interstate commerce, whether for hire or as a 

private motor carrier, on public roadways. At that 

point, certain regulations designed to ensure 

safe operation apply. 

During the first several years of ADS integration, 

light vehicles, transit vehicles, and the motor 

carrier industry will consist of a mixed fleet. For 

example, motor carriers that employ Level 4 

THE ROAD AHEAD 39
or Level 5 driverless CMVs, those carriers with 

Level 3 or lower ADS-equipped CMVs that still 

have a human driver present, and carriers using 

only traditional non-ADS-equipped vehicles 

will at times be sharing the roadways. Some 

carriers will be operating mixed fleets and the 

ADS-equipped vehicles in deployment will 

represent an even broader array of operational 

design domains. As a result, the U.S. DOT and 

its State and local partners will need to adapt 

enforcement practices and other processes to 

new and rapidly developing ADS technology, 

while also continuing to ensure safe operation of 

conventional human driven vehicles. This will be 

an important area for stakeholders to work with 

the U.S. DOT going forward. 

Moving Forward

In the long term, the U.S. DOT will pursue 

strategies to address regulatory gaps or 

unnecessary challenges that inhibit a safe and 

reasonable path to full commercial integration. 

The operating agencies within the U.S. DOT 

will be working together and with stakeholders 

to support a flexible and transparent policy 

environment to accommodate the safe 

development and integration of 

ADS technology. 

Looking ahead, the U.S. DOT encourages 

stakeholder engagement in several areas as 

it pursues its long-term vision of modernizing 

regulations and supporting the path to full ADS 

commercialization: 

• NHTSA will seek comment on existing 

motor vehicle regulatory barriers and other 

unnecessary barriers to the introduction and 

industry self-certification of ADS. NHTSA 

is developing an ANPRM to determine 

methods to maintain existing levels of safety 

while enabling innovative vehicle designs. 

The ANPRM also explores removing or 

modifying requirements that would no 

longer be appropriate if a human driver is 

not operating the vehicle. NHTSA previously 

published a Federal Register notice 

requesting public comment on January 

18, 2018. NHTSA is issuing an ANPRM 

requesting public comments on designing a 

national pilot program that will enable it to 

facilitate, monitor, and learn from the testing 

and development of emerging advanced 

driving technologies and to assure the safety 

of those activities.

• FMCSA is finalizing an ANPRM to address 

ADS, particularly to identify regulatory 

gaps, including in the areas of inspection, 

repair, and maintenance for ADS. FMCSA 

anticipates considerable public interest and 

participation in this rulemaking effort, which 

will include an opportunity for formal written 

public comments as well as multiple public 

listening sessions. 

 FMCSA is in the process of developing 

policy recommendations to address ADS 

technology. Through public listening 

sessions, the Agency hopes to solicit 

information on issues relating to the design, 

development, testing, and integration of 

ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles. 

FMCSA is excited to share its progress to 

date and learn more about the perspective 

of the trucking and bus industries firsthand 

as it considers future guidance.

• FTA is investing significant research 

resources to support the commercialization 

of innovative solutions in transit automation. 

As part of this research, FTA will assess 

areas of potential regulatory and other 

unnecessary barriers. Examples include 

FTA funding eligibility and technology 

procurement requirements, as well as ADA 

compliance. Currently, FTA is preparing 

guidance to provide stakeholders with clarity 

on existing FTA rules relevant to developing, 

testing, and deploying automated transit 

buses.

• FHWA will continue to work with 

stakeholders through its National Dialogue 

and other efforts to address the readiness 

of the roadway infrastructure to support 

ADS-equipped vehicles. It is reviewing 

existing standards to address uniformity 

and consistency of traffic control devices, 

such as signage, and plans to update the 

existing MUTCD. 

40 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Stakeholders are encouraged to engage 

directly with the Department where and when 

possible to support collaboration. It will be 

important to gather information and feedback 

from the stakeholder community, including 

ADS developers, commercial motor vehicle 

carriers, transit agencies, infrastructure owners 

and operators, the public, and other groups to 

jointly address key challenges and promote safe 

technology development and deployment. 

Conclusion

Over the past century, motor vehicles have 

provided tremendous mobility benefits, 

including widespread access to jobs, goods, and 

services. They have also helped connect many 

of the most remote and isolated regions of the 

country to the larger economy. Along with these 

benefits, however, have come significant safety 

risks and other challenges. Motor vehicle crashes 

remain a leading cause of death in the United 

States, with an estimated 37,133 lives lost on U.S. 

roads in 2017. Automation has the potential to 

improve the safety of our transportation system, 

improve our quality of life, and enhance 

mobility for Americans, including those who do 

not drive today. 

Many Americans remain skeptical about the 

notion that their car could one day be driving 

itself, rather than being driven by humans. 

We certainly cannot predict the exact way 

consumers will choose to interact with these 

technologies. Therefore, the U.S. DOT will not 

rush to regulate a nascent and rapidly evolving 

technology. Instead, the Department supports 

an environment where innovation can thrive 

and the American public can be excited and 

confident about the future of transportation. 

Doing this requires a flexible policy architecture. 

With AV 3.0, U.S. DOT acknowledges the need 

to modernize existing regulations and think 

about new ways to deliver on our mission. 

The Department will work with partners and 

stakeholders in government, industry, and the 

public to provide direction, while also remaining 

open to learning from their experiences and 

needs. Wherever possible, U.S. DOT will 

partner with industry to develop voluntary 

consensus-based standards and will reserve nonprescriptive, performance-based regulations 

for when they are necessary. The Department 

will work to assess and minimize the possible 

harms and spread the benefits of automation 

technology across the Nation.

Regarding the integration of automation into 

professional driving tasks, lessons learned 

through the aviation industry’s experience with 

the introduction of automated systems may 

be instructive and inform the development of 

thoughtful, balanced approaches. These are 

not perfect comparisons, but are still worth 

considering (See Learning from the History of 

THE ROAD AHEAD 41
Automation in Aviation). The aviation industry 

discovered that automation required careful 

consideration of human factors, but led to 

improved safety ultimately. This transition also 

did not result in the elimination of pilot jobs, as 

some had feared. 

Despite the great promise of automation 

technology, important questions remain. For 

example, as driving becomes more automated, 

how can safety be improved? How will people 

interact with these technologies? What happens 

when a human vehicle operator switches to or 

from an automated driving mode? As automated 

driving technologies develop, how will the 

Nation’s 3.8 million professional drivers be 

affected? Which regulatory obstacles need to be 

removed? What opportunities and challenges 

does automation present for long-range regional 

planning? Will automation lead to increased 

urban congestion?

U.S. DOT sees a bright future for automation 

technology and great potential for transforming 

our surface transportation system for the better, 

toward a future with enhanced safety, mobility, 

and economic competitiveness across all 

transportation modes. 

Learning from the History of Automation in the 

Aviation Workforce

The aviation industry developed technological 

solutions to help airline pilots manage factors 

such as high workload, distractions, and 

abnormal situations. Innovation at that time 

eventually led to the introduction of autopilot, 

autothrottle, flight director, sophisticated 

alerting systems, and more. In part because 

of these innovations, the safety record 

for aviation improved significantly.47 Early 

automation technology in aviation performed 

very simple functions; for example, maintaining 

a set altitude or heading—comparable to 

conventional cruise control systems offered 

on most passenger cars today. Pilots readily 

accepted these systems because they reduced 

their workload and were easy to understand. 

As computer technology became more 

capable, automation in the flight deck became 

more complex. For example, it enabled 

sophisticated navigation using precise flight 

paths that contributed to more efficient 

operations. This increased automation came at 

a cost. It became harder for pilots to understand 

what the automated systems were doing, yet 

they remained responsible for taking over when 

the automated systems reached the limits of 

their operating domains or malfunctioned. Pilots 

were also encouraged to use automation to the 

exclusion of manual flight controls, potentially 

degrading manual flight skills. 

Systems that alert pilots to hazardous conditions 

(e.g., proximity to the ground or to other aircraft— 

lane departure alerts are an analogous example 

offered in many passenger cars) have also 

contributed significantly to aviation safety despite 

initial challenges. Early alert systems sometimes 

had a high number of false alarms, so pilots did 

not trust them. Many improvements were made, 

such as better algorithms, better sensors, and 

improved and standardized display of alerts (and 

associated information) on the flight deck. These 

improvements have led to more reliable alerts and 

pilots are more willing to heed them. 

Automation has undeniably made flying safer by 

supporting pilots. The characteristics that have 

improved trust in and effectiveness of these 

systems include:

• Reliable, robust systems that minimize false 

or missed alarms/reports. 

47 Federal Aviation Administration, Operational use 

of flight path management systems, Final Report, 

Performance-based operations Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee/Commercial Aviation Safety Team, Flight 

Deck Automation Working Group (Washington: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 2013), https://www.faa.gov/

aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/human_factors/media/

OUFPMS_Report.pdf.

42 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
• Pilot interfaces that are easy to understand 

and enhance awareness. 

• Training to understand how the systems 

work (and how to operate them).

• Avoidance of skill degradation by 

encouraging pilots to practice manual flight 

and basic skills.

In the early days of aviation automation, 

many pilots worried that autopilot functions 

would completely replace them. Yet today, 

pilots are still paid well, highly regarded, 

and very much in demand. Although aviation 

is still undergoing technological changes, 

including increased automation of many 

services, its first four decades of experience 

shows that the transition from a mode of 

transportation of primarily human operation 

to one where humans and automated 

systems share in the vehicle's operation 

can occur in ways that dramatically increase 

safety while minimizing social disruption.

THE ROAD AHEAD 43
U.S. DOT supports an environment where innovation can thrive 

and the American public can be excited and confident 

about the future of transportation.
APPENDIX A

KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 

Adaptive Cruise Control: A driver assistance system that automatically 

adjusts a vehicle’s speed to maintain a set following distance from the 

vehicle in front. (NHTSA)

ADS-Dedicated Vehicle: A vehicle designed to be operated exclusively by 

a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS for all trips. (SAE J3016)

Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS): Systems designed to help 

drivers with certain driving tasks (e.g., staying in the lane, parking, avoiding 

collisions, reducing blind spots, and maintaining a safe headway). ADAS are 

generally designed to improve safety or reduce the workload on the driver. 

With respect to automation, some ADAS features could be considered SAE 

Level 1 or Level 2, but many are Level 0 and may provide alerts to the driver 

with little or no automation.

Automation: Use of electronic or mechanical devices to operate one or 

more functions of a vehicle without direct human input. Generally applies 

to all modes.

Automated Driving System (ADS): The hardware and software that are 

collectively capable of performing the entire Dynamic Driving Task on a 

sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a specific operational 

design domain. This term is used specifically to describe a Level 3, 4, or 5 

driving automation system. (SAE J3016)

Automated Vehicle: Any vehicle equipped with driving automation 

technologies (as defined in SAE J3016). This term can refer to a vehicle 

fitted with any form of driving automation. (SAE Level 1–5)

Commercial Motor Vehicle: Any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle 

used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or 

property when the vehicle:

(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or 

gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 

pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or

(2) Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the 

driver) for compensation; or

(3) Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including 

the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or

(4) Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of 

Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported 

in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the 

Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C. (FMCSA, 

defined in 49 CFR 390.5)

Cooperative Automation: Ability for automated vehicles to communicate 

with each other and with infrastructure to coordinate their movements.

Cooperative Lane Change and Merge: A dynamic driving task for 

automated vehicles that uses communications to enable negotiations 

between vehicles to provide safe gaps for manual or automated lane 

change or merge maneuver on a roadway. (FHWA)

Driver Assistance Technologies: Cameras and sensors in vehicles that 

help drivers see more than they can with the naked eye and warn of a 

possible collision. Driver assistance technologies can help drivers with 

KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 45
backing up and parking, maintaining safe distance from other vehicles, 

preventing forward collisions, and navigating lanes safely. (NHTSA)

Driving Automation System or Technology: The hardware and software 

that are collectively capable of performing part or all of the Dynamic 

Driving Task on a sustained basis; this term is used generically to describe 

any system capable of Level 1–5 driving automation. (SAE J3016)

Dynamic Driving Task (DDT): All of the real-time operational and tactical 

functions required to operate a vehicle in on-road traffic, excluding the 

strategic functions such as trip scheduling and selection of destinations and 

waypoints. (SAE J3016)

DDT Fallback: The response by the user or by an ADS to either perform 

the DDT or achieve a minimal risk condition after occurrence of a DDT 

performance-relevant system failure(s) or upon Operational Design Domain 

(ODD) exit. (SAE J3016)

GlidePath: A prototype application of signalized approach and departure 

that has been demonstrated to stakeholders. (FHWA)

Hazardous Material: The Secretary shall designate material (including 

explosive, radioactive material, infectious substance, flammable or 

combustible liquid, solid, or gas, toxic, oxidizing, or corrosive material, 

and compressed gas) or a group or class of material as hazardous when 

the Secretary determines that transporting the material in commerce in a 

particular amount and form may pose an unreasonable risk to health and 

safety or property. (PHMSA, defined 49 U.S.C. § 5103)

Human-in-the-loop: Intermittent remote operation or intervention by a 

human of an automated or autonomous vehicle for emergency or special 

handling reasons. (FRA)

Minimal Risk Condition: A condition to which a user or an ADS may bring 

a vehicle after performing the DDT fallback in order to reduce the risk of a 

crash when a given trip cannot or should not be completed. (SAE J3016)

Object Event Detection and Response (OEDR): The subtasks of the DDT 

that include monitoring the driving environment (detecting, recognizing, 

and classifying objects and events and preparing to respond as needed) 

and executing an appropriate response to such objects and events (i.e., as 

needed to complete the DDT and/or DDT fallback). (SAE J3016)

Operational Design Domain (ODD): The specific conditions under 

which a given driving automation system or feature thereof is designed to 

function, including, but not limited to, driving modes. This can incorporate 

a variety of limitations, such as those from geography, traffic, speed, and 

roadways. (SAE J3016)

Remote Driver/Remote Operation: A driver who is not seated in a 

position to manually exercise in-vehicle braking, accelerating, steering, and 

transmission gear selection input devices (if any) but is able to operate the 

vehicle. (SAE J3016)

Signalized Intersection Approach and Departure: An automated vehicle 

that communicates with infrastructure using Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) 

and Map Data Message (MAP) messages to automate the movement of 

single or multiple automated vehicles through intersections to increase 

traffic flow and safety. (FHWA)

Speed Harmonization: A strategy to increase traffic flow enabled by 

communications between an automated vehicle and infrastructure to 

change traffic speed on roads that approach areas of traffic congestion, 

bottlenecks, incidents, special events, and other conditions that affect flow. 

(FHWA)

Vehicle Platooning: A group of automated vehicles that use 

communications to enable negotiations between vehicles to support 

organized behavior and safe close following. (FHWA)

46 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADS Automated Driving Systems

AI Artificial Intelligence

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ATTRI Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative

CDL Commercial Driver’s License

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DDT Dynamic Driving Task

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOL Department of Labor

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FTC Federal Trade Commission

HHS Health and Human Services

HMI human-machine interface

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

ISAC Information Sharing and Analysis Center

ISO International Standards Organization

MARAD Maritime Administration

MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MRC Minimal Risk Condition

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NCCIC National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NSP National Public Transportation Safety Plan

ODD operational design domain

OEDR Object and Event Detection and Response

OHMS Office of Hazardous Materials Safety

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PTASP Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan

PTC Positive Train Control

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SDO Standards Development Organization

SMS Safety Management System

SPaT Signal Phase and Timing

STAR Strategic Transit Automation Research

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

US-CERT United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team

UVC Uniform Vehicle Code

VRU Vulnerable Road User

VSSA Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment

KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 47
APPENDIX B

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 

Since the publication of A Vision for Safety 2.0, the U.S. DOT has sought 

input from the public through public meetings, demonstration projects, 

expert roundtables and workshops, Requests for Information, and Requests 

for Comment. In March 2018, U.S. DOT hosted an Automated Vehicle 

Summit to discuss the cross-modal issues most critical to the successful 

integration of automated vehicles and provide input to this document. For 

more information, see transportation.gov/AV. 

The most common themes and concerns stakeholders shared with the U.S. 

DOT include:

• Consumer and public education: Stakeholders agreed on the need for 

improved public and consumer education regarding the capabilities of 

vehicles with different levels of automation. Responses emphasized the 

need to engage a diverse range of stakeholders. 

• Data and digital infrastructure: Respondents identified a need 

for standardized frameworks and enhanced digital infrastructure for 

collecting, managing, and exchanging data related to automated vehicle 

operation. 

• Connectivity: Many respondents suggested continued investment 

in research into V2V and V2I communications and their potential to 

complement automated vehicle technologies. Responses noted the need 

for standardized and interoperable communications.

• Mobility and accessibility: Many stakeholders see great promise in 

the potential for automated vehicles to support the independence of 

people with disabilities by improving the accessibility of mobility options. 

To achieve this potential, stakeholders stressed that innovators and 

policymakers need to engage in an open dialogue with the disability 

community.

• Public safety and emergency response: Some respondents 

emphasized the need for establishing protocols for emergency 

responders, including emergency overrides to transfer control to a 

human in case of an emergency or equipment malfunction. 

• Roadway readiness: Stakeholders recognize that improved roadway 

maintenance, enhanced digital infrastructure, and increased uniformity 

have the potential to enhance automated vehicle operations. However, 

many are concerned about making long-term infrastructure investments 

given the uncertainty about automation capabilities and requirements.

• Insurance and liability: Respondents raised concerns regarding 

insurance requirements and methods for determining liability.

• Cybersecurity: Stakeholder responses stressed the need for setting 

cybersecurity standards and establishing models and partnerships to 

mitigate the risk of hacking or intrusions. 

• Workforce impacts: Stakeholders expressed concerns about the 

potential impact of automation on employment, particularly in the motor 

carrier, transit, and rail industries, and encouraged additional research 

into opportunities for re-training and workforce development. 

48 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
APPENDIX C

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS 

FOR AUTOMATION 

Standardization-related needs associated with surface vehicle automation 

are in various stages of identification, development, definition, and 

adoption. Standardization-related documents can include voluntary 

technical standards published by standards developing organizations 

(SDOs) as well as specifications, best practices descriptions and other types 

of documents. There are standards that apply to almost all levels of vehicle 

automation. These include ISO 26262 Road Vehicles Functional Safety and 

SAE’s J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to OnRoad Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. There are many existing 

standards, but they may not fully address automated vehicle needs. Some 

standards specific to automated vehicles and many standards in other 

automation-relevant domains have been developed, but gaps remain 

where activity is underway or anticipated. 

In addition to those standards that support interoperable integration, 

many standards development efforts are focused on describing common 

terminology, required performance capabilities, and interfaces between 

subsystems inside automated systems. These efforts include both 

automation-specific standards and domain-specific standards—for 

example, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) standards—

applicable to subsystems and technologies that are then integrated into 

the overall automation system or surface transportation system. There are 

also sets of published best practices and frameworks that complement and 

are used in conjunction with voluntary technical standards. For example, 

the NIST cybersecurity framework describes a holistic approach to 

mitigating cyber threats across complex systems.

The Department will continue our cooperative, coordinated approach 

to supporting development of stakeholder-driven voluntary technical 

standards and similar documents across internal modal partners. The 

Department will follow a similar process to the approach for modernizing 

regulation, including:

1. Gather information through research, internal analysis, and 

stakeholder engagement on voluntary technical standardization needs. 

2. Explore and execute new approaches to meet technical challenges in 

a way acceptable to the broad, diverse stakeholder community. 

3. Work to ease implementation of automated vehicle products by 

supporting development of voluntary technical standards, system 

architecture options and user services for the interface between 

vehicles and infrastructure, along with companion software toolsets and 

implementation support programs.

 Means include cooperation and funding support to SDOs, cooperation 

with industry and governmental partners, making Federal technical 

expertise available, and international coordination.

4. Cooperate with stakeholders to maximize interoperability throughout 

North America as well as to take advantage of common international 

interests and global expertise by leveraging work across multiple 

regions and markets. 

Vehicle automation systems represent one element of a larger system-ofsystems architecture within surface transportation. Vehicle manufacturers 

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 49
control what goes into the vehicle, while infrastructure owners and 

operators control the physical environment where the vehicle operates. 

That infrastructure covers more than the roadway and can include 

communications networks, electric vehicle charging stations, and other 

components. Surface vehicle automation systems have technological 

crossovers and interdependencies. These include considerations about 

software reliability as the degree of software dependency increases. 

Interdependencies are not directly mapped from traditional standards, 

and those factors expand the scope of consensus agreement on systems 

architectures and voluntary technical standards.

To gain a general understanding of what standards might be beneficial for 

vehicle automation, the interests, goals, and perspectives of innovators 

and stakeholders can be used as a basis to categorize the different 

types of existing and prospective standards. Figure 1 offers one way of 

logically dividing the voluntary technical standards landscape into three 

complementary category areas to encompass multiple perspectives. 

As innovators and stakeholders advance the state of the art in automation, 

it is useful to identify those standards that already are available. Table 

1 organizes existing standards by three functional areas: technology, 

functional standards, and safety, and identifies the associated organization. 

In some cases, these standards are applicable globally or multi-regionally; 

in other cases, differing standards have evolved in specific regions. 

This is reflected in Table 1, which describes work by a wide spectrum of 

organizations whose standardization-related documents are applicable 

domestically and across global markets. There may be ongoing work that is 

not captured below.

Technology Areas

Software

System Engineering

Communications

Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT)

Mapping

Sensing

Infrastructure

Human-Machine Interface (HMI)

Functional Standards Areas

Definitions and Architecture

Data

Design

Maintenance and Inspection

Functional / Performance

Protocol (Communications)

Security

Testing / Test Targets

Training

Safety Areas

System Safety

Operational Design Domain (ODD)

Object and Event Detection and 

Response (OEDR)

Fallback (Minimal Risk Condition - MRC)

Validation Methods

HMI

Vehicle Cybersecurity

Crashworthiness

Post-Crash ADS Behavior

Data Recording

Consumer Education and Training

Federal, State, and Local Laws

Commercial Vehicle Inspection

50 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Table 1. Relevant Standardization-Related Document by Functional Area

(as of August 2018)

Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Definitions and 

Architecture

Definitions

• SAE J2944_201506 — Operational Definitions of 

Driving Performance Measures and Statistics 

• SAE J3016_201806 — Taxonomy and Definitions 

for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle 

Automated Driving Systems

• SAE J3018_201503 — Guidelines for Safe OnRoad Testing of SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 Prototype 

Automated Driving Systems 

• SAE J3063_201511 — Active Safety Systems Terms 

and Definitions

• SAE J3077_201512 — Definitions and Data Sources 

for the Driver Vehicle Interface (DVI)

• SAE J3087_201710 — Automatic Emergency Braking 

(AEB) System Performance Testing

• SAE AS-4 Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems 

(JAUS)

• SAE AIR5372A:2014 Information on Brake-By-Wire 

(BBW) Brake Control Systems [pertains to aircraft, 

but may be of use to surface transportation]

• National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Special Publication (SP) 1011 I-2.0 Autonomy 

Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework

• NIST NISTIR 6910 — 4D/RCS Version 2.0: A Reference 

Model Architecture for Unmanned Vehicle Systems

• ASTM Committee F45 on Driverless Automatic 

Guided Industrial Vehicles Architecture

• ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017(E) — Systems and software 

engineering — Software life cycle processes

• U.S. Army Robotic Systems Joint Project Office 

Interoperability Profiles 

• Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) 

Testing

• European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 

European Standard (EN) 1525: Safety of Industrial 

Trucks — Driverless Trucks and Their Systems

• CEN — CEN/Technical Committee (TC) 278 WG 12: 

Intelligent Transport Systems Automatic Vehicles 

and Equipment Identification.

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 51
(Continued) Table 1. Relevant Standardization-Related Document by Functional Area (as of August 2018)

Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Data • Navigation Data Standard (NDS) — a standardized 

format for automotive-grade navigation databases, 

jointly developed by automobile manufacturers 

and suppliers. 

• North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)

• World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84)

• European Terrestrial Reference System 1989 

(ETRS89)

• Chinese encrypted datum 2002 (CSJ-02)

• ADASIS Forum vehicle to cloud messaging 

standards

• Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)

• International Atomic Time (TAI)

• ISO 11270:2014 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Lane Keeping Assistance Systems (LKAS) — 

Performance requirements and test procedures 

• ISO 14296:2016 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Extension of map database specifications 

for applications of cooperative Intelligent 

Transportation Systems

• ISO 14825:2011 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Geographic Data Files (GDF) — GDF5.0

• ISO 15622:2010 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Adaptive Cruise Control Systems — Performance 

requirements and test procedures

• ISO 19237:2017 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Pedestrian detection and collision mitigation 

systems (PDCMS) — Performance requirements 

and test procedures

• ISO 22178:2009 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Low speed following (LSF) systems — Performance 

requirements and test procedures

• ISO 22179:2009 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Full Speed Range Adaptive (FSRA) systems — 

Performance requirements and test procedures

• ISO 22839:2013 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Forward vehicle collision mitigation systems — 

Operation, performance, and verification 

requirements

• ISO/DIS 20035 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) — 

Operation, performance, and verification 

requirements

• SAE J1698 — Event Data Recorder (EDR)

52 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Design • Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

• American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 

(Green Book)

• AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

• Joint SAE-AASHTO Committee on Road Markings

• ISO 2575:2010 — Road vehicles — Symbols for 

controls, indicators, and tell-tales

• SAE J2945_201712 — DSRC Systems Engineering 

Process Guidance for SAE J2945/X Documents and 

Common Design Concepts

Maintenance and 

Inspections

• Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) North American Standard Inspection Program (roadside inspection 

process for inspecting commercial motor vehicles and drivers throughout North America)

Functional / 

Performance

• SAE J2958:2011 — Report on Unmanned Ground 

Vehicle Reliability

• SAE J2980_201804 — Considerations for ISO 

26262 Automotive Safety Integrity Levels (ASIL) 

Hazard Classification

• SAE J3088 — Active Safety System Sensors

• SAE J3116_201706 — Active Safety Pedestrian Test 

Mannequin Recommendation

• U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Military Standards 

(MIL-STD) — 882E Standard Practice for System 

Safety

• Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) 

DO-178C Software Considerations in Airborne 

Systems and Equipment Certification

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) — GB-8719.13 Software Safety Guidebook

• Automated Driving and Platooning Task Force of 

the American Trucking Associations Technology and 

Maintenance Council

• ISO 13482:2014 — Robots and robotic devices — 

Safety requirements for personal care robots 

• ISO 15622:2010 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Adaptive Cruise Control systems — Performance 

requirements and test procedures

• ISO 17386:2010 — Transport information and 

control systems — Maneuvering Aids for Low Speed 

Operation (MALSO) — Performance requirements 

and test procedures

• ISO 22840:2010 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Devices to aid reverse maneuvers — Extended-range 

backing aid (ERBA) systems

• ISO 26262 — Road vehicles — Functional safety

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 53
(Continued) Table 1. Relevant Standardization-Related Document by Functional Area (as of August 2018)

Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Protocols 

(Communications)

• IEEE 802.11X

• IEEE 1609.0: 2013 — IEEE Draft Guide for Wireless 

Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) — 

Architecture

• IEEE 1609.2: 2016 — WAVE - Security Services for 

Applications and Management Messages

• IEEE 1609.2a: 2017 — WAVE — Security Services and 

Message Sets — Amendment 1

• IEEE 1609.3: 2016 — WAVE — Networking Services

• IEEE 1609.4: 2016 — WAVE — Multi-channel 

Operations

• IEEE 1609.12: 2016 — WAVE — Identifier Allocation

• IEEE 8802-3-2014 — Standard for Ethernet

• IEEE 8802-3-2017 — Standard for Ethernet — 

Amendments

• SAE J1939 Core Standards — Serial Control and 

Communications Heavy Duty Vehicle Network

• SAE J2735_201603 — Vehicle-to-Vehicle Message 

Sets

• SAE J2945/1_201603 — On-Board System 

Requirements 

for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Safety Communications

• SAE J2945/9_201703 — Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Message Minimum Performance Requirements

• SAE J3067_201408 — Candidate Improvements to 

Dedicated Short Range Communications Message 

Set Dictionary [SAE J2735] Using Systems Engineering 

Methods

• SAE AS6802 — Time-Triggered Ethernet

• Time-Sensitive Networking Task Group (IEEE 802.1X 

Ethernet)

• Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) 

Standard (STD) — T109 700 MHz Band ITS (V2V 

communications)

• ARIB STD-T110 — Dedicated Short Range 

Communications (Japan) Basic Application Interface 

• ARIB STD-T88 Dedicated Short Range 

Communications (Japan) Application Sublayer

Security • SAE J3061_201601 — Cybersecurity Guidebook for 

Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems

• NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF)

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Cybersecurity Framework

• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

— 62443 Industrial communication networks — 

Network and system security

• ISO/IEC 15408 — Information technology — Security 

techniques — Evaluation criteria for information 

technology (IT) Security

• ISO/IEC TR 15446:2017 — Information Technology — 

Security Techniques — Guidance for the production 

of protection profiles and security targets

• ISO/IEC 18045:2008 — Information technology — 

Security techniques — Methodology for IT security 

evaluation

54 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Testing/Test 

Target

• SAE J2396_201705 — Definitions and Experimental 

Measures Related to the Specification of Driver 

Visual Behavior Using Video Based Techniques

• SAE J3018_201503 — Guidelines for Safe OnRoad Testing of SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 Prototype 

Automated Driving Systems 

• SAE J3048_201602 — Driver-Vehicle Interface 

Considerations for Lane Keeping Assistance 

Systems

• SAE J3077_201512 — Definitions and Data Sources 

for the DVI

• SAE J3114_201612 — Human Factors Definitions for 

Automated Driving and Related Research Topics

• IEC-61508 — Functional Safety of Electrical/

Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related 

Systems

• ISO/DIS 11270:2014 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Lane keeping assistance systems (LKAS) — 

Performance requirements and test procedures

• ISO 15622:2010 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Adaptive Cruise Control Systems — Performance 

requirements and test procedures

• ISO 19237:2017 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Pedestrian detection and collision mitigation 

systems (PDCMS) — Performance requirements and 

test procedures

• ISO 22178:2009 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Low speed following (LSF) systems — Performance 

requirements and test procedures

• ISO 22179:2009 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

Full Speed Range Adaptive Cruise Control (FSRA) 

systems — Performance requirements and 

test procedures

• ISO 22839:2013 — Intelligent Transport Systems 

— Forward vehicle collision mitigation systems — 

Operation, performance, and verification requirements

• ISO/DIS 20035 — Intelligent Transport Systems — 

Cooperative adaptive cruise control systems (CACC) — 

Performance requirements and test procedures

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 55
(Continued) Table 1. Relevant Standardization-Related Document by Functional Area (as of August 2018)

Functional 

Area

Standardization-Related Documents

Testing/Test 

Target

Architecture/Software

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 — Software and systems engineering — Software testing

56 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
As automation technologies advance, additional needs may become evident that are not covered by currently available standards. Those needs 

may be met by a combination of automation-specific standards and domain-specific standards. The table below presents an inventory of known 

standards development activities underway to support known and anticipated automation needs.

Table 2: Known Current Standards Development Activities 

 Relevant to Automated Surface Vehicles (as of August 2018)

Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

Cooperative 

Situational 

Awareness

• Need to utilize perception systems from other 

surface vehicles and infrastructure systems to 

overcome sensor occlusion and range.

• SENSORIS, ADASIS Forum

• SAE J2945/6 — Performance Requirements for 

Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control and Platooning

• SAE J3161 — On-Board System Requirements for 

LTE V2X V2V Safety Communications

Cybersecurity 

Framework

• Describe best practices

• Cover aspects of identify, respond, recover, protect, 

and detect for vehicles and infrastructure

• Auto-ISAC Best Practices

• NHTSA — Cyber Resiliency Framework project 

(RFP released winter 2017)

• National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) 03-127 Cybersecurity of Traffic 

Management Systems research project

• ITS Joint Program Office Data Program ADS 

Data Roundtable

• American Trucking Association Technology and 

Maintenance Council

• Association of Global Automakers — Framework 

for Automotive Cybersecurity Best Practices

Data sharing: 

Scenarios

• Provide common set of parameters and interface 

definitions to enable sharing of scenarios

• Pegasus Open-Simulation Interface

• ITS JPO Data Program ADS Data Roundtable

• International work on standards harmonization

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 57
(Continued) Table 2: Known Current Standards Development Activities Relevant to Automated Surface Vehicles (as of August 2018)

Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

Communications 

Performance

• Assure required reliability and availability of wireless 

communications links

• SAE J2945/2 — DSRC Requirements for V2V 

Safety Awareness

• SAE J2945/3 — Requirements for Vehicle-toInfrastructure (V2I) Weather Applications

• SAE J2945/4 — DSRC Messages for Traveler 

Information and Basic Information Delivery

• SAE J2945/6 — Performance Requirements for 

CACC and Platooning 

DVI Guidelines • Design for all user types including those with 

disabilities

• Identify different driver states

• Helps define minimal risk condition

• Need to define approaches for testing and 

certification

• SAE J3171 — ADS-DV User Issues for Persons 

with Disabilities

• SAE DVI Task Force (TF) 5 — Automated Vehicles 

and DVI Challenges Committee

Emergency 

Vehicle 

Interaction

• V2V/V2I or other communication/sensing techniques 

for ensuring safe and efficient passage of 

emergency vehicles

• SAE J2945/2 — DSRC Requirements for V2V 

Safety Awareness

Encrypted 

Communications

• Some communications can be signed and some will 

need to be encrypted

• IEEE 1609.2 — Standard for Wireless Access in 

Vehicular Environments — Security Services for 

Applications and Management Messages

• ISO TC204 WG16 and WG18 activity

Event Data 

Recorder

• Data elements for crash reconstruction and 

determining if ADS defect may exist

• SAE Event Data Recorder Committee

58 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

Functional 

Architecture

• Encourage interoperability and enable system-level 

innovation and more complex applications 

to emerge

• SAE On-Road Automated Driving (ORAD)

• SAE J3131 — Automated Driving Reference 

Architecture

• IEEE WG2040 — Standard for Connected, Automated 

and Intelligent Vehicles: Overview and Architecture

• IEEE WG2040.1 — Standard for Connected, 

Automated and Intelligent Vehicles: Taxonomy and 

Definitions

• IEEE WG2040.2 — Standard for Connected, 

Automated and Intelligent Vehicles: Testing and 

Verification

• Other domains: Robot Operating System (ROS), 

JAUS, VICTORY, AUTOSAR

Functional Safety • Using verification and validation (V&V) from current 

standards to ensure a safe vehicle design

• ISO 26262 — Road Vehicles — Functional Safety

• IEC 62508 — Dynamic Test Procedures for 

Verification 

and Validation of Automated Driving Systems 

• SAE J3092 — Dynamic Test Procedures for Verification 

and Validation of Automated Driving Systems 

ISO/WD PAS 21448 — Road vehicles — Safety of 

the intended functionality

General 

Atmospheric 

Conditions/Road 

Weather

• Classify various weather conditions and data formats

• Identify ODD boundaries

• Identify minimal risk condition and transition 

of control

• Define approaches for testing and certification

• Reference model architecture efforts within ISO 

TC204 WG 1 include provision for road weather 

(connected vehicle focus)

• NHTSA Testable Cases Project

• SAE J3164 — Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms 

Related to Automated Driving System Behaviors 

and Maneuvers for On-Road Motor Vehicles

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 59
(Continued) Table 2: Known Current Standards Development Activities Relevant to Automated Surface Vehicles (as of August 2018)

Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

Global Positioning 

System (GPS) 

Spoofing

• Describe risk mitigations

• Define test apparatus, infrastructure, procedures

• SAE J3061_201601 — Cybersecurity Guidebook for 

Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems

• ISO 26262 — Road vehicles — Functional safety

Infrastructure 

signage and traffic 

control device 

design

• Describe how tests address functional requirements

• Facilitate discussion between parties

• Define test apparatus, infrastructure, and 

procedures

• Define ODD-specific Object and Event Detection 

and Response (OEDR) tests

• Current joint SAE/AASHTO Task Force

• SAE J2945/X — Dedicated Short Range 

Communication (DSRC) Systems

• NCHRP 20-102(15) — Impacts of Connected and 

Automated Vehicle Technologies on the Highway 

Infrastructure

Interactions with 

Vulnerable Road 

Users (VRU)

• Identify minimal risk condition and transition 

of control

• Define approaches for testing and certification

• Ongoing activity in SAE lighting committee 

• SAE J3122 — Test Target Correlation

Maintenance and 

inspection of 

sensors, software

• Automation benefits from routine maintenance of 

systems for optimal performance and operations

• ISO 3888 — Diagnostic, maintenance and test 

equipment may provide a guideline for this

Minimal Risk 

Condition

• Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) definition provides 

common understanding to enable discussion; it 

exists, but may need to be updated

• MRC performance requirements set expectations 

between OEMs, regulators, and public

• MRC data elements in EDR enable crash 

reconstruction

• SAE J3131 — Automated Driving Reference 

Architecture

• SAE Event Data Recorder Task Force

60 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

ODD Definition • Specify the boundaries of the ODD including: road 

type, lighting, weather, traffic volume, incidents, etc.

• Boundaries may be set by vehicle capabilities and/or 

jurisdictional requirement or other factors.

• American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators (AAMVA) Jurisdictional Guidelines 

for the Safe Testing and Deployment of Highly 

Automated Vehicles 46

• No known work with standards organizations; 

however, States are believed to have initiatives 

underway (Caltrans, Florida DOT)

• SAE J3016 — Definitions of ODD

Over-the-Air 

(OTA) Software 

Updates

• Assess security threats, risks and vulnerabilities

• Provision common methods to update vehicle 

software by a secure procedure

• Security controls and protocol definition

• ITU-T X.1373 (03/2017) — International 

Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) — 

Recommendation Secure Software Update Capability 

for Intelligent Transportation System Communication 

Devices 

Sharing of static 

and dynamic road 

segment and 

traffic control 

device data

• Automation benefits from dynamic data on work 

zones, road closures, SPAT, etc., and static data like 

bus stop locations and crosswalk geometry, and 

laws that originate from roadway owner-operators 

and may be relayed via digital maps

• U.S. DOT is convening States that publish work zone 

data and want to harmonize feeds (e.g., Iowa DOT, 

Colorado DOT), standards activity may follow

• NCHRP 20-102(15) — Impacts of Connected and 

Automated Vehicle Technologies on the Highway 

Infrastructure

• SAE J2945/10 — Recommended Practices for MAP/

SPaT Message Development

46 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Jurisdictional Guidelines for the Safe Testing and Deployment of Highly Automated Vehicles 

(Arlington: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 2018), https://www.aamva.org/GuidelinesTestingDeploymentHAVs-May2018/.

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 61
(Continued) Table 2: Known Current Standards Development Activities Relevant to Automated Surface Vehicles (as of August 2018)

Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

Testing 

Approaches

• Describe how tests address functional requirements

• Facilitate discussion between parties

• Define test apparatus, infrastructure, procedures

• Define ODD-specific OEDR tests

• Define role of simulation, track testing and on-road 

testing

• SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Committee

• SAE J3018 — Guidelines for Safe On-Road Testing 

of SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 Prototype Automated 

Driving Systems

• Pegasus/AdaptIVe project

• TNO Streetwise methodology

• U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development 

and Engineering Center (TARDEC) guidelines

• Department of Defense Unmanned Systems Safety 

Guide being updated 47

• FHWA Test and Evaluation for Vehicle Platooning 48

• AAMVA — Jurisdictional Guidelines for the Safe 

Testing and Deployment of Highly Automated 

Vehicles

• FHWA and SAE Cooperative Automation Research 

Modeling and Analysis (CARMA) program

• US DOT V2I research program DSRC Roadside Unit 

(RSU) Specifications development

Transition of DDT 

Control

• Research to define time to alert, alert format, time to 

react if no takeover and driver states

• Helps define minimal risk condition

• Need to define approaches for testing and 

certification

• SAE ORAD Levels of Automation

• SAE DVI Committee

47 U.S. Department of Defense, Unmanned Systems Safety Guide for DOD Acquisition (Arlington: U.S. Department of Defense, 2007), 

http://www.denix.osd.mil/shf/programs/ssa/references/unmanned-systems-safety-guide-for-dod-acquisition/.

48 Tiernan, Tim A., et al., Test and Evaluation of Vehicle Platooning Proof-of-Concept Based on Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control Final Report 

(Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1038.

62 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
Topic Area Functional Needs Standardization-Related Activities

ADS-DV Issues 

for Persons with 

Disabilities

• L4 and L5 ADS-Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs) will 

eventually enable persons to travel at will who are 

otherwise unable to obtain a driver's license for a 

conventional vehicle

• This work will document user issues specific to this 

population.

• SAE J3171 — ADS-DV User Issues for Persons 

with Disabilities

VOLUNTARY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATION 63
64 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION 
With the development of automated vehicles, 

American creativity and innovation hold the potential to 

once again transform mobility.