AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 63-35-7, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO EXTEND THE DATE OF THE REPEALER ON THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON SUBMIT A LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERACTION PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BEFORE OPERATING A FULLY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC ROADS OF THIS STATE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Summary
House Bill 1770 amends Mississippi law governing fully autonomous vehicles by extending the sunset date on an existing requirement that operators submit a law enforcement interaction plan to the Department of Public Safety before driving a driverless vehicle on public roads. The bill does not create a new regulatory framework; instead, it keeps the current disclosure and safety-planning requirement in place for an additional three years, moving the repeal date from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2029.
Under the existing statute, the submitted plan must explain how law enforcement and fleet support can communicate with the vehicle operator or support specialist, how the vehicle can be safely removed or towed, how responders can tell whether the vehicle is in autonomous mode, and any other safety-related information the manufacturer or owner believes is necessary. The Department of Public Safety may issue a cease-and-desist letter if the plan is not submitted, preventing operation of the vehicle on Mississippi roads until compliance is achieved. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
HB1770 extends the life of Section 63-35-7 of the Mississippi Code, preserving the Department of Public Safety’s authority to require law enforcement interaction plans for fully autonomous vehicles and to stop noncompliant vehicles from operating on public roads. The practical effect is to continue state oversight of driverless vehicle deployment, maintain safety and emergency-response planning requirements, and delay the automatic repeal of these provisions until July 1, 2029.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a routine continuation of an existing autonomous-vehicle safety requirement rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or debate in the available record. The overall tone of the bill is precautionary and administrative, focused on keeping a public-safety safeguard in place.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between encouraging autonomous vehicle innovation and maintaining state-level safety oversight. Supporters would likely view the extension as a reasonable way to ensure law enforcement and emergency responders have the information they need when interacting with driverless vehicles. Any opposition would likely come from manufacturers, fleet operators, or technology advocates who may prefer fewer regulatory hurdles or a shorter continuation of the requirement, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.