Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/08/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB136 | |
| HB217 | |
| Presentation: Highway Safety Improvement Plan Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 217-AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
1:56:56 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 217, "An Act regulating autonomous vehicles;
and providing for an effective date."
1:57:20 PM
MEREDITH TRAINOR, Staff, Representative Ted Eischeid, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House
Transportation Standing Committee, of which Representative
Eischeid co-chaired, gave a PowerPoint on HB 217 [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She stated that HB 217 is a
companion bill to SB 148. She stated that HB 217 would add
language and regulations on the definition of "autonomous
vehicles" to statute for the first time. She began on slide 2,
stating that the proposed bill would establish requirements on
autonomous vehicles used for interstate commerce, shipping of
commercial goods, and passenger transport. For these uses, she
stated that the proposed legislation would require a human-
safety operator, who meets federal and state requirements for
autonomous and non-autonomous operation. She stated that the
operator must be present in order to operate or turn off the
vehicle. She added that this would not address personal and
noncommercial purposes, but these operators would still need to
meet the same federal and state requirements.
MS. TRAINOR stated that the proposed legislation would also
establish guidelines for owner and user liability, with
allowances for accidents caused by software or hardware
malfunctions. She stated that the proposed bill also would
establish new definitions related to autonomous vehicle
technology and functions, as seen on slide 3.
1:59:49 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether Ms. Trainor has had any
experience with a self-driving vehicle.
MS. TRAINOR responded that while she was in a Tesla, the driver
had put the car in the self-driving function and the car
navigated a roundabout. In response to a follow-up question,
she stated that the car had rubbed against the curb and the
driving was imprecise.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed the importance of the proposed
legislation, as it would require a driver onboard to take
control.
2:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned having an operator in an
autonomous vehicle, as it would defeat the purpose. He also
questioned the definition of "interstate commerce," concerning
the difference with "intrastate commerce." He opined whether
drone usage would be covered under the proposed legislation. He
pointed out that driving in snowy conditions could present a
problem. He surmised that a presentation, possibly from a
manufacturer, would be helpful.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed agreement on the need for a
presentation. Concerning the rapid pace of technology, she
questioned the development of autonomous vehicles and whether a
driver would always be needed.
2:04:23 PM
MS. TRAINOR responded by pointing out the importance of defining
"autonomous vehicle" in statute, as there is no definition for
this in the motor vehicle statute. She pointed out that the
usage of these vehicles has increased, and this is a concern
considering the importance of shipping in the state. She opined
that there could be a point in the future when a human-safety
operator would not be needed.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON discussed her son's Tesla, which has the
capability to drive on its own. She described her experience in
the car. She said, "It has done a fine job of driving itself."
She added that when she was in the vehicle, her son was there,
and this had made her more "comfortable."
2:07:25 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned whether other states with this type
of legislation would have requirements for a driver's level of
awareness.
MS. TRAINOR expressed uncertainty, and she offered to follow up
with an answer.
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE conjectured how this would affect a charge
of driving under the influence.
2:08:58 PM
MS. TRAINOR stated that the proposed bill would require safety
operators to meet federal and state requirements for operating
autonomous and nonautonomous vehicles, and this would cover a
driving under the influence charge.
2:09:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA noted a letter in opposition from the
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which concerned the lack of
references to the National Society of Automotive Engineers'
(SAE's) definitions. She questioned whether this concern has
been raised.
MS. TRAINOR responded that she has looked at SAE standards,
which define incremental increases in the level of automation.
Except for the letter in question, she stated there has been no
other voiced concerns about SAE standards. She suggested that
this could be addressed in the future.
2:10:45 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK addressed her earlier question concerning a
driver's level of awareness. She read from the section of the
proposed legislation addressing this and expressed the
understanding that an operator would need to be as alert and
aware as a person driving a nonelectric vehicle.
2:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA pointed out that the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation's letter also expressed concern that the presumption
of liability would always be on the human-safety operator, as
this would not be congruent with other legislation concerning
tort law.
MS. TRAINOR responded that the current version of the proposed
legislation gives the primary responsibility to the operator,
and then it progresses to the maker of the vehicle through four
steps. She expressed the understanding that, under normal tort
law, the driver has the initial liability, and then any issues
with the manufacturing of the vehicle could shift
responsibility. She suggested that this part of the bill
language could be eliminated, as the same parties would be
responsible in the same order. She opined that this could be a
redundancy issue in the language of the proposed legislation.
2:13:10 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that HB 217 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 217 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Letter of Opposition, Alliance for Automotive Innovation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| House Bill 217 Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| DOTPF HSIP Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 136 Amendment H.5.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| House Bill 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 051225.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 HB 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 |