Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts

Good afternoon. We're convening the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts here in State Capital Conference Room 224 on our 3pm agenda on February 4th. If we do get cut off, we'll be deferring everything on our agenda till Thursday the 6th, this Thursday at the end of our 3pm agenda here in this room.

That said, we have a number of bills on the agenda, so make sure your testimony has been submitted. And if you have already, we just ask you to be concise, we'll limit you to two minutes to make sure we have time to get through everybody's comments and all the bills.

So with that said, up first is Senate Bill 485 relating to motor vehicles, which decreases the tint darkness on vehicles. And testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Larry Gill, Highways Administrator for the Department of Transportation. We stand on our testimony as submitted, making comments on the submission.

Thank you very much. Up next is HPD. Is HPD with us online?

Sorry Chair, James Slater, not on Zoom. However, Warren Izumigawa is.

Oh, Warren, if you're up on the other Bill, but not this one, you know, feel free to sit this one out. But if you did want to say something, by all means, please feel free.

I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to testify for this particular Bill.

Okay, no worries. Thank you very much.

At least with the submitted comments in opposition, that's all the testimony we have on this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 398 relating to motor vehicle rental fees, which prohibits the charging of a fee for a lessee's spouse by a lessor under certain circumstances. Testifying first is the Attorney General. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Deputy AG Christopher Hahn with comments on the Bill. We've recommended a housekeeping amendment on the first line and a couple of savings clauses at the end. With the savings clauses, usually when you prohibit a new type of con, new type of conduct. Pardon me, there could be retroactivity issues.

So we're recommending an ex post De facto clause. We're also recommending a non impairment clause since car rentals are done through lease agreements. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Up next is Enterprise. Thank you. In support. And Avis Budget Group.

Good afternoon, Laurie on behalf of Avis Budget Group, we're just offering comments on this Bill, Chair. Avis Budget Group's public policy is not to charge a fee for the lessee spouse to be an additional driver. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have in this measure. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? Alright, if not, thank you.

Let's move on to Senate Bill 1286, relating to motor vehicles, which prohibits the collection, sale, or disclosure of driver data obtained by a motor vehicle or other connected car service without the consent of the owner or lessee of the vehicle. And testifying first again is the Attorney General.

Deputy AG Chris Han again. Same concerns and recommendations for savings clauses. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is DCCA office. Thank you. And RELX, Inc. with comments, and... Good afternoon. Alliance.

I did submit. Yes. Tiffany Yajima on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. I did submit testimony. It might have been late. I'm sorry if it was. We, the Auto Innovators, oppose this measure respectfully. We feel that this measure is overly broad, difficult to comply with. Vehicle data does need to be shared for many safety reasons. The manufacturers do submit to the FTC privacy protections that are already in place and are enforceable. These privacy protections are updated continually. I would refer to my testimony and stand on the rest of it and ask you to defer this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the written testimony we have on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this afternoon? If not, are there any questions? Okay, let's move on.

Senate Bill 50 is up next relating to consumer protection, which establishes as a deceptive practice advertising, displaying or offering a price for goods or services that does not include all the fees and charges in it. And secondly, repeals the definition of vehicle license recovery fees and limits those fees and weight taxes. Makes a bunch of other stuff.

Oh, excuse me. Amends the prorated amount of vehicle license and registration fees and weight taxes that a motor vehicle lessor may pass on to a lessee. Repeals the requirement that rental car companies submit annual audits to the Office of Consumer Protection and Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Okay, got it right.

Testifying first on SB50 is the Attorney General once again.

Deputy AG Chris Hahn, for the last time, this one deals with advertisements, so there are some commercial speech concerns. So we recommend inserting a preamble and pointing to a couple of examples for the Committee's convenience. Part two deals with lease agreements, again, car rentals. So a non impairment clause can never. Thank you.

Thanks. Up next, Office of Consumer Protection. Thanks with comments. Turrell with comments. Avis Budget Group.

Good afternoon, Chair. Laurie Lum, again, on behalf of Avis Budget Group. Avis Budget Group is opposed to part two of the Bill. Vehicles are not rented every day of the year due to downtime for maintenance and other conditions. The average vehicle is rented about 20 to 25 days per month.

Therefore, the previous methodology of prorating the vehicle license recovery fees at 1/365th of the annual vehicle license recovery fees resulted in a significant shortfall. The existing law is intended to capture and recover a fair amount of the government in host fees. So for these reasons, we ask for your consideration in deleting part two.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Excuse me. Oh, so you. You want to delete part two, not supporting part.

Right. We're opposed to part two.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, testify next, Enterprise.

Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Matt Tsujimura, on behalf of Enterprise Mobility, will echo the sentiments of Avis Budget, also in strong opposition to part two of the Bill dealing with the vehicle license recovery fees.

And we would just point out that this would be a very regressive action on behalf of the state, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

And last, CTIA in opposition, is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? Okay, everybody's off the hook today.

Up next is Senate Bill 1194 relating to transportation, which prohibits any person from engaging in any activity that has the intent and effect of distracting drivers along streets, roadways within 100ft of an intersection. Testifying first on 1194 is Department of Transportation.

Thank you. The next is Unite Here, Local 5 in opposition. Is there... That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions?

No sign waving.

That seems to be the issue. Okay, if not, let's move on to the next measure, SB 1481, relating to Motorcycle Instruction Permits, which, starting on July 1st, 2026, requires all applicants for a Motorcycle Instruction Permit to successfully complete a basic rider course approved by DOT, before becoming eligible for the Permit. Testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

There we go with DOT. We stand in support of our testimony yesterday.

Thank you. Up next is the Department of Customer Services at the City and County of Honolulu, with comments, and Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, in support. Okay, that's all the testifiers we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? It's kind of lovely. Anyone else falling asleep right now?

All right, if not, are there any questions? All right. If not, thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1195, relating to transportation, which establishes buffer zones to prohibit street parking within certain distances of crosswalks, under certain speeds. And testifying first on 1195 is the Department of Transportation. Oh, you're up. Sorry, SB 1195.

Larry Gill, DOT. We stand in support of this for our testimony.

Thank you.

With amendments, though, right? Excuse me? With amendments?

I'm sorry, yes, with amendments.

Up next is Department of Health. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. Mela Ervin—and Member of the Committee—representing Kenny Fink, and the Department of Health supports any effort that would help people be physically active and for it to be just kind of a default in the day. And so, that's what this provides.

So, we put a definition of the VRU, which is, oh, and I should look up VRU—Vulnerable Road Users. So, in Hawaii, the fatalities of Vulnerable Road Users increased last year and by 61%. And so, we're really glad to support the Department of Transportation's position, as well.

And even their amendments are great, in that it does meet the complete streets infrastructure implementation, so that it makes the vulnerable users, people like you and I, if we're on the road, or if it's me, the older person, on a bicycle with my pink backpack, visible to the vehicular driver.

So, all of us can share the road and be safe on it and have that default of, oh, I think I'll walk there or bike there, instead of jumping in my car. So, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is the Wahoo Metropolitan Planning Organizatio, in support.

Hawaii Bicycling League.

Chair, Eduardo—and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Eduardo Hernandez with the Hawaii Bicycling League. We stand in support. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly, Justin Minina, in support.

That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? Okay. Moving on to Senate Bill 1667 relating to transportation. This Bill does a couple things. Prohibits vehicles from blocking marked crosswalks. Establishes penalties for repeat convictions for reckless driving, excessive speeding.

Requires a person who refuses to submit to a Breathalyzer to surrender their license to a law enforcement officer. Increases the duration of suspension of a license when a person is arrested for driving under the influence and refuses to submit a breath, blood or urine test.

Allows the repeal of any license suspension to be filed with the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office.

Authorizes the State Highway Safety and Modernization Council to implement an additional 25 photo red light imaging detector systems at certain locations and authorizes DOT to implement an additional 25 speed cameras in school zones as designated by the Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee in dangerous locations and establishes requirements for the State Highway Safety and Modernization Council and so forth.

Okay, not going to repeat that. But suffice to say, up first is the Department of Transportation.

May we deal with DOT and in support of the Congress.

Thank you. Next is the Department of Prosecuting Attorney City County of Honolulu. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, Senator Elefante. The Department of Prosecuting Attorney supports this Bill. We would point to three features. First of all, the administrative penalties. It's been 10 years since the Hawaii Supreme Court struck down criminal penalties for refusing a breath or blood test.

So administrative penalties are pretty much the way that enforcement happens with drunk driving cases where there's a refusal. We also believe that administrative penalties are appropriate for excessive speeding cases. These are cases that are quite onerous now to try because of the foundation requirements that the Hawaii Supreme Court has. Has given.

Finally, we've had some success with the Automated Speed Enforcement system, and we do support its expansion. Expansion to school zones makes sense. It's a very vulnerable population of children. And so we support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Testifying next is the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and Support Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Abby Seitz. I'm with the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice providing testimony in support of SB 1167. We are supporting this Bill because it includes a number of provisions aimed at improving roadway safety, with a particular focus on pedestrian safety.

Improving roadway safety is an urgent need as each year we see on average over 100 people, unfortunately, die on our roadways and many more are seriously injured. In 2024, a staggering 42% of those roadway fatalities were pedestrians and bicyclists.

Of the various measures included in this Bill, we are particularly supportive of those involving the leading pedestrian intervals, which provide pedestrians additional time to start crossing the street before the light turns green. This has been found to reduce collisions by up to 60% at intersections where they are implemented.

So in summary, we support this Bill and we'd also like to thank the Committee for. For hearing it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And Hawaii Bicycling League.

Yes. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Eduardo Hernandez. We stand on our written testimony. Just like to echo the Comment of the Appleseed Center for Justice. Leading pedestrian intervals is a proven technology that we could really use here. Give a few extra seconds for pedestrians to become more visible in the intersection. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that's all the testimony we have on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? Sorry. Do you want to testify, sir? Yeah. Oh, come forward, please. You can state your name.

Jonathan Lott. Waikiki vulnerable road user. I didn't come for this one in particular, but I support it.

Thank you very much. Okay. There's nobody else. There's no other questions? I had just one for prosecutor's office. For the section of the measure that deals with license revocation for failure to submit to a sobriety field sobriety test.

I was unclear if the language as written in the measure right now actually achieves what I think the intended purpose was, which was to make it clear to people that if you sign up for a driver's license, as one normally does, you're signing a commitment essentially to take that test if you are in a situation where it's presented to you to ensure public safety.

So if you decline the test, currently the process is there is a administrative driver's license revocation process that people go through, and you could potentially lose your license. However, it seems that that's not always the case. There's probably some cleanup to be had there.

So if the language in this measure flips it such that it becomes more of a strict liability situation and a person actively and affirmatively declines to take a field sobriety test when they're pulled over, it becomes then. I think the intent is for it to become an automatic license provocation on the spot.

Is that the way you read this?

So in. In most cases right now, what would happen is an automatic revocation on the spot. But even with a license revocation, a person still has procedural due process rights, so they do have a right to contest it at the administrative driver's license revocation office.

Sometimes when they contest it, they succeed, and that's just an issue with enforcement. But if it's clear that refusal oftentimes what they argue at ADLRO is that they didn't really refuse, or sometimes the officers don't show up, and then there's no evidence to indicate that.

But what we think is important here is that it does expand the time period during which that license is revoked. 49 states basically have the regime that you have, which is an implied consent regime. By driving on the road, you've consented. Hawaii has A modified implied consent regime. Because after State versus Juan, we can't enforce it.

The way that Hawaii Supreme Court reads it, people can also withdraw their implied consent.

So is that the case in other states?

Every state has an implied consent law. Hawaii has modified it. And that was the State versus Juan decision, I guess.

I mean, is there another state where a similar limitation, court based limitation applies on the same grounds?

Not that I'm aware of. And in fact, at the federal level, the distinction. The federal level, the distinction is between breath and blood tests. So blood tests, there's a higher constitutional protection. Breath tests, the police can tell you you have to take it.

And then for the existing process right now. So am I reading this right that if you are pulled over and you are offered or asked to take a test and you decline, does the officer remove your license immediately on the spot or whatever the penalty is?

So typically what the officer has to assess there is whether or not the refusal indicates probable cause to arrest. And in most cases they've already observed symptoms of intoxication. And so the refusal, the officer reads that as consciousness of guilt. That gives them probable cause to arrest.

But probable cause is not going to necessarily lead to a conviction. When they're arrested and taken to the station, they're then given an ADLRO notice which explains to them that their license will be revoked for a temporary period. Or in some cases they don't even have a license, in which case they're told stop driving.

But they are also then informed, given notice that, you know, they have the ability to contest it. This is going to be the proceeding and the officer is reading this and also gives them paperwork for it.

So, but separate.

So if we were to I guess write this in such a way that we're separating the potential drunk driving or whatever the actual thing is, the person has pulled over for versus the refusal to submit to the test, can the penalty then automatically apply just to the refusal as a function of that conscious decision the person makes to do that regardless of the rest of it?

Yes, but that would still be adjudicated at ADLRO and they'd still have the opportunity to argue that their refusal wasn't really a refusal.

Right. So if we wrote it such that it is that case. So based solely on. Solely and only on your answer to the question, are you going to take this test or not?

Not your answer to it, but whether you submit to the test or not, if we make it an automatic license revocation for whatever the period is, there's still the appeals process right through ADLRO. But in that case, if an officer were asked by someone who's in that situation, well, what happens if I refuse?

Can the officer then, under this measure affirmatively say, you will lose your license immediately and for whatever the period of time is?

Yeah. So what they would do is they'd read out the sanctions which would indicate your license is going to be taken away for this temporary period. You have the opportunity to.

So but in this case, if we flipped it such that it's not being taken away for a temporary period, you're just losing it for, let's say, the full three years or whatever it is.

But you can then go appeal that, which I believe is the case in other states, where you have a window of time to go through that process. So it's sort of flipping the paradigm from what it is now, I think is the intent here.

Yeah. And I see. So the officer informing them, your license is now suspended for this particular time. You have an opportunity to challenge that later. Yeah, that could certainly work. I, of course, our office typically deals with the criminal prosecution side of things, but my understanding is that there wouldn't be an impediment to that.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And then PDs testify in this measure.

Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Any further questions? All right. If not. Yeah, maybe we can just follow up afterward and chat.

Up next is Senate Bill 1124 relating to transportation, which establishes a retail delivery fee of 50 cents to be imposed on transactions involving a non-food item retail delivery and allows the retailer to transfer fee to the purchaser, creates exemptions, and deposits the funds into the Safe Routes to School Program Special Fund. Testifying first on SB 1124 is the Department of Transportation. Thank you. Up next is the Department of Taxation.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. Clinton Piper, Department Taxation, Rules Division. Largely, we'll be standing on my written comments. However, I did spot one technical amendment after we had submitted our testimony that I'd like to call to your attention. This appears on page six of the current draft. I believe the intention of the bill was to exclude the 50 cent fee so that GET would not be imposed on top of it. However, it does this by excluding the fee from the quote sales price. But this is not the trigger for 23713 imposition of the GET. So that term sales price should be amended to gross proceeds of sale or gross income to mirror the terms in the GET, if that is the intention of the bill. Other than that, I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Testifying next is Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Hello again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. On behalf of Hawaii Appleseed, we stand in support of SB 1124. As mentioned in my previous testimony, pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries are on the rise in Hawaii. And these tragic incidents clearly cause a great deal amount of harm to those involved, as well as are very costly for our state. At the same time, delivery services, which utilize tall, heavy vehicles and are associated with an increased risk of pedestrian fatality are also growing in popularity.

We believe this bill will begin to address this this issue by requiring a small amount of earnings from delivery services go towards a Safe Routes to School Program, which supports the installation of pedestrian and bicycling projects within a 1 mile radius of schools.

For context of this impact, nearly 80% of residents live within that one mile radius of schools. As such, we believe that these funds generated by this tax will not only be transformational for children getting to and from school, but but also to the health and well being of all our residents. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Hawaii Bicycling League.

Yes, Chair, Vice Chair. We stand in support of our written comments. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Ulupono Initiative. Thank you. Get Fit Kauai. Oh, sorry. Healthy Eating Active Living Coalition of Kauai in support. Tax Foundation.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. What this bill is essentially doing is setting up a new tax type. When you do that, the Department of Tax has to put in a lot of work. They have to come up with forms, instructions, and whatever. Takes a lot of time, costs a lot of money. And that needs to be, I think, weighed against the revenue that you're likely to collect if you're going to collect revenue.

And the revenue that you collect is probably going to have a regressive impact because this type of tax is imposed without regard to transaction value or income of the person being taxed. So we have some concerns about that. Those are indicated in our testimony. I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Up next is the Hawaii Food Industry Association. Are you with us on Zoom?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. With comments. And Chamber of Progress.

Hi. Sorry. Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. On behalf of Chamber of Progress, we are a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a more inclusive of society in which all people benefit from technological advancements. I urge for you and your colleagues to oppose SB 1124, which would levy a 50 cent tax on retail deliveries through Hawaii. This tax would disproportionately burden the state's most vulnerable members. It would also threaten the income of small businesses and the workers they employ, increasing emissions and damage to roadway infrastructure.

Recent data highlights the growing reliance on delivery services nationwide and its impact in underserved communities. Between 2021 and 2022, 54 and 41% of adults surveyed nation nationwide reported they were likely to have frequently used an app to deliver food and groceries respectfully. And studies suggest the average order frequency will increase at a 12% annual rate over the next five years. Delivery services are essential in Hawaii, where 85 to 95% of the goods are imported, contributing to the nation's highest prices and cost of living.

Imposing delivery taxes would only increase financial burdens on families already struggling to afford necessities, worsening economic hardships and restricting access to essential household items. Moreover, 17.7% of Hawaii residents live with a disability. Many of these individuals who have difficulty shopping in person also depend on delivery services for prescriptions and household goods.

The imposition of delivery taxes can exacerbate challenges in accessing essential goods and services for people with disabilities who often face financial burdens. Small businesses are also the backbone of Hawaii's economy, comprising of 99.3% of all businesses and employing more than half of the workforce. In 2024, Maryland small businesses drove 71.1% of overall growth.

Imposing delivery taxes would threaten many of these businesses, especially restaurants and businesses that depend on online marketplaces to reach customers. Small businesses in Hawaii always face high operating costs due to import expenses and additional taxes, which would further strain their ability to compete and thrive.

While the tax would not directly apply to purchases of businesses in their first year of operations or those making 500,000 or less per year, many small businesses operate on online marketplaces in order to reach more customers and take advantage of those logistics and shipping operations. Orders may...

Summarize please.

Sorry. Overall, delivery services, particularly retail and e-commerce deliveries, consolidate trips and use route optimization technologies, making them more efficient. This would place a much higher burden for small businesses and for the people of Hawaii who are disabled who tend to rely on delivery services to get their essential household goods.

Thank you very much. Testifying next is Retail Merchants of Hawaii.

Aloha and good afternoon. I'm Tina Yamaki with the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, and we respectfully strongly oppose this measure. While the intent may be well intended, the economic burden it places on retailers and consumers is both unfair and counterproductive. In order to survive this highly priced competitive industry, retailers have turned to the Omnichannel to survive.

This is where brick and mortar uses online and social media to sell their products. And we've also seen a turn with local businesses who once have had brick and mortar stores now do everything online. Selling online isn't just large national retailers, it's also our small local businesses who do that in order to survive.

Per transactions fees on retail deliveries will increase the cost of doing business because we are going to pass it on to the customers, and many rely on third party deliveries. This also unfairly targets retailers while other industries utilizing delivery services remain unaffected.

Furthermore, it disproportionately impacts those who rely on delivery service, including our kupuna, individuals with disabilities, and families with limited access to brick and mortar stores. During the pandemic shutdown, many learned how to order goods and products online, including our kupuna. National brands often fulfill orders from their stores in Hawaii to ensure next day service if the item is available.

The consumer is very price conscious and looking for deals, as we have seen in the price of products and goods increasing significantly. Additional costs on business and consumers discourages spending, which can negatively impact economic recovery and growth. And it can also kill some of our local small businesses. We also wonder why law enforcement isn't called if these growing number of large trucks are speeding through areas where there's family and children and driving recklessly.

What about the increase in cars as more homes and communities are being built? Things we should think about. Rather than imposing this negative, aggressive fee, lawmakers should explore alternative funding sources that do not penalize retailers and consumers. Additional taxes and fees on retailers only exacerbates. Yes, I'm just going to say the taxes and fees on retailers will only exacerbate financial hardships for local businesses and residents and ultimately doing more harm than good. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's have testimony from Molly Mamaril in support, Kiana Otsuka in support, and Leigh Ann Lopez in support. That's all the testimony we have submitted. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? Okay.

In that case, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1123 relating to transportation, which requires the State Highway Modernization and Safety Council to conduct an evaluation of vehicle characteristics and develop a set of standards to identify high risk vehicles and report. And testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

Larry Dill with DOT. We stand on our testimony submitted in support of this mission.

Thank you. Next is the Hawaii Bicycling League.

Yes, sir. We stand in on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. And Ms. Yajima. Sorry, I apologize. On here, it doesn't say, but I presume this is the Auto Alliance.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Tiffany Yajima, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Again, I'm sorry for the late testimony on this. The auto manufacturers are in opposition to this measure. We support efforts to enhance pedestrian safety and have supported the establishment of the Hawaii Highway Safety and Modernization Council. Just would note for the Committee that.

Motor vehicle standards are regulated at the federal level. There's the federal motor vehicle safety standards. And the U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA regulations. Because these vehicle standards have better regulated. At the federal level, we oppose this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all the testimony we have on 1123. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions?

I have a question. So with regards to Sennheiser opposition, and my question then would be, if we're passing this on our state, who's going to identify high risk vehicles? I mean, where do we get to the point where a car is high risk? Whoever I guess.

Excellent question.

You have to come up because I think. Yeah, people should get to hear what your comments are. Identify yourself as well.

Yes, thanks. Vice Chair and Chair. Larry Dill, Highways Administrator for the DOT. Those standards would have to be established by the council that was just referenced. So they would do that in consultation with the Department of Transportation and other agencies that have input on that issue.

Okay, so do they come up with their own rules or is this something new for identification?

Yes, this would be something new. Okay. And would be run by that council.

How would it be identified as a high risk? Who tells the driver or the owner of a vehicle that your car is high risk and is there any penalties or what's the outcome?

I don't know what the answer to those questions those would have to be, I imagine would be established by that council.

Are the council also involved with those companies that do the safety checks?

Yes, I'm sure they would consult with them, yes.

Okay, so in other words, perhaps best to do a resolution to study this issue rather than to sort of do a statute regulation without people knowing what this issue is all about. I would think.

That is an option.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thanks. Further questions? Real quick for HBL, if you can come forward, please. Just on that point that was being raised by the DOT, the council itself--are we familiar with sort of the range of folks who are currently on there?

Is the council itself familiar with the range of who's?

I guess who's on the council now? Let me ask you that way.

Sure, that's a great question. To my understanding, the council has not met since it was established. When it was established, it was not administratively attached to the Department of Transportation.

And I understand there is another bill that will make that technical fix and then the committee can meet and make those recommendations and study them and identify what's what other states have identified as high risk vehicles.

Just personally I went, I was shopping over the weekend and I saw a brand new Chevy Silverado in the parking lot and it was this high and I was kind of terrified, like if I had to cross the street, if that person didn't see me.

But that's something for the, for the committee to study and assess and bring to awareness for the public that cars have been getting bigger and heavier. And this is part of why we're seeing increased vulnerable user death.

But generally safer for the drivers.

Generally safer for the drivers. Much more lethal for vulnerable road users, like people who walk and bike.

Okay, thank you.

Wouldn't those height requirements or high risk factors be determined by the safety check inspector? I mean, are we adding on another layer?

I don't think we're adding on another layer. I think it's educational for the public to understand how the history of cars and how they've gotten bigger.

Cars used to have a lower center of gravity, and if you were struck by a car at a lower point, you had a higher probability of living than now if you're hit higher are some of the studies.

So I think it's important for the public to understand that as cars may have gotten safer, it certainly created a more dangerous circumstance on the road. And letting people know that and perhaps urging industry to establish their own standards could be an outcome of this bill as well.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Any further questions on this bill? Okay.

Okay, if not, let's move on to Senate Bill 97, relating to motor vehicles, which increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to a Class C Felony, and authorizes the court, as part of the person's sentencing for the third or subsequent offense, to order that the vehicle used by the person in the commission of the offense be subject to forfeiture.

And testifying first on SB 97 is the Department of Transportation.

Larry Gill with DOT. We stand on our testimony I submitted, in support of this mission.

Thank you. Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye, Members of the Committee. Deputy Public Defender, Alan Akao. We have submitted testimony in opposition. Other than what was written, you know, we want to point out specific comments of concern to the Office of the Public Defender.

Specifically, you know, this isn't just more crime or more harsh penalties is a problem for us, but really, we're looking at the consistency that this Bill has with other bills, similar or other statutes. So, this essentially would create a habitual type of offense, right?

So, if you were to compare this to a habitual property crime or habitual DUI offense, the language is not consistent with those statutes. So, if this Committee or the other committees at the Legislature should take a look at—looking at that as a guide for successful use of language to get these things to be constitutional.

Specifically, on Page 5, Subsection D of Section 1, it outlines that any person who violates Subsection A within the five years of two priors, but really, the problem is, for the same offense shall be guilty of a Class C Felony and shall be sentenced as follows, without the possibility of probation or suspension of sentence.

Essentially, what it does is it removes the discretion of the court to allow them to sentence someone who is a Class C felon. It creates, essentially, a new class, in which the court can only sentence them to the indeterminate five-year term. So, that is the maximum potential penalty for any Class C felony.

What we have problems with is, it doesn't include that language. So, it's almost saying, "Hey, you're guilty of a Class C Felony, but we're not really telling you what that entails. What we're telling you is, you're just guilty of that offense."

When you do the additional work of seeing what that—it—requires, it's either probation of up to four years or an indeterminate term of five years in prison. So, the language says, but there's no possibility of probation. So, it's saying, if you're convicted of this offense, before we even get to the Subsections 1 through 6, that person is going to jail, without any discretion, for five years.

If this Bill, as written, is more restrictive and punitive than even our habitual DUI penalties.

So, we think that's problematic. And the last thing is, because of the "shall be sentenced as follows," it also creates, essentially, a legal sentence, because not only do they have to serve a five-year indeterminate term, they are going to get additional penalties, essentially over the maximum penalties, such as doing the license suspension or attending a driver education course.

But there's no enforcement mechanism, such as probation, that is going to have them go and check in to make sure they do these things.

We just ask you to summarize.

Yeah. So, basically, we're in opposition, if the intent is to create it. There's also constitutional issues with the way it's written. It's overly punitive and it's not in line with other similar type of offenses. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next on SB 97 is the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney supports this Bill. I'm Daniel Hugo, from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. We don't agree that this is a harmless offense.

It's not just that speed oftentimes leads to traffic fatalities, but every single time someone is apprehended for this offense, there is an Officer who had to go after that offender, who had to risk their lives on the road. I've gone on ride alongs, with the Night Enforcement Unit.

These are exceptionally brave officers who, night after night, have to go after people who are exceeding 100 miles an hour. To catch someone going 100 miles an hour, you have to go faster than 100 miles an hour. Those officers are exceptionally brave. Then they have to go to court. I've tried these cases.

These cases can take up to three hours of that officer's time. An officer who has already served a night shift then is sitting in court, because of the onerous foundational requirements. So, that's already happened once, then it's happened again. This is the third time. Yes, a felony is justified in that case.

We would note, and our recommendation is that, in most of these initial encounters, the people are not arrested. They're given a citation, proving up the felony later on in front of a jury, we would prefer to have fingerprint evidence. We do also want to make sure that we have the right person if we're charging repeat offenders.

So, we would just ask that there be a requirement for fingerprinting upon conviction. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Honolulu Police Department.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. In support. And Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, in support. We have Larry Verray, Steven Wood, and Steven Hazam, all in support. That's all the testimony we have in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there questions?

Prosecutor. It's getting you two confused, I apologize. A part of the Bill leaves one option—for the court may order forfeiture of the vehicle used in the offense.

Although I support the intent of this Bill and absolutely agree, speed is a very serious action in my community, I don't necessarily agree with the forfeiture of the vehicle, being that households in my community usually only have one car.

So, that might be the same car that somebody uses to take their child to school, or so on and so forth. So, would you have reservations if that were not a part of the Bill? Do you feel like we can still enforce the penalties and leave the family with the vehicle?

Well, the, the forfeiture penalty is a—it's a civil penalty. Our testimony focused on the criminal side of things.

But what I would say is that—one issue that the Committee might want to consider with forfeiture is that it may not be the same vehicle that was the predicate in the other offenses. Might also be a borrowed car. So, those, those could be some issues that would come up with forfeiture.

Okay, thank you very much. Chair, I just want to say, for comments for me, although, again, I do support the intent of the Bill and all of the other aspects. I agree with just that one. If we leave in there, I would probably be voting down, respectfully. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair, question for Mr. Hugo. Thank you for your testimony. I'm sure you heard the testimony from the Office of the Public Defender and following a structure similar to habitual crimes. Does Prosecuting Attorneys have any comments on that? And then, with the other provision that, specifically, has to do with sort of—it's not sort of a mandate—but, you know, the court can order and then, it could be a lesser sentence, per se.

So, we recognize that the Legislature has the authority to withhold probation, to say that certain offenses are non probationable. The Committee may want to consider having probation as an option because then it can allow for enforcement of other particular, you know, the judge can put conditions on probation, that they can't necessarily do for somebody who's incarcerated.

In terms of forfeiture, perhaps making it an option for the judge would be—would be one way to resolve flexibilities.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hugo. Thank you, Chair.

Further questions? Okay. If not, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 596, which establishes an income tax credit for the purchase of electric garbage trucks by certain taxpayers. And testifying first on 596 is the Department of Taxation.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. I'll be standing on our written comments. I just want to draw attention to the aggregate cap issue as well as reconciling the tension between subsections B and C to clean up that language. Other than that, I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next is 350 Hawaii. In Support Tax Foundation Hawaii thank you.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We think that the situation in this bill cries out for an appropriate subsidy of some kind as opposed to a tax credit.

The reason for that is if you have a tax credit, you have to make the tax credit available to anybody, but you know, who buys garbage trucks, not anybody.

So I think it's much more efficient to have a program in place where the people who you want can go down to whatever agency is administering the program and apply for the funding. I think that would be more transparent. It would make sure that the intent of the Legislature is being properly carried out.

It also takes a lot to set up new forms, instructions and so forth that most people aren't going to use anyway. So that's why we think that a subsidy program is a lot more effective and efficient than the one proposed by this bill. We also are worried that there are significant blanks.

I mean, the blanks in significant places in the bill and we think those should be filled in to allow for proper vetting if the bill moves forward. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And lastly, we have comments from one individual. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions? And if not, okay. Darn. I was trying to come up with a trash pun, but just not going to happen.

Moving on to Senate Bill 1118 relating to transportation, which prohibits any business established after 2026 that rents mopeds from using combustion engine power mopeds. And testifying first is the Attorney General. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Marjorie Lau. Deputy Attorney General, Marjorie Lau. We submitted testimony with comments concerning the issue of the federal preemption of the provisions of this bill under the federal Clean Air Act and respectfully ask that the Committee hold this bill due to that concern.

Thank you.

I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, is the Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition. Moped Doctors, inc. Mr. Sato?

Aloha. Aloha. Can everybody hear me? Hi, Aloha. My name is Manabo Sato. I'm with Moped Doctors. We're a local moped shop that's done business for 15 years here in Honolulu, Hawaii. Honorable Chair, Vice Chair and Committee, it's an honor to speak with you.

We at Moped Doctors strongly oppose this measure because it targets the gas powered moped market. And it's been proven already that in the past that electric mopeds have not been able to come up with us. And they've become a parallel market to gas powered mopeds.

Gas powered mopeds are the mainstay of rental companies and they're actually allies of mine who run moped shops with both electrical and gas powered mopeds. And they have said that they've had to stop with the electrical moped alternative in their fleets. This bill proposes that they eliminate the possibility of having new businesses, including rental businesses, open up.

That would definitely hurt our competition because competition makes it possible for everybody in this moped rental niche industry and our tourism business to be able to make business happen. Also, the fact is that there are hundreds of employees, dozens of businesses and millions of dollars made from being able to rent mopeds.

And we also, as a retail business, rely heavily on them for a large minority of our business because we sell rental gas powered mopeds to a lot of these companies and that would eliminate that source of income hurting our business.

With these incoming tariffs, we are having to cut costs and retain things, retain our ability to be competitive in price as much as possible.

This would also hurt, or this would also possibly hurt the food delivery drivers who say a person who wants to deliver food after January 1st and they have a sole proprietorship license and they would have to not be able to use that option and an emo pet is not practicable or affordable for that purpose.

There are legal, legal document companies that use gas powered mopeds and they would also lose out on that. So there's a lot of different businesses that would be negatively impacted on this and it would limit the growth of our business.

So we would highly recommend that this bill be deferred or dropped from the docket because it will hurt a lot of local moped relying businesses and ones that will be. Thank you. If there's any questions, I'll be around to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is Hawaiian Style Rentals and sales in opposition and five individuals in opposition. That's all the written testimony we have. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify? If not, are there questions? If not, thank you.

Let's move on to Senate Bill 1094 relating to vehicles which requires that any new moped vehicle permitted by law to be equipped with a siren be equipped with dual frequency sirens. Testifying first is HPD. Good afternoon.

Afternoon Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye and Committee Members. I'm Warren Izumigawa, Departmental Radio Communication Coordinator of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD ceding County of Honolulu. HPD opposes Senate Bill Number 1094 relating to vehicles.

As written, this bill requires that all new motor vehicles that are permitted by law to be equipped with a siren, whether purchased or contracted, shall be equipped with a dual frequency siren.

A dual frequency siren refers to a pneumatic two tone siren with two sets of air horns, one producing a high pitch and the other a low pitch or similar technology. HPD uses electronic siren technology that meets the national public safety standards.

This technology with multi tones that emit wail, yelp and howler low frequency tones make the siren equipment very effective for emergency response vehicles. These tones are designed to sweep through a broad range of audible frequencies and varied cycle rates.

They are set to standard volume levels that is designed to penetrate vehicles from a far distance while still being within the hearing range of humans.

Many public safety agencies across the United States use the same siren equipment which has been proven to be very effective first responder agencies already utilize siren equipment that is deemed very effective and which are only accessible to authorized personnel. Changing, replacing, or adding two tone air horns or similar device would be too expensive.

Introducing different air horn tones can cause more confusion and can be easily copied by the general public as two tone air horns are available for anyone to purchase. These vehicle air horns are not limited to emergency responders. This raises the possibility of someone pretending to be a first responder or an emergency vehicle.

Such actions pose a risk to public safety. The HPD urges you to oppose Senate Bill Number 1094 relating to vehicles. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Up next, we have one individual in support. That's all the testimony we have in this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? If not, are there any questions? If not, real quick for HPD, if you're still there.

Yes.

Yeah, thanks. I'm not familiar with the technical side of sirens and so forth, but it came actually out of a conversation with some of our colleagues in other places where there were analyses and studies and whatnot that found some of the sirens used in those places and in other countries, the kind that sound, you know, just a little bit different than ours, were much less grating on hearing and especially people who have, like, hearing aids and, you know, that kind of thing.

But at the same time, we're also more recognizable close up where you want people to hear the siren, you know, as the car is driving down the street. I guess the question is, why is the United States so different than other places? And why do we not take advantage of that kind of other tech?

Well, there has been studies across the nation, and it's proven that the high, low tones are not as effective as the yelp tones. So the theory and design of the siren that we use across the United States sweeps through a broad range from very low to high and comes back down in a sweeping rate.

And they alter the cycle to be a yelp or a, wail, a slow or a fast tone. This is more effective. And the volume that's set to public safety standards is set out of volume so it can be heard from a distance through and penetrate the vehicle.

So as a first responder emergency vehicle responding to a situation, what you want is a siren that offers a much greater distance of warning. So your vehicles will park the road and provide a pathway.

And this will help the first responder to approach or to respond to a case or situation safely, knowing that the vehicles are parting the road and give them clear way of responding.

So what you don't want is to lower the volume or a different tone which is not as effective because as cars designed today are more insulated where you cannot hear the outside road noise and so forth. So following the standard across the United States has been proven to be effective.

So we stand by this testimony and follow the public safety standards.

Yeah, I think the question. Well, certainly others have raised out there in the public and I'm sure some of the folks who had worked on noise bills in the past at raised was as effective as they are. It also obviously impacts the folks who can hear them further from their homes.

And you know, especially in urban areas where you have condos and it's bouncing off walls and everything.

I mean, surely like Japan and you know, our other sort of friendly countries that use other tech have to be considering some of the similar issues because they got the same ambulances and police chases and other things that, that have to happen in the same kind of dense urban environments.

Are there other ways that you're aware of that they do things differently or is there something that you guys have looked at also? It seems like there's just got to be some better way here. And maybe this is a question for later on in an offline conversation, but I just put it out there to start.

Right. To answer your question, I'm not familiar with the other countries and the youth or the reasons why they choose alternate sirens or different tones or volume.

Okay. Okay. Well thank you very much for the conversation. All right, any other questions? If not let's move on. Thanks for your guys indulgence on that.

Moving on to Senate Bill 312, relating to audible vehicle reverse warning systems, which requires the use of reverse warning systems, backup beepers on state and county-owned vehicles, and testifying first on that is the Department of Transportation.

Larry Dill, DOT, and we stand on our testimony in support of this measure.

Thank you. And that's all the testimony we have on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? All right. If not, are there any questions?

Department of Transportation. Thank you so much for being here. With regard to the audible reverse warning system, so--I don't know, maybe I have an old car--but is, are we also including the--bear with me now--but the beep, beep, beep, like is that also still included or are we going for a totally different audible sound?

This would be a different audible sound.

Can you demonstrate for me? Sorry, I was trying to--no, I was really trying to research this before I came into the committee, so if you, if you wouldn't mind.

It's more of a pshh, pshh, pshh sound.

I just wanted to hear you say that. No, I'm just joking. No, thank you so much. I just needed a demonstration. Thank you very much.

All right. You're welcome.

Okay, any other comments, questions, or sounds? All right. If not, thanks, everyone. Let's move on to the last measure on the agenda.

Senate Bill 1216 relating to transportation, which conditions the issuance of certificates of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped with noisy muffler exhaust system, requires rules regarding safety check inspections to ensure that motorcycles, mopeds, and motor vehicles are not equipped with noisy mufflers or exhaust systems, and does some other stuff.

Testifying first on 1216 is Hawaiian Style Rentals and Sales. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yeah, no, that's right. Hawaiian Style Rentals and Sales. Good afternoon. Oh, no, that's Moped Doctors, Inc. Okay, they're opposed. Motorcycle Industry Councils opposed. Okay, now, There you go, Mr. Sato with Moped Doctors.

Vice President of Moped Doctors. Can you hear me, folks? Okay, great. I'm also the Chief Safety Inspector of State Safety Inspection station number 1926, which specializes especially in mopeds, which we help.

We're part of the front line that helped get rid of or reduce all those loud mopeds that used to drive everybody, including myself, crazy those years ago before they got replaced by these crazy fast electric bikes.

Now, what's going on now is that we also worked with the Department of Transportation back in 2016 to develop the noise standard for the finalized safety inspection apparatus for the moped. So I'm aware of this bill in regards to how it relates to safety inspection.

We strongly oppose it because not only does it target the violators of noise ordinance, but also the very safety inspectors who are doing our best in the front lines against loud mopeds in our case. Plus, based on my experience, the car and the motorcycle inspections, they don't have a dedicated sound check, really.

And there are many more car and motorcycle inspectors than there are moped safety inspectors at this point. And then they have to take on the additional cost, burden, time and training to accommodate the proposed standards.

And it would also punish us for doing our jobs in a way, because, like, if we do our safety inspection roles and then you have somebody illegally modify it afterwards, the burden of proof would be on us and we could lose our livelihood because we rely on being able to pass safety inspection in order to legalize the mopeds that we sell and it be the same for car people.

Also, we have no issue with raising fines and other penalties for allowed offending noisy mopeds and motorcycles and cars but we find fault with making it the burden of existing inspectors like us. Moped people are already doing the best to do our jobs.

And the fact that EVs and electric bicycles and electric mopeds are entering the market, thus reducing the number of the amount of noise out there overall anyway, the threat of losing our license is we don't feel that's either fair, equitable, or right.

And we instead recommend the stronger enforcement and response of the existing vehicle, moped, motorcycle and other sound ordinances as a true deterrent to drivers who want to run these outlaw parts on their cars, motorcycles and mopeds.

We're trying to help and do our part, but we don't want to be, you know--we want to be hit by friendly fire. Does that make sense? So that's our concern. If you have any questions about this matter, I'll be more than glad to answer them.

Thank you. We also have testimony from three people in support and I think six people in opposition. That's all the testimony we have. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? All right. If not, are there any questions? Okay if not, that brings us to the end of our agenda.

I'll just note for folks, we have this agenda to make decisions on and then also a deferred agenda of bills that were previously heard several days ago. So we're going to take a quick recess for decision making. Recess.

Okay. Reconvening the Committee on Transportation, Culture and Arts on our 3:00 p.m. agenda for decision making. Up first is Senate Bill 45, relating to motor vehicles, which decreases the tint in vehicles.

Want to move this forward with amendments, just adopting DOT's recommendation, which would permit lower tint and 35%, but only on the side and rear windows behind the driver in sedans. And we'll add in a defective date. And let's go to Judiciary and see what the testimony looks like. Any discussion on that measure? If not, Vice Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 485: do pass with amendments. [Roll Call]. Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 398, relating to motor vehicle rental fees, which prohibits the charging of a fee for a lessee's spouse by a lessor. I recommend also moving this on with amendments adopting the Attorney General's recommendations, which corrects 437E to 437D, and secondly, adds two sections to protect against retroactive application and contractual impairment. Any discussion on that? If not, Vice Chair on 398.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 398 is do pass with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1286, relating to motor vehicles, which prohibits auto manufacturers from collecting and selling driver data that is obtained without the consent of the car owner. I recommend moving this on for some consideration, but with a number of amendments.

So, first, we want to adopt the AG's recommendations, adding two sections to prevent, again, retroactive application and contractual impairment, secondly, adopting the Office of Consumer Protection recommendations to require disclosures to be in clear and conspicuous language that is easy to understand.

Thirdly, adopt the Auto Alliance recommendations to make the bill prospective or not apply to vehicles already on the road, so only to new vehicles sold or software updates added prospectively, and then add to the bill, fourthly, that consent shall be required as related to specific services and shall not be used to deny services for which additional data collection or sharing are reasonably unnecessary.

So in other words, no one can make you say, like, 'share all my data or you're not going to be able to use your radio in your car' kind of thing, and they'll put on a defective date as this goes to the Consumer Protection Committee and see if we can chat with our stakeholders and see what might come of it. Any discussion on that one?

Yes. Thank you, Chair, for making the amendments as recommended as well. I had grave reservations on this measure and would have voted no, but I'm glad that you have extensively considered making some drastic changes, see how it moves along. So with that, I'll be voting in support.

Otherwise, Chair's recommendation is do pass SB 1286 with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Okay. Hearing none, measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 50, relating to consumer protection, which establishes as deceptive practices, advertising, displaying, or offering a price for goods or services that does not include all the mandatory fees or charges transparently, and then secondly, repeals the definition of vehicle license recovery fees and so forth. We'd like to defer this till Thursday the 6th at 3:01 p.m. here in Room 224.

Okay. With that said, Mr. Chair, I just want to say that I will be voting no on this measure because I have also refrained from any fee increases at all. However, we'll see what your amendments will be forthcoming, with that said, so, thank you, Chair.

Sure. Moving on to Senate Bill 1194, relating to transportation, which prohibits people from engaging in activities that have the intent and effect of distracting drivers along streets and roadways. Similarly, we'll defer this one till 2/6 at 3:01 p.m. end of our agenda.

Senate Bill 1481, relating to motorcycle instruction permits, which requires applicants for instructional permits to successfully complete a basic motorcycle rider course, approved by DOT, I recommend moving this forward to Judiciary with amendments which would be adopting DOT's recommendation to add allowance for driving--for actually driving motorcycles, motor scooters, and mopeds for training purposes throughout that process and then technical amendments and defective date. Any discussion in this? If not, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. SB 1481: Chair's recommendation is do pass with amendments. Any reservation--with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1195, relating to transportation, which establishes buffer zones for street parking within certain distances of crosswalks. Like to move this forward to Judiciary as well with amendments adopting DOT's recommendations that allow flexibility and fix signage issues. Any discussion on this?

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 1195 is do pass with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none, Vice Chair--I mean, Chair--measure is adopted.

Thanks. Moving on to Senate Bill 1667, relating to transportation, which prohibits vehicles from blocking crosswalks and requires folks--excuse me, there's so much here--establishes additional penalties for repeat convictions for reckless driving, excessive speeding, requires a person under arrest who refuses to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test to surrender their license to a law enforcement officer, increases the duration of the suspension of a license when a person is arrested for driving under the influence and refuses to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test.

Allows the appeal of any license suspension to be filed with the Administrative Driver's License Verification Office, authorizes the State Highway Modernization Council to implement additional 25 photo red light imaging detector systems based on dangerous zones, authorizes Department of Transportation to implement additional 25 speed camera enforcement systems in school zones as designated by the Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee, and establishes requirements for the State Highway Safety and Modernization Council and reports to the Legislature. I think I got it all there.

Recommendation is to move this with amendments. We'd like to adopt the DOT recommendations to align a criteria for selection of sites for potential red light cameras with those standards, existing standards, adopt the DOT recommendations to also allow speed cameras to be placed near school zones on state or county roads as permitted by or as identified by the Safe Routes to School Committee in those dangerous places, add in--oh and sorry--and remove the section for repeat penalties for repeat convictions for reckless driving, excessive speeding because we have a separate bill that's going to address some of that.

We'll make technical amendments, blank out the appropriation amounts and note that in the committee report for the Ways and Means Committee if they choose to take this up, and defect the effective date. Okay. Any discussion?

Chair's recommendation on SB 1667 is do pass with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none, Vice Chair. The measure is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1124, relating to transportation, which establishes retail delivery fee which goes into the Safe Routes to Schools Special Fund. Like to defer this till 2/6. That's this Thursday at 3:01 p.m.

Okay. Now this is the early--what is it?

Oh sorry, that's the next one.

Oh, okay. Okay. So we're talking about 1123, yeah?

1124. Sorry, did I say that wrong? SB 1124, relating to transportation. We'll defer till 2/6.

Okay.

At 3:01 p.m.

Okay.

In this room.

All right.

And then moving on to Senate Bill 1123, relating to transportation which directs the State Highway Modernization Safety Council to conduct an evaluation of high-risk vehicles and report. Okay, this one. Recommendation is just pass as is. Any discussion on this one? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation to pass SB 1123 unamended with five members present. Any voting with reservations?

No vote for me. Sorry.

Okay. One second. Okay. Any voting--any no votes? That's your no vote.

Yeah, no, I apologize. I jumped the gun.

Okay. Vice Chair will be a no vote, and Senator DeCorte, a no vote for you. Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 97, relating to motor vehicles, which increases the penalty for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding, so Class C felony, and authorizes the court as part of the sentencing for a third or subsequent offense to order the vehicle used by the person in the commission of the offense to be subject to forfeiture.

This is the measure I had mentioned that also addresses excessive speeding, so we'd like to clean this up a little bit, though, I think, and address some of the technical concerns that were raised. So I'd like to defer this to 2/6, 3:01 p.m. here in this room, 224.

Moving on to Senate Bill 596, relating to taxation, which establishes an income tax credit for the purchase of electric garbage trucks, Senate Bill 118, relating to transportation, which prohibits any business that Rensell uses mopeds to not use combustion engine-powered mopeds, and SB 1094, relating to vehicles, which requires the new motor vehicles permitted by law to equip the siren be equipped with dual frequency sirens.

Will defer all those till 2/6, 3:01 p.m. here in this room, see if we can chat with our folks about--our stakeholders--about concerns raised, and then finally, Senate Bill 312, relating to audible vehicle reverse warning systems, which requires the use of current audible reverse warning systems on state and county-owned vehicles with more effective broadband reversing alarms by 2028. This one goes on to Judiciary. So recommendation on this one, just do pass as is for further consideration. So any discussion or sounds people would like to make on this one?

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 312: do pass unamended with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes?

No vote for me.

Okay. Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And lastly, SB 1216, relating to transportation, which conditions the issuance of certificates of inspection on vehicles not being equipped with noisy mufflers and makes other similar and related changes. We'd also like to defer till Thursday 2/6 at 3:01 p.m. here in Room 224. So that takes us out of our 3:00 p.m. agenda, and I'll just note we have four measures carried over from our last hearing on our deferred agenda.

So we go straight into it. Senate Bill 820 relating to vehicle titles. We're going to--which reduces the period in which transfer is required to forward the certificate of ownership to the Director of Finance.

The departments had noted there was another measure that they've been working on which is on a different agenda, so we'll defer this measure. And then the other three measures, Senate Bill 1095, relating to license plates, Senate Bill 215, relating to towing companies, and Senate Bill 367, relating to transportation, we'd like to come back to.

There's just technical issues and it's taking a little bit of time to get everybody aligned. So we'll defer those all to 2/6, 3:01 p.m. here in Room 224, and hopefully that will be the end of our deferrals.

Okay, one second, Chair. So defer to 2/6 on SB 1095 and 215?

And 367.

And 367. Okay. But the first one, you're just deferring?

Right. Just deferring.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. And with that, we are adjourned.

Sorry. Sorry, real quick. I apologize. 1216, did we defer that?

That was the last bill on...

We did defer, though. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Yeah, so with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.