Over the course of the summer, there have been a number of updates in the AV regulatory space as commercial autonomous vehicle deployments expand. These include announcements and ongoing regulatory changes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), updates and discussions at the state and local level, and some movement on the Hill. Key questions around safety standards and expectations, impacts on labor, and the extent to which state and local governments should be preempted from AV regulation remain on the table. As Congress considers these questions and a potential federal framework for AV deployments, NHTSA plans to move forward with guidance and updates to vehicle standards, and states will likely continue to update and debate their AV regulations, including states that currently do not permit commercial operations. The needs and experiences of cities and localities on the frontlines of deployments should inform the ongoing regulatory processes at both the state and federal level.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On July 30^th, NHTSA announced its latest actions to accelerate the development of autonomous passenger vehicles. Under the second Trump Administration, NHTSA has clearly signaled its interest in providing the AV industry regulatory certainty needed to enable expanded deployments. NHTSA has emphasized both its excitement around the potential of the industry and that it is not afraid to call out the industry broadly when it sees issues emerging, such as letter sent out this month calling on autonomous vehicle companies to enhance their first responder interactions, or to utilize its recall authorities. This reflects the industry’s and Administration’s viewpoint that autonomous mobility should move forward quickly while also recognizing that the success of the autonomous vehicle industry is reliant on public trust and safety perceptions. There also appears to be growing awareness from the industry of the importance of creating better relations with first responders and other city officials on the front lines of deployments.

NHTSA has primarily been working to enable autonomous vehicle deployments through updating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to better align with the needs of AVs from a vehicle design standpoint. For example, in June, NHTSA released updates to FMVSS No. 135, removing requirements for foot-operated brakes in autonomous vehicles. NHTSA has indicated that updates to the FMVSS will continue.

NHTSA has also updated and streamlined the exemption process for both the Automated Vehicle Exemption Program and Part 555 exemptions, enabling manufacturers to sell a select number of non FMVSS-compliant vehicles. This is particularly important as more manufacturers seek to enter the market with designs that diverge from a traditional passenger vehicle. On July 30^th, Zoox received an exemption to operate 2,500 vehicles for two years while under enhanced oversight from NHTSA. This exemption will enable Zoox’s non-traditionally styled autonomous vehicles to be deployed for commercial operations, enhancing competition in the robotaxi marketplace. While the first to receive this exemption, Zoox will likely not be the last. NHTSA also announced that it is publishing an interim final rule to enable vehicles produced before the enactment of their temporary exemption to still be eligible for their exemption once it goes into effect.

NHTSA is in the process of updating its technical guidance for autonomous vehicle deployments (last updated in 2017) and announced it will establish a new Federal Docket for public feedback on the updates. NHTSA also announced on July 30^th the start of a three-year, $5 million federally funded consortium in partnership with the SAE Industry Technologies Consortia to develop AV performance standards to “inform a single national standard for AV safety to eliminate the patchwork regulatory landscape.” Following the announcement, Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety said the A2SCEND consortium should not be substitute for binding federal requirements that go through the traditional federal rulemaking process. Standards developed by the consortium will likely inform industry practices and federal and state regulations, but action will be needed from Congress for any potential state preemption.

The Hill

Legislation introduced in the House earlier this year to provide a federal framework for autonomous vehicle regulation, the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026, was not included in the BUILD America 250 Act surface reauthorization package passed through committee by the House in the spring. However, BUILD America Act 250 includes language on autonomous trucking, including a manufacturer led safety case requirement rather than a federally driven safety standard (similar to language in the SELF DRIVE Act). The language would also enable the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to preempt state laws that are determined to be more stringent than federal regulations. The SELF DRIVE Act would preempt state or local regulations prohibiting the deployment of autonomous passenger vehicles.

It is possible that as the reauthorization process continues, language on commercial passenger autonomous vehicles may be incorporated or a bill pushing for a federal autonomous vehicle standards could move forward individually. However, this does not seem likely in the current congressional session. It is important to keep in mind that members of Congress heading into the midterms may not see the benefits of taking a vote on politically contentious issue, especially as neither political party has a definitive strategy around labor impacts or state preemption.

In late July, Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) introduced the AV Emergency Response Coordination Act which would require NHTSA to set minimum safety standards for AV interactions with first responders. NHTSA’s actions to call out the industry for poor first responder interactions is indicative of the agency stepping in to fill the current gap in a national autonomous vehicle framework. First responder interactions first emerged out of early development cities, revealing the importance of federal regulations and legislation being developed in coordination with cities already experiencing and regulating robotaxi deployments.

State and Local

With a lack of a federal regulatory framework, states and localities continue to be on the frontlines of both deployments and their regulations. Autonomous robotaxi and trucking deployments are expanding into new locations, and companies are seeking to unlock access to locations that they currently do not have regulatory approval to enter.

In Washington DC, autonomous vehicles cannot operate without a driver. On July 13^th 2026, the DC City Council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment held a public hearing to discuss Councilmember Charles Allen’s proposed autonomous vehicle legislation, “Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act of 2026.” The hearing featured members of the DC community along with representatives from the autonomous vehicle and rideshare industry. Members of the industry spoke in support of the bill which will create a permitting structure to enable commercial autonomous vehicle operations in DC. The DC bill is notable in its explicit aims to promote equitable deployments of autonomous technology throughout the District.

The DC bill seeks to alleviate concerns around the impacts of autonomous vehicles on driver labor and transit usage by dividing revenues earned through a vehicle miles traveled tax on the autonomous vehicles between a labor support fund and WMATA. The outcome driven language of the bill is reflective of Councilmember Allen’s view of DC seeking to learn from early deployments. Councilmember Allen emphasized that while he does not want DC to fall behind in the adoption of innovative technologies, he views a strategic advantage to being a second mover city. Other states and localities that have not yet passed legislation on autonomous vehicles will likely also find themselves in this position of being able to take advantage of the successes and failures of existing deployments.

Industry representatives were generally supportive of the bill but raised concerns about the vehicle caps and VMT-tax inhibiting the success of the industry in DC. In addition to the VMT-tax providing a compensation structure from the district to defray potential negative impacts of autonomous vehicles, other witnesses highlighted that the VMT-tax will also help to balance the lack of gas tax revenues from electric autonomous vehicles.

Industry representatives from the rideshare space, Uber and Lyft, asked for explicit language allowing for the operation of autonomous vehicles on their human-driven networks while Waymo and Tesla did not view such language as necessary.

DC residents had mixed viewpoints on the potential of commercial operations of autonomous vehicles in the District. While some witnesses such as members of the business community were excited by the prospect of expanded mobility options, other witnesses raised concerns that the loss of labor opportunities from traditional rideshare negatively impacting workers in the District. Members from the disability community who attended the hearing also had mixed views on the bill. Some spoke in support of autonomous vehicles in promoting their quality of life and transportation access, citing how rideshare drivers will choose not to pick up passengers with guide dogs. However, other witnesses raised concerns that without explicit language ensuring those with a range of disabilities can utilize autonomous vehicles, the lack of accessibility seen in the rideshare space will continue into the era of autonomous mobility.

In April, California released an update to its autonomous vehicles permitting framework, including creating a pathway for autonomous freight on California roadways, updates to data reporting requirements, and updates to first responder interaction plan and emergency response requirements. This week, the Teamsters filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies alleging that the DMV did not properly analyze the economic and human costs of enabling autonomous trucking operations. The Teamsters have also raised concerns about the safety implications of autonomous vehicles, including in emergency scenarios. The lawsuit is notable as it highlights the continued importance of labor groups in the development of regulations around autonomous vehicles and how litigation may be utilized as other states seek to mature or develop regulatory frameworks.