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.