On Monday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency published its long-awaited Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. NHTSA is the part of the US government responsible for regulating the vehicles we drive, and it's broadly in favor of self-driving technology given the potential to reduce the death toll on the nation's roads. That toll, by the way, nudged above 35,000 in 2015 (up almost 8 percent on the previous year).

The new document includes both a performance guidance (as opposed to regulation) for automated vehicles as well as a model policy for individual states to follow. As is the case with new federal government policies, the document is open for public comment for the next 60 days.

What does the guidance say?

First at bat is NHTSA's decision to abandon its own scale of autonomous driving levels. Instead, the agency will use the SAE scale; this goes from Level 0 (where a human driver does everything) to level 5 (completely automated). Cars equipped with adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist, traffic jam assist, or Autopilot fall somewhere between SAE's Levels 2 and 3:

At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can actually conduct some parts of the driving task, while the human continues to monitor the driving environment and performs the rest of the driving task

At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment in some instances, but the human driver must be ready to take back control when the automated system requests

The guidance includes a list of 15 areas that anyone wishing to develop an autonomous vehicle system (which means everything from OEMs to aftermarket outfits like comma.ai) need to address. These factors include data recording (and the ability to share it), adequate privacy safeguards, redundancy and system safety, cybersecurity, human-machine interfaces (particularly notifying drivers when they're supposed to be in control), and crashworthiness (so don't expect swiveling chairs any time soon).

Even the infamous "trolley problem" is addressed in the section on ethical considerations, although the more immediate concerns are vehicles that could be programmed in ways that may require a vehicle to break traffic laws. (For example, crossing a double-yellow lane divider to avoid a double-parked car or some other obstacle.)

Manufacturers of autonomous vehicles will also have to document the behavioral competency of their systems for a wide range of normal driving conditions. On top of that, these companies need to track crash avoidance capabilities and fall-back behavior in the case of a system malfunction. NHTSA guidance also addresses the need for both software and hardware updates.

In the section on model state policies, NHTSA urges the states to allow the federal government to regulate autonomous driving tech. Obviously the fear here is the creation of a patchwork system where cars are able to self-drive through some states and not others. NHTSA reminds us of the breakdown between federal and state roles, which it says do not change with autonomous vehicles. States are responsible for licensing human drivers, enacting and enforcing traffic laws, conducting safety inspections (if they bother), and regulating insurance and liability. (It is worth noting here that federal regulations always preempt those of individual states, which cannot issue regulations for vehicle performance if a NHTSA regulation on the same function already exists.)

Initial reaction to the guidance has been generally positive. "We applaud regulators for seeking to implement a flexible approach that encourages the development of quickly evolving safety innovations in order to realize those benefits rapidly," said the Intelligent Car Coalition, a Washington, DC-based group of stakeholders that includes car makers, tech firms, and communications companies. "We know there are still many discussions ahead on issues such as driver behavior, spectrum, privacy and data use, and regulatory harmonization. The ICC and our members look forward to continuing to work with regulators to bring the game-changing societal benefits of automated vehicles to our roads."

The focus on cybersecurity went down well with David Barzilai, chairman of Karamba Security. "It is not a simple task, but it is absolutely critical, as preventing the attack is even more important than detecting the attack," he said in a statement. "The industry must stop hackers before they ever succeed to penetrate into cars due to the sheer scale of fatalities and property damage that could result from cyberattacks on cars."

Despite bitter division between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Executive Branch, even the head of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster (R-Penn.), welcomed the publication: "There must be a consistent framework that helps guide the development, testing and delivery of autonomous vehicles to the marketplace without stifling innovation and the creativity of the free market. I look forward to more thoroughly reviewing NHTSA’s guidelines and working with stakeholders in both industry and government on this important issue."

Marc Scribner, an expert on transport policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also supported the NHTSA's position in a statement. However, he expressed this sentiment with some caveats, including the possibility that NHTSA might require pre-market approval. "Developers operating under the European Commission's type of approval process have repeatedly warned NHTSA and North American developers that pre-market approval will only add cost and delay," Scribner said.