AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS

 

 



 

 

  
   

 

 

xx} 
?r-se 

   
  



I: .V

 

 

 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
       
  







. 

a gin-'96 



 

 

U.S. Department of Transportation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTORY MESSAGE
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.

Secretary Elaine L. Chao
U.S. Department of Transportation

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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

i

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
 

ii

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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 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 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 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

iii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:  Voluntary Guidance

Section 2: T
  echnical Assistance to States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iv

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 SECTION 1:  VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE
For Automated Driving Systems
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

NHTSA’S MISSION

Save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
economic costs due to road traffic
crashes, through education, research,
safety standards, and enforcement activity.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

1

 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.

2

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

 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

3

 SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

SAEAUTOMATION
AUTOMATION LEVELS
SAE
LEVELS
Full Automation

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

No
Automation

Driver
Assistance

Partial
Automation

Conditional
Automation

High
Automation

Full
Automation

Zero autonomy;
the driver performs
all driving tasks.

Vehicle is controlled
by the driver, but
some driving assist
features may be
included in the
vehicle design.

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.

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.

The vehicle is capable
of performing all
driving functions
under certain
conditions. The driver
may have the option
to control the vehicle.

The vehicle is capable
of performing all
driving functions
under all conditions.
The driver may
have the option to
control the vehicle.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

5

 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.

6

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

7

 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.

8

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

9

 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;

•  Experiencing a malfunction; and/or

•  Currently engaged in ADS mode;

•  Requesting control transition from the ADS to the
operator.

•  Currently “unavailable” for use;

10

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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.

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.

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

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

11

 SECTION 1: VOLUNTARY GUIDANCE

8.  Crashworthiness
Occupant Protection

Compatibility

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.

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 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

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.

12

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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.
 

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

13

 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.
.

14

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 11. Consumer Education and Training

12. Federal, State, and Local Laws

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.

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.

.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

15

 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.

16

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

  

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.

18

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 SECTION 2: T
  ECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES
Best Practices for Legislatures Regarding Automated Driving Systems
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

19

 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.

20

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
•  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

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

STATES’ RESPONSIBILITIES
•  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

 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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

21

 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.

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.

a.  Consider identifying a lead agency responsible for deliberation of
any ADS testing.

22

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

 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

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.

•  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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

23

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

24

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

 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.

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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

25

 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

26

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

 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.

27  Not applicable to ADS testing.

18  Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/55000/55400/55443/
AVBenefitFrameworkFinalReport082615_Cover1.pdf.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY

27

  .1. 
2.72125. 

 

DOT HS 812 442
September 2017

 



 

 

 

 

 

 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

vu-vuv- vvuvuvvr--1Lxx?an

    
  

..
.9 oo. . 

?ttff?TQTI?Tl'fl



 

'vv

9

us. Department of Transportation I