AMERICA DRIVES Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 24, 2025
Bottom line
The AMERICA DRIVES Act establishes a federal framework for the operation of fully autonomous commercial trucks, aiming to remove state-level regulatory barriers and accelerate the deployment of driverless technology in interstate commerce.
What it actually does
This bill preempts state laws that require a human driver or remote human driver in interstate commerce for commercial motor vehicles equipped with Level 4 or Level 5 automated driving systems (ADS). It mandates the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations by September 30, 2027, to streamline existing rules that currently apply only to human drivers, ensuring they do not unduly burden or discriminate against ADS-equipped vehicles. The bill also clarifies that ADS technologies do not count towards vehicle width limits.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for fostering innovation in the autonomous vehicle sector, enhancing supply chain efficiency, and addressing the persistent shortage of commercial truck drivers. They contend that a uniform federal standard is necessary to prevent a patchwork of state laws that could hinder the development and deployment of safe, advanced automated driving systems, ultimately leading to safer roads and economic benefits.
Opponents contend
Opponents express concerns about the safety implications of widespread deployment of driverless commercial vehicles without robust, comprehensive federal safety standards and testing protocols. They also raise questions about potential job displacement for human truck drivers and the economic impact on communities reliant on the trucking industry, arguing that the bill may prioritize industry interests over public safety and worker protections.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending 49 U.S.C. Chapter 311
Federal Preemption for ADS-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicle Operation
This provision amends federal law to explicitly allow commercial motor vehicles equipped with Level 4 or Level 5 Automated Driving Systems (ADS) to operate in interstate commerce without a human driver on board or a remote human driver. It grants the Secretary of Transportation authority to issue necessary implementing regulations, thereby establishing a federal standard that supersedes any conflicting state laws requiring human occupants in such vehicles. This aims to create a uniform regulatory environment for autonomous trucking.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this federal preemption is essential for the safe and efficient deployment of autonomous commercial vehicles. They contend that a patchwork of state laws creates an insurmountable barrier to interstate commerce for these advanced technologies, stifling innovation and preventing the realization of safety and efficiency benefits.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that federal preemption could undermine states' abilities to ensure public safety on their roads, especially if federal regulations are perceived as insufficient or slow to adapt. They contend that states are often better positioned to understand and respond to local conditions and concerns regarding new technologies.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for technological innovation and economic efficiency through a uniform federal standard against concerns about state sovereignty and the potential for federal regulations to be less responsive to local safety needs or public sentiment.
Section 2(b), amending 49 U.S.C. 31132
Definitions of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Levels
This section adds new definitions to federal transportation law, specifically for 'ADS-equipped vehicle,' 'Automated driving system' (ADS), 'Level 4,' and 'Level 5.' It defines ADS as hardware and software capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task on a sustained basis, explicitly including automation levels 3, 4, or 5 as per SAE International's J3016 recommended practice. Level 4 refers to full driving automation under defined conditions without human intervention, and Level 5 refers to full driving automation under all conditions without human intervention.
Section 3(a)
Streamlining Regulations for ADS-Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles
This provision mandates the Secretary of Transportation to review and amend sections 350 through 399 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by September 30, 2027. The goal is to integrate automated driving systems into commercial vehicle operations by updating regulations that currently apply only to human drivers (e.g., hours of service, drug testing, CDL, physical qualification) to clarify their non-applicability to ADS or ADS-equipped vehicles operating without a human driver. It also requires defining 'remote driver' and 'remote assistance'.
Section 3(b)
Ensuring Regulatory Parity for Commercial Motor Vehicles
This provision prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from issuing any regulation that unduly burdens motor carriers operating ADS-equipped vehicles or discriminates against an ADS-equipped vehicle relative to other commercial motor vehicles. This aims to ensure that autonomous vehicles are treated fairly in the regulatory landscape compared to traditional, human-driven commercial vehicles.
Section 3(c), amending 49 U.S.C. 31113
Exclusion of ADS Technologies from Vehicle Width Calculations
This provision amends federal law to explicitly exclude automated driving system technologies or equipment when calculating the width of a commercial motor vehicle. This means that external sensors, cameras, or other hardware necessary for ADS operation will not cause a vehicle to exceed federal width limits, which are typically designed for the main body of the vehicle.
Section 4
Regulatory Interpretations for Warning Devices
This section directs that specific federal regulations (Sections 392.22 and 393.95(f) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations) and any related rules shall be applied to include cab-mounted warning beacons as a permissible warning device. This codifies a proposed exemption application (88 Fed. Reg. 14665, Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0071), ensuring that these types of beacons are recognized as legitimate safety equipment.
The bill defines 'Automated driving system' (ADS) and the specific 'Level 4' and 'Level 5' automation by directly referencing SAE International's J3016 recommended practice, including subsequent editions adopted by the Secretary.
Section 2(b)(13)(B) and (14)-(15)
Why it matters:Referencing external, industry-developed standards like SAE J3016 is common legislative practice to ensure technical accuracy and leverage existing expertise without embedding highly technical specifications directly into statute. It also allows for future updates to the standard to be incorporated by regulatory action rather than requiring new legislation.
Case for: Supporters argue that incorporating an industry-standard definition like SAE J3016 provides clarity, consistency, and aligns U.S. federal law with international best practices for autonomous vehicle classification. This reduces ambiguity for manufacturers and developers.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external, privately developed standard gives undue influence to industry bodies and could make it harder for the public or Congress to scrutinize the precise technical definitions that underpin federal law. Future changes to J3016 could alter the scope of the law without direct congressional review.
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant impact on the technical and legal framework for autonomous vehicles, establishing the foundational understanding of what constitutes an ADS and its operational capabilities under federal law.
This section prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from issuing regulations that 'unduly burden' motor carriers operating ADS-equipped vehicles or 'discriminates against' them relative to other commercial motor vehicles.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This language is often included to provide a statutory guardrail against perceived regulatory overreach or to ensure a level playing field for new technologies. It's a common legislative tactic to influence agency behavior without specifying every detail.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that new, innovative technologies like ADS are not stifled by regulations designed for older systems or by arbitrary restrictions. It promotes fair competition and prevents regulators from imposing unnecessary costs.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this language could be interpreted broadly by industry to challenge legitimate safety regulations, potentially hindering the agency's ability to address unique risks posed by ADS technology if those measures are deemed 'burdensome' or 'discriminatory'.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly influence the scope and stringency of future federal regulations for ADS-equipped commercial vehicles, potentially limiting the DOT's ability to impose certain requirements.