SAM Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kiley, Kevin [I-CA-3]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 7, 2026
Bottom line
The SAM Act of 2026 aims to accelerate the adoption of autonomous shared mobility buses in public transit by providing dedicated funding, broadening eligible expenses for existing grants, and creating specialized testing infrastructure to ensure safety and reliability.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new competitive grant program, the "Accelerating Innovative Mobility Grant Program," to fund the deployment and purchase of technology for autonomous shared mobility vehicles, specifically new bus models equipped with automated driving systems. It authorizes $100 million for this program over two fiscal years. Additionally, the bill expands the eligible uses of several existing federal transportation grant programs to include the acquisition and updates of software for automated driving systems. Finally, it mandates the establishment of new federal testing facilities specifically for these autonomous shared mobility vehicles.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will foster innovation in public transportation, leading to more efficient, safer, and potentially more accessible transit options. They contend that investing in autonomous vehicle technology will position the United States as a leader in this emerging field, reduce operational costs for transit agencies in the long run, and improve service delivery, especially in underserved rural areas.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the maturity and safety of autonomous driving systems, arguing that public funds should not be used to deploy potentially unproven technology. They may also highlight the significant upfront costs, potential job displacement for human drivers, and question whether these funds could be better utilized for maintaining and improving existing traditional transit infrastructure and services.
The bill is relatively concise and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, adding new 49 U.S.C. 5341
Accelerating Innovative Mobility Grant Program
This provision establishes a new competitive grant program administered by the Secretary of Transportation. It allows eligible entities, including transit agencies and partnerships with private companies, to receive federal funds to accelerate the deployment of new bus models equipped with Level 3, 4, or 5 automated driving systems. The federal share for these projects can be up to 80%, and at least 15% of the funds are reserved for projects in rural areas.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this program directly addresses the financial barriers to adopting innovative autonomous mobility solutions, particularly for smaller transit agencies and rural areas that might otherwise lack the resources. It provides a clear pathway for federal investment in advanced public transportation.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that creating a new grant program for a specific technology could lead to a fragmented approach to transit funding and may not be the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars if the technology is not yet fully mature or widely applicable. Concerns could also be raised about the equity of access to these advanced systems.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to spur technological innovation and deployment with the need to ensure equitable access to funding, particularly for rural areas, while also managing the financial risk associated with new technologies.
Section 2(d) and Section 4
Expansion of Eligible Grant Uses to Include AV Software
This bill amends the definitions of eligible expenses for several existing federal transportation grant programs, including the SMART Grant Program, Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants, Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities, National Infrastructure Project Assistance, and the BUILD Grant Program. These amendments explicitly allow grant funds to be used for the acquisition (including by license) of software for automated driving systems, software for the operation or monitoring of autonomous vehicles, and updates to such software. This ensures that the software component, crucial for autonomous vehicle functionality, is covered by federal funding.
Section 3, amending 49 U.S.C. 5318
Establishment of Autonomous Shared Mobility Vehicle Testing Facilities
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Transportation establish and maintain at least one new facility specifically for testing 'new covered shared mobility vehicles' (autonomous bus models) by January 1, 2027. These facilities must be located where substantial road-based validation testing of automated driving systems already occurs. The bill also updates the general bus testing standards, requiring a weighted, aggregate pass/fail scoring system for all new bus models, including autonomous ones, to be developed in collaboration with industry stakeholders.
This provision defines 'automated driving system' by referencing the specific industry standard 'J3016_202104--Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles' published by SAE International, or any substantially similar successor standard. It specifies that the system must be a Level 3, 4, or 5 vehicle driving automation system.
Section 2(a)(2), adding new 49 U.S.C. 5302(27)(B)
Why it matters:Referencing industry standards is common legislative practice to ensure technical accuracy and avoid overly prescriptive statutory language that could quickly become outdated. It delegates technical specifics to expert bodies.
Case for: Supporters argue that using a widely recognized industry standard provides clarity and consistency for manufacturers and regulators, ensuring that federal funds support technology that meets established benchmarks for automation. It avoids the need for Congress to legislate complex technical specifications.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on an external, privately developed standard could cede too much control over federal policy to an unelected body. Changes to the SAE standard could have significant implications for federal funding eligibility without direct congressional oversight.
Estimated impact: This definition is foundational, determining which autonomous vehicle technologies are eligible for all the new and expanded grant funding under the bill. Its impact is therefore pervasive across the bill's objectives.
This provision clarifies that an aggregate test score issued for a new bus model (including autonomous ones) is solely for indicating eligibility for federal funds under Chapter 53 and "shall not be interpreted as a warranty or guarantee that the new bus model will meet any specific requirements of a purchaser."
Section 3(b)(2), adding new 49 U.S.C. 5318(e)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to limit federal liability and clarify the scope of government testing. It ensures that the federal government is not held responsible for the long-term performance or specific contractual obligations of a vehicle.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is essential to protect the federal government from potential lawsuits or financial liabilities related to vehicle performance after purchase. It clearly delineates the federal role as a certifier for funding eligibility, not a guarantor of product quality.
Case against: Critics might argue that while legally sound, this clause could be perceived as diminishing the value or comprehensiveness of the federal testing program in the eyes of the public or purchasers. It places the full burden of long-term performance risk on transit agencies.
Estimated impact: This provision limits the financial and legal exposure of the federal government related to the performance of vehicles tested under the program, potentially shifting more risk to transit agencies and manufacturers regarding post-purchase issues.