For years, automated driving policy has advanced in two different lanes. Technology developers and states have continued moving forward, while the federal government has relied mostly on exemptions, voluntary guidance, and slow-moving agency modernization. The most recent example is California updating its regulations to include an automated vehicle framework to include a path by which driverless trucks can beintroduced on public roads. Subtitle E of the BUILD America 250 Act is Congress’s attempt to create a real federal framework for autonomous commercial motor vehicles.
Titled “Safe Integration of Autonomous Commercial Motor Vehicles,” Subtitle E would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish a performance-based safety standard for ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce. That standard would apply to vehicles equipped with Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 automated driving systems, with DOT determining how the framework applies to each level of automation.
The core idea is certification through a safety case. Manufacturers would have to demonstrate that the ADS-equipped vehicles are as safe as conventional commercial motor vehicles. That safety case would need to address the vehicle’s hardware and software, braking, steering, sensors, cybersecurity, operational design domain, crash avoidance capability, fallback performance, in-use monitoring, continuous improvement from operational data and so much more.
Subtitle E also tackles one of the central unresolved questions in autonomous trucking: who is responsible when the ADS is driving? For Level 4 and Level 5 systems, the bill would require the manufacturer to assume certain duties otherwise applicable to a human driver when the ADS is engaged and operating within its operational design domain, or when the ADS fails to recognize that it is outside that domain or fails to achieve a minimal risk condition.
The bill also preserves human involvement for certain higher-risk operations. ADS-equipped vehicles transporting primarily minors, such as school buses, or placarded hazardous materials would still need a human operator inside the vehicle.
Importantly, Subtitle E would require FMCSA to publish and implement the broader regulatory framework for how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply to ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles, remote drivers, remote assistants, fallback-ready users, and driverless dispatch operations. That means FMCSA would need to address practical questions around inspections, safety fitness, CSA treatment, crash reporting, remote oversight, enforcement, and operating authority.
Subtitle E also includes targeted federal preemption language to reduce the risk of a state-by-state patchwork for interstate ADS-CMV operations. At the same time, it recognizes the workforce implications of automation by creating a commercial motor vehicle workforce development grant program to support training for drivers, mechanics, and other workers affected by emerging vehicle technologies.
The takeaway is that Subtitle E is not just an autonomous truck provision. It is an attempt to build the legal scaffolding for interstate ADS-CMV operations. It answers some long-standing questions, leaves others to FMCSA rulemaking, and acknowledges that uncertainty itself can slow innovation and create safety consequences. For its part, NHTSA is advancing its own series of regulatory actions by modifying the FMVSS to account for ADS and driverless vehicles.
The question is timing. States are already moving to find ways to allow and even encourage safe deployment of driverless trucks. Technology developers are already testing and deploying. Carriers, insurers, shippers, and enforcement agencies are already trying to understand how these vehicles fit into the existing safety regime. As the federal government finally steps into the fray, let’s just hope it doesn’t end up slowing the progress we’ve already made.