There are some differences of opinion between auto manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers over the emerging federal guidance on automated vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a draft guidance this fall, and various auto sectors are challenging the agency to clean up the language and clarify the application of various elements of the draft.
As an example of the upcoming internecine warfare, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is concerned that its members will have to recall their vehicles when those vehicles suffer "a malicious aftermarket software update that unreasonably compromises a vehicle safety system."
Robert Strassburger, vice president, safety and harmonization for the Alliance, says, "Under well-settled interpretations of the Vehicle Safety Act, the responsibility for that recall rests with the aftermarket software supplier."
Get Free OEM Training |
|
|
Now is your chance to register for an expo pass to NACE Automechanika Chicago, where you'll have a chance to walk the show floor and take part in free OEM trainings. |
|
|
It is not even clear whether "components" installed on an autonomous vehicle after its manufacture – for example, post-sale software updates – can be subject to recall, with some arguing that new statutory authorities, i.e. congressional legislation, is needed.
Another area of dispute has to do with cybersecurity. The guidance expects manufacturers and suppliers to make NHTSA aware of cybersecurity protection protocols on a regular basis. But the Auto Care Association complains that the guidance would force aftermarket suppliers to follow the best practices developed by automobile manufacturers.
Aaron Lowe, senior vice president, government and regulatory affairs, Auto Care Association, says, "We encourage NHTSA to include in the guidance a recommendation supporting the development of security practices at the International Standards Organization (ISO) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) regarding a secure vehicle interface (SVI). The SVI allows for each vehicle to be equipped with an additional security certificate layering system where data is more secured than through the process currently promoted by the auto manufacturers."
Maybe one of the most surprising developments is the demand from the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets that NHTSA forego unenforceable guidance – aimed at providing a regulatory template for state and local governments – and instead publish new regulations. The coalition was established by Ford Motor Company, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo Cars in April 2016. It is not common that private industry calls for federal regulation. The coalition wants NHTSA to pursue narrow rulemakings to amend several key Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, such as the requirement that service brakes be activated by means of a foot control in FMVSS No.135 (Light Vehicle Brake Systems).
But regulations that might help OEMs could hurt aftermarket providers. Ryan Hagemann, technology and civil liberties policy analyst, The Niskanen Center, thinks new regulations could be prescriptive and too unwieldy for a small, entrepreneurial company to comply with.
"We have already seen NHTSA exercise a prohibition on certain semi-autonomous technology in the case of Comma.ai – causing the company to completely scuttle their post-sale upgrade technology," he says. "While this is a case of the agency exercising existing aftermarket approval authorities, it is a telling indicator of how the emerging autonomous technology market could be stifled by more precautionary regulatory authorities."
The draft guidance also raises questions about paperwork and reporting mandates that could affect aftermarket companies. The guidance says "a manufacturer or entity" must submit a new Safety Assessment letter to the Agency when any significant update(s) to a vehicle or HAV system is made." Lowe of the Auto Care Association wants NHTSA to clarify whether a safety assessment letter must be submitted by the entity manufacturing the aftermarket system or whether the vehicle manufacturer must be informed by the vehicle owner of the change and the vehicle manufacturer must then take on the fulfillment of the safety assessment letter requirements.
These and other questions were aired at a public meeting in suburban Arlington, VA., on Dec. 12, 2016. They also came up during two congressional roundtables in November.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, says, "NHTSA’s recently released policy guidance was a constructive first step in starting this conversation but also gives way to new questions." Add to those questions this one: Will the Obama administration thinking on autonomous vehicles be modified by the incoming Trump administration?
Subscribe to Aftermarket Business World and receive articles like this every month….absolutely free. Click here.
