California Finalizes a New Regulatory Regime for Testing and Deploying Autonomous Vehicles

On April 28, the California Department of Motor Vehicles released the finalized version of the state’s new autonomous vehicle regulations. More than a year in development and shaped by extensive public debate, these rules carry significant implications for companies that manufacture and operate autonomous vehicles in the nation’s most populous state.

California first proposed the updated regulations in April 2025, followed by revisions in December and January. Each iteration was accompanied by a public notice-and-comment period. The finalized rules span more than one hundred pages and are accompanied by a 278-page Statement of Reasons that explains the modifications and responds to comments on the proposal.

The finalized framework introduces a range of notable changes to the regulation of SAE Level 3, 4, and 5 autonomous operations in California. Several of the most significant updates are summarized below.

Testing Versus Deployment: The updated regulations have two sections: one set of requirements for the testing of autonomous vehicles and another for broader deployment, including for commercial purposes. The regulations distinguish testing from other operations by defining the former as “the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads … for the purpose of assessing, demonstrating, and validating the automated driving system’s capabilities.”

Permitting Requirements: In California, a manufacturer’s permission to put autonomous vehicles on the road in California proceeds in three ascending steps, each subject to permitting requirements: (1) testing with a safety driver behind the wheel, (2) testing with no driver, and (3) full deployment outside of a testing program.

Under the new regulations, most manufacturers seeking to conduct driverless testing must first accumulate at least 50,000 autonomous miles with a valid Drivers Testing Permit. To progress from driverless testing to deployment, the manufacturer must then complete an additional 50,000 autonomous miles on public roads under such a permit. Reduced thresholds apply to low-speed vehicles, which require only 10,000 miles at each stage, while more stringent requirements for heavy-duty trucks are discussed below.

Permit applications also will require the submission of a “comprehensive description” of the applicant’s safety case. The DMV will review the safety case, potentially conferring with “third-party experts.”

Enforcement of Moving Violations: The regulations establish a formal process for enforcing traffic laws against autonomous vehicles. Starting on July 1, peace officers in the state may issue a new form, called a Notice of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance. A manufacturer that receives such a Notice must notify the DMV within 72 hours. Peace officers also “may indicate a need for priority review of the form if the officer observes that the autonomous vehicle exhibited driving behavior which reasonably led the officer to believe that the operation presented a clear or potential danger or risk of injury to others.” In such a case, the manufacturer’s notification deadline is reduced to 24 hours.

More broadly, the DMV may seek information from manufacturers through a “Preliminary Information Notice” regarding traffic violations, unpermitted operations, risky vehicle behavior, or other issues.

First Responders and Emergency Responses: Manufacturers are required to develop and publish a “First Responder Interaction Plan” that includes information about the vehicle and its operations, as well as instructions for “remov[ing] the autonomous vehicle from the active portion of the roadway,” instructions on “determining the presence of passengers,” and various other requirements on how to interact safely with the vehicle and its occupants.

Manufacturers must also respond promptly to “emergency geofencing messages” from public officials that require vehicles to leave a certain area.

Requirements for Remote Operations:  The regulations establish qualification and training standards for “remote drivers” and “remote assistants”—distinguishing the two categories in that the latter do not perform the dynamic driving task but instead facilitate an autonomous vehicle’s operations in other ways. While the original proposal would have required both categories to obtain a dedicated permit, the final rule imposes this requirement only on remote drivers. Remote assistants, however, must hold a valid driver’s license.

Heavy Trucking: The new regulations authorize, for the first time, the permitting of autonomous heavy-duty trucks in California. Under the prior regime, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 pounds or more were ineligible for testing or deployment. As a result, while autonomous trucking has advanced significantly in states such as Texas, it has remained effectively barred in California.

The new framework, however, conditions such permits on substantial road testing. Whereas other vehicle categories must complete 50,000 miles of testing per level of driverless authorization, heavy-duty trucks are required to log 250,000 miles—still a marked reduction from the 500,000 miles contemplated in earlier versions of the proposal.

Transit Vehicles: By contrast, heavy vehicles that transport passengers will remain ineligible for testing or deployment permits. This restriction effectively precludes the operation of autonomous transit vehicles on public roads, including city buses. The regulations carve out a narrow exception for smaller buses, which may be permitted if they carry no more than 15 passengers and are operated by a public entity or a private university.

Takeaways

• As the home of Silicon Valley and of famously favorable weather, California had a head start in the deployment of robotaxis. Yet other states are catching up as operations expand across the country. The finalized regulations reflect an effort to maintain an autonomous-friendly environment while ensuring certain safety baselines.
• California will be the only state that requires a specific number of test miles as a condition of permitting. This approach persists notwithstanding statistical research suggesting that, as one summary put it, “fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their safety in terms of fatalities and injuries.”
• Perhaps no part of a recent U.S. Senate hearing on autonomous vehicles got more attention than the acknowledgement that personnel outside the United States were remotely supporting robotaxi operations. The new qualification and training requirements for remote operators respond, at least in part, to concerns raised by such arrangements.
• California’s ongoing and closely contested gubernatorial race introduces an additional layer of uncertainty. The election’s outcome may influence the trajectory of autonomous vehicle policy in the state and could prompt further regulatory revisions.
• Meanwhile, pending federal legislation could significantly reshape the regulatory landscape through preemption. The SELF-DRIVE Act, currently before Congress, would bar states from restricting the introduction of automated driving systems into interstate commerce where a manufacturer has developed a safety case. Although the bill’s prospects remain uncertain, its enactment would raise complex questions about the scope of continued state authority to regulate autonomous vehicles beyond federal standards.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.