Former Senate Staffer Reveals How Congress Can Pass an Autonomous Vehicle Bill
Lawyer Christian Fjeld, the former lead Democratic Senate staffer tasked with shepherding the AV START Act through the Senate, discusses why Congress failed to pass the bill and how it can learn from its mistakes.
November 19, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Fully autonomous vehicles aren't just the figment of sci-fi enthusiasts' imagination. Lawmakers and staffers are attempting to make them a reality on U.S. roads. Christian Fjeld was part of that push last year as lead Democratic Senate staffer for the American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act (AV START Act).
The autonomous vehicle bill, however, fizzled in the Senate because it failed to meet some senators' safety concerns as the 115th Congress came to a close.
Now, Fjeld serves as vice president of ML Strategies, the government relations and consulting group of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, where he leverages his 10 years of staff leadership experience on the Hill to assist clients with the federal government.
Legaltech News caught up with Fjeld to discuss why the AV START Act failed, how autonomous vehicles' complexity isn't lawmakers' largest hurdle and why the data privacy debate may factor into the next autonomous vehicle bill. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Legaltech News: What were senators' concerns with the AV START Act?
Christian Fjeld: I think the preemption provision proved to be problematic. We were able to get the bill out of committee by voice vote, but after we did that there were some concerns raised that the preemption provision did not sufficiently protect common law liability or any state law liability.
States didn't believe their traditional authority was properly preserved. … There was also increased concern that NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] did not have sufficient regulatory authority to regulate these cars because it will take NHTSA quite some time to promulgate standards over these complex vehicles. Given how complicated and time-consuming it would be there were concerns of a vacuum of sorts while NHTSA is developing their safety standards.
How did you work to address those concerns?
Passing anything in the Senate is always tough. Most bills have to pass by unanimous consent—that means every single senator has to approve of the bill in order for the bill to go through. I think there was probably enough votes to get it passed, but because we had to get the bill passed with unanimous consent, if there was any senator that had any objection or concern with the bill those objections had to be addressed. And quite frankly we tried to do so but we simply ran out of time.
What do you think is stopping Congress from implementing an autonomous vehicles bill?
I think the key issues will likely be what we've seen in the past, which is the preemption provision. I think another big issue will be data sharing. What will the obligations be, if any, on manufacturers to share data these vehicles generate when various stake industry groups, such as insurance companies, rental car companies and states want this information for infrastructure planning purposes?
In March, NHTSA announced it was accepting public comment regarding General Motors' exemptions request for a fully autonomous vehicle. Is that a significant step forward for autonomous vehicles in the U.S.?
I think so. GM is exercising their rights under existing law to seek exemptions from FMVSS under NHTSA, but they are currently capped at what's currently allowed under the law.
I do think if NHTSA does approve that GM request for exemptions, it sets the stage for what future petitions would look like and potentially provide a blueprint for how to successfully seek an exemption.
A federal lawmaker said complexity is one of the factors preventing a national data privacy bill. From your perspective, is autonomous vehicles a complex issue for lawmakers to decipher?
I don't personally think AV policy has as many tentacles that data privacy has. Data privacy is pretty multilayered and there is so much information being collected and used at so many different levels. I think that type of complexity is on a different level [compared to] AV policy, which I think is a little more straightforward. It's really about what is the regulatory structure going to be in place to maximize public safety.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250