House Standing Committee on Transportation

Morning. Calling and convening the Committee on Transportation here in the Hawaii State House of Representatives in this Hawaii State Capitol in Conference Room 430 here this Thursday, February 6, 2025. Convening the 10:00am agenda starting today at 10:01am.I am Darius Kila, the House Chair on the Committee on Transportation. My Vice Chair, Rep. Tina Grandinetti.

Our Members will be joining us shortly, but in respect of everyone's time I want to get underway. I want to read this at the beginning for our hearing. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a 2 minute time limit per testifier.

I ask that in the case that you are running close to your 2 minute time limit, we will ask you to summarize your comments.

Morning hearings must adjourn prior to our floor session, so please note that testifiers may not have the opportunity to testify, but in the event that you are not able to, please know you can submit your written testimony will be considered by the Committee.

Also, if you are going to be testifying in person and did not provide written testimony, please make sure you are able to provide that to our Committee Clerk upon the adjournment of today's Committee hearing. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted in your video off while waiting to testify after your testimony is complete.

The Zoom chat function only allows you to chat with our tech staff and please use it only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting and if disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue for time permits. And please note the House is not responsible for bad Internet connection.

In the event of a network failure, be necessary to reschedule the hearing for, or a meeting for decision making in his case, appropriate notice will be posted and please avoid using trademark or copyrighted images. Please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin.

And with that all being said, we'll get underway with our 10 a.m. agenda here this morning, starting with our first item on the agenda. HB667 related to transportation requires the Department of Transportation or appropriate county Department when disposing of a deceased cat or dog from a public roadway to scan the animal for a microchip record certain information.

Report that information to the appropriate county animal services or animal service contractors. Appropriate funds Vice Chair for testimony please.

Department of Transportation and Support.

Good Morning Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, I'm Larry Dill, Highways Administrator for the Department of Transportation. We stand on Our testimonial submission.

Thank you.

Humane Society, and support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Kendrick from the Hawaiian Humane Society. You have a written testimony in support of this measure. I just want to underline the intense community demand for this information. You know, it's a pet owner's worst nightmare to have your beloved pet get out and be killed on one of our roadways.

And the only thing worse than that happening is not knowing. So we're gratified to see dot's support for this measure. We hope the counties will be supportive as well.

And mahalo to the Chair and introducer of this measure for his support and for championing this issue in support of the human animal bond and how much we all care about the animals in our lives. So appreciate the Committee's consideration, and I hope you'll support this bill. Thank you.

Pacific Pet Alliance in support. And we have nine individuals in support. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Please come to the microphone and just state your name for the record, please.

Hi. Good morning, everybody. I'm Patricia Krapuz. Sadly, my husband is not here today, so I would like to say a few names. Jonathan Conger. Michelle Astro. Kekoa Nohea. Those are other people are in the same case as me where their pets have ended up in a landfill. So. Excuse me.

So we come here today with hopes that this actually goes through. My pet was. She got out. She didn't have a collar, and she doesn't have a collar because safety purposes. However, Jonathan's pet, Perry, had a collar, but he still ended up in the landfill. So if our main thing is.

Oh, if the pet has a collar, it has an owner, but yet he wasn't called. So I'm here today. Since pets are mandated, cats and dogs only, to have microchips, then we should assume that all pets and dogs are microchips, are microchiped. Excuse me.

So we should at least have them scanned before taking them to the landfill and have this continuous, long heartbreak that could be stopped with everyone's help. So we're just hoping, me, the community, that this does go through. Thank you.

Thank you, Patricia.

Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you, Vice Chair Members. Any questions? I do want to note that Patricia folks were involved in initiating an online campaign for the support around this measure. And I believe the petition is upwards of 300 or 3,000 signatures, I believe. Yeah. So thank you, folks, for that.

We'll move on to our next measure, HB230 relating to traffic citations. Requires police officers to send a carbon copy of the citation to the registered owner of a vehicle within a certain time frame after the citation is issued by sheriff for testimony.

Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Matson Navigation Company in support. And two individuals. Oh, Nelson [sounding out name], sorry about that, in support on Zoom and one other individual in support. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify?

Seeing no one to ask questions for Members, we'll enter our next measure, HB 177, relating to civil identification cards. Makes the issuance or renewal of a civil identification card free of charge, effective 6-30-2025. Vice Chair for testimony.

Attorney General offering comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Rachel Jordan, Deputy Attorney General. The Department has already submitted written comment and is available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Department of Transportation, in opposition.

Larry Dill, with DOT. We stand on our testimony, as submitted, in opposition.

Thank you.

Tuli Ta Phi, individual in support?

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Members of the Committee. Tuli Ta Phi, testifying as a private citizen. Identification cards is like a basic necessity in our life that we live, and it's something that you need to enter to testify here.

It's something that you need to go to the bank, to pick up your child. And for a lot of people who don't have the means, it's a barrier that can prevent them from receiving resources from a lot of things. And it's something that, you know, our government should be working for the people.

And I believe this is one thing that could help for a lot of our members who need to seek services, and it's a great way to extend a hand to those who believe that government is not working for them. Thank you.

Thank you, Tuli.

And then, two individuals in support. And is there anyone else in person or online who would like to testify?

Okay. Seeing no further testifiers. Members, questions? I do want to note, I appreciate the Attorney General's comment on the measure, and I believe that we will find a middle ground in the HD 1. Okay. Moving forward on our next measure, HB 102, sorry.

HB668 relating to motor vehicle insurance, makes mandatory suspension of the driver's license of a driver of a registered owner of a vehicle for operating a motor vehicle without motor vehicle insurance policy. Vice Chair for testimony.

Office of the Public Defense Defender in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Hayley Cheng. I'm the First Deputy at the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted written testimony in opposition to this measure and we do want to just make a couple of distinctions.

We understand the challenges and the severity of drivers on the road without insurance. Our main issue is that the current law already mandates a license suspension if you do not get up to speed or maintain a current, or obtain a current insurance policy.

So we fear that the effects of this law will disincentivize our clients to obtain current insurance. It is very common for us to represent clients who come to court for a citation for no insurance. The judge will continue the case to authorize them the opportunity to get insurance and they do so. Then everything is good.

They are insured for a minimum of six months and hopefully this will not happen again. Requiring a license suspension will, like we said, disincentivize those individuals to do that. Additionally, I'm sure the Committee is aware of the mass volume of traffic cases at district court.

We represent thousands upon thousands of individuals for no insurance offenses, driving while license suspension offenses. And this will only prompt and necessitate clients going to trial if they're facing a mandatory six month insurance, excuse me, license suspension and will do nothing but further the cycle of that people are in...

...who cannot obtain their driver's license or no insurance due to their the revolving door of debt, community service hours and things like that. So the, the movement now is to help people get their license back and to create an opportunity for people to not continue to pick up these citations.

Once one of our clients, who are all indigent, get a traffic offense such as this, it can sometimes take years for them to get out of debt and sometimes never at all. And the whole time they're incurring citations. It doesn't actually stop people from driving, unfortunately.

So we would just ask the Committee to think about the big picture consequences of some of these measures. We agree with not promoting drivers without insurance, but there are ramifications that will have a deep impact on the citizens and the court system as a whole. So I will remain available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in person or online who would like to testify?

Members, any questions? I have a question for the Office of the Public Defender, please.

So I know you noted your testimony about having the flexibility for folks to obtain the six month insurance policy, but what's stopping them from getting insurance policy and canceling it the day after which has happened?

Technically there's nothing, but essentially I can say this just as a narrative. I think that would be. I've been doing this work now for almost 18 years, I have personally represented thousands upon thousands of clients in traffic court. The clients who are in a position and able to get the insurance, I very rarely have seen that happen.

We are very familiar with what we call our frequent flyer clients who we will see over and over and over again. And that's due to a variety of issues. It's not a cookie cutter, one size fits all approach. But I think the bigger consideration, and you're right, that that is always a possibility.

However, in my experience, and I think I can confidently see it from my office's experience, the majority of people who go, take the time to show up at court, appear in front of the judge, go get their insurance and return to show proof of that, have the means to maintain that insurance, and want to get up to speed with all of their driving requirements.

We just see the bigger impact. The clients that are not able to get insurance are just not able to get it. But what I do know is if you study the stats on the driving without license offenses, which I know was a big issue last in last year's session, suspending people's licenses does not stop them from driving.

I think we, unfortunately, we know that not giving them the opportunity to get a license or to clear their stoppers does not stop them from driving.

So truly, the practical impact of further penalizing it and making it more challenging for people to get their license or creating opportunities for them to get more traffic offenses is really only going to clog up the system even more. The people who have the financial means to stay current, it's not a struggle to maintain their insurance policy.

These are not the individuals that will be affected by this Bill. Those are the people that don't get these types of offenses or they can clear them up very quickly.

Is the indigent people in the community who have financial troubles, who rely on their transportation, not that we're justifying them driving when they don't have a valid license or insurance, but that's truly who this is going to target.

And I do not think that our current district court system can bear the brunt of adding additional penalties for traffic offenses. It's already overwhelmed.

Right. But I think in the position of the Committee, and as the Committee Chair, I have the position that driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Right.

And I think inherently what you're continuing to see, especially in rural communities where I live, where you have the uptick of folks who are not carrying the policies, and when renewal comes every year, when there's policies being claimed in an area where it is more deterrent, I mean, more prevalent of people not carrying these insurance.

The burden of cost then is fallen onto people who are trying to stay complicit.

Absolutely. But I think if the goal. Right. I think, I would imagine that the Committee's goal is to get people insured. I think what is a reality, unfortunate as it is, is that whether it's criminalized or just a citation, people are going to keep driving. We see that all the time.

If we, if people were incentivized or afraid of receiving a citation because they didn't have a valid license or didn't have insurance, our district courts would be bare. That is the majority of our traffic offenses, if we're being honest. We get the speedings and the DUIs of course, that's a big bulk of it.

But the vast majority of cases that we handle in traffic court are driving without license, driving on a suspended license, driving on a revoked license, no insurance. And what I think we need to pour, that's why we've been so supportive and trying to do things like community outreach court to help people clear their license stoppers.

Because people cannot get insurance, cannot get a license, once they reach a certain point. They have a $100 debt, then it builds to 500, then it builds to a thousand. And for our clients that we represent at the public defender's office, they can't get themselves out of it.

We have people who are going to keep driving, and again, the courts can put them in jail. We have made a new felony offense as of last year. We have not seen a decrease in the number of offences driving without license citations that are being issued. We don't have the hard stats on that.

But just narratively, as somebody who is in charge of the public defender's office in all of the circuits statewide, we have not seen a decrease.

So I think if the goal is, and we understand the necessity of imposing a punishment, but what this Bill will do will disincentivize people to get insurance, because that is one thing that the court can hang over their head right now.

Hey, come back in 30 days, show me that you have proof of insurance and I will not suspend your license. Doing this takes that incentive away. So I am very sympathetic and understand, trust me, if we could get all of our clients licensed and insured, our jobs would be a lot easier.

And I think there is a path forward to try to do this. But our position is that we need to create a system where people can get out of the hole that they're in so they can be properly licensed and properly insured.

And we do agree with you that it is not a right, it is a privilege, but we have to carve out ways for people to meaningfully do that.

And then last question, for folks who are not able to obtain some of the insurance, are they able to leverage our state insurance policy for motor carriers that we offer for people who can't get traditional insurance.

Can get that, can't get their own individual insurance?

Right.

Well, I think that's a case by case basis, to be honest. A lot of times what we see too is, and that might be a situation that we can look into more.

One of the common things that we see right is we have one vehicle, there is one registered owner, but there might be 6,,7, 8 people who access that vehicle. So it's who is responsible for getting the insurance. Obviously the registered owner. Oftentimes they're not the one driving the vehicle.

And just as a side note, that's another issue we have a little bit with the language because it can penalize the registered owner or the actual driver. So that's another I think challenge.

Like if as a lawyer looking at this Bill, if my client was the registered owner, but they couldn't really prove the identity of the driver, it would be a way for us to challenge the legality and the ability to convict someone under this measure.

That's a little bit of a side note, but I to your question, I can find out more information about that in terms of the state's ability to insure these people, but I don't have a clear answer.

Yeah. If that's possible. If you could get that to me and I can share with the Committee because I think that's always been my position is that we are able to offer insurance to the folks who 1 can't afford it, but 2 in the position they can't get it.

So I want to know how we've leveraged it or if we aren't leveraging it to our full possibility, if possible please. While you're up here, Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, moving on to our next agenda item relating to transportation...

HB102 prohibits the issuance of a certificate of inspection for a moped or motor vehicle that has been altered, installed or otherwise modified anyway, which will notably increase the noise emitted by the motor vehicle or moped above that emitted by the motor vehicle or moped as equipped from the factory. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation offering comments.

Larry Dill for DOT we stand in our comments submitted with our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you.

Citizens Against Noise in support. Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition. And we have six additional individuals in support and ten in opposition. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify on HB102?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Seniors, don't ask questions of Members. Move on to our next item on the agenda. HB169 relating to mopeds. Increase the minimum age for moped operators from 15 to 16 years of age. Increase the minimum age requirement for individuals prohibited from operating a moped unless they wear a safety helmet from 18 to 21 years old. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Larry Dill for DOT. We stand on our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moped Doctors in opposition. Mopeds Direct in opposition. And seven individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Okay, Members, any questions? Okay. Move on to the next measure on our agenda relating to moped insurance. HB220 requires that moped operators carry an insurance policy by incorporating mopeds into insurance.

Laws governing motorcycles and motor scooters, including with respect to provisions concerning required licensure to the relationship with tort law, proof of insurance card penalties, rate regulation and minimum coverage levels make conforming amendments.

Vice Chair for testimony, DCCA with comments.

Sam Thompson with the DCCA Insurance Division offering comments. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Department of Transportation and support.

Larry Dill with DOT. We stand on our testimony as submitted. In support support. Thank you.

Thank you. Moped Doctors in opposition and 10 individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure, HB277 relating to vehicular pursuit. Establishes a vehicular pursuit policy for law enforcement agencies. Effective 7/1/2026. Vice Chair for testimony

Office of Information Practices with comments. Hawaii Police Department in opposition. Policing Project at NYU School of Law in support on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Kila and Members of the Committee. I'm Josh Parker, Deputy Director of Policy at the Policing Project at NYU School of Law. We support HB277 because ample data shows far too often pursuits put the lives of officers and community members at risk.

For example, a recent national study reported that more than 3,000 people, including officers, have died in vehicle pursuits the past five years, including more than 500 bystanders, with over 50,000 people suffering injury. Just one in fifteen people killed during pursuits are chased for violent crimes.

Most are chased for nonviolent crimes and low level driving infractions like having a broken tail light. Because of the immense danger of pursuits, states and departments across the country have enacted laws and policies only permitting them for violent crimes and in some cases, reckless or impaired driving.

A working group of police chiefs and lieutenants recommended just this in the 2023 DOJ Police Executive Research Forum report on pursuits. And just last month, the largest municipal police union in the country successfully urged NYPD to adopt such a restrictive pursuit policy.

Some testimony that was submitted opposes any uniform state legislation on pursuits, but this Bill still lets departments customize on tactics. It just sets a floor, which is essential because we've seen with no current floor, the only county with publicly available core pursuit policy provisions, Honolulu, permits pursuits for any crime or traffic infraction.

Exactly the sort of policy resulting in needless fatalities nationwide. Reducing the danger of pursuit policies like Honolulu's is urgent, which is why wholly deferring to the Law Enforcement Standards Board is inappropriate.

The LESB was established in 2018 and has yet to even issue its implementing regulations, nor does it have the tools this legislature has to enforce the law and require data collection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Maui Police Department in opposition. ACLU of Hawaii in support.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members. My name is Nathan Lee. I'm with the ACLU of Hawaii. We are in support of HB277. It's a much needed policy on vehicular pursuit and provides basic protections against the miscarriage of justice by those entrusted with our public safety.

We want to highlight some of the data and reporting that was actually just referenced by the Policing Project in that Department of Justice report. They found that the high speed chase, and I'm quoting, is not nor should be a routine part of law enforcement work and, you know, provides risk to both passengers pursuing officers and uninvolved bystanders.

I also want to note again that most of the time these police pursuits begin with minor violations. I think one statistic found that 75% of these fatal pursuits begin with something as basic as a broken tail light or some other kind of minor violation.

And so what we're seeing here is we're not calling for total elimination of discretion by police officers. We're just asking for some basic baseline measures to set a floor on that.

And so we believe that these reporting requirements will create a better sense of standardized pursuit policies for Hawaii and also eliminate unnecessary risk and potential abuse of police discretion. And so we urge you to pass this forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Patty Cook, individual in support. Is there anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify?

Okay. Thank you so much. Vice Chair Members, any questions? All right, see. Now move on to the next measure at HB54 relating to motor vehicles. Increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to class C felony.

Authorizes the court as part of the person speeding sentence person sentencing for the third or subsequent offense to order that the vehicle used by the person and the Commission of the offense be subject to forfeiture.

Vice Chair for testimony, Department of Transportation and support.

Larry Dill with DOT. We stand on our testimony as submitted in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning Again. We have submitted written testimony in opposition. And I do just want to highlight some concerns that we have just about the way the measure is worded.

You know, we of course have our own reasons why we think this punishment would be excessively harsh given the other types of crimes that are designated as class C felonies. Classy felonies are assault in the second degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, negligent homicide in the second degree.

These are all equivalent class C level offenses. So I just want to highlight that when we're talking about making a traffic violation a class C felony.

Additionally, the wording of the bill we find to be extremely problematic in subsection, I guess 3D, the part that imposes and designates it as a classify felony and says without the possibility of probation or suspension, what that will then require is an open five year term of incarceration under the law. Classy felonies.

In accordance with other statutes, there are only two options for felony offenses. Those are probation or the open term of incarceration. Open term is more commonly known as prison. And that's when we're talking about Halawa Correctional or Saguaro in Arizona. You cannot do a extended jail sentence or modify the open term.

There is only one charge under the law that allows for a modified open term and that is for felony level class C drug possession. The court does have the authority to order a reduced open term.

So what this bill calls for is for people who would be convicted to be sentenced to the open five year term of incarceration.

I don't know if that was the intent of the bill, but also the other requirements delineating a revocation of the license, attendance in a course of instruction and driver retraining, all of those cannot be done if you're in prison for five years.

Those are terms of probation that would be ordered as a consequence of being placed on community supervision.

So there are inconsistencies in the bill in and of itself that I believe make any proposed sentence, if you were to follow the letter of the law, any legal sentence, and not one that any judge would be able to order without a very valid challenge from a defense attorney.

I additionally wanted to highlight the the strain that this will put on our law enforcement as well as the court system. Once you take something from a misdemeanor, a petty misdemeanor, to a felony that is involving a whole different level of personnel, you now will have to in all likelihood arrest for an offense like this.

It requires usually a detective. If the spirit was of the bill was to allow people to be placed on felony supervision probation, the probation department does not have the infrastructure to support the volume. Additionally, every single person who would get charged with a felony offense would likely go to a jury trial.

Once you make something a classy felony, you are entitled to a jury trial. And this was something that we raised last year with the Dewalt Bill. The burden on the system regardless of what the intent was.

And as a result, we have seen very few of those charged because I think the prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement are not able to keep up with the demands. We've seen a few cases charged by the Attorney General's Office. We have yet to have the Honolulu prosecutors charge a Dewalt felony.

And the neighbor islands are just generally rejecting that notion and amending all of the charges because the system is not set up to support creating a felony for a traffic offense such as this. So I would just like to highlight some of those concerns. We do understand the problematic nature of people who engage in excessive speeding.

And that's not what we're here to comment on necessarily. I also want the Committee to know, just as a practical matter, these cases are not that difficult for us to challenge. As a matter of legal. From a legal perspective, it's reliant on the offices use of a laser or radar. It's also reliant possibly on the pacing.

Officers often stop people because they pace vehicles foundationally. Evidentially, there are so many ways to challenge that. So these cases are already really heavily litigated about the accuracy of the laser, the radar, the pacing of the vehicles.

And if you charge someone with a felony offense, they absolutely will be going to trial and again, they will be jury trials.

So the weight and brunt of this would have, I think, unintended consequences on the system, which is already having a difficult time processing and handling all of the very serious cases that we need to be addressing at the felony level. So I'll remain available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Department of the prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. Honolulu Police Department, Oahu Metropolitan Planning or. oh I'm sorry, in support. Both of those. And then Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify?

Thank you. Members, any questions? All right, seeing none. Moving on to our next measure. HB229 relating to transportation. Establishes a statewide speed restriction for motor vehicles with three or more axles or motor vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds. Vice Chair.

Looks like we don't have any testimony submitted. Is there anyone in person or online who'd like to testify?

Okay. See no one we can ask questions to. Members, we'll go to our next measure. HB706, relating to highway safety. Requires all skateboard users under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating as skateboard. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Larry Dill with DOT. We stand on our testimony as submitted in support. Thank you.

Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children in support. And Paula Kurashige, individual in support. Suzanne Anderson, individual in support. Is there anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify?

Okay. Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay. Moving on to our last measure, HB 670, related to transportation. Renames electric bicycle—excuse me—renames Electric Bicycle and Electric Moped Rebate Program to the Electric Mobility Device Rebate Program, expands eligibility, and amends the maximum rebate amount.

Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation, in support.

Larry Dill, with DOT. We stand on our testimony, in support, with recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, in support. Hawaii Apple Seed Center for Law and Economic Justice, in support.

Hello, I'm Trinity Gilliam with Hawaii Appleseed. We're testifying in support of HB 670 and have also suggested some amendments. We support the Bill because electric mobility devices can significantly reduce transportation costs, with electric bikes offering lower operation expenses, compared to personal vehicles. For example, in Hawaii, owning a personal vehicle costs about $8,100 per year.

And with Hawaii owning an average of two vehicles per household, the price doubles to $16,200 per year. E-bikes also reduce car dependency, lower emissions, and support Hawaii's climate goals. We have also provided a few suggested amendments, including adding a point-of-sale component and increasing the rebate.

We believe changes would help more residents access electric mobility options and support state's climate goals. Thank you for opportunity to testify on this measure.

Thank you.

Hawaii Bicycling League, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Hawaii Bicycling League stands in—on—our written testimony in support of this measure. We did make a comment to—for language change, if you could consider that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ulupono Initiative, in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Mariah Yoshizu on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. We stand on our testimony, in support, and offer a few amendments for consideration. Electric bicycles represent a transformative transportation solution that can significantly improve quality of life for our residents, particularly families, students, workers, and low-income individuals.

The initial cost is far lower than a car and eliminates ongoing expenses like fuel, insurance, maintenance, and parking fees. For workers who may live farther from their job opportunities, due to housing costs, e-bikes can extend the practical commuting range, while reducing physical fatigue.

The e-bike subsidy program in this—proposed in this Bill—can make this sustainable transportation option even more attainable for those who could benefit from it the most. We offer a few amendments for consideration, including adding a definition for "higher speed emotives," or other out of class vehicles, that go more than 28 miles per hour.

We believe many of those vehicles are the ones that are causing a lot of the safety issues and then, adding this definition can address this issue comprehensively and provide the most impactful tool for enforcement.

In addition to amending the HRS Section 196-2, we also recommend amending HRS Section 291 C-1, to ensure consistent definitions across the statutes, as well as implementing a point-of-sale rebate system, which will help to lower the burden, if families cannot do that upfront cost when they're buying the e-bike for themselves. Thank you so much for hearing this measure.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. We're going to recess.

Reconvening the 10am agenda here on the House Committee on Transportation in the Hawaii State Capitol today in Conference Room 430 reconvening for decision making on today's agenda. I always appreciate folks in there coming out to the Committee, whether online or in person.

Just have the conversation because I think as we all put our policies forward as legislators, the best part of what we do with our job is allowing discussion with some of the folks so people who are able to answer questions today. I do sincerely appreciate your folks time and coming online and in person.

All right Members on our first measure HB667 related to transportation, we're going to adopt an HD1. So what we'll do we'll do some technical amendments needed for clarity, concerns, consistency and style with effective effective date to July 1, 3000.

I want to note in the purpose section that we're going to adopt language into preamble that the Legislature finds that the tragic incident involving a dog named Mila as reported by KTV News on November 8, 2024 highlights a critical gap in existing policies and procedures due to the absence of proper scanning equipment within the Department of Transportation, the lack of clear rules for owner notification, Milo is disposed of without her owner being informed.

This measure seeks to address such deficiencies by establishing clear directives for notification and the use of scanning equipment to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Furthermore, the Legislature recognizes that this measure aligns with intent expressed in the previous legislative session through House Concurrent Resolution 171 and House Resolution 150, as noted in testimony provided by the Hawaiian Humane Society. By enacting this legislation, the Legislature affirms its commitment to animal welfare and responsible procedures for handling lost or deceased pets.

Members I'm gonna strike section 4 its entirety as I am happy to report, the appropriate, appropriation language is no longer necessary due to Department of Transportation's prior acquisitions of our, of the required scanners.

I'll note that in the Committee report and when I amend Section 2 to explicitly require county agencies not under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation to collaborate with DOT in utilizing DOT-acquired scanners for the purpose of determining animal ownership. As the way the original Bill was written, that we would have given the money to the counties.

But if the state DOT is the holder of these devices, the county can actually coordinate with the state on making sure, in concept, if the measure is adopted, to make sure that determining ownership. And then lastly, in honor of Mila's life and to prevent other pets from experiencing the same fate, upon enactment by the Hawaii State Legislature, this Act shall be known as the Mila Microchip Identification Act.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB667 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Next measure HB232 relating to traffic citations will adopt an HD1 with effective effective date, July 1st, 3000. And I'm going to add language that specifying in the clarity of the Bill that a five business day time frame for postmark return receipt be added. I think this is a measure worth adopting.

Noting that if we as drivers may not be are the owner of a vehicle that if someone is getting a ticket and they're not letting us know it actually would give us due process. So in the spirit of due process and allowing the judicial system to work efficiently and equitably this is my intent for the measure.

Members questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Voting on HB230. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting the excused absence of Representative Pierick. Are there any representatives voting no? Any with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Members. HB177 relating to civil identification cards. We're going to adopt the HD1 with the technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style and defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

I want to, I want to note and adopt the Attorney General, the Attorney General's testimony and Committee report noting the concerns around cost sharing to be explored by the next Committee. I actually want to say that I support a measure like this as if we are going to do fines or systems on some minimum requirements such as ID or card.

I don't think there should be a barrier to receiving it even because it's the one thing that's accessible for all people but not accessible for all folks of financial background.

So in the sense of trying to do due process I want to see if there's a way that we can make this actually not be a cost burden to the person seeking it.

And I want to thank Member Cochran for mentioning that the counties are willing to do some of this work but we need to Fund some of those mandates. So I appreciate that comment that she had shared in in recess. With that Members, questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB177. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Pierick for all further measures on the agenda unless otherwise noted. Are there any representatives voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Next measure, HB668 relating to motor vehicle insurance. I my intent was to adopt an HD1 on some of the this regarding the Bill and doing some amendments.

But after further discussion I do want to find a way that without impacting folks that we could potentially ask a report be made regarding the utilization or the underutilization of our state insurance policy for folks who have some of these barriers to insurance because we do offer it and I think maybe it's the public not knowing it and even us as a Legislature not knowing that as a vehicle that's available.

So for this measure, HB668, I want to defer decision making to further date. As noted. We will do decision making solely on this agenda item HB668 on, no, November, on February 11th, 2024 here in this conference room. Huh?

Okay. Starting for the beginning. We will defer decision making on HB668 to February 11, 2025 in this conference room 430 at 10:00am for the consideration of decision-making on this measure, allowing us time to further discuss and maybe find a compromise. So with that Members comments, questions, concerns.

Okay, moving on to our next measure HB102 related to transportation. We're going to, on this measure, recess.

Thank you Members. HB102 relating to transportation, we're going to adopt the HD1. We'll do technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We'll defect the effective date July 1st, 3000. And I'm going to adopt the suggested amendments proposed by the Motorcycle Industry Council's testimony.

I, in concept some of these measures are a concern to me but I know they have good intent and I think throughout some areas that many times folks can point to some of the modifications having disruption. So with that I do want to make those amendments. Members, questions, comments or concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB102. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting. Oh, are there any representatives voting no? Any with reservations? Chair, your recommendation...

Thank you Members. HB169 relating to mopeds, we're going to adopt the HD1 defect the effective date July 1st 3000. I do want to note in recess that Member Muraoka raised the concern about increasing the minimum age for folks having to wear a safety helmet from 18 to 21. I believe that it's worth exploring.

But at this time I'm gonna move the Bill with that language in there. But I will note in the Committee report for that to be considered cause I think there are parts of the Bill that is worth keeping, such as the minimum age. But I understand that maybe having that mandate up to 21 may have some issues.

So I do wanna note that in concern for the next committee to explore. With that, Members, questions, comments, concerns? All right. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB169. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any representatives voting no? Any with reservations? Okay. Representative Muraoka with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much Members. HB220, we're going to adopt the HD1. We'll do tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. I'll defect the effective date July 1st, 3000. I want to adopt the recommended amendments as noted in the testimony provided by the Department of Consumer.

Sorry, Department of Commerce and Consumers and Fair Insurance Division will delete the HRS431 10C-304, 1 Section C. We'll amend HRS431 10C-305C section 3 to include the term moped. And we will amend HRS431 10C-408, Chapter 1 to include the term moped. That's my recommendation. Members, questions, comments or concerns? Rep. Evslin.

Thank you, Chair. I will be voting with reservations on this. I just want to note some of the concerns that were brought up in testimony that this will significantly increase the cost of operating a moped. Most people who are operating a moped are operating one out of cost concerns because they can't afford anything else.

So I think by increasing the cost, we'll decrease mobility for many who rely on mopeds or push moped users into utilizing a vehicle when they can afford it, which will increase congestion on our streets, which I don't think is a good outcome either.

And just noting from DOT's testimony that they said that 80% of moped operators are already covered under some form of insurance, or at least those who have been injured in the past. So I don't think the problem is that big.

And then lastly that the major difference between a moped operator and somebody driving a personal vehicle is that if you're driving an automobile, you will do significant damage to somebody else when you hit them, whereas a moped will do minimal damage.

So I think insurance is really important for a car and not so important or not as important for moped so I'll be voting with reservations.

Thanks thank you Rep. Evslin. Members any other comments, questions, concerns? Members with the concerns raised by Rep. Evslin I will note in the addition in the Committee report that some of these unintended impact financial implications onto someone could be be further explored in next Committee at CPC.

So with that, Members any other questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB220 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments Are there any representatives voting no? With reservations? Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. Members HB277 relating to vehicular pursuit. We'll adopt the HD1, we'll do tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style, and I'll defect the effective date July 1st, 3000. I do want to note the concern and the testimony received by the county police departments and divisions.

I do want though the opportunity for this Bill to move forward to allow the introducer and the final committee to explore some of the concerns and impacts further in discussion and so with that I think it is worth having the discussion and like to move the the measure as a vehicle for that conversation.

So with that Members comments, questions, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB277. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any representatives voting no? With reservations? Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much Members. HB54 relating to motor vehicles, we'll adopt the HD1, we'll do tech amendments needed for clarity consisting style, we'll defect the effective date July 1st, 3000. I'm going to implement the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office recommended amendment to require fingerprinting upon conviction.

I want to know in the committee report the data provided for Oahu by Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support on this measure and I will also note the concerns and requests for amendments as noted by the Office of the Public Defender for consideration by the next committee.

As always, I just want to disclose that when Oahu MPO provides testimony I do chair the Policy Board but I do not direct the Policy Board to submit testimony in opposition or support of measures. So with that Members any comments, concerns, questions? All right seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB54. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments Chair votes aye, Vice Chair voting with reservations. Are there any any other Members voting no or with reservations.

With reservations.

Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. HB229. We're going to adopt the HD1. I do want to note that there was no testimony but I, I'm going to explain the the concept and reasoning for this Bill.

In 2028 we enacted Act 238, which prohibits certain oversized commercial vehicles from using the far left lane on roadways of three or more lanes by traveling the same direction. However, by 2024 no citations has been issued due to the vague language and unclear enforcement measure.

As this measure aims to strengthen, as this so with HP229, this measure aims to strengthen the law and enhance road safety.

I want to note according to the USDAOT and NHSTA so United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, a large truck is any medium or heavy truck, excluding buses and motorhomes with a GVW, gross vehicle weight, rating of over£10,000. This category includes both commercial and noncommercial vehicles.

I want to know in 2021, 71% of large trucks involved in freight crashes were heavy trucks. Data from the NHSTA shows a 2% increase in fatalities and a 3.7 rise in injuries crashes involving large trucks between 2021 2022. In 2022 there were 168,816 large trucks crashes leading to 76,550 injuries and 5,936 fatalities.

Even more concerning is the 50.5 increase in fatalities involving large trucks nationwide from 2012 to 2022. So with that Members, I'm gonna defect the effective date July 1st, 3000 with the technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

I want to note and add that the provision shall not apply to a motor vehicle with three or more axles as defined under the Federal Highway Administration vehicle category 6 or higher when actively overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction in compliance with applicable traffic regulations.

This provision shall also not apply to a motor vehicle with three or more axles as defined under the Federal Highway Administration vehicle category 6 or higher when utilizing the left lane for the purpose of making a left turn exiting or preparing to do so.

We're going to add the person who violates this section shall be subject to a fine of not less than $150 and any subsequent, any subsequent violation of this section committed within a two year period shall result in an additional fine of $350 per offense. This provision shall apply to counties with the population of 500,000 or more.

Counties with a population of less than 500,000 may elect to adopt this policy through ordinance or other appropriated legislative action. So at that Members, that's my recommendation. Comments, questions or concerns? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB229. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any representatives voting no? Any with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. HB706 related to highway safety. Members we'll adopt the HD1, we'll do tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style and I will defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. Members, questions, comments or concerns? All right, Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB706. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any representatives voting no? With reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Okay Members, last Bill HB670 related to transportation. Members, we're going to adopt the HD1. We'll do tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. I will defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

I'm going to remove all the appropriation amounts as stated in the Bill while documenting the original figures in the committee report for reference and further discussion by the Finance Committee. I'm going to align the definition of bicycles, e-bikes, micromobility devices and other relevant terms with language in HB958 HD1 that this Committee adopted to ensure accuracy and consistency.

This includes but is not limited to the classifications and definitions of a Class 1, 2, and 3 and high speed electric device, HSED, or out-of-class definitions. To the concern noted by Hawaii Bicycling League regarding the amending the traffic code that if with these adoptions. Sorry it wasn't traffic code.

Hawaii Bicycling League has noted in the testimony about amending the traffic code with the adoption and consistency of HB958 HD1 that will answer that as well. And also noted the Hawaii Bicycling League's recommended amendment in the Bill page nine, line 16, that is where it exists and I want to insert language that any modification, alteration to an e-bike or micro mobility device after purchase from the manufacturer that affects this classification performance or compliance with the specification set forth in this act shall result in the disqualification of the rebate.

If such modification is made, the recipient shall be required to repay the full rebate amount to the issuing authority. The department or designated agency shall establish a process for verification and enforcement including but not limited to inspections, reporting requirements and penalties for non compliance.

I will include the testimony from OMPO and Hawaii Apple Seed in the committee report for potential recommendation modifications and further consideration and I apologize Members for the late testimony. I do want to adopt the recommended amendments as noted in HDOT's testimony to omit Section 3.

Omit the specific language in Section 3 regarding Department of Transportation may establish a retailer application and portal to provide the rebates. The third party administrator shall not expend more than 10% of the amounts for the rebate program. Revising Section 3 about the third party administrator may pay rebates.

And I also want to note for consideration the appropriations stated by.in their testimony as well of 500,000 for General Funds in 2024-25 and in 2025-26 the amount of $700,000 and in 2026 2027 the amount is $700,000 to be deposited into the Highway Development Special Fund Electric Mobility subaccount.

But also noting that this language numbers will be blank and then also to appropriate the Highway Development Special Fund Electricity Mobility subaccount special funds as noted in their testimony as well, that the funds appropriated shall not last at the end of the fiscal year for which it is appropriated, but any unencumbered funds remaining shall lapse at the end of the following fiscal year.

And we'll add language to clarify that DOT can expand appropriated funds that the sum appropriated shall be expended by the Department of Transportation for the purpose of this act. Okay. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the good faith and intent of this measure, but I need to maintain full transparency about its dependence on funding availability.

I want to note that the potential federal funding cuts and their impact on the state budget remain uncertain this session. And note as stated, and I will note this as stated in our committee report for consideration Members, this was a Bill that made it all the way to conference last year that we did not adopt.

So this is the hope to try to bring the measure back. But I have to be transparent on the part that some of the funding is all subject to consideration and discussion. So with that Members questions, comments or concerns. Okay, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB670 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any representatives voting no? Any with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

With that, Members, our hearing is adjourned.