NHTSA Proposes Amending Federal Crash Avoidance Standards for Autonomous Vehicles

On March 16, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published two proposed rulemakings designed to ease the path for manufacturing autonomous vehicles and deploying them on public roads. Both proposals would amend existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) by removing requirements for certain safety equipment that may be unnecessary in vehicles without a human driver. These rulemakings represent an incremental step, not a game changer, in paving the way for a driverless future.

Background

Pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA has issued dozens of FMVSS that cover a wide range of vehicle components and equipment. Absent an individual exemption from NHTSA, manufacturers may not produce, import, or sell new vehicles for use on public roads in the United States unless those vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS.

This regulatory framework presents challenges for autonomous vehicles. Many FMVSS were drafted decades ago, reflecting the then reasonable assumption that every vehicle would be operated by a human driver. As a result, the standards include requirements for manual controls and presuppose the presence of features such as steering wheels and designated driver seating positions.

With autonomous technology increasingly emerging on roads, those assumptions no longer apply to all vehicles. Although many autonomous vehicles are fully FMVSS-compliant, manufacturers seeking to explore innovative designs made possible by the absence of a human driver continue to encounter regulatory constraints.

Recent Rulemaking Activity on FMVSS and Autonomous Vehicles

Accordingly, NHTSA has embarked on a series of rulemakings and other actions to address this potential obstacle. In 2022, the agency finalized updates to several FMVSS to “account for the designs that the agency expects, and industry confirms, could accompany certain vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems.” These revisions focused on various existing “crashworthiness” FMVSS—namely, standards intended to minimize the damage that occurs in a crash.

The 2022 final rule amended 13 different FMVSS, with particularly aggressive surgery on FMVSS No. 208, which addresses occupant protection and includes requirements for seat belts, frontal airbags, and crash test performance. The rulemaking also added items of terminology that apply throughout the FMVSS, including—crucially for the new proposals—a definition of “Manually operated driving controls.”

Concurrently, NHTSA also commissioned a series of reports from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute titled “FMVSS Considerations for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems.”  Spanning four volumes of several hundred pages each, the reports analyze how existing standards could be adapted for “innovative new vehicle designs equipped with Automated Driving Systems.” The final volume was released in December 2025.

Consistent with these efforts, the Department of Transportation’s Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, released in September, announced forthcoming rulemakings to amend four additional FMVSS to “address standards for vehicles with automated driving systems (ADS) and no manual controls.”  Unlike the rulemaking completed in 2022, which focused on crashworthiness, the new rulemakings target “crash avoidance” standards—those FMVSS intended to reduce the likelihood of a crash in the first instance.

The New Crash Avoidance Proposals

The proposed rulemakings would make changes to three existing FMVSS:

• One rulemaking would amend FMVSS No. 102, which sets requirements for a vehicle’s transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. The proposal would amend the section of the standard that requires the transmission shift positions, such as park, neutral, drive, and reverse, to be visible to the driver. The amendment would specify that this requirement would not apply “in a vehicle without manually operated driving controls.”
• The second rulemaking would amend FMVSS Nos. 103 and 104, which respectively set requirements for windshield defrosting and defogging systems and windshield wiping and washing systems. Both standards would be updated to state that “vehicles without manually operated driving controls are excepted from this standard.” The rulemaking would also incorporate updated versions of international engineering standards issued by SAE International for windshield systems.

The proposed updates to the standards are straightforward: certain equipment is not required if a vehicle has no manual controls. If a vehicle has no driver, there is no need for that driver to view transmission status indicators or rely on windshield systems for visibility in adverse conditions.

Accordingly, in contrast to the elaborate 2022 rulemaking—which finalized new regulatory text totaling more than 15,000 words—the new proposed rulemakings are a much more concise effort. The proposed amendments are also different from, and simpler than, the changes proposed for FMVSS Nos. 102, 103, and 104 in the first two volumes of the Virginia Tech reports. That simplicity could reflect an institutional desire to complete the rulemakings relatively quickly.

What These Updates Do Not Do—and What May Be Next

If finalized, these rulemakings would remove some existing barriers to deploying fully autonomous vehicles that lack traditional driver-oriented equipment. Many barriers would still remain.

Notably, one additional rulemaking announced in the Spring Unified Agenda is an update to FMVSS No. 108, which sets standards for lamps and reflective devices. That standard, which is much longer and more complex than FMVSS Nos. 102, 103, and 104, may take more time to update.

And the FMVSS amendments announced in the Spring Unified Agenda may be just the start. Other key safety standards also require manual controls or are premised on a human driver. For example, the standard for braking systems on light vehicles, FMVSS No. 135, provides that “the service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control,” and “the parking brake … may be either a hand or foot control.” Likewise, FMVSS No. 111 mandates rear view mirrors and a backup camera—possibly not a necessity where there is no human driver. And FMVSS No. 101 requires illuminated indicators and “hand-operated” controls—again, maybe not necessary in a driverless vehicle.

In the meantime, pending legislation may cut the Gordian Knot and save NHTSA from having to amend its standards one by one. The SELF DRIVE Act, currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives, would amend the Safety Act to provide that an FMVSS “may not require the manufacturer to equip the vehicle with manually operated controls and equipment intended only to support a human driver in an ADS-dedicated vehicle.”

Immediate Actions and Takeaways

• The public comment period for the rulemaking proposals closes on April 15. Interested stakeholders should ensure their voices are heard and included in the administrative record.
• Unless and until amendments are finalized and take effect, the current FMVSS will continue to apply to autonomous vehicles. Companies interested in new designs for their vehicles should consider availing themselves of the regulatory exemption process. NHTSA has announced steps to expand the availability of exemptions and streamline the process for seeking them.
• Actual substantive safety standards for autonomous operations—as opposed to tweaks to existing standards that have always applied to conventionally driven vehicles—remain a longer-term prospect. In remarks at a forum on March 10, NHTSA’s Administrator said that the agency “is working toward establishing minimum performance standards for ADS competency.”
• It is also important to keep in mind that NHTSA’s regulatory authority—over both autonomous and conventional vehicles—goes beyond the FMVSS. Many investigations and recalls arise not from FMVSS noncompliance, but rather from safety-related defects.
• Finally, despite federal action, autonomous operations continue to face challenges at other levels of government. Although NHTSA rulemakings have some preemptive effect, they still leave considerable room for regulation by states and localities. For example, the state of New York outright prohibits a vehicle from operating on public roads without a person behind the wheel—notwithstanding legislation that the Governor’s office recently proposed and quickly shelved that would have allowed driverless testing.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.