House Standing Committee on Transportation

Morning calling the Committee House Committee on Transportation into order today. It is 1-28-2025. It is 10:01am we are in room 430 at the Hawaii State Legislature and this is our first hearing for the matters on the Committee of Transportation. I am so happy to be here today and serve as the Chair for the House Committee on Transportation.

My Vice Chair for the House Committee on Transportation is Tina Nakata Grandanetti and we are the adjacent and Committee to Housing as well. So just some House rules depending on how the hearing is going to go.

In order to allow most people to testify, we may have to Institute at any given time a 2 minute time limit per testifier and because morning hearings must adjourn prior to our floor session, some testifiers will not have the opportunity to testify in that event.

Please know I have we have considered your written testimony and will be considered by the Committee. If you are online joining us, please make sure you are muted while waiting to testify and please mute after your testimony is complete.

The zoom chat function will allow you to chat with our tech staff, but please only use that for technical issues. If you are disconnected, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. Disconnected while presenting testimony may be allowed to continue if time permits. But please note the House is not responsible for bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule our hearings or meeting for this or reschedule a meeting for decision making in the case. Appropriate notices will be posted.

When you're zooming or joining us online, please avoid using trademark or copyrighted images and also please remain for profanity or uncivil behavior both online and in person. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without ability to rejoin. Okay, with that we will get our first measure underway.

It's HB 532 related to vehicle titles reduces the period in which a transfer is required to forward the certificate of ownership to Director of Finance on the title of vehicle is transferred from 30 days to 14 days. Allows a letter of attestation to the Director of Finance act as an endorsed certificate for motor vehicle transfer.

Vice Chair for testimony okay, first up, HB 532. In support we have Council Member Uwu Hodgins. Up next, Kimberly Hashiro, the Director Designee from Department of Customer Services City County Honolulu in opposition, Mayor Richard Bisson of the County of Maui in support and Sylvie Madison in opposition. These are the only folks that provided testimony in the matters.

Anyone online or in person that would like to provide testimony seeing non Members with nobody to ask questions. Move on to the next measure which is HB655 relating to motor vehicles. Limits the required payment of certain unpaid motor vehicle taxes and fees and accompanying financial penalties to those incurred during the most recent five consecutive years of delinquency.

Up first, providing comments is Tom Yamachika on zoom.

Aloha. Chair, Members of the Committee, this is for the Tax foundation of Hawaii. We will stand on our written comments. Thank you.

Excuse me, you're on mute.

Hi. Okay.

Still can't hear you better.

Okay. Sorry. Aloha. Jade Mcmillan for the tax foundation of Hawaii. We're going to stand on our written. Thank you. It.

Okay. Testifier can come back later if they'd like to. HB655. Tim Reimer in providing comments and Robert Souza in support seeing other further testifiers on the matter. Anyone in person online that could testify on HB6660? 655 seeing none. Members, there's no one to ask question. To move on to the next measure.

HB 368 relating to motor vehicle sunscreen devices exempts from restrictions on light transmitted percentages up to certain percent of certain motor vehicle sunscreen devices for persons having light sensitivity of the eyes due to medical condition.

Vice Chair for testimony for HB368, Edward Sniffin of the Department of Transportation in opposition on Zoom.

Okay, hold on. We're gonna recess.

You can't hear him and he can't.

Sa you. Okay. I just want to acknowledge and appreciate the hired working staff. This is. We are all learning. So thank you folks so much for your patience. Okay, back to HP368. We're going to take testimony. Vice Chair with Department of Transportation providing opposition on zoom.

Hi, Robin Shishida with the Department of Transportation and good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Committee. We stand by our submitted written testimony.

Thank you.

Keola Keahi Olalo, individual testifying in support. Richie individual testifying in support.

Angela Berger in support.

Okay. See no other registered testifiers. Anyone online or in person like to testify on the matter before us. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Move on to the next measure. HB226 related to windshield tinting, lowers the level of light transmitted allowed on sunscreen. The glazing on motor vehicle windows from 35% to 20%. Vice Chair for testimony, please.

Department of Transportation in opposition on zoom again.

Yep. Robin with the HDOT highways, standby our submitted written testimony. Thank you.

And TNT tinting specialists in support.

Okay. Seeing that there are no other registered testifiers on the matter, is anyone online or in person like to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, any questions? Okay, thank you. Oh, sorry, Chair Evslin.

I have a question for DOT. Your folks testimony referenced that this wouldn't comply with federal regulations. So are you saying, are we preempted by federal law in this regard?

So when we looked at the NHTSA requirements, I mean it does apply to the original cell and manufacturers and we're just restating what the federal NHTSA guidance is on it right now.

So we're just referring to that. I see. That's only for the original manufacturer though. So theoretically we would have the legal ability to allow for a darker tint.

Correct. It does look like it leaves up. They do leave it up to the states for any aftermarket or aftermarket glazing and tinting.

Okay, thank you, that's helpful.

Thank you, Chair Evslin. Thank you, Robin. Members, any other questions? Okay, so you now move on to the next matter. HB543 leading to license plates, prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle, possession, purchase or installation, sale, offer for sale, distribution, distribution of license plate flipping devices. Establishes a $2000 fine for each separate violation.

Vice Chair for testimony, Department of Transportation and Support.

Yep. Robin, Chief Shishida again, standby, written testimony and support.

Okay, see no other registered testifiers on the matter before us. Anyone online or in person they like to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, any questions? Okay, moving on to our next measure. HB228 relating to license plates.

Authorize the counties to adopt rules for the use of electronic license plates, purpose of use of license plates fipping devices and establishes a minimum fine for intentionally obscuring a license plate with a cover or shield.

Vice Chair for testimony, Department of Transportation and Support.

Y Ra Shishida again with HDOT sent by a written testimony.

Kimberly Hashiro, Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu with comments. And Sylvie Madison, individual in opposition.

That's it. Okay, thank you. Any Member, Any. Anyone online or in person like to testify on the matter before us? Seeing none Members, any questions? Okay, move on to the next measure. HB708 relating to insurance, imposes insurance coverage as a prerequisite for the operation of electronic bicycles in the state.

Establishes a regulatory framework for electric bicycle insurance, effective 1120.

Vice Chair for testimony, DCCA with comments.

Sam Thompson with the Insurance Division. Standby comments.

Thank you.

Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning, Sonny Gannon Deputy Public Defender. Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair, the Office of the Public Defender opposes this because of the differentiation between electric bikes and mopeds. Currently, you're gonna have to either broaden it or kill this bill and come back next year. Thank you.

Kauai Path in opposition People for Bikes Coalition. Opposition Hawaii Bicycle. zero, sorry. They might be on Zoom. People for Bikes Coalition.

Hello, Members of the Committee, My name is Matt Moore. I'm policy counsel for People for Bikes. We're the National Trade Association for the U.S. bicycle Industry. We did submit written comments. Just briefly, HB708 would create a new insurance system administered by the state, require all owners of electric bicycles to maintain insurance and pay annual premiums.

A similar legislation was brought up last year in New Jersey. And in that case, the insurance industry of New Jersey opposed the Bill because there was no insurance product available on the market. They had no idea how to cost a policy because there were so few accidents, so few, so little history to statistically base premiums on.

And they felt that it would probably cost in the range of motorcycle insurance or even more expensive than motorcycle insurance. This is why that. I'm sorry, my post delivery just arrived. This is why the insurance industry opposed that Bill in New Jersey and why we are opposed as well.

The cost of the new insurance could be hundreds of dollars a year and it would be disproportionately impact lower income people who may depend upon electric bicycles for transportation as alternative means of transportation.

We feel that the insurance system should be maintained as it is where injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and E cyclists with motor vehicles are covered by motor vehicle policies which spreads the cost of injuries and personal injury protection over a much a larger group of insureds.

And it is a fact that many E cyclists and cyclists and pedestrians already contribute because they own a car and pay into the automobile insurance industry which is intended to cover this. So because we feel this is a bad Bill that will needlessly burden people who are seeking alternative transportation disproportionate to the the cost of that transportation.

We are opposed to the measure and urge that it not advance. Thank you. Thank you.

Hawaii Bicycling League in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Hawaii Bicycling League stands in on our comments in opposition to this bill. We believe that the most important thing for safety would be investment in more educational programming and infrastructure. Glad to take any questions if you have them. Thank you. Thank you.

We have Get Fit Kauai Healthy Eating Active Living Coalition of Kauai county in opposition. Eight individuals in opposition and three in support.

Thank you, anyone online or in person like to testify on the matter before us seeing none Members, any questions?

Chair Evslin, I have a question for the insurance Commission.

Sure, thank you.

Representative, you noted in your testimony that creating a separate class of insurance for electronic bicycles may complicate the current no fault insurance law. Could you just clarify that?

Sure. I think the 431,10 seat points to definitions of 2862. So I think if we, we just need to be cognizant. If we change definitions, we just got to make sure it matches up to no fault current no fault law or update, no fall automatch. That's I think the only concern there.

Okay, and so the current iteration though would, what would the impact be?

There's definitions of like mopeds and scooters and there's horsepower and wattage involved. So I think that would just be the thing is if there's changes to. That, we would need to make sure. It matches up with no fault.

Because if there is an accident involving a moped or scooter, they look at the horsepower and the wattage to determine if it should be a 10G which is like motorcycle motor scooter or a no fault claim.

Okay. And you know, we got, I'm trying to find it right now, but we got testimony which referenced that the possible impact would be that if somebody was to be hit by a vehicle that they wouldn't be covered by the driver's insurance.

They were put under 10 gallons, which is for motorcyclists and scooters. They have their own insurance scheme under 10G. And if this was changed, 10G would probably be a good, this Bill looks. Kind of like it's 10G language business to go forward. And 10G would probably be a good place to put this.

Okay. And then also just to clarify there, you mentioned that there's no existing bicycle insurance.

If you're riding a bicycle, generally you're homeowners, but when you talk about a motorized vehicle, that ends up to a lot of exclusions when it comes to a homeowner. So that's where you fall into should be a motorcycle, motor scooter or situation.

And so do you think then the insurance would be under sort of existing motorcycle insurance policies?

That would probably be a good, a good example of what it would line under if you're dealing with something that's similar to a motor scooter.

And what are those costs typically?

I don't, I would be hard to hazard a guess. It's not that expensive generally because a motorcycle doesn't do a lot of. A lot of damage. And generally they're not liable in most accidents. I wouldn't say it's nominal, but it's not like what an auto policy would run.

Okay. Again, we got testimony referencing that it was potentially comparable to the price of a bicycle, that the insurance cost could be almost as much as the electric bike itself. Do you think that's in the range or.

I don't. I don't know. I'm sorry, I don't have like a standard number. But motorcycle insurance is generally not, not. Near what an auto. Auto policy runs because of the exposures on liability and then the value of the vehicle or their insurance. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Move on to our next measure. HB231 relating to motor vehicle insurance increases the fines providing motor vehicle insurance requirements.

Vice Chair for Testimony, Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Vice Chair, Son again and again. Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender deals a lot with the intersection of fines, fees, charges and criminal justice. Of course, we stand in opposition of this, which would raise the initial fee of a violation from $500 to $1,500.

We just feel that it's totally inappropriate considering the income levels of Hawaii residents. Also, we just wanted to explain to you how this works kind of in the universe of criminal justice. A second offense where no insurance in the State of Hawaii is a petty misdemeanor.

So that forces individuals to come to court and answer before a court. In 2024, as many of you remember, driving without a license had been turned into a class C felony, which is a jailable offense. And individuals often have to go to trial for this. Now this is starting to clog up our courts.

This has been happening since July of this last year. The insurance violation usually couples with a driving without a license. You can see how this $1,500 charge would pin individuals to debt and possibly lead to further incarceration for individuals who do not deserve it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. See no other registered testifiers. Is there anyone online or in. Online or in person that could testify in the matter before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Rep. Moraoka.

So you, you said that by raising this it's going to clog up the court to pretty much is what you summary.

Well, my money submitted by my colleague Ms. Tommasa further explains it, but it will further clog the courts. Yes, like what is happening now with the driving without a license charge, which has been increased to a Classic felony. If people can't pay their fine, they're going to commit again, how it works.

Yeah. So we're just going to continue letting it go. I grew up in Waianae High poverty. I did, I did receive a driving without license, driving without insurance ticket as I was growing up and I had to pay the fine.

And you cannot just keep letting these people go, letting them go, and use income as an excuse or clogging up the courts as an excuse. They have to be held accountable and let them know that their accountability should be the lesson to not go forward.

Well, Representative, the accountability is showing up before the court, which already exists under the current statute. So individuals do appear before the court. Oftentimes these cases are dismissed when for what we call proof of compliance.

So an individual shows the court that they indeed have an insurance card, you can continue the case until you show that proof of compliance.

So I'm sure the court appreciates your paying of the fine, but you could have just requested a continuance, showed the court that you had insurance, that you are now a legal driver and probably had the case dismissed.

I, I, I understand what you're saying, but going through that effort, wouldn't it. Just be easier, a lot easier, to. Just get the insurance in the first place? You getting it, you getting the ticket, you're getting the time taken away from work. We, we blaming it on poverty, but we're losing, we're losing paydays at work.

Showing up at court to show proof of compliance. Wouldn't it be easier to just get the compliance? There's a lot of welfare programs out there that help with insurance. It's just a matter of effort.

Big difference between $500 and $1,500. That's the prime argument here.

I understand, but if, if you scare somebody with the $1,500 penalty, they may take more time out of their daily life to go get it so they don't have to do that.

Well, that's with the underlying conception that fear will charge cause people to comply with the law. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't work. In this case, it tends to not work with proof of compliance regarding having insurance. Also, we're a no fault state.

So if you do get into a car accident, you know you can sue somebody for that and the insurance has to do with deductibles, a whole bunch of other things that other professionals would probably better answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Sonny. Members, any other questions? Chair Evslin, I have a question.

Sunny, thank you for being here. It's Good to. Good to see you. Maybe my mind is still stuck on electric bikes here, but these fines, if they went up, would not be app. If. If the insurance requirement for electric bikes were to pass, would these motor vehicle insurance.

Would the fines in this section be applicable to those riding a bike without insurance?

Do you know, I'd have to look at the bill, but I mean that matters. Whether or not the Bill that you're are also referring to classifies this as a motor vehicle. You know, in the current statute, moped isn't so.

Yeah.

So.

No. Okay.

Yeah, I didn't think so either, but. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Sonny. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure before us. HB 227 relating to vehicle safety creates additional fines for a new individual operating a vehicle moped without a current certificate of inspection by sheriff for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Hi, Robin with HDOT Highways standby are written submitted testimony.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person like to testify on the matter before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, moving on to the next matter before us. HB 184 relating to electric bicycles requires operators at low speed electronic bicycles possess a valid driver's license, instruction permit or provisional license.

Vice Chair for testimony Kauai Path in opposition. Hawaii Bicycling League in opposition.

Thank you. Thank you.

Chair by chair. Members of the Committee, we stand on our written testimony. We believe that the best way to improve safety is to invest in, excuse me, infrastructure and additional education. Adding licensing is a barrier that would prevent people from accessing this important lowcost transportation available for. Any questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

People for Bikes Coalition in opposition.

Thank you. Chair and Committee Matt Moore. Again, we will stand on our written testimony of the additional comment that we do believe that electric bikes should be regulated just like regular bicycles and not require a driver's license.

Notably, many persons with disabilities who may not qualify for a driver's license do use electric bicycles for basic transportation, including those with visual impairments that cannot pass the exam required for a motor vehicle license. Thank you. Thank you.

Get fit. Kauai in opposition. And we have 11 individuals in opposition, two in support. That's all the testimony check.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person like to testify on the measure before us?

Hi, Robin with hdot. I think we submitted late testimony, but we support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person like to testify on the matter before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Sure.

Eslin, I have a question for dot. Are you folks aware of any other states that have these licensing requirements for electric bikes?

Not at this moment, but we will look into it.

Okay, thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Deputy Director. If you are able to follow up and then share and Sorry, follow up with my office and I can disperse that to the Committee. Thank you, Members. Any other questions? Okay. See. Now move on to the next measure before us.

HB468 relating to transportation requires the Civil Rights Commission to receive and investigate complaints related to the acts of discrimination committed by transportation network company drivers against riders with service animals and report the results of its investigation. Department of Transportation, which shall issue penalties to the transportation network companies.

Vice Chair for testimony, National Federation of the Blind Hawaii of Hawaii in support.

Thank you, Vice Chair Grandinetti. Chair Kila. James Gashel here with National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. Just a couple of statements to. But I stand on our written statement. Of course. I just want to mention that we've submitted a couple of amendments. One has to do with.

There should be time limits stated for the investigations in this Bill. We suggested 120 days longer would be. Not make us as happy, Shorter would be fine. But I, I don't know you. There should be some limit in there. 120 days work, I think.

And the other point being the problem is not just the people who use service animals. A lot of us, I use a long white cane. A lot of us are left standing at the curb with our long white cane and no rideshare service because the driver drives up, closes the windows and drives away.

It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. And the companies didn't deny it when in their written testimony, but they say let them fix it. Their problem is they're not fixing it. I rode over here in an Uber this morning and I asked the driver how long she'd been driving Uber and she said eight years.

And I said, what does Uber tell you about the people who use the dog guides? And she said in eight years she's never seen anything about the people who use dog guides from Uber. So I know they say they provide training and maybe they do, but it isn't working. Please pass HB 468. Thank you.

Uber west policy and communications in opposition on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair Keela, Vice Chair Nakata Grandenetti and Members of the Committee on Transportation. My name is Zahit Arab, Public Policy Manager testifying on behalf of Uber Technologies today. I'm here to summarize our submitted written testimony in opposition of House Bill 468.

While we support accessibility for individuals with service animals, this Bill overlooks Uber's existing efforts to ensure a welcoming platform for all users. Uber is committed to inclusivity and has a strict non discrimination policy that prohibits service animal discrimination. Drivers must accept our community guidelines and violations result in removal.

We also regularly educate drivers through emails and reminders about accommodating service animals. In the last two years, Uber has worked with advocacy groups and service animal owners to improve accessibility. For example, we piloted a feature allowing riders to notify drivers in advance when traveling with a service animal. This feedback is guiding ongoing improvements.

In Chicago this past summer, for example, we even partnered with Lyft to put on an educational event for drivers and service animal users. And we'd be happy to offer something similar here in Hawaii. Current laws already provide a framework for addressing service animal complaints through the Department of Transportation.

Adding new penalties and oversight would create unnecessary unnecessarily duplication and inefficiency. Thank you. Thank you.

Disability Rights center in support on Zoom.

Yes, thank you. Good morning. I'm Lou Ortech. I'm the Director of the center and we're here to support the bill. I was contacted by, I've known Jim Gashell for a long time in the course of our work, and I was contacted by him as well as Michael May. I'm an attorney as well as the Director.

And so I'm the one who suggested to Michael that he filed a complaint with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. So my understanding is that they currently do have jurisdiction. Uber and Lyft would be considered like public accommodations. And so I think they, I think they currently have jurisdiction.

The problem, I think, is sort of what you're seeing when you talk to Uber and Lyft. They're like, zero, we have all these, we have training and we, you know, we, we tell them they can't discriminate and they make it sound like it's just some rogue drivers who didn't get the memo and that's why this happened.

But from what I understand from Jim and Michael and others is that they've had situations where they're waiting and waiting somebody, the driver then sees they have a service animal and they, and they kind of blow them off and keep going.

And so aside from the inconvenience or the potential like you're trying to get to the airport and you miss your flight there, is that that indignity that you suffer as, as a person with a disability that, zero, they wouldn't pick you up because you were blind or because you had a service dog.

So I think more teeth needs to be added to the law is basically an. I will, I'm happy to work with you or Uber or anyone else to figure out what's the best way to do that, but it seems like the current law that just allows the Commission to investigate these things is fine.

It's also, it's a national issue. I spoke to some attorneys in Washington some, some months ago for a DOJ, because they were, they were looking to maybe bring a nationwide case against Uber and Lyft.

And there have been prior cases, but, you know, now, now with the New Administration, they told me months ago that if, if the, if the New Administration came in, it could change. Apparently it is changing. So I suspect that they're not going to be doing anything at the national level.

So I would respectfully suggest that whatever we can do at the state level to beef this up and try to protect this population would be very welcome. So thank you. Thank you.

Lyft in opposition on Zoom.

Yeah. Hi, good morning. Chairman Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is [unintelligible] and I am with Lyft. LYFT understands and appreciates the importance of ensuring that individuals with service animals have reliable and equitable access to transportation.

I'm here today to assure this Committee that Lyft takes this issue of service animal discrimination seriously and has stringent policies in place to prevent such discrimination on our platform. Since 2017, Lyft has maintained a clear and comprehensive service animal policy that requires drivers to accommodate service animals. The policy is communicated to drivers in multiple ways.

In our terms of service, all drivers agree, to which all drivers agree, explicitly prohibits discriminations against riders with disabilities and requires compliance with our service animal policy. In our community guidelines, it emphasizes Lyft's requirement to say yes to service animals and underline the crucial role they play in supporting their owners.

We regularly communicate with drivers to remind them of their obligation under the service animal policy through emails, text, and in App notifications. And we also provide educational materials, including videos and tutorials, to ensure drivers understand their responsibilities and importance of accommodating service animals. In addition, Lyft has a dedicated team that investigates all complaints of service animal discrimination.

We strive to complete investigations within 24 hours and take decisive action against drivers who violate our policy, including permanent deactivation from our platform. LYFT is committed to maintaining a platform that is accessible and welcoming to all riders, including those with service animals. We believe that our current policies and enforcement mechanisms are effective in preventing service animal discrimination.

While we appreciate the Committee's attention to this important issue, we believe that imposing additional fees or suspending the TNC's operating certificate unnecessarily places driver earnings at risk and reduces transportation access for riders, including those with service animals.

We are open to continued collaboration with policymakers and advocacy groups to ensure that our policies and practice continue to meet the needs of the disability community. A couple of notes before I end.

Just wanted to flag that there is also a wheelchair policy in place for riders who travel with their service animals or who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices that can be folded for safe and secure storage in the car's truck trunk or back seat.

And additionally, I just wanted to share that this requirement of non discrimination of service animal is already enshrined in the TNT Statute Chapter 279J10 of the Hawaii Statutes. I welcome the opportunity to address your questions and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

KL Wright in support on Zoom.

Good morning everyone, especially to the Transportation Committee. And hello to my fellow NFB Members out there at the Capitol, Jim Gastle and I am in support of this Bill because what it basically will do for us is that it will help us be more independent and to be a part of society.

And I've seen a lot of stories online where people have been denied. So I strongly urge you guys to sign this bill and help us be more confident in our travels. Thank you very much and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mary Kuthuv Individual in support Marie Sorry.

Hello, Chair Kila and Vice Chair Grandinetti and Committee. I've never done this before. I'm not an attorney. I don't support any. I'm not with. Well, I am a Member of the National Federation of the Blind, but I'm just me. My name is Marie Kauthoft. I stand on my testimony. This is my guide dog, Mango.

I got Mango in May, and prior to that, I've traveled with a cane for. Since 1996. I used to drive. I was a nurse. I worked as a psychology Professor for a couple decades.

When I got to the guide dog school and I started training, I could not believe that there were still denials of us getting into vehicles. Rideshare. You know, back in 96, when I traveled with a cane, I literally had a taxi driver do that to me. But that was New York City.

So, you know, I just assumed, you know, that's going to change and there's no way that's happening now. I've heard testimony here about such great compliance. I've heard testimony that we don't need the deterrence because it's all working. But if it was working, I wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here. It's really hard enough.

I used to drive, so it was easy to get around. Now I realize how difficult it is getting back and forth.

And when I'm denied just because I have a guide dog and I've chosen an alternate way of transportation, you know, if I can't get to work, if I can't get to a hearing meeting and testify, if I can't do the things that I want to do as an individual simply because I'm being denied when I have companies, and I really do respect the public transportation companies who have done wonderful things for me and for my friends, but the reality is they're not complying.

If the compliance was there, we wouldn't be here. And if the compliance is there, then my thought would be a deterrent. A stronger deterrent wouldn't matter, right? So if we put more teeth into this particular Bill, it won't impact Lyft, it won't impact Uber, because everyone's complying, right?

When we were driving, my husband drove me here today, and we were driving down the road, and you have the GPS on, right? And the GPS says to us, excuse me, honey, not yet. We're not leaving yet. The GPS says, speed check ahead. Right? We used to call them speed traps because we didn't know they were coming.

Right. The reason we have those speed checks, or we had those speed traps was to enforce that people would follow the rules. Right? There's a law already in place. You're not supposed to speed. If you speed, there's a deterrent. Right. They're letting us know that's happening.

With regard to Uber or Lyft or a Public Transportation that chooses to take on the rights and the responsibilities for a public transportation company, there's got to be some type of deterrent if and for the people who are not complying. And that's what we're asking.

And that's why I'm in support of HB468 and I really appreciate you letting me ramble and have. Have a great day.

Thank you for coming and bringing Mango.

Donald Sakamoto on Zoom in support.

Yeah, Donald Sakamoto, can you hear me?

Yes, yes, we can hear you.

Yeah, I'm in support of this Bill. And the time is now to prepare and have this Bill passed. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Virgil Stinette in support, in person. Katie Keim in support.

Hello.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in person this morning. I would like to make comment in particular to what the Lyft and the Uber representative state stated. Yes, policy is in place specifically to service animals, wheelchairs.

But I use a long cane and currently a support cane after having broken my leg. I've been denied because I use a long cane. I've had drivers say it's their vehicle, it's my private vehicle, I have the right to refuse service.

But they've signed those agreements of policy with those companies and yet still I'm discriminated against in one of the choices of public transportation. All we're really asking for is because I love using Lyft and Hoover. Quite honestly, I got to straw this morning for an appointment and then came over to the Capitol.

I would have walked in the past, but right now that's a little challenging.

But I don't want to have to think every time I call up my Uber or Lyft App or other public transportations that I might use elsewhere in the country or the world that they might drive by because they see a long white cane or I can't identify their car and they stay quiet and never roll down the windows.

And so I'm canceled and charged the fee for what is an inaccessibility to me where I've stated, I've called them, they don't answer the phones, I've used the text, they don't respond.

The other factor is that I think that it needs to have some more type of state regulations that help concur with the policies of the companies but care for the individuals using the services.

In my testimony, I state the time that he actually pulled up and because my cane identified the back wheel of the vehicle to find the back door, he said, you're damaging my car. And he wouldn't let me in without my tools being in his trunk.

Well, those are like taking people's glasses away from them and then they can't see. It's the way I navigate. I have a safe way to store it in a car and not the trunk. If I had to exit for any reason and I'd have to wait for the driver to get my cane, I'd be in trouble.

Thank you for your time today and appreciate you seriously considering our testimonies in support of this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. You're welcome.

We have four additional individuals in support and one providing comment.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Anyone online or in person to testify on the measure before us.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, My name is Elizabeth Pearson. I'm with the Disability and Communication Access Board. I'm testifying on behalf of our Executive Director, Kirby Shaw. He was unable to make it over here today. We did have some late testimony distributed. We apologize for the late testimony.

Our board just got around to voting to support the measure. We just wanted to clarify that Title 3 of the Americans with Disability act does mandate that places of public accommodation, which would include rideshare services, provide equal access to individuals with disabilities when offering programs, services and activities. So we appreciate this.

This Bill instilling more consequences for people who are. Who experience discrimination or sorry. Who impose discrimination upon people with disabilities using service animals and ride share services. And we are in support of this measure. So. And you've heard today that from plenty of the community Members, it is a needed Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person like to testify in the measure before us? Seeing none Members, any questions? All right, moving on to the next measure before us.

HB810 relating to noise pollution establishes a private right of action for any person aggravated by a violation of the Federal Aviation act and existing federal laws to bring a civil action against the owner operator of the helicopter in violation, collect damages and litigation costs.

Vice Chair for testimony, Department of Transportation providing comments on Zoom. zero, here in person, in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Kurt Otago, Deputy Director testifying on behalf of our Director at Sniffin Department, stands on it written testimony offering comments. You can see by the testimony that we remain supportive to find a good solution for our community to reduce noise. Thank you. Thank you.

Vertical Aviation International in opposition.

Okay, seeing all the registered testifiers. Anyone online or in person like testify on HB810. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, final match. zero, sorry, Chair Ibsen.

Sorry, I have a question for dot. Sorry. You just noted in your testimony that you're going to work with the FAA and the AG's office to determine your folks jurisdiction. Any idea on a time frame for making that determination?

We'll do it during this session just to determine the airspace. As we know, FAA does control the airspace. Yeah, but there's certain jurisdictions around the airport that certainly could negotiate and discuss and.

And are you aware of any other states who allow for these private right of actions?

No, not at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Evelyn. Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing that final measure HB577 related to taxation. Authorize a tax credit for businesses that pay the public transportation costs of their employees. Applies to counties having populations of 700,000 or more appliance for taxable years beginning after 12312024 but not beginning after 12312029. Requires reports to the Legislature.

Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Taxation offering comments.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee Garrison, Department of Taxation. We stand on our testimony providing comments.

Thank you.

Tax foundation of Hawaii offering comments.

Yes, good morning. This is Jane Mcmillan. On behalf of the Tax foundation of Hawaii, we've offered some comments on the measure noting that the additional credit would. Require changes to tax forms and instructions. And that cost me outweigh the benefit of the tax credit itself. Thank you.

Thank you.

Retail merchants of Hawaii in support on Zoom. And one individual in support.

Okay. Seeing no other registered testifiers. Is there anyone online or in person like to testify in the measure before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay. Thank you so much, everyone. We're going to recess for decision making.

First hearing. I'm so sorry. Thank you so much. Reki Tagawa, you're so good.

HB697 related to transportation allows authorizing employees of the Department of Transportation Department of Law Enforcement to inspect and provide a certificate of certain evidence of speed limit violations attained by automatic speed enforcement systems and appropriate funds to Department of Transportation to establish and implement the Automated Speed Enforcement System program. It's Vice Chair for Test 1.

Department of the Attorney General providing comments on Zoom.

zero, in person. Good morning. Chair Keela and Vice Chair Grandinetti. My name is Denise Wong, Deputy Attorney General. We have Submitted our written comments and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Department of Transportation and Support.

Yep. Robin Shishido again. HDOT Highways and Standby. Written testimony of support.

Thank you. See no other further registered testifiers on the measure before us. Anyone online or in person testify on the measure. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, now with everything done before us, we're going to recess your decision making.

Thank you.

Okay, so I do want to just out front, let the Members of the Committee and public know regarding the measures of HB 368 and HB 226. I will be deferring decision making on the matters for our subsequent hearing on January 30th at 10:30am to allow just a little bit more conversation to find some compromise.

And then regarding the measures of HB708 and HB184, I am going to defer decision making to February 4th at 10:30am Both of the measures will be considered here in this room, Capitol House room 430 with our subsequent Committee on Transportation hearing. Because at this point is for decision making only. No testimony will be accepted on the matter.

I just want to let you folks know. Okay, so Our first measure, HB532 relating to vehicle titles. We are going to adopt an HD one. We're going to defect the effective date to 7-1-3000. And that is my proposal.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 532. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote I Representative Cochran.

[Roll call]

Thank you so much. Refocus Patience. I got a little excited and I do need to fix something. So right now, currently the motion chairs requesting a motion to reconsider HB532 on the matters before us regarding the measure to adopt and clarify the appropriate amendments for the Bill on the matter.

This was cleared by our House staff HMSO letting us know this is the proper way to do it. And because we did not adjourn the hearing, this is still in compliance with our rules. So. Vice Chair for the motion.

Motion to reconsider HB532.

[Roll call]

Thank you, Members. Okay, back to HB532. Okay. Chair's recommendation is what we're gonna do. We're gonna adopt the HD one. So based on some of the language we're gonna clarify that a transfer is not liable for any violation involving a vehicle no longer under their possession if certain requirements are met.

And we're also gonna add language that the courts. Sorry. The judiciary shall create new forms permitting transfers to respond to actions arising under the use, operation or abandonment of transfer vehicles by submitting a proof of a file notice form and shall develop relevant instructions. We are also gonna defect the effective date to 7-1-3000.

That is my full recommendation with amendments on the HD1.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 532 noting the excused absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you again for your folks patience on the matter. So next measure HB655 relating to voter vehicles. We're going to adopt the HD one. We're going to affect the effective date to 7-1-3000. Vice Chair for the vote, voting on.

HB 655 noting the excused absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Regarding the measure of HB368, I am going to work with DOT on some compromise language to see this measure through. We are going to defer decision making to this matter on January 30th at 10:30am in the same room, room 4:30. Because it's going to be vote.

We won't be accepting testimony as we're going to be deferring just decision making on the matter regarding HB226 we are going to do the same thing. Defer decision making to January 30th, 10:30am in this room 4:30 for consideration working with DOT on findings of compromised language. Okay.

Regarding HB 543 relating to license plate, we're going to adopt an HD1 defect the effective date to 713000. The maximum fine currently has it as $2,000. And we're going to Institute a minimum fine of $250. That is my recommendation.

Voting on HB 543. Representative Cochran, excused. Are there any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Regarding relating to HP 228, we're going to adopt the HD one. We're going to affect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. We're going to implement a same thing regarding HP 543 specifically notating to license plate flipping devices. The minimum will be $750 and the maximum will be $1,000.

Subsequently, we'll add fines for the use or obstruction with the use of a cover or shield on a license plate, instituting a minimum fine of $500,000. Institution a minimum fine of $500 and a maximum fine of $1,000.

Chair's recommendation voting on HB228. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any Members voting no with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Regarding HB 708 relating to insurance, I'm going to defer decision making on this matter to February 4th here in this room at 10:30am Room 4:30 for further discussion. I appreciate everyone's comments. I want to find a compromise.

So that is why we'll be deferring decision making on the matter till February 410.30am in this room from 4:30 relating to HB 708. Again, our next measure, HB 231 relating to motor vehicle insurance. The Bill has current bank amounts right now. So in subsection 28 right now the minimum is $100.

We're going to increase it to $200, no less than $200 and no more than $5,500. This is $100 increase on the minimum and a $500 increase on the maximum. In 2b we're going to increase it to $600 is the minimum and up to $2,500 is the maximum.

The minimum is an increase of $100 and the maximum is an increase of $2,000. We're going to affect the effective date to 7-1-3000. And this is really the HB 231.

And those are my proposed amendments voting on HB 231. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any Members voting no with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HB 227 rating to vehicle safety. Right now we have some blank amounts. So I'm going to insert some language to constitute that the minimum right now in statute has it set at $100. We're going to increase it by $50 on the first offense. So it's going to be $150 to the $100.

And right now the subsequent offenses are $200. We're going to increase it to $250 in subsequent offenses. These are $50 increases. We're also going to include a saving clause because the retroactive application of this legislation would be a violation and prohibition against ex post facto laws in the United States Constitution.

We're also going to defect the effective date to 7-1-3000. Those are my proposed amendments on HB227.

Voting on HB227 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Representative Cochran excused. Are there any Members voting? No. Any Members with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Regarding relating to HB 184 we're going to do the same thing on this matter. We're going to defer decision making into February 4th at 10:30am in this room room 4:30 again trying to find a compromise on the measure.

I appreciate folks testimony on the matter and I'm working to find some middle ground so deferring decision making on the matter to February 4th in this room 10:30am relating to transportation we're going to adopt the HD one with the technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style.

There was a testimony provided about suggesting the proposed dates and times for sorry days for investigations. So we're going to adopt that language about putting forth a time frame for investigations on violations.

But for now I'm going to blank the days because right now as it states it's 120 I'm going to blank it out to allow our next Committee to try to find a middle ground whether that is too much or too little and defective. Effective date to July 1st, 3000 and those are my recommendations.

Voting on HB468 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Representative Cochran excused. Are there any Members voting? No with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Reading to HB810 so we are going to adopt the HD1 defect the effective date to 7-1-3000. I appreciate some of the testimony noting that this measure is preempted by faa but I definitely think the conversation is still worth having. Thus my wanting to keep the Bill alive. We're going to move it forward for further discussion.

Voting on HB810 representative Cochrane excused. Are there any Members voting? No with reservations?

Reservations.

Representative Miyake with reservations Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. HB 577 relating to taxation. I appreciate though taxes proposed amendments in their testimony. So Members we are going to adopt their proposed amendments as such and thanks to input from Chair Evsland we are going to strike the language about the population minimum that this could be applicable to statewide. So we'll strike the population number.

Adopt total tax amendments. We're going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. We also do technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Is our HD1HB voting on HB577 noting the absence of the excused absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Final measure HB697 related to transportation. We're in adopt HD1. We're going to defect. We're going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000 and any current appropriation amounts in the Bill. We're going to blank that.

That is our HD1 voting on HB6 97. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Represent Representative Cochran. Excused any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

With that, our Committee is adjourned.

Thank you.