We Asked California Lawyers for Views on the New Driverless Rules. Here's What They Said.
Big Law and consumer advocates weigh in on new rules that could put no-hands driverless vehicles on streets next year.
October 12, 2017 at 12:17 PM
5 minute read
|
California regulators on Wednesday rolled out the latest proposed rules for regulating driverless cars, staking their claim for strong state oversight in the face of increased calls for federal preemption.
The new rules for testing and deployment made mostly minor changes to draft regulations released in March. There's more clarity about notifying cities and counties about testing driverless cars. There's a standard template now, too, for manufacturers to report incidents when a car's autonomous-driving features were disengaged.
The basic rules, however, remain the same. Autonomous vehicles will be able to travel California roads without a human driver—perhaps by next summer—as long as manufacturers certify to the state that their vehicles operate safely.
That requirement could put California at odds with legislation pending in Congress that contemplates preemption of competing state rules. The U.S. Department of Transportation last month released revamped federal guidance for autonomous vehicle manufacturers that relies significantly on voluntary compliance.
California state regulators declined to talk about any looming dispute over preemption. Brian Soublet, general counsel for the state Department of Motor Vehicles, said he doesn't see a state-federal conflict in the latest proposal.
“Our regulations recognize that separation between NHTSA's authority to regulate vehicle safety while maintaining the long-standing tradition that it is a state's role to talk about the safe operation of a vehicle on the street,” Soublet said. “We don't understand why it would be a problem with respect to [manufacturers'] certifying to a state that a car will be operating safely.”
The DMV has opened a 15-day comment period on the new regulations. The agency will send them to the Office of Administrative Law for final processing and approval. The new rules could be on the books by June 2018, Soublet said.
We reached out to industry lawyers for their observations about California's new rules. Here's a snapshot of what some of them had to say.
Matthew Marmolejo and Philip Recht, Mayer Brown: A number of states recently have enacted legislation, or revised existing legislation, permitting essentially unfettered testing and/or deployment of driverless vehicles. In some sense, these revised regulations are California's response, issued to clarify ambiguities raised through public comment, in part with the hope of ensuring that the large number of companies currently testing this technology in California do not go elsewhere.
The regulations include other important changes clarifying potential autonomous vehicle manufacturer liability, specifying that such liability in at-fault collisions will be constrained by the bounds of existing tort law, and aligning California permitting requirements with NHTSA's recently issued update of its autonomous vehicle policy.
Elliot Katz, McGuireWoods: When the California DMV originally released draft regulations which required that a licensed driver be behind the wheel of a fully autonomous vehicle, it was impeding these vehicles from reaching their full life-saving potential on California roads.The revised regulations released today—while they differ in some respects from the March 2017 proposed regulations—continue to illustrate that the DMV now understands the importance of testing and deploying vehicles without human drivers behind the wheel.
Steve Wernikoff, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn: California's proposed rule changes are an incremental deregulation to accommodate the incredible innovation in this area towards fully autonomous vehicles. However, a number of states like Arizona, Florida and Michigan already allow autonomous vehicles to be tested on their public roads without human drivers. These other states may increasingly attract entities to test on their roads due to the fact that their permitting and reporting requirements remain less restrictive than California. Moreover, the new California rules, like pending federal legislation, do not address autonomous truck testing, so the uncertainty over testing in that space will continue.
John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog: The new California DMV proposal wrongly relies on the federal government, when there are absolutely no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applying specifically to autonomous vehicle technology. Instead of providing safety rules of the road, the Trump Administration can't even be bothered with nominating the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Under the Trump Administration approach automakers can glance at the NHTSA policy and say, “that's nice” and then do whatever they want as they use our roads as private laboratories and threaten highway safety.
Bernard Soriano, deputy director, Department of Motor Vehicles: In California our statute requires that we ensure the safe operation of these vehicles. Other jurisdictions, other states do not have that in place, so they have the luxury of not having any regulations that speak to the safe operation of the vehicles. We in California have to do that.
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 AllCalifornia Implements New Law Banning Medical Debt From Credit Reports
'We Are Prepared to Fight': Governor Calls Special Session to Fund Legal Attacks on Trump Policies
4 minute readJudge Dismisses Microplastics Suit Against Evian's 'Natural Spring Water'
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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