OK. This breaks down into several questions, depending on what you mean by the question.
If you mean: "Show me where in the article it says that federal law trumps state law," see the text that says:
The
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution,
federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that
state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even
state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
If you mean, "OK, but show me where federal law prohibits autonomous vehicles, because if federal law does not prohibit autonomous vehicles, then can't Georgia permit it, because then," you might argue, "Georgia is free to allow it." To that fine argument, I might respond:
Perhaps.
The "deep dive" article I linked to sets forth the regulations which appear to assume the existence of a driver because they were promulgated before autonomous vehicles were seriously contemplated.
The unanswered question in the two lead cases
The issue resolved in the two leading cases -- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (U.S.Supreme Ct. 2011), and Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., (U.S. Supreme Ct. 2000) - seems to be that state control of FMVSS issues is preempted where the state law (be it constitution, statute, rule, regulation or court action) would constitute an “obstacle to a significant regulatory objective.”
The question here, then, is whether Georgia's statutes and/or regulations would constitute an obstruction to an industry regulated by the FMVSS which assumes the existence of a driver.
My guess is that it does, but I certainly have neither authority nor really strong sense of that. A court may have to decide that unless the FMVSS is amended to address the problem before a suit results.