HB1137, the No Kill Switches in Cars Act, repeals the federal mandate that would have required the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations governing advanced impaired driving technology. There is no substitute standard or funding provision in the bill.
In effect, federal rulemaking on this topic would not occur as a result of enactment, leaving safety standards to market, state actions, or other authorities outside this repeal.
At a Glance
What It Does
HB1137 repeals Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, removing the federal requirement for the DOT to issue regulations on advanced impaired driving technology.
Who It Affects
Automakers and ADAS developers, and federal safety regulators within the Department of Transportation; the repeal also indirectly affects consumers and insurers by removing a federal rulemaking trigger.
Why It Matters
This is a deregulatory move that alters the pace and nature of federal involvement in driver-safety technology, with potential implications for standardization, market planning, and safety outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a straightforward repeal. It targets the Section 24220 mandate embedded in the IIJA, which would have driven federal regulation of advanced impaired driving technology.
By repealing that provision, HB1137 eliminates the federal obligation for the DOT to issue any related regulations. The text of the bill contains no replacement rules or new standards, nor does it create funding or transition mechanisms to carry public safety interests forward through federal action.
Practically, this means industry leaders, investors, and policy teams should expect continued reliance on market dynamics or state-level approaches for any safety standards related to these technologies. The bill does not alter other provisions of the IIJA or existing law outside this repeal.
In short, it removes a specific federal regulatory driver without substituting a federal alternative.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals IIJA Section 24220, removing the federal mandate to regulate advanced impaired driving technology.
There are no replacement federal standards or funding provisions included in HB1137.
The repeal cancels the rulemaking trigger that would have directed DOT regulations on this technology.
The Act does not amend other IIJA provisions or create new safety requirements.
Its effect is a deregulatory shift that may push safety considerations toward industry-led or state actions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act as the No Kill Switches in Cars Act. It does not establish or modify safety standards; it simply provides the formal name for the bill.
Repeal of advanced impaired driving technology regulation
This section repeals Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, removing the federal mandate for the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations on advanced impaired driving technology. There is no substitution text or new federal rulemaking authorized by the bill, so the federal regulatory trigger in this area would cease upon enactment.
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
- Mass-market automakers and ADAS suppliers avoid new federal compliance costs and timelines associated with federal standards for advanced impaired driving technology.
- Automotive industry trade associations representing manufacturers benefit from regulatory clarity and potential cost savings in product development and certification.
- Drivers who prefer market-led or state-driven safety innovation may benefit from fewer federally imposed timelines and constraints.
Who Bears the Cost
- Drivers and pedestrians could bear higher safety risk if federal standards are not established to guide safe deployment of advanced impaired driving technology.
- Automotive insurers may face greater uncertainty and potential increases in claims costs due to the absence of uniform federal standards guiding technology adoption.
- State and local transportation authorities may incur costs to fill regulatory gaps or coordinate with industry initiatives in the absence of a federal mandate.
- The broader healthcare system could see impact from potentially higher crash impacts if safety tech is less uniformly regulated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether removing the federal mandate to regulate advanced impaired driving technology achieves a better balance between innovation and safety, or creates a regulatory vacuum that compromises uniform safety standards and protections for drivers and pedestrians.
The bill’s deregulatory action sits at a policy tension point: it would remove a federal safety-regulatory pathway for advanced impaired driving technology while leaving the door open for market-driven solutions, state initiatives, or voluntary industry standards. That shift could speed some innovation by reducing federal timelines and compliance burdens but also risks a lack of uniform national safety expectations and enforcement.
Questions remain about how safety outcomes will be managed in the absence of federal rulemaking, whether state or industry standards will fill the gap, and what the net effect on liability, consumer protection, and cross-border automotive markets might be.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.