NHTSA Announces New Policies to Promote Autonomous Vehicles

On April 24, 2025, the Department of Transportation announced the new Automated Vehicle (AV) Framework from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  The announcement, which was accompanied by a video from the Secretary of Transportation, included two new policy developments.  First, NHTSA released a Third Amended version of its Standing General Order on Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).  Second, NHTSA announced that it would expand its exemption program for autonomous vehicles that do not fully comply with NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.  This update discusses both developments and their broader implications.

Changes to the Standing General Order

First issued in 2021, NHTSA’s Standing General Order (SGO or Order) 2021-01 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers and operators to report to NHTSA information about certain crashes involving vehicles using ADS or so-called Level 2 ADAS.[1]  Near the start of the new administration, there was some public speculation that this SGO would be repealed, but rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated.  Instead, the Third Amended SGO, which supersedes the previous version and will take effect on June 16, provides the first updates to the Order in more than two years.  While the fundamental structure and general requirements of the Order have not changed, the Third Amended SGO significantly eases some of the reporting obligations.  Key changes are the following:

• The Third Amended SGO extends the deadline for companies to report the most serious crashes where the ADS or Level 2 ADAS is engaged within 30 seconds of the crash. The Second Amended SGO required an initial report within one calendar day of the company’s receiving notice of a crash that resulted in a fatality, a person being transported to a hospital for treatment, or involving a vulnerable road user.[2]  The Second Amended SGO also required an updated report on the tenth calendar day after the crash.  The Third Amended SGO will now require an initial report within five calendar days for crashes that result in a fatality, a person being transported to a hospital for treatment, or the strike of a vulnerable road user.  Follow-on updated reports will no longer be required for such incidents.  Notably, the Third Amended SGO does not change the Second Amended SGO’s requirement to report within five calendar days of receipt of notice of a crash that resulted in airbag deployment or a vehicle tow-away.
• The Third Amended SGO narrows the category of less serious crashes that must also be reported, while keeping the timeframe for reporting in place. The Third Amended SGO, like the previous version, will impose reporting requirements on a more extended schedule for crashes involving ADS (but not ADAS) that do not have such consequences as a fatality, a hospitalization, or a tow-away.  The Order will continue to require companies to report these less serious incidents by the 15th day of the month following the calendar month in which the company received notice of the crash.  For example, if the company receives notice of a crash on November 12, it must report the incident by December 15.  However, the scope of these less serious reportable crashes has been narrowed in the latest version of the Order.  The Second Amended SGO covered all crashes where “the ADS on the subject vehicle was engaged at any time during the period 30 seconds immediately prior to the commencement of the crash through the conclusion of the crash.”  By contrast, the Third Amended SGO requires monthly reports only on crashes in which (1) “the property damage is reasonably expected to exceed $1,000”; (2) “the [ADS-equipped] subject vehicle was the only vehicle involved in the crash”; or (3) “the subject vehicle struck another vehicle or object.”  Therefore, an incident in which an ADS-equipped vehicle is hit by another vehicle, with property damage of less than $1,000 and no other serious consequences such as hospitalization or tow-away, would have to be reported under the Second Amended SGO but not the Third Amended SGO.  Accordingly, some crashes involving ADS operations will not need to be reported at all under the new version of the SGO.
• The Third Amended SGO eliminates reporting requirements for calendar months in which no reportable crashes take place. The Second Amended SGO required all companies subject to the Order to provide a report every month, even if there were no incidents to report.  The Third Amended SGO deletes this requirement.  Now companies will have to submit reports only when there is something to report.
• Finally, the Third Amended SGO eases the need for duplicative reporting by multiple companies subject to the Order. Under the Second Amended SGO, two companies might be required to report the same incident—for example, if one company manufactured ADS equipment in use during a crash, while a different company manufactured the vehicle containing the equipment.  The Third Amended SGO clarifies that duplicative reporting is not required: “When more than one reporting entity has responsibility for a vehicle or its equipment that is covered by this General Order, only one of the reporting entities needs to report the incident, unless they have notice of materially different information.”

Expansion of the Research Exemption Program

Motor vehicles that operate on public roads in the United States are required to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) unless NHTSA issues a valid exemption.  One such exemption, available under 49 C.F.R. Part 591, is for vehicles imported into the country to be used for such limited purposes as research and demonstrations.  This exemption can be used for prototype vehicles used to develop autonomous technology.  In recent years, NHTSA has issued exemptions to several hundred imported autonomous vehicles under this program.  Due to a complicated statutory history, Part 591 does not provide for exemptions for domestically produced vehicles.

An April 24 letter from NHTSA’s Chief Counsel revealed that the agency would “begin to accept and process requests for vehicles built in the United States to receive FMVSS exemptions for non-commercial purposes that involve research or demonstration.”  This change would apparently put imported and domestically produced autonomous vehicles on equal footing for purposes of eligibility for this exemption.  Although there is currently no specific regulation that covers expansion of these exemptions to domestic vehicles, the letter cited the statute giving the Secretary of Transportation the authority to grant FMVSS exemptions “on terms the Secretary decides are necessary for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, competitive racing events, show, or display.”

Notably, the letter specified that this expanded exemption process would be available only to vehicles used for “non-commercial” purposes.  So these exemptions would not be expected to cover commercially operated robo-taxis or trucks.  Another type of FMVSS exemption is currently available for commercial vehicles, including autonomous vehicles, through 49 C.F.R. Part 555.  Part 555 exemptions are also subject to limitations; as the Chief Counsel’s letter acknowledged, receiving such an exemption “involves a more extensive application process” than for Part 591 exemptions.  The letter indicated that “NHTSA is also committed to substantially improving the efficiency and effectiveness of” the Part 555 exemption process.

Takeaways

These new developments underscore the Trump administration’s professed commitment to “promote American automotive ingenuity & strengthen domestic manufacturing while upholding safety.”  Both the Third Amended SGO and the expansion of the exemption program are slightly deregulatory and make incremental policy changes designed to promote autonomous operations.  The Third Amended SGO loosens some of the more stringent crash requirements of earlier versions of the Order, though it still subjects ADS and ADAS manufacturers to considerable reporting obligations.  The expansion of the exemption program to non-commercial domestic vehicles will likewise potentially allow U.S.-manufactured prototypes to operate on public roads.

[1] Level 2 and other levels of vehicle automation are definitions established by SAE International.

[2] The SGO defines “vulnerable road user” as someone, such as a pedestrian or bicyclist, who is not an occupant of a vehicle with more than three wheels.

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.