2.0

A Vision for Safety

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY i

Today, our country is on the verge of one of the most exciting and important innovations in transportation history—

the development of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs), commonly referred to as automated or self-driving vehicles.

The future of this new technology is so full of promise. It’s a future where vehicles increasingly help drivers avoid 

crashes. It’s a future where the time spent commuting is dramatically reduced, and where millions more—including 

the elderly and people with disabilities–gain access to the freedom of the open road. And, especially important, it’s a 

future where highway fatalities and injuries are significantly reduced.

Since the Department of Transportation was established in 1966, there have been more than 2.2 million motorvehicle-related fatalities in the United States. In addition, after decades of decline, motor vehicle fatalities spiked by 

more than 7.2 percent in 2015, the largest single-year increase since 1966. The major factor in 94 percent of all fatal 

crashes is human error. So ADSs have the potential to significantly reduce highway fatalities by addressing the root 

cause of these tragic crashes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has a role to play in building and shaping this future by developing a 

regulatory framework that encourages, rather than hampers, the safe development, testing and deployment of 

automated vehicle technology. 

Accordingly, the Department is releasing A Vision for Safety to promote improvements in safety, mobility, and 

efficiency through ADSs.

A Vision for Safety replaces the Federal Automated Vehicle Policy released in 2016. This updated policy framework offers a path 

forward for the safe deployment of automated vehicles by:

• Encouraging new entrants and ideas that deliver safer vehicles;

• Making Department regulatory processes more nimble to help match the pace of private sector innovation; and

• Supporting industry innovation and encouraging open communication with the public and with stakeholders.

Thanks to a convergence of technological advances, the promise of safer automated driving systems is closer to becoming a reality. 

From reducing crash-related deaths and injuries, to improving access to transportation, to reducing traffic congestion and vehicle 

emissions, automated vehicles hold significant potential to increase productivity and improve the quality of life for millions of people. 

A Vision for Safety seeks to facilitate the integration of ADS technology by helping to ensure its safe testing and deployment, as well 

as encouraging the development of systems that guard against cyber-attacks and protect consumer privacy.

Our goal at the Department of Transportation is to be good stewards of the future by helping to usher in this new era of 

transportation innovation and safety, and ensuring that our country remains a global leader in autonomous vehicle technology.

INTRODUCTORY MESSAGE

Secretary Elaine L. Chao

U.S. Department of Transportation
ii AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

The world is facing an unprecedented emergence of automation 

technologies. In the transportation sector, where 9 out of 10 serious 

roadway crashes occur due to human behavior, automated vehicle 

technologies possess the potential to save thousands of lives, as well 

as reduce congestion, enhance mobility, and improve productivity. 

The Federal Government wants to ensure it does not impede progress 

with unnecessary or unintended barriers to innovation. Safety remains 

the number one priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and is the specific focus of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA).

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the 

economic costs of roadway crashes through education, research, safety 

standards, and enforcement activity. As automated vehicle technologies 

advance, they have the potential to dramatically reduce the loss of life 

each day in roadway crashes. To support industry innovators and States 

in the deployment of this technology, while informing and educating the 

public, and improving roadway safety through the safe introduction of 

the technology, NHTSA presents Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for 

Safety. It is an important part of DOT’s multimodal efforts to support the 

safe introduction of automation technologies.

In this document, NHTSA offers a nonregulatory approach to automated 

vehicle technology safety. Section 1: Voluntary Guidance for Automated 

Driving Systems (Voluntary Guidance) supports the automotive industry 

and other key stakeholders as they consider and design best practices 

for the testing and safe deployment of Automated Driving Systems 

(ADSs - SAE Automation Levels 3 through 5 – Conditional, High, and Full 

Automation Systems). It contains 12 priority safety design elements for 

consideration, including vehicle cybersecurity, human machine interface, 

crashworthiness, consumer education and training, and post-crash ADS 

behavior.

Given the developing state of the technology, this Voluntary Guidance

provides a flexible framework for industry to use in choosing how to 

address a given safety design element. In addition, to help support 

public trust and confidence, the Voluntary Guidance encourages entities 

engaged in testing and deployment to publicly disclose Voluntary Safety 

Self-Assessments of their systems in order to demonstrate their varied 

approaches to achieving safety.

Vehicles operating on public roads are subject to both Federal and State 

jurisdiction, and States are beginning to draft legislation to safely deploy 

emerging ADSs. To support the State work, NHTSA offers Section 2: 

Technical Assistance to States, Best Practices for Legislatures Regarding 

Automated Driving Systems (Best Practices). The section clarifies and 

delineates Federal and State roles in the regulation of ADSs. NHTSA 

remains responsible for regulating the safety design and performance 

aspects of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment; States continue 

to be responsible for regulating the human driver and vehicle operations.

The section also provides Best Practices for Legislatures, which 

incorporates common safety-related components and significant 

elements regarding ADSs that States should consider incorporating 

in legislation. In addition, the section provides Best Practices for State 

Highway Safety Officials, which offers a framework for States to develop 

procedures and conditions for ADSs’ safe operation on public roadways. 

It includes considerations in such areas as applications and permissions 

to test, registration and titling, working with public safety officials, and 

liability and insurance.

Together, the Voluntary Guidance and Best Practices sections serve to 

support industry, Government officials, safety advocates, and the public. 

As our Nation and the world embrace technological advances in motor 

vehicle transportation through ADSs, safety must remain the top priority.

  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY iii

Over the coming months and years, NHTSA, along with other Federal agencies, where relevant, will continue to take a leadership 

role in encouraging the safe introduction of automated vehicle technologies into the motor vehicle fleet and on public roadways in 

the areas of policy, research, safety standards, freight and commercial use, infrastructure, and mass transit.

The Office of the Under Secretary for Policy (OST-P) is the office 

responsible for serving as a principal advisor to the Secretary and 

provides leadership in the development of policies for the Department, 

generating proposals and providing advice regarding legislative and 

regulatory initiatives across all modes of transportation. The Under 

Secretary coordinates the Department’s budget development and policy 

development functions. The Under Secretary also directs transportation 

policy development and works to ensure that the Nation’s transportation 

resources function as an integrated national system. 

See www.transportation.gov/policy. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology 

(OST-R) is the lead office responsible for coordinating DOT’s research 

and for sharing advanced technologies with the transportation system. 

Technical and policy research on these technologies occurs through the 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research Program, the University 

Transportation Centers, and the Volpe National Transportation Research 

Center, which make investments in technology initiatives, exploratory 

studies, pilot deployment programs and evaluations in intelligent 

vehicles, infrastructure, and multi-modal systems. 

See www.its.dot.gov and www.transportation.gov/research-technology.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the lead 

Federal Government agency responsible for regulating and providing 

operational safety oversight (for instance, hours of service regulations, 

drug and alcohol testing, hazardous materials safety, vehicle inspections) 

for motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), such 

as trucks and buses, and CMV drivers. FMCSA partners with industry, 

safety advocates, and State and local governments to keep our Nation’s 

roadways safe and improve CMV safety through financial assistance, 

regulation, education, enforcement, research, and technology.

See www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) supports State and local 

governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the 

Nation’s highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program) and various 

Federal and tribal lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). Through 

financial and technical assistance to State and local governments, FHWA 

is responsible for ensuring that America’s roads and highways continue 

to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world. 

See www.fhwa.dot.gov. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial and technical 

assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, 

light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries. FTA also oversees safety 

measures and helps develop next-generation technology research. 

See www.transit.dot.gov. 
iv AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

Section 2: Technical Assistance to States

Overview.......................................................................................................... 19

Federal and State Regulatory Roles ..........................................................20

Best Practices for Legislatures.................................................................... 21

Best Practices for State Highway Safety Officials..................................22

Conclusion ....................................................................................................25

Endnotes ........................................................................................................26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Voluntary Guidance

Overview.............................................................................................................1

Scope and Purpose ......................................................................................... 2

ADS Safety Elements....................................................................................... 5

System Safety.................................................................................................. 5

Operational Design Domain ......................................................................6

Object and Event Detection and Response............................................7

Fallback (Minimal Risk Condition) .............................................................8

Validation Methods .......................................................................................9

Human Machine Interface ........................................................................ 10

Vehicle Cybersecurity..................................................................................11

Crashworthiness.......................................................................................... 12

Post-Crash ADS Behavior.......................................................................... 13

Data Recording ............................................................................................ 14

Consumer Education and Training......................................................... 15

Federal, State, and Local Laws................................................................. 15

Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment ............................................................ 16
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 1

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is fully committed to 

reaching an era of crash-free roadways through deployment of innovative 

lifesaving technologies. Recent negative trends in automotive crashes 

underscore the urgency to develop and deploy lifesaving technologies 

that can dramatically decrease the number of fatalities and injuries on 

our Nation’s roadways. NHTSA believes that Automated Driving Systems 

(ADSs), including those contemplating no driver at all, have the potential 

to significantly improve roadway safety in the United States.

The purpose of this Voluntary Guidance is to support the automotive 

industry, the States, and other key stakeholders as they consider and 

design best practices relative to the testing and deployment of automated 

vehicle technologies. It updates the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy 

released in September 2016 and serves as NHTSA’s current operating 

guidance for ADSs.

The Voluntary Guidance contains 12 priority safety design elements.1

These elements were selected based on research conducted by the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), universities, and NHTSA. Each 

element contains safety goals and approaches that could be used to 

achieve those safety goals. Entities are encouraged to consider each 

safety element in the design of their systems and have a self-documented 

process for assessment, testing, and validation of the various elements. As 

automated driving technologies evolve at a rapid pace, no single standard 

exists by which an entity’s methods of considering a safety design 

element can be measured. Each entity is free to be creative and innovative 

when developing the best method for its system to appropriately mitigate 

the safety risks associated with their approach.

In addition, to help support public trust and confidence in the safety of 

ADSs, this Voluntary Guidance encourages entities to disclose Voluntary 

Safety Self-Assessments demonstrating their varied approaches to 

achieving safety in the testing and deployment of ADSs.2

Entities are encouraged to begin using this Voluntary Guidance on the 

date of its publication. NHTSA plans to regularly update the Voluntary 

Guidance to reflect lessons learned, new data, and stakeholder input as 

technology continues to be developed and refined.

For overall awareness and to ensure consistency in taxonomy usage, 

NHTSA adopted SAE International’s Levels of Automation and other 

applicable terminology.3

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

For Automated Driving Systems

NHTSA’S MISSION

Save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce 

economic costs due to road traffic 

crashes, through education, research, 

safety standards, and enforcement activity.
2 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

Through this Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA is supporting entities that 

are designing ADSs for use on public roadways in the United States. 

This includes traditional vehicle manufacturers as well as other entities 

involved with manufacturing, designing, supplying, testing, selling, 

operating, or deploying ADSs, including equipment designers and 

suppliers; entities that outfit any vehicle with automated capabilities or 

equipment for testing, for commercial sale, and/or for use on public 

roadways; transit companies; automated fleet operators; “driverless” taxi 

companies; and any other individual or entity that offers services utilizing 

ADS technology (referred to collectively as “entities” or “industry”).

This Voluntary Guidance applies to the design aspects of motor vehicles 

and motor vehicle equipment under NHTSA’s jurisdiction, including lowspeed vehicles, motorcycles, passenger vehicles, medium-duty vehicles, 

and heavy-duty CMVs such as large trucks and buses. These entities are 

subject to NHTSA’s defect, recall, and enforcement authority.4 For entities 

seeking to request regulatory action (e.g., petition for exemption or 

interpretation) from NHTSA, an informational resource is available on the 

Agency’s website at www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automatedvehicles, along with other associated references and resources.

Interstate motor carrier operations and CMV drivers fall under the 

jurisdiction of FMCSA and are not within the scope of this Voluntary 

Guidance. Currently, per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs), a trained commercial driver must be behind the wheel at all 

times, regardless of any automated driving technologies available on 

the CMV, unless a petition for a waiver or exemption has been granted. 

For more information regarding CMV operations and automated driving 

technologies, including guidance on FMCSA’s petition process, see 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

This Voluntary Guidance focuses on vehicles that incorporate SAE 

Automation Levels 3 through 5 – Automated Driving Systems (ADSs). 

ADSs may include systems for which there is no human driver or for 

which the human driver can give control to the ADS and would not be 

expected to perform any driving-related tasks for a period of time.5 It 

is an entity’s responsibility to determine its system’s automation level in 

conformity with SAE International’s published definitions.

The purpose of this Voluntary Guidance is to help designers of ADSs 

analyze, identify, and resolve safety considerations prior to deployment 

using their own, industry, and other best practices. It outlines 12 safety 

elements, which the Agency believes represent the consensus across 

the industry, that are generally considered to be the most salient design 

aspects to consider and address when developing, testing, and deploying 

ADSs on public roadways. Within each safety design element, entities are 

encouraged to consider and document their use of industry standards, 

best practices, company policies, or other methods they have employed 

to provide for increased system safety in real-world conditions. The 

12 safety design elements apply to both ADS original equipment and 

to replacement equipment or updates (including software updates/ 

upgrades) to ADSs.

This Voluntary Guidance provides recommendations and suggestions 

for industry’s consideration and discussion. This Guidance is entirely 

voluntary, with no compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism. 

The sole purpose of this Guidance is to support the industry as it 

develops best practices in the design, development, testing, and 

deployment of automated vehicle technologies.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 3

NHTSA’S ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

Several States have sought clarification of NHTSA’s enforcement authority with 

respect to ADSs. As DOT is asking States to maintain the delineation of Federal 

and State regulatory authority, NHTSA understands that States are looking for 

reassurance that the Federal Government has tools to keep their roadways safe. 

NHTSA has broad enforcement authority to address existing and new 

automotive technologies and equipment. The Agency is commanded by 

Congress6 to protect the safety of the driving public against unreasonable risks 

of harm that may arise because of the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, and to mitigate risks of harm, 

including risks that may arise in connection with ADSs. Specifically, NHTSA’s 

enforcement authority concerning safety-related defects in motor vehicles 

and motor vehicle equipment extends and applies equally to current and 

emerging ADSs. As NHTSA has always done, when evaluating new automotive 

technologies, it will be guided by its statutory mission, the laws it is obligated to 

enforce, and the benefits of the technology.
4 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

Full Automation

0

Zero autonomy; 

the driver performs 

all driving tasks.

No 

Automation

1

Vehicle is controlled 

by the driver, but 

some driving assist 

features may be 

included in the 

vehicle design. 

Driver 

Assistance

2

Vehicle has combined 

automated functions, 

like acceleration and 

steering, but the driver 

must remain engaged 

with the driving task 

and monitor the 

environment at 

all times.

Partial 

Automation

3

Driver is a necessity, 

but is not required 

to monitor the 

environment. 

The driver must be 

ready to take control 

of the vehicle at all 

times with notice.

Conditional 

Automation

4

The vehicle is capable 

of performing all 

driving functions 

under certain 

conditions. The driver 

may have the option 

to control the vehicle.

High

Automation

5

The vehicle is capable 

of performing all 

driving functions 

under all conditions. 

The driver may

have the option to 

control the vehicle.

Full 

Automation

SAE AUTOMATION LEVELS SAE AUTOMATION LEVELS
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 5

ADS SAFETY ELEMENTS

1. System Safety

Entities are encouraged to follow a robust design and validation 

process based on a systems-engineering approach with the goal of 

designing ADSs free of unreasonable safety risks. The overall process 

should adopt and follow industry standards, such as the functional 

safety7 process standard for road vehicles, and collectively cover the 

entire operational design domain (i.e., operating parameters and 

limitations) of the system. Entities are encouraged to adopt voluntary 

guidance, best practices, design principles, and standards developed 

by established and accredited standards-developing organizations 

(as applicable) such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) 

and SAE International, as well as standards and processes available 

from other industries such as aviation, space, and the military8 and 

other applicable standards or internal company processes as they are 

relevant and applicable. See NHTSA’s June 2016 report, Assessment 

of Safety Standards for Automotive Electronic Control Systems9, 

which provides an evaluation of the strengths and limitations of 

such standards.

The design and validation process should also consider including 

a hazard analysis and safety risk assessment for ADSs, for the 

overall vehicle design into which it is being integrated, and when 

applicable, for the broader transportation ecosystem. Additionally, 

the process shall describe design redundancies and safety strategies 

for handling ADS malfunctions. Ideally, the process should place 

significant emphasis on software development, verification, and 

validation. The software development process is one that should 

be well-planned, well-controlled, and well-documented to detect 

and correct unexpected results from software updates. Thorough 

and measurable software testing should complement a structured 

and documented software development and change management 

process and should be part of each software version release. 

Industry is encouraged to monitor the evolution, implementation, 

and safety assessment of artificial intelligence and other relevant 

software technologies and algorithms to improve the effectiveness 

and safety of ADSs.

Design decisions should be linked to the assessed risks that 

could impact safety-critical system functionality. Design safety 

considerations should include design architecture, sensors, 

actuators, communication failure, potential software errors, reliability, 

potential inadequate control, undesirable control actions, potential 

collisions with environmental objects and other road users, potential 

collisions that could be caused by actions of an ADS, leaving the 

roadway, loss of traction or stability, and violation of traffic laws and 

deviations from normal (expected) driving practices.

All design decisions should be tested, validated, and verified as 

individual subsystems and as part of the entire vehicle architecture. 

Entities are encouraged to document the entire process; all actions, 

changes, design choices, analyses, associated testing, and data 

should be traceable and transparent.
6 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

2. Operational Design Domain

Entities are encouraged to define and document the Operational 

Design Domain (ODD) for each ADS available on their vehicle(s) as 

tested or deployed for use on public roadways, as well as document 

the process and procedure for assessment, testing, and validation 

of ADS functionality with the prescribed ODD. The ODD should 

describe the specific conditions under which a given ADS or feature 

is intended to function. The ODD is the definition of where (such as 

what roadway types and speeds) and when (under what conditions, 

such as day/night, weather limits, etc.) an ADS is designed to operate.

The ODD would include the following information at a minimum to 

define each ADS’s capability limits/boundaries: 

• Roadway types (interstate, local, etc.) on which the 

ADS is intended to operate safely; 

• Geographic area (city, mountain, desert, etc.); 

• Speed range; 

• Environmental conditions in which the ADS will 

operate (weather, daytime/nighttime, etc.); and 

• Other domain constraints.

An ADS should be able to operate safely within the ODD for which 

it is designed. In situations where the ADS is outside of its defined 

ODD or in which conditions dynamically change to fall outside 

of the ADS’s ODD, the vehicle should transition to a minimal 

risk condition.10 For a Level 3 ADS, transitioning to a minimal risk 

condition could entail transitioning control to a receptive, fallbackready user.11 In cases the ADS does not have indications that the 

user is receptive and fallback-ready, the system should continue to 

mitigate manageable risks, which may include slowing the vehicle 

down or bringing the vehicle to a safe stop. To support the safe 

introduction of ADSs on public roadways and to speed deployment, 

the ODD concept provides the flexibility for entities to initially limit 

the complexity of broader driving challenges in a confined ODD.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 7

3. Object and Event Detection and Response

Object and Event Detection and Response (OEDR)12 refers to the 

detection by the driver or ADS of any circumstance that is relevant 

to the immediate driving task, as well as the implementation of the 

appropriate driver or system response to such circumstance. For 

the purposes of this Guidance, an ADS is responsible for performing 

OEDR while it is engaged and operating in its defined ODD.

Entities are encouraged to have a documented process for 

assessment, testing, and validation of their ADS’s OEDR capabilities. 

When operating within its ODD, an ADS’s OEDR functions are 

expected to be able to detect and respond to other vehicles (in and 

out of its travel path), pedestrians, bicyclists, animals, and objects that 

could affect safe operation of the vehicle.

An ADS’s OEDR should also include the ability to address a wide variety 

of foreseeable encounters, including emergency vehicles, temporary 

work zones, and other unusual conditions (e.g., police manually 

directing traffic or other first responders or construction workers 

controlling traffic) that may impact the safe operation of an ADS.

Normal Driving

Entities are encouraged to have a documented process for the 

assessment, testing, and validation of a variety of behavioral 

competencies for their ADSs. Behavioral competency refers to 

the ability of an ADS to operate in the traffic conditions that it will 

regularly encounter, including keeping the vehicle in a lane, obeying 

traffic laws, following reasonable road etiquette, and responding to 

other vehicles or hazards.13 While research conducted by California 

PATH14 provided a set of minimum behavioral competencies for 

ADSs,15 the full complement of behavioral competencies a particular 

ADS would be expected to demonstrate and routinely perform 

will depend upon the individual ADS, its ODD, and the designated 

fallback (minimal risk condition) method. Entities are encouraged to 

consider all known behavioral competencies in the design, test, and 

validation of their ADSs.

Crash Avoidance Capability – Hazards

Entities are encouraged to have a documented process for 

assessment, testing, and validation of their crash avoidance 

capabilities and design choices. Based on the ODD, an ADS should 

be able to address applicable pre-crash scenarios16 that relate to 

control loss; crossing-path crashes; lane change/merge; head-on 

and opposite-direction travel; and rear-end, road departure, and 

low-speed situations such as backing and parking maneuvers.17

Depending on the ODD, an ADS may be expected to handle many 

of the pre-crash scenarios that NHTSA has identified previously.18

 

The Federal Government wants to ensure it does not 

impede progress with unnecessary or unintended 

barriers to innovation. Safety remains the number one 

priority for U.S. DOT and is the specific focus of NHTSA.
8 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

4. Fallback (Minimal Risk Condition)

Entities are encouraged to have a documented process for 

transitioning to a minimal risk condition when a problem is 

encountered or the ADS cannot operate safely. ADSs operating 

on the road should be capable of detecting that the ADS has 

malfunctioned, is operating in a degraded state, or is operating 

outside of the ODD. Furthermore, ADSs should be able to notify the 

human driver of such events in a way that enables the driver to regain 

proper control of the vehicle or allows the ADS to return to a minimal 

risk condition independently.

Fallback strategies should take into account that, despite laws and 

regulations to the contrary, human drivers may be inattentive, 

under the influence of alcohol or other substances, drowsy, or 

otherwise impaired.

Fallback actions are encouraged to be administered in a manner 

that will facilitate safe operation of the vehicle and minimize 

erratic driving behavior. Such fallback actions should also consider 

minimizing the effects of errors in human driver recognition and 

decision-making during and after transition to manual control.

In cases of higher automation in which a human driver may not 

be available, the ADS must be able to fallback into a minimal risk 

condition without the need for driver intervention.

A minimal risk condition will vary according to the type and extent of 

a given failure, but may include automatically bringing the vehicle to 

a safe stop, preferably outside of an active lane of traffic. Entities are 

encouraged to have a documented process for assessment, testing, 

and validation of their fallback approaches.

The purpose of this Voluntary Guidance is to help designers of ADSs analyze, 

identify, and resolve safety considerations prior to deployment using their own, 

industry, and other best practices. It outlines 12 safety elements, which the 

Agency believes represent the consensus across the industry, that are generally 

considered to be the most salient design aspects to consider and address when 

developing, testing, and deploying ADSs on public roadways.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 9

5. Validation Methods

Given that the scope, technology, and capabilities vary widely 

for different automation functions, entities are encouraged to 

develop validation methods to appropriately mitigate the safety risks 

associated with their ADS approach. Tests should demonstrate the 

behavioral competencies an ADS would be expected to perform 

during normal operation, the ADS’s performance during crash 

avoidance situations, and the performance of fallback strategies 

relevant to the ADS’s ODD.

To demonstrate the expected performance of an ADS for 

deployment on public roads, test approaches may include a 

combination of simulation, test track, and on-road testing.

Prior to on-road testing, entities are encouraged to consider the 

extent to which simulation and track testing may be necessary. 

Testing may be performed by the entities themselves, but could also 

be performed by an independent third party.

Entities should continue working with NHTSA and industry standards 

organizations (SAE, International Organization for Standards [ISO], 

etc.) and others to develop and update tests that use innovative 

methods as well as to develop performance criteria for test facilities 

that intend to conduct validation tests.
10 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

6. Human Machine Interface

Understanding the interaction between the vehicle and the driver, 

commonly referred to as “human machine interface” (HMI), has 

always played an important role in the automotive design process. 

New complexity is introduced to this interaction as ADSs take on 

driving functions, in part because in some cases the vehicle must 

be capable of accurately conveying information to the human driver 

regarding intentions and vehicle performance. This is particularly true 

for ADSs in which human drivers may be requested to perform any 

part of the driving task. For example, in a Level 3 vehicle, the driver 

always must be receptive to a request by the system to take back 

driving responsibilities. However, a driver’s ability to do so is limited 

by their capacity to stay alert to the driving task and thus capable of 

quickly taking over control, while at the same time not performing 

the actual driving task until prompted by the vehicle. Entities are 

encouraged to consider whether it is reasonable and appropriate to 

incorporate driver engagement monitoring in cases where drivers 

could be involved in the driving task so as to assess driver awareness 

and readiness to perform the full driving task.

Entities are also encouraged to consider and document a process for 

the assessment, testing, and validation of the vehicle’s HMI design. 

Considerations should be made for the human driver, operator, 

occupant(s), and external actors with whom the ADS may have 

interactions, including other vehicles (both traditional and those with 

ADSs), motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. HMI design should 

also consider the need to communicate information regarding the 

ADS’s state of operation relevant to the various interactions it may 

encounter and how this information should be communicated.

In vehicles that are anticipated not to have driver controls, entities 

are encouraged to design their HMI to accommodate people with 

disabilities (e.g., through visual, auditory, and haptic displays).19

In vehicles where an ADS may be intended to operate without a 

human driver or even any human occupant, the remote dispatcher 

or central control authority, if such an entity exists, should be 

able to know the status of the ADS at all times. Examples of these 

may include unoccupied SAE Automation Level 4 or 5 vehicles, 

automated delivery vehicles, last-mile special purpose ground 

drones, and automated maintenance vehicles.

Given the ongoing research and rapidly evolving nature of this field, 

entities are encouraged to consider and apply voluntary guidance, 

best practices, and design principles published by SAE International, 

ISO, NHTSA, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the 

International Commission on Illumination (CIE), and other relevant 

organizations, based upon the level of automation and expected 

level of driver engagement.

AT MINIMUM

An ADS should be capable of informing the human operator or occupant through various indicators that the ADS is:

• Functioning properly; 

• Currently engaged in ADS mode; 

• Currently “unavailable” for use; 

• Experiencing a malfunction; and/or 

• Requesting control transition from the ADS to the 

operator. 
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 11

7. Vehicle Cybersecurity

Entities are encouraged to follow a robust product development 

process based on a systems engineering approach to minimize 

risks to safety, including those due to cybersecurity threats and 

vulnerabilities. This process should include a systematic and ongoing 

safety risk assessment for each ADS, the overall vehicle design 

into which it is being integrated, and when applicable, the broader 

transportation ecosystem.20

Entities are encouraged to design their ADSs following established 

best practices for cyber vehicle physical systems. Entities are 

encouraged to consider and incorporate voluntary guidance, best 

practices, and design principles published by National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST21), NHTSA, SAE International, the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global 

Automakers, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center 

(Auto-ISAC),22 and other relevant organizations, as appropriate.

NHTSA encourages entities to document how they incorporated 

vehicle cybersecurity considerations into ADSs, including all actions, 

changes, design choices, analyses, and associated testing, and 

ensure that data is traceable within a robust document version 

control environment. 

Industry sharing of information on vehicle cybersecurity facilitates 

collaborative learning and helps prevent industry members from 

experiencing the same cyber vulnerabilities. Entities are encouraged 

to report to the Auto-ISAC all discovered incidents, exploits, threats 

and vulnerabilities from internal testing, consumer reporting, 

or external security research as soon as possible, regardless of 

membership. Entities are further encouraged to establish robust 

cyber incident response plans and employ a systems engineering 

approach that considers vehicle cybersecurity in the design 

process. Entities involved with ADSs should also consider adopting a 

coordinated vulnerability reporting/disclosure policy.
12 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

8. Crashworthiness

Occupant Protection

Given that a mix of vehicles with ADSs and those without will be 

operating on public roadways for an extended period of time, 

entities still need to consider the possible scenario of another vehicle 

crashing into an ADS-equipped vehicle and how to best protect 

vehicle occupants in that situation. Regardless of whether the ADS 

is operating the vehicle or the vehicle is being driven by a human 

driver, the occupant protection system should maintain its intended 

performance level in the event of a crash.

Entities should consider incorporating information from the 

advanced sensing technologies needed for ADS operation 

into new occupant protection systems that provide enhanced 

protection to occupants of all ages and sizes. In addition to the 

seating configurations evaluated in current standards, entities are 

encouraged to evaluate and consider additional countermeasures 

that will protect all occupants in any alternative planned seating or 

interior configurations during use.23

Compatibility

Unoccupied vehicles equipped with ADSs should provide geometric 

and energy absorption crash compatibility with existing vehicles on 

the road.24 ADSs intended for product or service delivery or other 

unoccupied use scenarios should consider appropriate vehicle crash 

compatibility given the potential for interactions with vulnerable road 

users and other vehicle types.

Entities are not required to submit a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, 

nor is there any mechanism to compel entities to do so. While these 

assessments are encouraged prior to testing and deployment, NHTSA does 

not require that entities provide disclosures nor are they required to delay 

testing or deployment. Assessments are not subject to Federal approval.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 13

9. Post-Crash ADS Behavior

Entities engaging in testing or deployment should consider methods 

of returning ADSs to a safe state immediately after being involved 

in a crash. Depending upon the severity of the crash, actions such 

as shutting off the fuel pump, removing motive power, moving the 

vehicle to a safe position off the roadway (or safest place available), 

disengaging electrical power, and other actions that would assist the 

ADSs should be considered. If communications with an operations 

center, collision notification center, or vehicle communications 

technology exist, relevant data is encouraged to be communicated 

and shared to help reduce the harm resulting from the crash.

Additionally, entities are encouraged to have documentation 

available that facilitates the maintenance and repair of ADSs before 

they can be put back in service. Such documentation would likely 

identify the equipment and the processes necessary to ensure safe 

operation of the ADSs after repairs.

  
14 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

10. Data Recording

Learning from crash data is a central component to the safety 

potential of ADSs. For example, the analysis of a crash involving 

a single ADS could lead to safety developments and subsequent 

prevention of that crash scenario in other ADSs. Paramount to 

this type of learning is proper crash reconstruction. Currently, no 

standard data elements exist for law enforcement, researchers, 

and others to use in determining why an ADS-enabled vehicle 

crashed. Therefore, entities engaging in testing or deployment 

are encouraged to establish a documented process for testing, 

validating, and collecting necessary data related to the occurrence 

of malfunctions, degradations, or failures in a way that can be used 

to establish the cause of any crash. Data should be collected for 

on-road testing and use, and entities are encouraged to adopt 

voluntary guidance, best practices, design principles, and standards 

issued by accredited standards developing organizations such as SAE 

International.25 Likewise, these organizations are encouraged to be 

actively engaged in the discussion and regularly update standards as 

necessary and appropriate.

To promote a continual learning environment, entities engaging in 

testing or deployment should collect data associated with crashes 

involving: (1) fatal or nonfatal personal injury or (2) damage that 

requires towing, including damage that prevents a motor vehicle 

involved from being driven under its own power in its customary 

manner or damage that prevents a motor vehicle involved from 

being driven without resulting in further damage or causing a hazard 

to itself, other traffic elements, or the roadway.

For crash reconstruction purposes (including during testing), it is 

recommended that ADS data be stored, maintained, and readily 

available for retrieval as is current practice, including applicable 

privacy protections, for crash event data recorders.26 Vehicles should 

record, at a minimum, all available information relevant to the 

crash, so that the circumstances of the crash can be reconstructed. 

These data should also contain the status of the ADS and whether 

the ADS or the human driver was in control of the vehicle leading 

up to, during, and immediately following a crash. Entities should 

have the technical and legal capability to share with government 

authorities the relevant recorded information as necessary for crash 

reconstruction purposes. Meanwhile, for consistency and to build 

public trust and acceptance, NHTSA will continue working with SAE 

International to begin the work necessary to establish uniform data 

elements for ADS crash reconstruction.

.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 15

11. Consumer Education and Training

Education and training is imperative for increased safety during 

the deployment of ADSs.27 Therefore, entities are encouraged to 

develop, document, and maintain employee, dealer, distributor, 

and consumer education and training programs to address the 

anticipated differences in the use and operation of ADSs from those 

of the conventional vehicles that the public owns and operates 

today.28 Such programs should consider providing target users 

the necessary level of understanding to utilize these technologies 

properly, efficiently, and in the safest manner possible.

Entities, particularly those engaging in testing or deployment, should 

also ensure that their own staff, including their marketing and sales 

forces, understand the technology and can educate and train their 

dealers, distributors, and consumers.29

Consumer education programs are encouraged to cover topics 

such as ADSs’ functional intent, operational parameters, system 

capabilities and limitations, engagement/disengagement methods, 

HMI, emergency fallback scenarios, operational design domain 

parameters (i.e., limitations), and mechanisms that could alter 

ADS behavior while in service. They should also include explicit 

information on what the ADS is capable and not capable of in 

an effort to minimize potential risks from user system abuse or 

misunderstanding.

As part of their education and training programs, ADS dealers and 

distributors should consider including an on-road or on-track 

experience demonstrating ADS operations and HMI functions prior 

to consumer release. Other innovative approaches (e.g., virtual reality 

or onboard vehicle systems) may also be considered, tested, and 

employed. These programs should be continually evaluated for their 

effectiveness and updated on a routine basis, incorporating feedback 

from dealers, customers, and other sources.

. 

12. Federal, State, and Local Laws

Entities are also encouraged to document how they intend to 

account for all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in the 

design of their vehicles and ADSs. Based on the operational 

design domain(s), the development of ADSs should account for all 

governing traffic laws when operating in automated mode for the 

region of operation.30 For testing purposes, an entity may rely on an 

ADS test driver or other mechanism to manage compliance with the 

applicable laws.

In certain safety-critical situations (such as having to cross double 

lines on the roadway to travel safely past a broken-down vehicle on 

the road) human drivers may temporarily violate certain State motor 

vehicle driving laws. It is expected that ADSs have the capability of 

handling such foreseeable events safely; entities are encouraged to 

have a documented process for independent assessment, testing, 

and validation of such plausible scenarios.

Given that laws and regulations will inevitably change over time, 

entities should consider developing processes to update and adapt 

ADSs to address new or revised legal requirements.

NHTSA encourages collaboration and communication 

between Federal, State, and local governments and 

the private sector as the technology evolves, and the 

Agency will continue to coordinate dialogue among all 

stakeholders. Collaboration is essential as our Nation 

embraces the many technological developments 

affecting our public roadways.
16 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

VOLUNTARY SAFETY SELF-ASSESSMENT 

Entities engaged in ADS testing and deployment may demonstrate how 

they address – via industry best practices, their own best practices, 

or other appropriate methods – the safety elements contained in the 

Voluntary Guidance by publishing a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. 

The Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment is intended to demonstrate to the 

public (particularly States and consumers) that entities are: (1) considering 

the safety aspects of ADSs; (2) communicating and collaborating with 

DOT; (3) encouraging the self-establishment of industry safety norms for 

ADSs; and (4) building public trust, acceptance, and confidence through 

transparent testing and deployment of ADSs. It also allows companies 

an opportunity to showcase their approach to safety, without needing to 

reveal proprietary intellectual property.

To facilitate this process and as an example of the type of information 

an entity might provide as part of its Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, 

NHTSA has assembled an illustrative template for one of the safety 

elements within the Voluntary Guidance. This template is available on 

NHTSA’s website. However, the information submitted could vary beyond 

the template when information is limited or unavailable (e.g., testing 

activities) or if the entity wishes to provide supplemental information.

Entities should ensure that Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments do 

not contain confidential business information (CBI), as it would be 

information available to the public. Entities will presumably wish to 

update these documents over time.

For each safety element laid out by the Voluntary Guidance, entities are 

encouraged to include an acknowledgment within the Voluntary Safety 

Self-Assessment that indicates one of the following:

• This safety element was considered during product development 

efforts for the subject feature; or 

• This safety element is not applicable to the subject product 

development effort.

NHTSA envisions that the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments would 

contain concise information on how entities are utilizing the Voluntary 

Guidance and/or their own processes to address applicable safety 

elements identified in the Voluntary Guidance. The Voluntary Safety SelfAssessment should not serve as an exhaustive recount of every action 

the entity took to address a particular safety element.

Entities are not required to submit a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, 

nor is there any mechanism to compel entities to do so. While these 

assessments are encouraged prior to testing and deployment, NHTSA 

does not require that entities provide submissions nor are they required 

to delay testing or deployment. Assessments are not subject to Federal 

approval.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 17
18 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

THE FEDERAL AND STATE ROLES

NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary 

Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal 

requirement for any phases of development, testing, or 

deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the 

safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will 

help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations 

that could impede deployment.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 19

OVERVIEW

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is prepared to assist with 

challenges that States face regarding the safe integration of SAE Level 

3 and above Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) on public roads. Given 

that vehicles operating on public roads are subject to both Federal and 

State jurisdictions and States are beginning to regulate ADSs, NHTSA has 

developed this section. It is designed to clarify and delineate the Federal 

and State roles in the regulation of ADSs and lay out a framework that the 

States can use as they write their laws and regulations surrounding ADSs 

to ensure a consistent, unified national framework.

NHTSA is working to bring ADSs safely onto the Nation’s roadways in 

a way that encourages ADS entities (manufacturers, suppliers, transit 

operators, automated fleet operators, or any entity that offers services 

utilizing ADSs), consumer advocacy organizations, State legislatures, and 

other interested parties to work together in a shared environment. As the 

technology grows and the horizon of ADS changes rapidly, it is essential 

for each of these entities and interested parties to exercise due diligence 

in staying ahead of activity in a proactive—rather than reactive—manner.

States have begun to propose and pass legislation concerning ADSs. 

Public comments to NHTSA suggest that these proposals present several 

disparate approaches for adding and amending State authority over 

ADSs. Public comments and some State officials have asked NHTSA to 

provide guidance (and eventually regulations) that would support a more 

national approach to testing and deploying ADSs.

Further, in a prior collaborative effort between States and the Federal 

Government, NHTSA entered a 2-year cooperative agreement 

(beginning in September 2014) with the American Association of Motor 

Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) under which the Autonomous Vehicle 

Best Practices Working Group was created. The working group was 

chartered to organize and share information related to the development, 

design, testing, use, and regulation of ADSs and other emerging vehicle 

technology. Based on the working group’s research, a report is currently 

being developed to assist jurisdictions in enhancing their current ADS 

regulations or considering developing new legislation.31 The goal of 

the report is to promote uniformity amongst jurisdictions and provide a 

baseline safety approach to possible challenges to the regulation of ADS 

sand testing the drivers who operate them.

Coinciding with the development of AAMVA’s report, NHTSA has 

continued to work with State stakeholders including the National 

Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Governors Highway 

Safety Association (GHSA) to identify emerging challenges in the 

integration of ADSs and conventional motor vehicles.

Based on public input and the Agency’s ongoing work with partners such 

as NCSL, GHSA, and AAMVA, NHTSA offers these Best Practices and 

specific legal components States should consider as we all work toward 

the shared goal of advancing safe ADS integration. The objective is to 

assist States in developing ADS laws, if desired, and creating consistency 

in ADS regulation across the country.

While technology is evolving and new State legislative language is still 

being drafted and reviewed, States can proactively evaluate current 

laws and regulations so as not to unintentionally create barriers to ADS 

operation, such as a requirement that a driver have at least one hand on 

the steering wheel at all times.

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

Best Practices for Legislatures Regarding Automated Driving Systems
20 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

NHTSA encourages States to review others’ 

draft ADS policies and legislation and work 

toward consistency. The goal of State 

policies in this realm need not be uniformity 

or identical laws and regulations across all 

States. Rather, the aim should be sufficient 

consistency of laws and policies to promote 

innovation and the swift, widespread, safe 

integration of ADSs.

States are encouraged to maintain a good 

state of infrastructure design, operation, and 

maintenance that supports ADS deployment 

and to adhere to the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the existing 

national standard for traffic control devices as 

required by law. For example, items that may 

be considered a low priority now because 

of the presence of a human driver may 

be considered a higher priority as vehicle 

systems begin to rely more on machine 

vision and other techniques to detect where 

they are in a given lane. In addition, States 

are urged to continue to work with the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 

the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)32

to support uniformity and consensus in 

infrastructure standards setting. This will 

support the safe operation of ADSs and 

ensure the safety of human drivers, who will 

continue to operate vehicles on the roads for 

years to come.

FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY ROLES

In consideration of State activity regarding ADSs, as well as NHTSA’s activity at the Federal level, it is 

important to delineate Federal and State regulatory responsibility for motor vehicle operation.

These general areas of responsibility should remain largely unchanged for ADSs. NHTSA is 

responsible for regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and States are responsible 

for regulating the human driver and most other aspects of motor vehicle operation. 

Further DOT involvement includes safety, evaluation, planning, and maintenance of the Nation’s 

infrastructure through FHWA as well as regulation of the safe operation of interstate motor carriers 

and commercial vehicle drivers, along with registration and insurance requirements through the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

DOT strongly encourages States to allow DOT alone to regulate the safety design and performance 

aspects of ADS technology. If a State does pursue ADS performance-related regulations, that State 

should consult with NHTSA.

NHTSA’S RESPONSIBILITIES STATES’ RESPONSIBILITIES

• Setting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 

(with which manufacturers must certify 

compliance before they sell their 

vehicles)33

• Enforcing compliance with FMVSSs 

• Investigating and managing the recall and 

remedy of noncompliances and safetyrelated motor vehicle defects nationwide 

• Communicating with and educating the 

public about motor vehicle safety issues 

• Licensing human drivers and registering 

motor vehicles in their jurisdictions 

• Enacting and enforcing traffic laws and 

regulations 

• Conducting safety inspections, where States 

choose to do so 

• Regulating motor vehicle insurance and 

liability
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 21

BEST PRACTICES FOR LEGISLATURES

As States act to ensure the safety of road users in their jurisdictions, 

NHTSA continually monitors and reviews language to stay informed 

on State legislation. In reviewing draft State legislation, the Agency 

has identified common components and has highlighted significant 

elements regarding ADSs that States should consider including in 

legislation. As such, NHTSA recommends the following safety-related 

best practices when crafting legislation for ADSs:

• Provide a “technology-neutral” environment. 

States should not place unnecessary burdens on competition and 

innovation by limiting ADS testing or deployment to motor vehicle 

manufacturers only. For example, no data suggests that experience 

in vehicle manufacturing is an indicator of the ability to safely test or 

deploy vehicle technology. All entities that meet Federal and State 

law prerequisites for testing or deployment should have the ability to 

operate in the State.

• Provide licensing and registration procedures. 

States are responsible for driver licensing and vehicle registration 

procedures. To support these efforts, NHTSA recommends defining 

“motor vehicle” under ADS laws to include any vehicle operating on 

the roads and highways of the State; licensing ADS entities and test 

operators for ADSs; and registering all vehicles equipped with ADSs 

and establishing proof of financial responsibility requirements in the 

form of surety bonds or self-insurance. These efforts provide States 

with the same information as that collected for conventional motor 

vehicles and improve State recordkeeping for ADS operation.

• Provide reporting and communications methods for Public Safety 

Officials. 

States can take steps to monitor safe ADS operation through 

reporting and communications mechanisms so that entities can 

coordinate with public safety agencies. The safety of public safety 

officials, other road users, and ADS passengers will be improved 

with greater understanding of the technology, capabilities, and 

functioning environment. States should develop procedures for 

entities to report crashes and other roadway incidents involving ADSs 

to law enforcement and first responders.

• Review traffic laws and regulations that may serve as barriers to 

operation of ADSs. 

States should review their vehicle codes, applicable traffic laws, 

and similar items to determine if there are unnecessary regulatory 

barriers that would prevent the testing and deployment of ADSs on 

public roads. For example, some States require a human operator to 

have one hand on the steering wheel at all times – a law that would 

pose a barrier to Level 3 through Level 5 ADSs.
22 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

BEST PRACTICES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY OFFICIALS

States have a general responsibility to reduce traffic crashes and the 

resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage for all road users in their 

jurisdictions. States use this authority to establish and maintain highway 

safety programs addressing: driver education and testing; licensing; 

pedestrian safety; law enforcement; vehicle registration and inspection; 

traffic control; highway design and maintenance; crash prevention, 

investigation, and recordkeeping; and emergency services. This includes 

any legal components States may wish to consider upon drafting 

legislation on ADSs.

The following sections describe a framework for States looking for 

assistance in developing procedures and conditions for ADSs’ introduction 

onto public roadways. NHTSA and AAMVA’s collaborative partnership 

on a Model State Policy is the foundation of the following discussion; 

however, it has been upgraded to incorporate additional concerns of 

State stakeholders, the clarification of roles, and an emphasis on the 

States’ consideration of the information—rather than a directive for action. 

NHTSA does not expect that States will necessarily need to create any 

new processes or requirements in order to support ADS activities. Instead, 

the references below are intended as guidance for those States that may 

be looking to incorporate ADSs into existing processes or requirements or 

States who are considering such processes or requirements.

1. Administrative: States may want to consider new oversight activities 

on an administrative level to support States’ roles and activities as they 

relate to ADSs. NHTSA does not expect that States will need to create 

any particular new entity in order to support ADS activities, but States 

may decide to create some of these entities if the State determines 

that they will be useful. The references below are intended as 

examples of those that may be appropriate for participation.

a. Consider identifying a lead agency responsible for deliberation of 

any ADS testing.

b. Consider creating a jurisdictional ADS technology committee 

that is launched by the designated lead agency and includes 

representatives from the governor’s office, the motor vehicle 

administration, the State department of transportation, the State 

law enforcement agency, the State Highway Safety Office, State 

office of information technology, State insurance regulator, the 

State office(s) representing the aging and disabled communities, 

toll authorities, trucking and bus authorities, and transit authorities.

c. To encourage open communication, the designated lead agency 

may choose to inform the State automated safety technology 

committee of the requests from entities to test in their State and 

the status of the designated agency’s response to companies.

d. In an effort to implement a framework for policies and regulations, 

the designated lead agency could take steps to use or establish 

statutory authority. This preparation would involve examination of 

laws and regulations in order to address unnecessary barriers to 

ADS operation on public roadways.

e. Consider developing an internal process to include an application 

for entities to test in their State.

f. Consider establishing an internal process for issuing test ADS 

vehicle permits.

2. Application for Entities to Test ADSs on Public Roadways:

For those States with an existing application process for test vehicles, 

the following are considerations for applications involving testing of 

an ADS on public roadways. It is recommended that the application 

for testing remain at the State level; however, if a State chooses to 

request applications at a local level, these considerations would carry 

to those jurisdictions.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 23

a. States could request that an entity submit an application to the 

designated lead agency in each State in which it plans to test ADSs. 

A process should be considered for application submission in 

those situations in which multiple entities are involved in the testing 

of an ADS.

b. States could request the following information from entities to 

ensure accurate recordkeeping:

• Name, corporate physical and mailing addresses, in-State 

physical and mailing addresses (if applicable), and the program 

administrator/director’s name and contact information; 

• Identification of each ADS that will be used on public roadways 

by VIN, vehicle type, or other unique identifiers such as the year, 

make, and model; and 

• Identification of each test operator, the operator’s driver license 

number, and the State or country in which the operator is 

licensed.

c. Inclusion of the entity’s safety and compliance plan for the ADS 

could provide increased safety assurance to the State.

d. Inclusion of evidence of the entity’s ability to satisfy a judgment 

or judgments for damages for personal injury, death, or property 

damage caused by an ADS in the form of an instrument of 

insurance, a surety bond, or proof of self-insurance could provide 

increased safety assurance to the State.34

e. Inclusion of a summary of the training provided to the 

employees, contractors, or other users designated by the entity 

as test operators of the ADS could provide increased safety 

assurance to the State.

3. Permission for Entities to Test ADSs on Public Roadways:

For States that grant permission for testing of vehicles, the following 

are considerations for granting permission for ADS testing on public 

roadways. It is recommended that permission to test remain at the 

State level; however, State and local governments should coordinate. 

If a State chooses to request applications at a local level, these 

considerations would carry to those jurisdictions.

a. For greater public safety, it is recommended that a State’s lead 

agency involve law enforcement agencies before responding to 

the application for testing from the entity.

b. It would be appropriate to suspend permission to test if the entity 

fails to comply with the State insurance or driver requirements.
24 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

SECTION 2: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

c. It would be appropriate for the lead agency to request additional 

information or require an entity to modify its application before 

granting approval.

d. If a State requires an application, it should consider notification to 

the entity indicating permission to test that ADS in the State. A State 

may choose to request that entity’s test vehicles carry a copy of 

proof of permission to test that ADS in those vehicles. 

4. Specific Considerations for ADS Test Drivers and Operations:

Considerations for States providing access for test-ADSs as they are 

operated under designated circumstances and with entity-based 

operators.

a. If a State is concerned about the training of an ADS test driver, the 

State could request a summary of the training provided to the test 

driver.

b. For test vehicles, the test driver should follow all traffic rules and 

report crashes as appropriate for the State.

c. States regulate human drivers. Licensed drivers are necessary to 

perform the driving functions for motor vehicles equipped with 

automated safety technologies that are less than fully automated 

(SAE Levels 3 and lower). A licensed driver has responsibility to 

operate the vehicle, monitor the operation, or be immediately 

available to perform the driving task when requested or the lower 

level automated system disengages. 

d. Fully automated vehicles are driven entirely by the vehicle itself 

and require no licensed human driver (SAE levels 4 and 5), at least 

in certain environments or under certain conditions.35 The entire 

driving operation (under specified conditions) is performed by a 

motor vehicle automated system from origin to destination. 

5. Considerations for Registration and Titling: Specific considerations 

regarding identification and records for ADS deployed for consumer 

use and operation.

a. Consider identification of an ADS on the title and registration. This 

could apply to all ADSs or only those capable of operating without 

a human driver.

b. Consider requiring notification of ADS upgrades if the vehicle has 

been significantly upgraded post-sale. Applicable State forms could 

be adjusted to reflect the upgrade.

6. Working With Public Safety Officials: General considerations as 

public safety officials begin to understand vehicles and needs.

a. States could consider training public safety officials in conjunction 

with ADS deployments in their jurisdictions to improve 

understanding of ADS operation and potential interactions.

b. Coordination among States would be beneficial for developing 

policies on human operator behaviors, as to monitor behavior 

changes—if any—in the presence of ADSs when the vehicle is in 

control.

7. Liability and Insurance: Initial considerations for State relegation of 

liability during an incident and insurance of the driver, entity, and/ 

or ADS. These considerations may take time and broad discussion 

of incident scenarios, understanding of technology, and knowledge 

of how the ADSs are being used (personal use, rental, ride share, 

corporate, etc.). Additionally, determination of the operator of an ADS, 

in a given circumstance, may not necessarily determine liability for 

crashes involving the ADS.

a. Begin to consider how to allocate liability among ADS owners, 

operators, passengers, manufacturers, and other entities when a 

crash occurs.

b. For insurance purposes, determine who (owner, operator, 

passenger, manufacturer, other entity, etc.) must carry motor 

vehicle insurance.

c. States could begin to consider rules and laws allocating tort 

liability.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 25

RESOURCES

A central repository of associated references to this and other 

NHTSA ADS resources will be maintained at 

www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles. 

This includes an informational resource to support manufacturers and other 

entities interested in requesting regulatory action from NHTSA.

CONCLUSION

Public trust and confidence in the evolution of ADSs has the potential to advance or inhibit the 

testing and deployment of ADSs on public roadways. NHTSA is committed to supporting the safety 

of these emerging and evolutionary technological advancements, which have the potential to 

significantly improve roadway safety. The Voluntary Guidance, highlighting the 12 priority safety 

elements, and its associated Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment offer public reassurance that safety 

remains NHTSA’s top priority. The States’ Best Practices section reinforces NHTSA’s willingness to 

assist States with the challenges they face regarding ADSs now and in the pivotal years ahead. 

This document will be updated periodically to reflect advances in technology, increased presence 

of ADSs on public roadways, and any regulatory action or statutory changes that could occur 

at both the Federal and State levels. In the meantime, the information provided herein serves 

to aid industry as it moves forward with testing and deploying ADSs and States with drafting 

legislation and developing plans and policies regarding ADSs. NHTSA encourages collaboration 

and communication between Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector as the 

technology evolves, and the Agency will continue to coordinate dialogue among all stakeholders. 

Collaboration is essential as our Nation embraces the many technological developments affecting 

our public roadways. Together, we can use lessons learned to make any necessary course 

corrections, to prevent or mitigate unintended consequences or safety risks, and to positively 

transform American mobility safely and efficiently.
26 AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

ENDNOTES

1 NHTSA acknowledges that Privacy and Ethical Considerations are also important 

elements for entities to deliberate. See www.nhtsa.gov/AVforIndustry for 

NHTSA’s approach on each.

2 NHTSA completed the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process and received 

clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the Federal 

Automated Vehicles Policy Voluntary Guidance’s information collection through 

August 31, 2018, 81 FR 65709. However, pursuant to PRA, NHTSA is again 

seeking public comment on an updated Information Collection Request (ICR) 

that covers the information included in Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for 

Safety. The ICR identified in this document will not be effective until the ICR 

process is completed. 

3 SAE International J3016, International Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms 

Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016:Sept 

2016).

4 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. §§ 30102(a)(8), 30116, 30120.

5 Parts of this Voluntary Guidance could be applied to any form of ADS.

6 The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (“Safety Act”), 49 

U.S.C. 30101 et seq., provides the basis and framework for NHTSA’s enforcement 

authority over motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment defects and noncompliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

7 Under ISO 26262 (Road Vehicles: Functional Safety), functional safety refers to 

the absence of unreasonable safety risks in cases of electrical and electronic 

failures.

8 For example, the U.S. Department of Defense standard practice on system 

safety, MIL-STD-882E. 11 May 2012. Available at www.system-safety.org/

Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf.

9 See Van Eikema Hommes, Q.D. (2016, June). Assessment of Safety Standards 

for Automotive Electronic Control Systems. (Report No. Dot HS 812 285). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at 

ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59300/59359/812285_ElectronicsReliabilityReport.pdf.

10 “Minimal risk condition” means low-risk operating condition that an automated 

driving system automatically resorts to either when a system fails or when 

the human driver fails to respond appropriately to a request to take over the 

dynamic driving task. See SAE International J3016, International Taxonomy 

and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road 

Motor Vehicles (J3016:Sept2016).

11 “Fallback ready user” means the user of a vehicle equipped with an engaged 

ADS feature who is able to operate the vehicle and is receptive to ADS-issued 

requests to intervene and to evident dynamic driving task (DDT) performancerelevant system failures in the vehicle compelling him or her to perform the DDT 

fallback. See SAE International J3016, International Taxonomy and Definitions 

for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles 

(J3016:Sept2016).

12 See Automated Vehicle Research for Enhanced Safety: Final Report. 

Collision Avoidance Metrics Partnership, Automated Vehicle Research 

Consortium. June 2016. DTNH22-050H-01277. The report includes detailed 

functional descriptions for on-road driving automation levels and identifies 

potential objective test methods that could be used as a framework for 

evaluating emerging and future driving automation features. Available at 

www.noticeandcomment.com/Automated-Vehicle-Research-for-EnhancedSafety-Final-Report-fn-459371.aspx. 

13 See Nowakowski, C., et al., Development of California Regulations to Govern 

the Testing and Operation of Automated Driving Systems, California PATH 

Program, University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 14, 2014, pg. 10. Available at 

http://docs.trb.org/prp/15-2269.pdf.

14 California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) is a 

multidisciplinary research and development program of the University of 

California, Berkeley, with staff, faculty, and students from universities worldwide 

and cooperative projects with private industry, State and local agencies, and 

nonprofit institutions. See www.path.berkeley.edu.

15 Id., pgs. 10-11. California PATH’s work described minimum behavioral 

competencies for automated vehicles as “necessary, but by no means sufficient, 

capabilities for public operation.” Id. The document’s full peer review is available 

at www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Peer-Review-ReportIntgratedV2.pdf.

16 See Rau, P., Yanagisawa, M., and Najm, W. G., Target Crash Population of 

Automated Vehicles, available at www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/24/files/

Session 21 Written.pdf.
AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY 27

17 See Najm, W. G., Smith, J. D., and Yanagisawa, M., “Pre-Crash Scenario Typology 

for Crash Avoidance Research,” DOT HS 810 767, April 2007. Available at 

www.nhtsa.gov/gy-Final_PDF_Version_5-2-07.pdf.

18 Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/55000/55400/55443/

AVBenefitFrameworkFinalReport082615_Cover1.pdf.

19 Entities are encouraged to seek technical and engineering advice from members 

of the disabled community and otherwise engage with that community to 

develop designs informed by its needs and experiences.

20 Entities should insist that their suppliers build into their equipment robust 

cybersecurity features. Entities should also address cybersecurity, but they 

should not wait to receive equipment from a supplier before doing so.

21 www.nist.gov/cyberframework.

22 An Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) is a trusted, sector specific 

entity that can provide a 24-hour-per-day 7-day-per-week secure operating 

capability that establishes the coordination, information sharing, and 

intelligence requirements for dealing with cybersecurity incidents, threats, and 

vulnerabilities. See McCarthy, C., Harnett, K., Carter, A., and Hatipoglu, C. (2014, 

October). Assessment of the information sharing and analysis center model 

(Report No. DOT HS 812 076). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration.

23 The tools to demonstrate such due care need not be limited to physical testing 

but also could include virtual tests with vehicle and human body models.

24 In 2003, as part of a voluntary agreement on crash compatibility, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers agreed to a geometric compatibility commitment 

which would provide for alignment of primary energy absorbing structures 

among vehicles. The European Union recently introduced a new frontal 

crash test that also requires geometric load distribution similar to the Alliance 

voluntary agreement.

25 The collection, recording, storage, auditing, and deconstruction of data 

recorded by an entity must be in strict accordance with the entity’s consumer 

privacy and security agreements and notices, as well as any applicable legal 

requirements.

26 See 49 CFR Part 563, Event Data Recorders. Available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/CFR-2016-title49-vol6/xml/CFR-2016-title49-vol6-part563.xml. 

27 Not applicable to ADS testing.

28 The training and education programs recommended here are intended to 

complement and augment driver training and education programs run by States 

that retain the primary responsibility for training, testing, and licensing human 

drivers.

29 Such training and education programs for employees, dealers, distributors, and 

consumers may be administered by an entity other than the direct employer, 

manufacturer, or other applicable entity.

30 Traffic laws vary from State to State (and even city to city); ADSs should be able 

to follow all laws that apply to the applicable operational design domain. This 

includes speed limits, traffic control devices, one-way streets, access restrictions 

(crosswalks, bike lanes), U-turns, right-on-red situations, metering ramps, and 

other traffic circumstances and situations.

31 Future updates to AAMVA’s guide may integrate commercial vehicle ADS 

operational aspects brought forth by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

(CVSA). 

32 AASHTO is an international leader in setting technical standards for all phases of 

highway system development. Standards are issued for design, construction of 

highways and bridges, materials, and many other technical areas. 

See www.transportation.org/home/organization/.

33 NHTSA does not expressly regulate motor vehicle (or motor vehicle equipment) 

in-use performance after first sale. However, because the FMVSSs apply to the 

vehicle or equipment when first manufactured and because taking a vehicle 

or piece of equipment out of compliance with an applicable standard can be a 

violation of the Safety Act, the influence of the FMVSSs extends throughout the 

life of the vehicle even if NHTSA is not directly regulating it. At the same time, 

States have the authority to regulate a vehicle’s in-use performance (through 

safety inspection laws), but as the text here states, State regulations cannot 

conflict with applicable FMVSSs. Additionally, NHTSA continues to have broad 

enforcement authority to evaluate and address safety risks as they arise.

34 AAMVA experts recommended a minimum insurance requirement of $5 million; 

however, that is subject to State considerations.

35 Some vehicles may be capable of being entirely “driven” either by the vehicle 

itself or by a human driver. For such dual-capable vehicles, the States would 

have jurisdiction to regulate (license, etc.) the human driver.
28

DOT HS 812 442

September 2017

13069a-090617-v9a