The first comprehensive federal autonomous vehicle legislation in years received a House subcommittee hearing on Jan. 13, and while the discussion centered on safety standards and competition with China, the bill contains provisions that could change how collision repair shops operate, determine liability, and get paid.
The SELF DRIVE Act of 2026, co-sponsored by Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), would establish federal safety standards for Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous vehicles, the fully self-driving systems that require no human involvement. The bipartisan bill is the third attempt at such legislation after previous versions stalled in 2017 and 2021, according to legal analysis from Sidley.
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association called the bill "a turning point for American transportation policy." But major insurance trade associations have come out against the bill as written, citing concerns that directly affect collision repair operations.
Insurance industry opposition
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) both submitted letters opposing the SELF DRIVE Act before the Jan. 13 hearing, Claims Journal reported.
APCIA told the subcommittee it opposes the bill's passage "as currently written" because certain provisions would preempt state laws. NAMIC expressed concern that language prohibiting state regulations that limit automated driving systems "could infringe on authority around legislation, licensing, operation, and even insurance requirements that we believe are most appropriately left with the states."
The insurance industry's core objection centers on data access. APCIA noted that while the bill protects cybersecurity, privacy and intellectual property, those goals "must be balanced with equally important goals of safety and the insurability of changing risk profiles presented by the technology. Third parties (insurers) need access to vehicle data to meet these goals."
For collision repair shops, insurer data access matters. If insurers cannot properly assess AV risk or determine fault in crashes, claims processing becomes more complicated, and shops bear the consequences through extended cycle times and payment disputes.
The liability question
The SELF DRIVE Act's most significant collision repair implication may be what it does not address: who pays for repairs when an autonomous vehicle crashes.
Under current law, when a human driver causes a crash, driver negligence determines liability and the at-fault driver's insurer pays for repairs. But when a fully autonomous vehicle crashes because of a system failure, liability shifts from the human occupant to the manufacturer, making it a product liability question rather than a negligence question.
Consumer Reports warned in testimony submitted Jan. 13 that the bill would allow manufacturers to "self-certify safety claims without independent verification" and would limit public access to safety data. The organization urged lawmakers to improve the bill, stressing that any AV framework "should include enforceable standards, accountability for safety, meaningful transparency, and a continued significant role for states and local governments."
For shops, the liability shift raises practical questions. If a robotaxi crashes and the manufacturer is liable, does the shop negotiate repairs directly with the OEM rather than a traditional insurer? The bill does not say.
State preemption and repair procedures
The SELF DRIVE Act would preempt state and local AV regulations, creating a single national framework. For shops in states like California that have established stricter AV rules, federal preemption would override those requirements.
A separate bill discussed at the same hearing, proposed by subcommittee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), would raise the current 2,500-vehicle annual exemption cap for vehicles that do not meet traditional Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to 90,000 vehicles per year, according to Sidley's analysis. Currently, exemptions allow manufacturers to deploy limited numbers of vehicles without conventional controls like steering wheels or pedals.
Sidley also noted that the SELF DRIVE Act's safety case requirement uses subjective language, including terms like "sufficient," "appropriately," and "likely," rather than the objective, quantified standards typical of existing FMVSS regulations. That ambiguity could affect how NHTSA eventually writes repair and calibration requirements for AV systems.
What shops should do now
The SELF DRIVE Act signals where federal AV policy is heading even if it does not pass this session.
Dan Stander, chairman of the Automotive Service Association's board of directors, said in a statement that the Jan. 13 hearing represents "an important step forward in the conversation about vehicle data access and the future of independent repair."
Collision repair associations have a window to ensure shop interests are represented before rules are written. The same hearing also examined the REPAIR Act, which is being considered for inclusion in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act that Congress must pass by Sept. 30.
