NHTSA Announces Historic Proposal to Modernize Vehicle Safety Standards
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.19.20
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) took its first leap toward removing unintentional regulatory roadblocks for autonomous vehicle (AV) developers. On March 17, NHTSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modernize numerous Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and clarify ambiguities in current occupant protection standards for vehicles equipped with automated driving systems (ADS) that are designed without traditional manual controls.
Specifically, NHTSA’s NPRM seeks to restyle eleven FMVSS to avoid unintended impediments to the development of ADS, while retaining all of the features that have been influential in saving lives for decades. The specific FMVSS that the NPRM proposes to revise are occupant protection (201, 208, 214, 216s, 225, 226), side-impact protection (203), steering control placement (204), glazing materials (205), door locks and door retention (206), and seating systems (207). These proposed changes are geared toward accommodating inherent differences between traditional vehicles, and occupant-less vehicles and vehicles lacking traditional manual controls. NHTSA also cautioned that this NPRM does not eliminate the need for manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles to seek certain exemptions from FMVSS compliance, though it could reduce the number of standards from which manufacturers must seek exemption.
While NHTSA’s NPRM is a major step forward for modernizing regulatory barriers at play for AV developers, NHTSA also notes that in this NPRM it has strategically left certain items unaddressed, and may look to update other items in the future. Here are a few highlights:
- The agency made clear that its proposal does not change existing occupant protection requirements for traditional passenger vehicles with manual controls.
- NHTSA tentatively decided that it will not revise the regulatory definition of “driver” found in 49 CFR §571.3, but will instead clarify this definition as needed to indicate differences between a human driver or an ADS.
- NHTSA intends to issue a separate notice regarding removal of barriers in the FMVSS that pertain to telltales, indicators, alerts, and warnings in ADS-equipped vehicles.
- NHTSA plans to complete research and separately seek public comment on the creation of a new FMVSS category for occupant-less vehicles.
NHTSA seeks public comment on all aspects of this proposal. Comments will be due 60 days from when the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to occur in the near-term. This provides industry a good opportunity to help shape policy as NHTSA continues to modernize its regulations and update the FMVSS to accurately reflect new AV technology.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
