What actions have NHTSA and automakers taken on impaired-driving prevention rules since the law passed?
Executive summary
Since Congress directed NHTSA to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology,” the agency has launched formal rulemaking work — issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), soliciting public comment, compiling research and preparing reports to Congress — while advocacy groups press for speed and automakers and suppliers continue R&D on detection systems without a settled industry standard yet [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. NHTSA opened the regulatory door: ANPRM, public docket, and technical stock‑take
NHTSA formally initiated rulemaking by publishing an ANPRM that solicits information on current detection technologies, asks detailed technical questions about sensor approaches and defeat strategies, and frames the agency’s task under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to consider a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard only if it is practicable and reduces crashes [1] [5] [6]. The ANPRM functionally cataloged state of the science, requested input on metrics for alcohol, drowsiness and distraction detection, and signaled that drugged driving is excluded from this phase because of technological immaturity and testing gaps [1] [7].
2. Gathering evidence and stakeholders: thousands of comments, agency reports, and timelines
NHTSA has received and is evaluating a large volume of public input — more than 18,000 comments referenced in its report to Congress — and has produced a technical report summarizing research, open questions, and an anticipated timeline for any proposed FMVSS [2]. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gives NHTSA a statutory window (work to issue a final rule within three years with potential extensions and reporting requirements), and the agency has tied its ANPRM and reporting to those statutory milestones [8] [2].
3. The technology challenge: what NHTSA says is feasible today — and what isn’t
NHTSA’s documents emphasize that passive, vehicle‑based detection systems and tissue or breath sensing (including near‑infrared skin scanners and breath analyzers) show promise, but distinguishing impairment sources, avoiding false positives, and designing reliable, testable performance requirements remain challenging; the agency explicitly notes limitations that currently preclude including drugged driving detection in the ANPRM phase [7] [1] [9].
4. Enforcement, safety messaging, and interim programs — NHTSA’s other moves
Beyond the rulemaking, NHTSA continues traditional behavioral and enforcement efforts — public safety campaigns like holiday “Drive Sober” initiatives and continued support for research programs such as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) funded through 2025 under BIL — indicating the agency is pursuing a multipronged approach while the regulatory work proceeds [6] [8].
5. Automakers and suppliers: R&D acceleration, but no uniform deployment yet
Industry reporting and NHTSA’s ANPRM acknowledge that automakers and suppliers have been developing and testing impairment‑detection technologies — from driver‑monitoring camera systems to tissue and breath sensors — and that automakers are engaging with the rulemaking, but there is no evidence in the cited reporting that a single automaker has fully standardized an industry‑wide solution for all new vehicles pending a federal FMVSS [4] [7] [9].
6. Advocates pushing, safety researchers cautious: competing pressures on speed and rigor
Advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have hailed the ANPRM as a breakthrough that could save thousands of lives and urged quick implementation, while safety researchers and organizations like IIHS press NHTSA to move faster yet warn of technical hurdles and call for standards that will not be easily circumvented — revealing a tension between urgency to save lives and the practical need for robust test protocols and anti‑defeat measures [3] [10] [9].
7. Key open issues that will shape final rules — and why timelines remain uncertain
Regulatory success hinges on objective, practicable performance metrics, test procedures that can be replicated across vehicles, ways to prevent defeat or aftermarket removal, consumer acceptance, and whether systems should warn drivers, limit vehicle operation, or lock ignitions — all matters NHTSA is explicitly asking about and which explain why the agency is in an information‑gathering phase rather than issuing immediate mandates [1] [7] [9].