The Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure advanced Senate Bill 395, which would require a trained human operator holding a commercial driverʼs license (CDL) aboard certain autonomous commercial vehicles, by moving the bill to the floor without recommendation following a special Friday hearing and work session.

Sen. James Orangehall, sponsor for Senate District 21, told the committee SB395 would “prohibit autonomous vehicles from operating on Nevada highways unless a human operator with a commercial driverʼs license is present” when a vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating above 26,000 pounds or has more than two axles and can carry eight or more passengers. The bill sets an effective date of Oct. 1, 2025, and a sunset date of Sept. 30, 2035, to allow the state time to monitor the policy.

Proponents, including labor and driver representatives, framed the bill as a safety and jobs measure. Tommy Blich, a Teamsters official, said, “I wanna again make it perfectly clear that the Teamsters Union is not anti technology. This bill is about 2 things. Number 1, safety. Number 2 is protecting jobs.” Tom Morley emphasized public-safety risks for heavier vehicles on two‑lane rural highways: “Simply put, we can't put our public in danger with semi trucks, with a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds on the road without a driver until software is developed.” Nate Allison, an intern presenting for the sponsor, summarized the billʼs technical trigger and urged support, saying the technology “is not infallible.”

Industry groups and companies opposed the restriction, arguing it would make Nevada an outlier and impede safety and supply‑chain benefits that autonomous vehicle (AV) technology can deliver. Ed Garcia of Motional warned that passing the measure would make Nevada “the first in the country” to impose such a restriction and questioned how it would operate for interstate vehicles crossing state lines. Paul Enos of the Nevada Trucking Association pointed to human‑error statistics, arguing AVs can reduce crashes: “94 percent of all crashes happen because of human error,” he said, advocating technology that reduces that risk. Katie Robbins of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association urged the committee to support “roadway safety solutions like autonomous vehicles” and said the bill would effectively ban heavy‑duty AVs in Nevada.

Public testimony in support came largely from unions and labor organizations, including the Teamsters, Nevada State AFL‑CIO and multiple local Teamsters chapters; public testimony in opposition came from AV firms, industry associations, chambers of commerce and the Nevada Trucking Association.

In the work session, the committee waived the usual 24‑hour delay and moved SB395 forward without recommendation to the floor. Vice Chair Carter made the motion; the motion was seconded. Assemblymembers Gurr, Dickman and Gallant recorded the only named nays. The committee discussion noted unresolved statutory conflicts with existing Nevada Revised Statutes addressing the definition of a “fully autonomous vehicle” and suggested further drafting work before floor consideration.

SB395ʼs key provisions in the committee record: vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds, or vehicles with more than two axles capable of carrying eight or more passengers, would be required to carry a trained human operator with a CDL who is seated and able to immediately take manual control. The bill sets a 10‑year sunset that would allow the Legislature to revisit the requirement if federal standards or evidence shift.

The bill will next appear on the Assembly floor for further consideration; committee members and stakeholders indicated that substantial drafting and statutory‑construction questions remain.