Autonomous trucking technology is advancing quickly, but a single federal rule is still wired for a world where every heavy truck has a human behind the wheel. Until that assumption changes, fully driverless 18-wheelers will remain stuck in a legal gray zone, no matter how capable their sensors and software become. The next phase of deployment hinges less on engineering breakthroughs than on whether regulators are willing to rewrite the basic definition of who, or what, counts as a driver.
That tension is now shaping investment decisions, state-level experiments, and the safety framework for moving tens of thousands of pounds of freight at highway speeds. Companies can test limited routes and supervised pilots, but scaling to nationwide, human-free operations will require Washington to update a decades-old rulebook that never imagined an AI system logging hours of service.
The federal rule that still assumes a human driver
At the heart of the policy bottleneck is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s framework, which treats the “driver” of a commercial motor vehicle as a person responsible for everything from hours-of-service compliance to roadside inspections. That structure works when a human sits in the cab, but it breaks down when an automated driving system is actually controlling the truck for long stretches of a route. Regulators have acknowledged that their current rules do not clearly address a scenario where software, not a person, is performing the core driving task, which leaves fully autonomous trucks operating under patchwork exemptions rather than a stable national standard, according to federal policy summaries.
FMCSA has been exploring how to adapt its safety rules to automated driving, including whether an AI system can be treated as the “operator” for compliance purposes and how to handle requirements that explicitly reference human actions like checking mirrors or responding to roadside officers. The agency has signaled that it may need to revise definitions and create new categories for automated commercial vehicles, but it has not yet finalized a comprehensive rule that would give long-haul freight carriers clear authority to run trucks with no one in the cab. That gap is why industry executives describe the current regime as a ceiling on deployment rather than a green light, even as they point to ongoing federal work on automated vehicle guidance as a sign that change is coming.
States are racing ahead of Washington on driverless freight
While federal regulators deliberate, several states have already opened their highways to heavy trucks that can operate without a human driver on board. Texas has become a central testing ground, with companies running autonomous Class 8 tractors on key freight corridors under state laws that recognize an automated driving system as the legal driver when it is engaged. Similar policies in Arizona and New Mexico have allowed long-haul pilots that move goods between distribution hubs, even as those operations still rely on safety drivers or remote oversight to satisfy federal expectations described in regulatory filings.
This state-led experimentation has created a patchwork where a truck can operate autonomously in one jurisdiction, then must revert to human control or different procedures when it crosses a border. Logistics companies and technology developers argue that this inconsistency makes it difficult to design efficient, coast-to-coast routes and complicates insurance and liability planning. They point to the contrast with passenger-vehicle autonomy, where some states have also moved quickly but the vehicles are lighter and the federal safety stakes are different. The result is a map of permissive and restrictive zones that, according to recent investigations, can even affect how incidents are reported and which agency takes the lead when something goes wrong.
Safety investigations are shaping the political appetite for change
Every high-profile incident involving automated trucks feeds directly into the debate over whether federal rules should be relaxed or tightened. When a self-driving tractor-trailer is involved in a crash, even if no one is seriously hurt, investigators scrutinize not only the technical cause but also whether the regulatory framework gave them enough tools to evaluate the system. Recent probes into autonomous truck operations have examined how the vehicles handled lane changes, emergency vehicles, and unexpected obstacles, with findings that influence how comfortable policymakers feel about allowing human-free operation at scale, as reflected in safety regulator reports.
These investigations have also highlighted gaps in data reporting and transparency. Regulators have pushed for more detailed logs of disengagements, near-misses, and software updates so they can assess whether performance is improving over time or masking systemic weaknesses. Industry leaders argue that their systems already outperform average human drivers on key safety metrics, but they recognize that public trust will depend on independent verification and clear accountability when failures occur. That is why companies have supported efforts to standardize incident reporting and have engaged with federal agencies on new testing protocols, as described in automated vehicle safety frameworks that emphasize measurable performance over marketing claims.
Why freight companies want a clear federal green light
For large carriers and shippers, the promise of autonomous trucks is not abstract. They see a path to lower operating costs, more consistent delivery times, and relief from chronic driver shortages that have strained supply chains. Executives argue that long-haul highway segments are particularly well suited to automation because they involve predictable routes and fewer complex interactions than urban driving. However, they also stress that they cannot justify large-scale fleet conversions or dedicated autonomous hubs without a clear federal rule that defines how these vehicles will be regulated across all 50 states, a concern reflected in industry comments to regulators.
Investors are watching the same regulatory signals. Capital-intensive projects like purpose-built autonomous tractors, roadside sensor networks, and remote operations centers require long planning horizons. Without certainty about how FMCSA will treat driverless trucks for compliance, liability, and insurance purposes, companies risk building infrastructure that might need costly retrofits or face unexpected restrictions. That is why freight operators have urged federal officials to move from guidance documents to binding rules, even if those rules start conservatively, and have framed regulatory clarity as a prerequisite for unlocking the full economic potential of AI-driven freight, as echoed in policy consultations.
The rule change that could unlock fully autonomous trucking
The pivotal step many stakeholders are waiting for is a formal update to federal definitions that would explicitly recognize an automated driving system as the legal driver of a commercial motor vehicle when it is engaged. That change would ripple through related rules on hours of service, vehicle inspections, and roadside enforcement, allowing regulators to tailor requirements to software-controlled trucks instead of forcing them into a human-centric mold. Advocates argue that once FMCSA codifies this shift, it can then build performance-based standards around it, such as minimum sensor capabilities, redundancy requirements, and remote monitoring protocols, as contemplated in ongoing federal AV planning.
Such a rule change would not automatically put driverless trucks on every interstate, but it would give companies a clear legal pathway to design, test, and deploy systems that meet uniform national criteria. It would also clarify who is responsible when something goes wrong, whether that is the carrier, the technology provider, or a combination of both, which is essential for insurers and courts. Critics caution that moving too quickly could lock in standards before the technology is fully mature, while supporters counter that a flexible, performance-based framework can evolve as data accumulates. For now, the absence of a definitive federal rule keeps the most advanced autonomous trucks in a holding pattern, even as state pilots and safety investigations continue to build the case for what that next generation of regulation should look like, according to regulatory dockets and recent probes.
More from Steel Horse Rides: