NHTSA Proposes Rule on Safe Deployment of Self-Driving Vehicles
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.24.21
In a recently published RAIL, The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law article, “NHTSA Proposes Rule on Safe Deployment of Self-Driving Vehicles,” Crowell & Moring’s Rebecca Baden Chaney and Rukiya Mohamed discuss the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) advance notice of proposed rulemaking that marks a departure from the way in which the agency has previously addressed automated driving systems (ADS), and automotive safety more generally. Although NHTSA does not intend to issue any Federal standards around ADS yet, the agency is considering how it can use regulatory authority to place a focus on safety measures as ADS technology develops. This article outlines NHTSA’s proposed safety framework and possible implementation of that framework.
The authors note that NHTSA is seeking comments from the public through April 1, 2021 with the goal of developing a “safety framework” to “define, assess, and manage the safety of ADS performance while ensuring the needed flexibility to enable further innovation.”
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
