New U.S. rules ease reporting for self-driving cars to boost innovation

Self-Driving Cars Have New Rules in the U.S. — Here's Why That Matters

As the U.S. eases crash reporting and expands test access, experts debate safety tradeoffs in the race for autonomous innovation

On April 24, the United States rolled out a significant update to its regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. In a video announcement invoking the Wright brothers and Apollo-era ambition, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy framed the new rules as essential to securing the country's lead over China in the rapidly evolving self-driving vehicle sector.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a new order that trims reporting obligations for lower-severity crashes and broadens testing access for experimental robo taxis. The policy, which applies to vehicle automation Levels 2 through 5, will take effect on June 16, 2025.

Supporters view the move as a catalyst for innovation, while critics warn of weakened transparency and oversight during a critical stage of autonomous vehicle development.

Key changes in the self-driving rulebook

The revised rules maintain that crashes involving fatalities, hospital transports, airbag deployments, or collisions with pedestrians must still be reported within five days. However, for Level 2 systems like Tesla’s Full Self-Driving or Ford’s BlueCruise, minor incidents involving property damage under $1,000—such as low-speed fender benders or curb strikes—are now excluded from mandatory reporting.

For Levels 3 through 5, operated via fully automated driving systems (ADS), reports remain required for crashes involving tow-aways, major damage, or stationary object impacts. All other incidents must be reported within 30 days.

NHTSA says these changes reduce “unnecessary burdens” on manufacturers while preserving essential safety insights. Yet safety advocates argue that downplaying minor incidents may hinder pattern recognition and early intervention.

“Transparency and accountability about the performance of these vehicles on public roadways is essential,” said Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

Tighter data control raises red flags

The rule revision also limits public access to certain crash-related data. Automakers can now shield three previously disclosed elements:

• Whether the vehicle was operating within its intended environment,

• A plain-language description of the crash,

• The software version in use at the time of the incident.

Researchers say this is some of the only insight the public and independent analysts have into real-world self-driving performance. Critics fear that increased confidentiality could obscure underlying risks.

Testing boost for U.S. automakers

Previously, foreign companies were allowed to import small numbers of noncompliant vehicles—lacking mirrors or pedals, for example—for testing purposes. U.S. firms, however, faced a longer and more complex exemption process, leading some to build prototypes abroad and reimport them.

Under the new framework, domestic firms will gain equal access to these exemptions, potentially accelerating development and supporting projects like Tesla’s Cybercab. The change aims to streamline prototyping, lower entry barriers for startups, and generate jobs within the U.S.

However, these exemptions are limited to research and demonstration; full-scale commercial deployment still requires a separate, more rigorous approval process.

A regulatory gamble?

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major automakers, praised the rules for offering clarity to a fragmented regulatory environment. CEO John Bozzella noted that a lack of federal standards had previously stifled growth.

Yet, opponents question whether reduced reporting and widened exemptions could overextend NHTSA’s oversight capabilities—particularly in the wake of budget cuts and staffing reductions. If hundreds of robo taxis hit the roads under experimental exemptions, critics fear it may outpace regulators’ ability to monitor real-world outcomes.

“Dropping routine crash data will blunt an early-warning system,” one researcher noted.

Political and global context

The updated rules reflect a rare bipartisan consensus around creating a unified federal standard for autonomous vehicles, avoiding a patchwork of conflicting state laws. Still, Democrats have generally favored stricter reporting, and some legislators have expressed concern over weakened consumer protections.

In his announcement, Secretary Duffy emphasized the geopolitical stakes, positioning the changes as essential for the U.S. to outpace China’s aggressive investment in electric and autonomous vehicle manufacturing.

“America is in the middle of an innovation race with China,” Duffy said. “And the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Understanding automation levels

The rule applies to four tiers of driving automation:

• Level 2: Partial automation (e.g., lane-centering and adaptive cruise control with driver oversight)

• Level 3: Conditional automation (the system drives but may request human intervention)

• Level 4: High automation (driverless in mapped zones)

• Level 5: Full automation (fully autonomous in all conditions)

Level 2 systems currently dominate the U.S. market, but Levels 3 to 5 are where most future investment and regulatory scrutiny lie.

As U.S. automakers scale up autonomous vehicle development, this regulatory shift signals a strategic pivot: reducing friction for innovation, even if it means loosening the grip on routine oversight. Whether this gamble will pay off in safer, smarter mobility—or invite new risks—remains to be seen.

Stay tuned to The Horizons Times for continued coverage of autonomous technology and transportation policy.