Executive Summary

2026 has been a dynamic year so far for federal regulation of automotive safety. Federal regulators have demonstrated a sustained commitment to regulatory reform and innovation, while simultaneously advancing efforts to facilitate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. Congress has also renewed its focus on vehicle safety and automation as lawmakers consider legislation that could significantly reshape the federal framework governing AVs and vehicle-safety regulation.

Although the path to a comprehensive federal framework for AVs remains uncertain, NHTSA and other agencies continue to pursue opportunities to advance a deregulatory agenda while promoting innovation. Efforts to pave the way for large-scale autonomous vehicle deployment are underway at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Congress is also paying attention to motor vehicle safety, with surface transportation reauthorization looming and numerous proposed bills that could provide a federal framework for AVs and reform NHTSA’s exemption process, long viewed as a roadblock for vehicle manufacturers.

The next year-and-a-half presents a window of uncommon opportunity for industry to help shape vehicle safety rules that deliver safety value without stifling innovation. These developments collectively suggest that industry stakeholders will continue to have meaningful opportunities to influence vehicle-safety policy through agency engagement, rulemaking participation, and legislative advocacy.

I. Deregulation

NHTSA and FMCSA continued to pursue regulatory relief for automotive manufacturers over the first half of 2026. The agencies have taken different types of regulatory action on several fronts:

  • Vestigial Regulation Comments: In January 2026, NHTSA requested comments on “vestigial” vehicle safety regulations—federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that may no longer serve a meaningful safety purpose, but impose costs or constrain innovation. This request for comment is part of the Trump Administration’s broader deregulatory efforts, and complements the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Request for Information on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs issued in April 2025. The nearly forty comments NHTSA received identified numerous FMVSS provisions that arguably may be outdated or misaligned with current vehicle designs—ranging from manual control requirements that may impede the development of AVs, to brake and lighting requirements that no longer serve a functional safety purpose because of technological developments.
  • FMVSS Deregulatory Actions: On June 3, 2026, NHTSA published 14 final rules as part of a coordinated deregulatory initiative to remove obsolete regulatory text from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and related regulations. These changes, which affected a range of standards, including the roof crush resistance standard and the steering control rearward displacement standard, were proposed in May 2025, following agency implementation of updated replacement standards, and are the result of what industry stakeholders hope is one of the first of many such reforms. Each of the final rules is designated as a deregulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 14192, Unleashing American Prosperity Through Deregulation (January 31, 2025), which requires agencies to take ten deregulatory actions for every new regulatory action. 90 Fed. Reg. 9065; see Memorandum from Jeffrey B. Clark, Sr., Acting Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled ‘Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation’” (Mar. 26, 2025) (available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/M-25-20-Guidance-Implementing-Section-3-of-Executive-Order-14192-Titled-Unleashing-Prosperity-Through-Deregulation.pdf).
  • FMCSA Deregulatory Actions: NHTSA is not the only agency within DOT taking deregulatory action in response to EO 14192. On June 22, 2026, the FMCSA issued final rules for three E.O. 14192 deregulatory actions; each of these final rules follows a May 30, 2025 NPRM. Each will take effect on July 22, 2026, and any request for reconsideration is due by that date.
    • Removal of Self-Reporting Requirement, 91 Fed. Reg. 37047 (June 22, 2026): FMCSA eliminated the federal requirement that commercial driver’s license holders self-report motor vehicle violations to the state DMV of their domicile. It did so on the basis that such reporting is now duplicative, in light of the requirement as of 2024 that State Drivers Licensing Agencies substantially comply with federally mandated exclusive electronic exchange of information regarding, among other things, violation history through the Commercial Driver’s License Information System. Though the change does not eliminate state-level self-reporting requirements where they exist, it will eliminate unnecessary filings in a number of states. Of the seven relevant comments FMCSA received since the May 2025 NPRM, six were supportive. The remaining comment, from the National Association for Pupil Transport, asked for clarification as to “what to do if the self-reporting requirement were eliminated from the FMCSR, but a driver’s State of domicile still requires the report.” In response, the agency made clear that “[n]othing in this rule absolves a CDL holder from having to comply with a State requirement if that requirement exists.”
    • Rescinding the Requirement for Electronic Logging Device Operator’s Manual Located in Commercial Motor Vehicles, 91 Fed. Reg. 37050 (June 22, 2026): FMCSA amended the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to rescind the requirement for a copy of the electronic logging device (ELD) operator’s manual to be kept in a commercial motor vehicle (CMV). The agency reasoned that the requirement was unnecessary, given the existence of electronic operator’s manuals, the use of ELDs since 2019, and the existing requirement that CMV operators demonstrate their ability to use the ELD to an enforcement officer upon request. While the majority of the 18 comments the agency received supported rescission, four commenters opposed it, arguing that compliance is not overly burdensome, and that, because of the number of ELD systems in use, in many cases neither the operator nor the enforcement officer knows how to access the electronic version of the manual. FMCSA rejected these arguments, noting that all registered manuals are readily available to operators and enforcement officers on FMCSA’s website.
    • Completed Inspection Report Disposition, 91 Fed. Reg. 37052 (June 22, 2026): FMCSA amended the regulations requiring motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers to sign and return completed Driver Vehicle Examination Reports, also known as roadside inspection reports, to the issuing State agency. Return will now be required only to those states which request it. The agency took this action in response to a petition for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which estimated that the current process imposes added administrative costs of between $20 and $50 per inspection. While FMCSA disagreed with this estimate, it agreed that the change will result in decreased burden without diminishing safety. All seven comments received by FMCSA were generally supportive.
  • Seat Belt Reminder Reconsideration Requests: NHTSA has eased the compliance burden of new seat belt reminder rules in response to industry requests for flexibility. In early 2025, NHTSA finalized a rule requiring seat belt use warnings for rear seats and expanding preexisting seat belt warning requirements for front seats. The rule required compliance for its front seat provisions by September 1, 2026, and for its rear seat provisions by September 1, 2027. Industry stakeholders petitioned NHTSA to reconsider the rule, asking the agency to delay the rule’s compliance date and requesting several revisions and clarifications. Petitioners argued that the rule provided too little lead time, increasing the risk that vehicle models could be delayed or cancelled. On April 6, 2026, NHTSA released an interim final rule responding to those petitions. NHTSA agreed to delay the compliance date for both front and rear seat requirements until September 1, 2028, finding that “the change in lead time provides regulatory relief and addresses a potential economic disruption to the light vehicle market[.]” But it denied most of the remaining requests, including a request to alter the requirements for seat belt visual warnings in AVs that lack a driver’s designated seating position. NHTSA concluded that this particular request was out of scope, and that additional study on how to effectively implement telltales and warnings in AVs is necessary. Because NHTSA’s response came in the form of an “interim” final rule, the revisions are effective immediately.
  • Seat Belt Assembly Anchorage Reconsideration Response: NHTSA has proposed similar relief for amended requirements concerning seat belt assembly anchorages. In September 2024, in response to an adverse court ruling, NHTSA updated the test procedures contained within FMVSS 210. In November of that year, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association submitted a petition for reconsideration, requesting that the agency either exclude vehicles with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds from the requirement, or extend the deadline for compliance to mitigate challenges to manufacturers of such vehicles related to their unique design, diverse configurations, and long useful lives.

    In response to the petition, NHTSA proposes to extend the deadline for vehicles with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds to comply with the updated test procedure from September 1, 2027 to September 1, 2030. Manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicle systems and their suppliers should monitor this proposed rulemaking closely, and consider submitting comments before the July 26, 2026 deadline.

Taken together, these actions suggest that NHTSA and FMCSA remain receptive to industry requests to modernize or eliminate legacy requirements that may no longer reflect current technologies or operational realities or may be redundant.

II. Autonomous Vehicles

While deregulation remains a priority, many of the most consequential developments in 2026 relate to efforts to facilitate autonomous vehicle deployment and establish a more workable federal framework for AV technologies. In April 2025, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced an “AV Framework” for NHTSA that prioritized safety, innovation, and commercial deployment of AVs. NHTSA confirmed that AVs continue to be a priority for the agency this March when it hosted a day-long “National AV Safety Forum,” featuring Secretary Duffy, NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison, and representatives from several AV companies. At the Safety Forum, NHTSA announced three new actions it is taking to advance the priorities in the AV Framework:

  • Proposed Rules: Since the beginning of this year, NHTSA has released four proposals for AV-specific regulatory relief.
    • On March 16, NHTSA announced two potential revisions to the FMVSS. First, it proposed to amend FMVSS 102, which requires that transmission shift positions be visible to drivers. The amendment would exempt AVs that lack manual driving controls from this requirement, because in those vehicles there is no human driver who would need to see transmission positions. Second, it proposed to amend FMVSS 103, which sets requirements for windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and FMVSS 104, which sets requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. Under the proposal, AVs that do not have manual driving controls would also be exempted from these two standards—such vehicles have no human driver who would need to see through the windshield.
    • On April 1, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS 110, which requires that certain information about a vehicle’s tires be printed on an informational placard on the vehicle’s “driver’s side.” AVs without manual controls do not have a “driver’s side,” and so the proposal would require instead that the placard be placed on the vehicle’s left side, or in another location approved by NHTSA.
    • On June 26, NHTSA proposed amendments to FMVSS 135, which sets requirements for brake system performance in light vehicles. The proposal is a step toward permitting purpose-built autonomous vehicles: It removes requirements for hand-or-foot operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. All vehicles subject to the standard, including autonomous vehicles, would still need to meet the same stopping distance performance criteria contained within the rule. The standard also does not address “whether [a] vehicle’s brakes are actuated appropriately given a specific driving scenario,” which NHTSA describes as “an independent question relating to Automated Driving System (ADS) performance.” Manufacturers of AVs and brake systems should carefully review the NPRM and consider commenting before the deadline on July 27, 2026.
  • AV STEP Withdrawal: On June 26, NHTSA withdrew the NPRM for AV STEP, the voluntary AV framework proposed during the final days of the Biden administration. The withdrawal is unsurprising, as the Trump administration has not advanced the rulemaking, instead announcing its own planned framework for AV regulation in 2025. NHTSA’s notice withdrawing the rulemaking noted criticism from both industry and safety advocates, both stemming from the voluntary nature of the framework. NHTSA noted that “[i]ndustry comments suggested that participation in the program would have been minimal, which would have lowered the value of the program” and that “safety advocates[] expressed concern that a voluntary program would not offer a sufficiently comprehensive regulatory tool.”
    NHTSA also previewed that it “is in the process of developing guidance for General Exemptions, to expedite those exemptions and promote the commercial deployment of noncompliant ADS-equipped vehicles.” This will come as welcome news to developers of purpose-built AVs that struggle with existing standards because they lack features that are presupposed by the standards but which are unnecessary in the absence of a human driver.
  • Forthcoming Guidance: Back in 2017, NHTSA issued a guidance document describing its approach to AV safety, which it last supplemented in 2020. At the Safety Forum, Administrator Morrison announced that NHTSA will soon be releasing new guidance on AV safety that takes into account the substantial technological developments of the past eight years. The subject of that new guidance is not yet public, but NHTSA staff indicated that dockets would be opened in the coming months related to updated guidance on remote assistance and emergency responders’ interactions with AVs.
  • Request for Comment on Part 555 Exemption Application: In September 2025, Zoox applied to NHTSA for an exemption from parts of eight different FMVSS, which is needed because Zoox’s purpose-built AVs have no manual controls. Zoox previously received NHTSA’s first domestic Automated Vehicle Exemption Program (AVEP) exemption, but that program does not allow AV companies to commercialize their vehicles—i.e., charge for rides. Part 555 exemptions allow for commercialization, albeit in limited numbers and for a limited time—but they generally require NHTSA to conclude that the exemption is in the “public interest” and that the noncompliant vehicle would be at least as safe as a vehicle that did meet the applicable FMVSS. At the Safety Forum, Administrator Morrison announced that NHTSA was seeking public comment on Zoox’s request, and NHTSA received more than a hundred comments from stakeholders before the comment period closed on April 10, 2026. Many comments from industry, trade associations, and relevant advocacy groups (e.g., Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Foundation for the Blind, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the United Spinal Association, and others) were supportive of the petition; others, including those from organized labor and some individuals, were critical. NHTSA has yet to decide on Zoox’s application.
  • SGO-Initiated ADS Safety Investigation: Last year, the Trump administration modified the existing Standing General Order (SGO) requiring dozens of companies occupying different positions in the AV stack to submit incident reports and related data. While modest, the modifications generally served to reduce burden and allow for efficient compliance while providing the agency with data it views as critical.
    These modifications notwithstanding, it is clear NHTSA is still actively reviewing and following up on incident reports. On May 6, 2026, the agency opened a Preliminary Evaluation of the performance of Avride’s ADS, following reports of crashes in Texas, where Avride is currently on the road. According to NHTSA, “each of the crashes involved the competence of the ADS with respect to performing at least one of the following driving behaviors: changing lanes, responding to other vehicles present in or entering the lane ahead, and responding to stationary objects partially obstructing the lane ahead.” NHTSA’s investigation began following a review of footage of several incidents, as well as incident reports submitted by Avride to NHTSA under the SGO.
  • Proposed NCAP Update: While much of the focus is on AVs, NHTSA is also working to address emerging advanced driver assistance technology (ADAS). On May 28, the agency requested comments on a proposal to update the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) by adding rear automatic braking (RAB) systems with pedestrian avoidance ability to the ADAS technologies NHTSA currently recommends. NHTSA would identify and evaluate vehicles in the marketplace that offer systems that pass NCAP performance test criteria. The comment period is open until July 27, 2026, although at least one industry stakeholder has requested an extension.

NHTSA is not the only agency with its eyes on AVs: 

  • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA): The FMCSA administers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which, like the FMVSSs, set safety standards related to commercial motor vehicle operation. In 2024, under the previous administration, the autonomous truck developer Aurora sought an exemption from several FMCSA-administered rules related to the warning lights that served as functional barriers to deployment of driverless trucks. The FMCSA denied that request, and Aurora sued the FMCSA in response. Aurora voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit in October 2025, and this January the FMCSA granted Aurora a temporary waiver for those same warning-light regulations; the waiver also extends to other operators who seek the same enforcement discretion. The waiver was set to expire on April 9, but FMCSA extended it to July 9, 2026. Aurora has separately requested that both it and other operators of Level 4 automated commercial motor vehicles be granted a five-year exemption from the same warning-light rules. On April 15, 2026, FMCSA announced that it was seeking public comments on this request.
  • National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): Although NHTSA has been attentive to industry concerns about vehicle safety regulations, high-profile accident investigations by NHTSA and the NTSB have put a public spotlight on safety-related issues affecting automated vehicles. This March, NTSB released reports on its investigations into two fatal crashes that involved vehicles using an SAE Level 2 vehicle automation system, or ADAS. Unlike a Level 4 Automated Driving System (ADS), ADAS is not designed to perform the entire dynamic driving task. NTSB blamed the crashes on drivers who nonetheless relied too heavily on the vehicles’ automation capabilities. The agency recommended that DOT develop new guidelines for vehicle automation systems, and that NHTSA develop safety regulations for vehicles with Level 2 automation systems. NHTSA has yet to respond to NTSB’s recommendations, but at least one NHTSA investigation into similar crashes remains pending.

There is also international action on AV regulation. For the last five years, the United Nations Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles has been preparing a draft Global Technical Regulation (GTR) for ADS-equipped vehicles. The draft GTR is intended to harmonize international autonomous vehicle performance requirements and assessment methods. This January, NHTSA announced that it was seeking comments on the draft GTR to help “inform the U.S. government’s position.” NHTSA extended the feedback period into March, and received more than sixty generally-supportive comments.

On June 24, 2026, WP.29 announced that it had approved the GTR, as well as amendments to approximately 90 other UN regulations intended to address their applicability to driverless vehicles. The United States delegation supported adoption, as did China, the EU, Japan, Canada, and the UK. This vote does not mean that the GTR will have the force of law in the United States. NHTSA will still need to initiate rulemaking, a lengthy and uncertain process. NHTSA issued a brief statement regarding the approval, which was positive but lacked specificity as to the agency’s plans for adoption. How much of the substance of the GTR makes it into such a rulemaking remains to be seen. Manufacturers operating globally should continue to monitor these developments closely, as the GTR could influence future regulatory harmonization efforts across multiple jurisdictions.

III. Congressional Activity

Federal legislators have considered several automotive-safety-related bills since the beginning of the year. Senate and House committees have held hearings on numerous bills throughout 2026, in many cases with an eye toward surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Automotive companies should continue to monitor these bills, which include: 

  • BUILD America 250 Act: In late May, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bipartisan BUILD America 250 Act, a surface transportation reauthorization bill that includes several autonomous trucking provisions. The Committee-passed bill establishes federal safety requirements for commercial AVs, overseen by FMCSA, and authorizes that agency to preempt certain state regulations. While the bill imposes numerous requirements on AV operators (such as incident reporting requirements and rules requiring that human operators be aboard otherwise autonomous school buses and vehicles transporting hazardous materials), industry has largely supported the bill. The bill does not direct NHTSA—which is under the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee—to promulgate a similar framework for AVs. Separate legislation, the SELF DRIVE Act, would take that step.
  • SELF DRIVE Act of 2026: This bill creates a comprehensive federal framework for ADS and ADS-equipped vehicles. It directs NHTSA to develop regulations specific to AV safety, permits AV developers to remove manual driving controls, and makes other changes to existing requirements.
    • Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026: This bill significantly reforms NHTSA’s new car assessment program. Specifically, it also requires NHTSA to:
      • develop a plan for safety rulemaking and research,
      • review the FMVSS every four years and identify possible reforms,
      • study how to improve recall repair rates,
      • set a one-year deadline for approving or denying requests for exemptions from vehicle safety standards, and
      • facilitate consumer education about vehicle automation and safety technologies.

How Can Covington Help?

If you have questions about anything discussed in this post, the experts below are well equipped to help. Covington offers a full suite of transportation regulatory services, including facilitating agency engagement; navigating the rulemaking and standard-setting processes; and defending clients in multi-agency regulatory investigations and proceedings.

Photo of Sarah Wilson Sarah Wilson

Sarah Wilson is a litigation and investigations partner who chairs the firm’s market-leading Product Safety Practice Group. Her clients include the world’s largest global consumer and commercial products manufacturers across a range of industries, including consumer packaged goods, automotive vehicles and equipment, aviation…

Sarah Wilson is a litigation and investigations partner who chairs the firm’s market-leading Product Safety Practice Group. Her clients include the world’s largest global consumer and commercial products manufacturers across a range of industries, including consumer packaged goods, automotive vehicles and equipment, aviation, electronics, life sciences, and information technology. Sarah has successfully represented clients in the largest recalls and safety-related investigations in recent history, including airbags, fire extinguishers, single load liquid laundry packets, toxic chemicals in household products, lithium-ion battery-powered laptops, car seats, and electric bikes and scooters. Sarah assists clients in developing cutting edge recall policies, compliance program enhancements, and voluntary safety standards.

Prior to joining Covington, Sarah served in several high-ranking federal government positions, including as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as Senior and Associate Counsel to the President, and as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Trial Attorney in the Department of Justice.

Read more about Sarah Wilson
Show more Show less
Photo of Jennifer Johnson Jennifer Johnson

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors…

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors, television companies, trade associations, and other entities on a wide range of media and technology matters. Jennifer has three decades of experience advising clients in the communications, media and technology sectors, and has held leadership roles in these practices for more than twenty years. On technology issues, she collaborates with Covington’s global, multi-disciplinary team to assist companies navigating the complex statutory and regulatory constructs surrounding this evolving area, including product counseling and technology transactions related to connected and autonomous vehicles, internet connected devices, artificial intelligence, smart ecosystems, and other IoT products and services. Jennifer serves on the Board of Editors of The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law.

Jennifer assists clients in developing and pursuing strategic business and policy objectives before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress and through transactions and other business arrangements. She regularly advises clients on FCC regulatory matters and advocates frequently before the FCC. Jennifer has extensive experience negotiating content acquisition and distribution agreements for media and technology companies, including program distribution agreements, network affiliation and other program rights agreements, and agreements providing for the aggregation and distribution of content on over-the-top app-based platforms. She also assists investment clients in structuring, evaluating, and pursuing potential investments in media and technology companies.

Read more about Jennifer Johnson
Show more Show less
Photo of Holly Fechner Holly Fechner

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of…

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of the Covington’s Technology Industry Group and a member of the Covington Political Action Committee board of directors.

Holly works with clients to:

Develop compelling public policy strategies
Research law and draft legislation and policy
Draft testimony, comments, fact sheets, letters and other documents
Advocate before Congress and the Executive Branch
Form and manage coalitions
Develop communications strategies

She is the Executive Director of Invent Together and a visiting lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She serves on the board of directors of the American Constitution Society.

Holly served as Policy Director for Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Chief Labor and Pensions Counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.

She received The American Lawyer, “Dealmaker of the Year” award in 2019. The Hill named her a “Top Lobbyist” from 2013 to the present, and she has been ranked by Chambers USA – America’s Leading Business Lawyers from 2012 to the present. One client noted to Chambers: “Holly is an exceptional attorney who excels in government relations and policy discussions. She has an incisive analytical skill set which gives her the capability of understanding extremely complex legal and institutional matters.” According to another client surveyed by Chambers, “Holly is incredibly intelligent, effective and responsive. She also leads the team in a way that brings out everyone’s best work.”

Read more about Holly Fechner
Show more Show less
Photo of Matthew Shapanka Matthew Shapanka

Matthew Shapanka is a strategic policy and regulatory attorney who helps technology companies and other businesses navigate complex, high-stakes legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters at the intersection of law and politics. Drawing on 15+ years of experience across private practice, the U.S. Senate…

Matthew Shapanka is a strategic policy and regulatory attorney who helps technology companies and other businesses navigate complex, high-stakes legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters at the intersection of law and politics. Drawing on 15+ years of experience across private practice, the U.S. Senate, state government, and political campaigns, Matt develops comprehensive policy strategies that identify regulatory risks and position clients to shape policy outcomes.

Public Policy and Regulatory Strategy

Matt serves as a strategic advisor to Fortune 200 companies on emerging technology policy, including artificial intelligence regulation, connected and autonomous vehicles, semiconductors, IoT, and national security matters. He translates complex legal and technical issues into actionable legislative and regulatory strategy, building the policy frameworks and advocacy infrastructure that enable clients to influence policy. He develops policy collateral for federal, state, and international advocacy, coordinates multi-stakeholder coalitions, and represents clients before Congress, federal agencies, and state legislative and regulatory bodies.

His technology policy experience includes securing unprecedented Presidential intervention in the $118 billion Qualcomm-Broadcom transaction (for which Covington was recognized as The American Lawyer 2019 “Dealmakers of the Year”), advising Fortune 200 companies on Bureau of Industry and Security connected vehicle rules, and counseling major internet platforms on autonomous vehicle policy across dozens of states.

Matt leads Covington’s state public policy practice, managing complex multistate legislative and regulatory advocacy campaigns. His state-level work includes securing a last-minute amendment to California’s 2023 money transmitter legislation on behalf of a fintech client and representing major technology companies on state AI, autonomous vehicle, and political advertising compliance matters across dozens of jurisdictions.

Matt rejoined Covington after serving as Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration under Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), where he negotiated the landmark bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act – legislation that updated presidential election certification procedures for the first time in nearly 140 years. He also oversaw the Committee’s bipartisan January 6th investigation, developing protocols that resulted in unanimous passage of new Capitol security legislation.

Both in Congress and at Covington, Matt has prepared dozens of corporate executives, nonprofit leaders, academics, and presidential nominees for testimony at congressional committee hearings and depositions. He is a skilled legislative drafter and strategist who has composed dozens of bills and amendments introduced in Congress and state legislatures, including many that have been enacted into law.

Election and Political Law Compliance and Enforcement

As a member of Covington’s Chambers-ranked (Band 1) Election and Political Law practice, Matt advises businesses, nonprofits, political committees, candidates, and donors on the full range of federal and state political law compliance matters, including:

Election and campaign finance laws
Lobbying disclosure
Government ethics rules
The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule

He also conducts political law due diligence for M&A transactions, counsels major political funders and donors in compliance and enforcement matters, and represents candidates, ballot measure committees, and donors in election disputes and recounts.

Before law school, Matt served in the administration of former Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA), where he worked on policy, communications, and compliance matters for federal economic recovery funding awarded to the state. He has also staffed federal, state, and local political candidates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Read more about Matthew Shapanka
Show more Show less
Photo of John Mizerak John Mizerak

Jack Mizerak is special counsel in the firm’s Washington DC office, focusing on product safety, transportation, and environmental matters. He has experience with investigations, litigation, and regulatory issues under the Clean Air Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act…

Jack Mizerak is special counsel in the firm’s Washington DC office, focusing on product safety, transportation, and environmental matters. He has experience with investigations, litigation, and regulatory issues under the Clean Air Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other environmental and consumer protection standards.

Jack has expertise in governmental enforcement, including fact development, government engagement, and adoption of compliance reforms to address underlying issues and prevent recurrence of violations. He was an integral part of a Covington team that resolved one of the ten largest enforcement matters in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Jack works extensively with clients in the automotive sector, advising original equipment manufacturers, traditional Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 suppliers, advanced technology and software suppliers, trade associations, and fleet owners on a range of policy, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement issues, spanning both the consumer and freight sectors. He has represented clients facing some of the largest automotive recalls in U.S. history, affecting as much as 15% of vehicles registered in the United States. Jack also regularly advises clients on emerging technologies in the automotive industry, including connected and autonomous vehicles and zero-emission powertrains.

Jack also represents clients in the growing micromobility and low-speed vehicle sectors. He represents manufacturers and fleet operators of personal transportation vehicles, e-bikes, and scooters.

Jack regularly represents clients in the consumer product space more broadly, including manufacturers online platforms. His work spans the entire product lifecycle, from standard setting for product categories, risk assessments during product development, and litigation and investigations stemming from issues after products have been introduced into commerce.

Read more about John Mizerak
Show more Show less
Photo of Micah Telegen Micah Telegen

Micah Telegen represents clients in complex investigations and enforcement actions, including in the automotive and consumer product industries. He frequently advises clients on compliance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and other federal safety laws and regulations. Micah…

Micah Telegen represents clients in complex investigations and enforcement actions, including in the automotive and consumer product industries. He frequently advises clients on compliance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and other federal safety laws and regulations. Micah also regularly advises clients facing regulatory challenges related to emerging technologies in the automotive industry, including connected and autonomous vehicles. He also maintains an active pro bono practice and has experience litigating on behalf of criminal defendants and tenants facing eviction.

Read more about Micah Telegen
Show more Show less
Photo of Molly Brown Molly Brown

Molly Brown is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Product Safety, Congressional Investigations, White Collar Defense and Investigations, and Business and Human Rights Practice Groups. Molly represents clients in internal investigations and investigations by federal enforcement…

Molly Brown is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Product Safety, Congressional Investigations, White Collar Defense and Investigations, and Business and Human Rights Practice Groups. Molly represents clients in internal investigations and investigations by federal enforcement authorities. Molly frequently advises clients on compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and other federal safety laws and regulations. Molly also represents companies in investigations before congressional committees, which includes helping companies respond to congressional subpoenas and requests for documents and information and preparing senior executives to testify before congressional committees. Molly maintains an active pro bono practice focused on indigent criminal defense and immigration.

Read more about Molly Brown
Show more Show less
Photo of Charlotte Krovoza Charlotte Krovoza

Charlotte Krovoza is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She represents multinational companies and organizations in complex, high stakes enforcement matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, among other…

Charlotte Krovoza is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She represents multinational companies and organizations in complex, high stakes enforcement matters involving the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, among other authorities. Charlotte also counsels companies on compliance with the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and advises clients navigating sensitive congressional investigations. She maintains an active pro bono practice focused on civil rights and indigent defense.

Prior to joining the firm, Charlotte clerked for Judge James I. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Read more about Charlotte Krovoza
Show more Show less
Photo of Ben Rolsma Ben Rolsma

Ben Rolsma is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He is a member of the Environmental and Energy Practice Group. Before joining the firm, he clerked for Judge Kevin C. Newsom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Read more about Ben Rolsma