AV Emergency Response Coordination Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance public safety by standardizing how autonomous vehicles interact with emergency services, ensuring responders can safely manage incidents involving AVs and improving overall coordination.
What it actually does
This bill establishes federal requirements for autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers and operators to coordinate with emergency responders. It mandates the submission of detailed emergency response guides and concise rescue sheets, the establishment of a 24/7 emergency hotline, and strict compliance with geofence notices. It also directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue new rules for standardizing emergency procedures and the process for issuing and responding to geofence notices.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for public safety as AV technology advances, providing essential tools and protocols for emergency responders to safely interact with and manage incidents involving autonomous vehicles. It ensures clear communication channels and standardized procedures, which are vital for effective emergency response and building public trust in AV technology.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes overly prescriptive or burdensome regulations on AV manufacturers and operators, potentially stifling innovation or increasing operational costs. They might contend that some requirements could be premature given the evolving nature of AV technology, or that a federal mandate might not be flexible enough to address diverse local emergency response needs.
The bill is concise and focused, making it relatively accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section formally names the act as the "AV Emergency Response Coordination Act." This provides a common, identifiable reference name for the legislation, facilitating public and legislative discourse.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps in easily identifying and referencing the legislation, making it more accessible for public discourse and legislative processes.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None significant.
Section 2(a)-(b)
Emergency Response Guide and Rescue Sheet Submission
This provision requires autonomous vehicle (AV) manufacturers and operators ("covered entities") to submit two types of documents to the Administrator of NHTSA: a detailed "emergency response guide" and a concise "rescue sheet." These documents must contain information on how AVs interact with emergency responders, methods for communication, how to move/disable/immobilize/tow an AV, identify its operational status, mitigate hazards, access occupants, issue geofence notices, communicate with remote personnel, and preserve data for investigations.
Section 2(c)
Frequency and Distribution of Emergency Documentation
This section mandates that covered entities must provide their emergency response guides and rescue sheets to relevant first responder agencies, emergency management agencies, and transportation authorities in their operating regions prior to operating AVs there. Updates must be provided within 5 days of a material change. Covered entities must also submit these documents to the Administrator (NHTSA) by specific deadlines and update them 30 days prior to material changes affecting emergency response, or as soon as practicable for changes posing unreasonable safety risks.
Section 2(d)
Public Availability of Emergency Documentation
This provision requires the Administrator of NHTSA to create and maintain a searchable, publicly available, mobile-friendly website that serves as a central repository for all submitted emergency response guides and rescue sheets. These documents must be made public within 10 days of receipt by the Administrator.
Section 2(e)(1)-(3)
Standardization of Emergency Procedures
This section directs the Administrator to issue a final rule within two years to establish minimum standards for how covered entities must enable emergency responders to perform critical actions with AVs, such as moving, disabling, accessing occupants, and communicating with remote personnel. The Administrator must consult with various stakeholders, including emergency agencies, AV entities, and advocacy groups, and consider existing private standards. Covered entities must comply with these standards within one year of the final rule, with possible one-year exemptions for existing vehicles.
Section 2(e)(4)
Geofence Notice Process Rulemaking
This subsection requires the Administrator to issue a final rule within 180 days of enactment to establish a process for federal, state, and local government agencies to issue "geofence notices" to covered entities. The rule will also define the required process for covered entities to receive and respond to these notices and other emergency orders.
Section 2(f)
Emergency Hotline Requirement
This provision mandates that within 90 days of enactment, every covered entity must maintain a 24/7 telephone hotline for emergency responders to communicate with the AV operator, including remote human personnel. The hotline must ensure a response to callers within 30 seconds.
Section 2(g)
Geofencing Notices Compliance
This section requires that within 180 days of enactment, covered entities operating AVs without a human driver must comply with all geofence notices within 2 minutes of issuance (or via the Administrator's established process) and with all emergency orders that a human driver would obey. The only exception is to remove a vehicle from a geofenced area.
Section 2(h)
Enforcement Mechanisms
This section amends existing federal law (49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1)) to include violations of this Act's provisions (specifically sections 2(c), (e)(3), (f), or (g)) under the existing motor vehicle safety enforcement framework. It also clarifies that if multiple covered entities are involved (e.g., manufacturer and operator), only one needs to comply with a provision, but each remains responsible for ensuring compliance.
Amends 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1) to include violations of specific sections of the AV Emergency Response Coordination Act (2(c), (e)(3), (f), or (g)) under the existing federal motor vehicle safety enforcement framework.
Section 2(h)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for integrating new regulations into existing legal frameworks, ensuring consistency in enforcement authority.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this ensures the new AV safety requirements have teeth, leveraging established federal penalties to compel compliance and protect public safety. It avoids creating a new, separate enforcement regime.
Case against: Critics might argue that applying broad motor vehicle safety penalties to these specific AV coordination requirements could be disproportionate or not fully appropriate, potentially leading to excessive fines for operational or procedural non-compliance rather than direct safety defects.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases the legal accountability for AV manufacturers and operators regarding emergency coordination, potentially leading to substantial civil penalties for violations.
Defines "geofence notice" as a request from a first responder or government agency to a covered entity to have its covered vehicles avoid a geographic area for up to 72 hours to address an emergency, disaster, or other safety hazard. It also allows for extensions if the issuer determines an ongoing safety hazard.
Section 3(8)
Why it matters:Definitions are a standard place for precise legal phrasing, but the operational implications of this definition are significant and could be easily overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue that defining the scope and duration of geofence notices provides necessary clarity and authority for emergency responders to manage dynamic safety situations, while the 72-hour limit ensures it's for immediate emergencies.
Case against: Some AV operators might argue that the potential for indefinite extensions of geofence notices could be problematic for their operations, creating long-term restrictions based on potentially subjective assessments of "ongoing safety hazards."
Estimated impact: Grants significant, potentially long-term, authority to local agencies to restrict AV operations in specific areas, directly impacting AV service availability and routing during and after emergencies.