Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Autonomous Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears SB 67 to coordinate MDT and DOJ rulemaking on automated and autonomous vehicles
Summary
Sen. Danley Logie’s SB 67 sets definitions for automated driving systems, calls for joint rulemaking by MDT and DOJ, and invites stakeholders including manufacturers, insurers, and local governments; industry groups supported the bill while the Reason Foundation raised concerns about definitions and alignment with SAE J3016.
Sen. Danley Logie opened a hearing on Senate Bill 67, a bill intended to create a framework for state oversight and rulemaking for automated and autonomous vehicles. Logie told the House Transportation Committee the bill seeks to bring the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), the Department of Justice (including highway patrol), manufacturers, insurers, local governments and other stakeholders together to define what will be allowed in Montana for higher levels of vehicle automation.
The measure lays out definitions for levels of driving automation, discussing level 1 through level 5 capabilities and focusing on governance and rulemaking for level 4 and level 5 systems. Logie said the bill is not meant to block autonomous vehicles but to “get all parties to the table” and develop safe guidelines adapted to Montana’s roads, weather and wildlife encounters.
Proponents included John Macdonald of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, who urged consistency with national definitions so manufacturers can design vehicles that comply across states; Charles Denowh representing Tesla, who praised the bill’s combination of consistency and flexibility; and Eric Anderson of Teamsters Locals, who emphasized worker safety and urged the committee to consider impacts on drivers and carriers.
Eric Belford, administrator for MDT’s Motor Carrier Services division, testified that MDT supports the bill’s approach for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and clarified that the bill does not create a new permit requirement for autonomous CMV operations. Belford said MDT would retain authority to restrict automated driving systems for CMVs in adverse weather and that enforcement of moving violations would remain with agencies that have enforcement authority.
Mark Scribner of the Reason Foundation was listed by the committee as an opponent. Scribner praised elements of the bill but urged changes to align definitions with SAE recommended practice J3016, warned that splitting rulemaking across two departments could cause delays, and flagged missing specifics on how systems would be demonstrated safe in adverse conditions and how first responders should interact with disabled autonomous vehicles.
Committee members asked about fiscal estimates in earlier drafts (a referenced $231,000 contractor cost was described by the sponsor as removed when rulemaking work moved in‑house), overlaps with HB 97 on platooning, whether permits might be required for certain automated CMV operations, and who would be held responsible in crashes involving fully autonomous vehicles. Logie and witnesses said those issues will be addressed in stakeholder rulemaking and insurance discussions.
Logie closed by saying the bill seeks to set Montana’s safety expectations for autonomous features rather than prevent technological development. The committee closed the hearing with no recorded vote in the transcript.
