SB 1246 defines autonomous vehicles and sets a state-level regulatory framework under the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for testing and operating them on public roads. It creates testing exceptions with a $5 million insurance requirement, mandates manufacturer certifications (including takeover and safe-stop capabilities), requires onboard sensor-data recorders with multi-year retention, and authorizes DMV rulemaking and additional conditions for driverless operation.
The bill matters because it moves California from a permissive testing environment toward a formal deployment and permitting system that conditions broader driverless operation on DMV approval and safety certifications, while also linking future deployments of passenger autonomous vehicles to zero-emission requirements for model year 2031 and later. That mix of safety, data, and environmental rules will affect OEMs, fleets, insurers, and regulators planning commercial rollouts in California.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1246 requires manufacturers to obtain DMV approval before operating autonomous vehicles on public roads (except limited testing by designated personnel) and to certify multiple safety features, FMVSS compliance, and insurance. It mandates onboard, read-only capture of autonomous sensor data around collisions with multi-year retention and permits DMV to adopt additional controls for driverless operation.
Who It Affects
Vehicle OEMs and third-party retrofitters installing autonomous technology, fleet operators and mobility service providers, insurers backing those operations, and the DMV and CHP as implementing agencies. Purchasers must receive disclosures about what vehicle and sensor data the system collects.
Why It Matters
The bill supplies a state regulatory pathway and concrete technical obligations that manufacturers and fleets must meet to scale operations, while preserving DMV discretion to limit purely driverless deployments and tying long-term deployment to California’s zero-emission vehicle policy for 2031+ models.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1246 begins by anchoring its scope in SAE J3016 levels: only vehicles meeting Level 3–5 automation qualify as “autonomous vehicles,” while common driver-assist features remain outside the definition. It defines key actors — the operator as the person in the driver’s seat or whoever causes the system to engage, and the manufacturer as either an original equipment manufacturer or an entity that retrofits autonomous technology.
For early-stage activity, the bill preserves a testing exception: manufacturers may test on public roads if the vehicle is driven only by employees or designated agents, with a human seated in the driver’s seat and ready to take over, and with $5 million in insurance, bond, or self-insurance in place. Beyond testing, manufacturers must file an application with the DMV and certify that systems provide accessible engage/disengage controls, cabin indicators when autonomy is engaged, reliable operator alerts that either compel takeover or bring the vehicle to a complete stop, and that autonomy does not disable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.SB 1246 imposes data obligations: autonomous vehicles must have a separate, read-only mechanism to capture sensor data around collisions — retaining a pre- and post-collision window and preserving that data for three years.
The DMV gets broad regulatory authority to set additional testing, equipment, and performance standards, consult with CHP and academic or technical experts, hold public hearings (including online), and require special registration, new licensing, or caps on aggregate deployments. The DMV must also post public notice and wait 30 days after adopting regulations before approving applications.The bill also includes consumer and operational details: manufacturers must disclose to purchasers what information and vehicle data the autonomous technology collects; the DMV can charge fees to recover its regulatory costs; and the statute recognizes ADS marker lamps under SAE guidance.
Finally, SB 1246 ties future commercial deployment to California’s climate policy by requiring, beginning January 1, 2030, that vehicles of model year 2031 or later and GVWR under 8,501 pounds operate under a deployment permit only if they are zero-emission vehicles — with DMV rulemaking on that point deferred until at least January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires manufacturers to hold an instrument of insurance, surety bond, or proof of self-insurance of $5,000,000 for testing and to maintain that coverage for approved operations.
Manufacturer applications to the DMV must certify accessible engage/disengage controls, an in-cabin visual indicator when autonomy is engaged, and a failure alert that forces operator takeover or causes the vehicle to come to a complete stop.
Autonomous vehicles must include a separate, read-only data recorder that captures sensor data for 45 seconds before and 45 seconds after a collision (when feasible) and preserves those records for three years.
The DMV may impose additional requirements — including limiting driverless deployments, special registration, new operator licenses, aggregate deployment caps, and revocation or suspension rules — and must hold public hearings on regulations.
Starting January 1, 2030, any autonomous passenger vehicle (model year 2031+ and GVWR < 8,501 lbs) will require a deployment permit to operate unless it is a zero-emission vehicle; the DMV cannot begin rulemaking on that provision before January 1, 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions that set the gate for regulation
This subsection narrows the statute to SAE automation Levels 3–5 and excludes standard driver-assist systems — a threshold that determines which vehicles must follow the bill’s regime. It also fixes legal roles: who counts as an operator and who qualifies as a manufacturer (including retrofitters). Those choices matter because they determine who files DMV applications, who bears insurance and data obligations, and who can be sanctioned under the statute.
Testing carve-out with human monitor and $5M coverage
Manufacturers may conduct on-road testing without a DMV deployment permit only if designated personnel operate the vehicle, a human is seated and ready to intervene, and the manufacturer has $5 million in insurance, bond, or self-insurance. The DMV will specify the form and proof of coverage in regulation; until then, the $5M floor establishes financial responsibility expectations for test operations and reduces legal uncertainty around early trials.
Application certifications for broader operation
Before any public-road operation outside the testing carve-out, manufacturers must apply to the DMV and certify concrete technical features: manual engage/disengage mechanisms, cabin engagement indicators, takeover-alert systems that force a takeover or safe-stop, multiple physical takeover methods, compliance with FMVSS, and that autonomy does not disable safety standards. This subsection operationalizes safety expectations and makes compliance a precondition for approval rather than an after-the-fact audit.
DMV rulemaking, consultations, public hearings, and approval discretion
The DMV gains broad rulemaking authority to set testing, equipment, and performance standards and may consult CHP, UC ITS, PUC, and other experts. Regulations can add deployment caps, special registration, and licensing rules. The DMV must hold public hearings (including online), post notices, and wait 30 days after notices before approving applications. The agency may also require drivers to remain present for specific approvals, giving it a safety backstop for early deployments.
Federal preemption and consumer disclosure
The bill expressly defers to NHTSA where federal rules conflict, signaling that state requirements yield to federal safety standards. Separately, manufacturers must disclose to purchasers what data and vehicle information the autonomous system collects; the DMV can adopt fee rules to recover regulatory costs. Those two provisions link federal authority, consumer transparency, and administrative funding into the regulatory architecture.
ADS marker lamps and the 2031 ZEV deployment permit requirement
SB 1246 permits the use of SAE-standard automated driving system (ADS) marker lamps beginning January 1, 2026, to indicate when an ADS is engaged. It also creates a climate-linked deployment rule: as of January 1, 2030, vehicles with model year 2031 or later and GVWR less than 8,501 lbs must operate under a deployment permit only if they are zero-emission vehicles. The bill delays DMV rulemaking on that ZEV-linked permit until at least January 1, 2027, giving industry and regulators time to prepare.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers and road users — they gain defined safety features (engage/disengage controls, cabin indicators, forced takeover or safe-stop) and transparently retained collision sensor data that supports post-crash analysis.
- Environmental advocates and zero‑emission vehicle manufacturers — the 2031 model-year permit tie to zero-emission status creates a regulatory lever to accelerate electrified autonomous passenger fleets.
- DMV and safety agencies — the bill centralizes authority and gives the DMV explicit tools (rulemaking, hearings, deployment caps, revocation authority) to manage public-road deployments rather than rely solely on voluntary frameworks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Vehicle manufacturers and retrofitters — they must absorb $5 million insurance requirements for testing, retrofit vehicles with separate read-only collision data recorders, certify FMVSS compliance under autonomy, and potentially alter product plans to meet ZEV permit criteria.
- Insurers and self-insured manufacturers — the $5M minimum and ongoing exposure for driverless operations increase underwriting complexity and capital allocation for new risk categories.
- State agencies (DMV, CHP) — the DMV will need staff, technical expertise, and rulemaking bandwidth to implement complex performance standards, conduct hearings, and enforce deployment conditions, creating an unfunded administrative burden unless fees cover costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is balancing two valid priorities: accelerate safe autonomous vehicle deployment to unlock mobility and economic benefits, and impose robust safeguards (insurance, data retention, conditional DMV approval, and a ZEV requirement) to protect public safety and environmental goals — but each safeguard raises costs and uncertainty that can slow or deter deployment.
SB 1246 stitches together safety, disclosure, data, and environmental policy in a single DMV-led framework, but that design creates implementation frictions. The statutory $5 million insurance floor establishes financial accountability for testing and operations, yet it is a blunt tool: it may be insufficient for catastrophic multi-vehicle incidents or overly costly for smaller retrofitters and startups.
The read-only sensor-data recorder and three-year retention give investigators access to a useful evidentiary trail, but they raise unresolved privacy and chain-of-custody questions — who can access the data, under what legal standard, and how will conflicting state privacy laws or corporate policies be reconciled?
The DMV’s broad discretion to add requirements (deployment caps, new licensing, registration conditions) resolves many safety questions by delegating them to future rulemaking, but that same discretion creates regulatory uncertainty. Manufacturers must plan to meet unspecified future conditions while investing now in hardware and software defined by SAE standards and FMVSS.
The 2031 zero-emission deployment-permit linkage aligns with California climate goals but risks throttling commercial deployment of driverless services that cannot yet economically meet ZEV requirements; deferring rulemaking until 2027 gives time to adapt but leaves an interim period of ambiguity. Finally, the law defers to NHTSA on conflicts, which means manufacturers operating across jurisdictions could face shifting compliance burdens as federal rules evolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.