House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning.

I'd like to call to order the joint public hearing for the committees on Housing and transportation. It is 9:10 in the morning on March 13th and we are in conference room 4:30.

We are here with Vice Chair of Housing, Vice Chair Miyake, the Transportation Committee Chair Kila, and the Transportation Vice Chair Grandinetti and Members of the Housing and Transportation committees for this Joint Hearing. We have a single item on the agenda today, which is SB 662 SD1 related to transportation. We will go straight into it.

So Vice Chair for the testimony.

First up, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation in support. And Gregory Peterson, individual in support. Not here. And 17 individuals also in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on SB 662 SD1 seeing Nuncher.

Just to clarify, you guys are not here for SB 662. Okay. Okay. All right. We're gonna roll straight into decision making. Seeing no testimony here today. My recommendation is to move this out with an HD one and we will remove. I recommend that we move part one from the deal.

So part one deals with the transfer of the streets to the city. Part two deals with clarifying that police can operate on state streets. I think that is. Is important that the city and the county, I mean this county and the state work together on formalizing the transfer of Kapolei streets.

I'm not sure if a bill mandating that transfer is the best mechanism to do that. And I want to ensure that part two has the best chances for success here and that that seems really important to try and clarify that the police have the authority to operate on state roads.

So we will be removing part one to ensure the best chance of success for this bill going forward. Members, any questions, comments, concerns? All right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 662SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] The recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Members. I. I would have liked to have done different amendments, but I understand to give the vehicle the best chance of passing. I think these are agreeable amendments to just support residents who are facing a tough spot. So same recommendation as the housing Committee Members. Any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 622 SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you, Members.

Measure passes.

Seeing no further business, this hearing is now adjourned.

Morning Convening the House Committee on Transportation's 10:00 am, 9:00 am agenda here Thursday, March 13, 2025 at the Hawaii State Capitol Conference Room 4:30. I have myself, Vice Chair and the Members of the Transportation Committee Members public. There are several measures before us for consideration today.

Before I begin, I'd just like to do housekeeping in order to allow many people as testify as possible. Please be mindful of the time you're providing comments if we need to Institute a two minute time limit for testifier because this morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session.

Not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify in the event. Please know I have considered your written testimony as because Members get it at 5pm every day before the hearing. Please note for those on Zoom, keep yourself muted and your video off of waiting to testify.

And the Zoom chat is only for technical issues with staff disconnected unexpectedly. You may attempt to rejoin if disconnected while presenting testimony. We will try to allow you to commit to continue if time permits. In event of network failure, we may need to reschedule and appropriate notices will be made.

Please do not use any trademark or copyrighted images for the documentation and archival of the footage and please refrain for profanity or civil behavior. Okay, seeing with that, let's begin with our first agenda item before us. SB 1095 related to license plates increases the decal size restrictions for social number plates. Please share for testimony.

Department of Transportation offering comments on Zoom.

All right, good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Robin Shishida with DOT and we stand by our written testimony. Thank you. Thank you.

Brian Willis, individual in opposition. Kanoy Willis, individual in opposition and Frank Schultz, individual in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you Members. Any questions? See None. Move on to the next measure before us. SB344 relating to highway safety requires skateboard users under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while operating a skateboard. Vice Chair for testimony, please.

Department of Transportation in support.

Hi, good morning again. Yep, we stand by a written testimony. Thank you. Thank you.

AAA Hawaii in support, Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition. In support, Ryan Willis, individual in opposition, Kanoye Willis, individual in opposition Reagi individual in support and Frank Schultz, individual in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you Members. Any questions? See now to move on to the next measure before SP30 relating to mopeds requires all moped drivers to wear a safety helmet when driving a moped regardless of age of I share for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Yep. Good morning, Robin from DOT. I'll stand by your written testimony. Thank you. Thank you.

Moped Doctors in opposition.

Yeah, yeah. Please come before the microphone.

Good morning honored chair, Vice Chair, all Members of the Committee. My name is Manabo Sato and I'm the Co-Founder and Vice President of Moped Doctors Inc, which is a moped service and repair station and sales station that's been in Honolulu for 15 years.

We also run a safety inspection station 1926 and we help police the moped technical side on it in order to make them compliant with our noise laws.

My view on our view actually on helmets is that this is a little bit overreaching in terms of that there's possibly a way to approach it in a more nuanced sense because you're going in a very blanket form of asking for helmets for everybody of every age when there are known statistical realities where certain groups, especially younger people, may require them first.

And I'm not sure why this bill was proposed also because there are a couple of other bills out there, including I believe HB537, which is even more wider net. And that bill basically wants to make it so that everybody on a two wheeled vehicle, including motorcycles, motorcycles, e bikes, mopeds and scooters have to wear a helmet too.

So this bill would actually be even less than that in terms of reaching. We believe that there's a lot of people in Hawaii who ride mopeds who currently do not use helmets and if they are forced to wear one, may continue not to wear one.

We also feel that we've sold helmets in the past and it's a fact that some people hear less and see less with helmets on.

Believe it or not, and it's been proven by the Department of Transportation here in Hawaii state that mopeds has a class of vehicle in terms of traffic fatalities is the lowest class of any motor vehicle, including pedestrians. Every year we have a statistical average of maybe one to two fatalities a year.

Unfortunately, even having one or two fatalities in my view is too many. But the reality is that statistically forcing everybody to wear a helmet may not necessarily make that statistic go down much further.

Also, we believe that possibly a educational program for people who ride mopeds and bicycles and other vehicles that may be considered for a broad helmet law might be taken into question, encouraging people to wear it making them aware of the pluses of a helmet. Obviously wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet.

If you are one of those people who are prone to being in a situation or age group that can attract this kind of liability. But the bottom line is we feel that it's a little bit overreaching and we would ask that you maybe modify the bill to be possibly for more limited groups or defer it completely.

Especially considering HB537 is out there, which actually covers even wider net than that. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hawaiian Style Rentals and sales in opposition we have seven more individuals in opposition. Anyone else in person or on zoom would like to testify.

See none Members any questions? Rep. Muroaka.

Moped Doctors. Where can I find this known statistics?

About the is an average from the past few years based on the other there's been other proposals that target moped in the last few years, particularly insurance.

They've been trying to pass insurance against this for the last few years and we've argued that it makes it even harder for people who are low income, which is the vast majority of people read mopeds.

The thing is that it's been shown in the last few years that the higher hidot Hawaii Department of Transportation statistics generally fatalities for mopeds has been very low. It's definitely the lowest of any class of vehicles, including cars, motorcycles and pedestrians. And it can vary, usually one to two a year.

I'm not sure what it is for the last year. The past few years have shown a rather low and the lowest of all the categories. Comparatively speaking.

In your own words, can you explain to me why you wouldn't want to use a moped? Use a helmet.

Well, the thing is that I already explained there are certain things that may make it difficult for this law to be implemented. One of them is that the vast majority of people who ride helmets in this state, basically nobody has to wear a helmet unless they're in a rental moped.

The vast majority of people in Hawaii are actually private moped owners. A lot of them, most of them do not wear helmets. Some do. It's an option.

So the thing is that the question you have can also be regarded for more higher risk categories like scooters and motorcycles which go faster than 30 miles an hour, which is what the maximum speed on a moped is in Hawaii.

Now I believe that I mentioned earlier that helmets can also cause side effects on certain types of helmets. Like if you wear a full face helmet, you can have a reduction in peripheral vision. And you can also have a reduction in your audio ability to hear better. You know, there's different kinds of helmets out there.

There's a trade off on different kinds of helmets. Like they have the bowl helmets on the top, which can protect your brain pad, your most critical area, and it allows hearing and seeing, but it won't protect the other parts of your head.

And then there's the three quarter helmets that come down here, but it won't protect your face and your jaw. So each type of helmet. So even with a helmet, there's different degrees of protection involved. So a helmet is not necessarily a 100% catchall fix for head injuries or other similar injuries in a, an accident.

Now, I know the fact that helmets do save lives, they do reduce head injuries. That is a fact. I myself wear a helmet.

But the thing is that we're trying to force people who don't wear helmets and a lower risk category of people who don't wear helmets than say motorcycles, which have about 15 to 30 times the fatalities of mopeds a year. In Hawaii, they have the highest rate of fatalities of anybody.

Another thing is that Hawaii has beautiful weather and it's been known for that time that we have a lot of people, especially from the mainland, who are not Kamahaina, they're Malahinian, they want to enjoy their time here, whether they're students here for four years or in the military for four years or whatever.

And a lot of them don't like to wear helmets either because they don't enjoy their experiences with their moped here. Now that's something that's a personal basis which I can't account for. But that is a fact that a lot of people from the mainland who move here feel that way.

And there are a lot of older people who generally ride a little bit safer than younger people, like students and stuff. And they tend to not wear helmets too.

So my problem would be, I agree with you that helmets do save lives, but I also believe the enforcement of it would be impractical and forcing people, a large portion of them wouldn't wear them anyway. So I think that an educational approach would be probably better.

Why you should wear a helmet and then some kind of carrot instead of a stick approach might be more appropriate, especially targeting the higher risk group of younger people that are more involved in accidents more than older people tend to be. Do you have any other questions?

The first half of your answer was very compelling. I would like to have seen you argue about helmet types versus no helmets at all. The Second half where you say enforcement, that's up to the police. I, I was wishy washy on this whole thing, but in light of what just happened in West Oahu with a.

7 year old girl, because you enlightened me on that case, I, I will.

Not, I will welcome you. It's headline on Hawaii News now if you want to look. But I, I just feel it's no different, it should be no different than a car when safety is involved. Yeah, you get in a car, you gotta put your seatbelt on.

Now we can have the argument about I don't want to wear a seatbelt, it's uncomfortable and that's enforcement. But I just think when safety is involved, we should, we should follow that.

I understand and respectfully acknowledge that point of view, but I also like to know more about that case. So there was a seven year old fatality. Does any, does any. Would anybody be aware?

I wouldn't, I don't want the Members to have to divulge off of that.

Okay, but we stand on that and we believe that more education would be a good compromise and we believe that a more limited and more nuanced approach to having people wear helmets might be a good way to get everything started in the ball rolling on this particular issue. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Members.

Any further questions? Okay, seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure before us, SB 1216, relating to transportation. Conditions the insurance of a certificate of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped with a noisy muffler exhaust system. Requires rules regarding safety check inspections to ensure motorcycle, moped, or motor vehicle is not equipped with a noisy muffler or exhaust system.

Suspends, revokes, or renews renewal of permit for an official inspection station upon a third or subsequent willful violation of any rule regarding inspecting a noisy muffler or exhaust system. Increases the maximum fine for motorcycle and moped owners that violate noisy muffler laws. Includes repairing or installing a noisy muffler exhaust system as prohibited practice for motor vehicle repair laws. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Good morning again. Robin with HDOT. And stand by our written testimony. Thank you.

Waikiki Neighborhood Board in support. Moped Doctors in opposition.

Yeah. Please come.

Hi, Honorable Chair, Vice Chair. Again, I'm Manabo Sato. Of course you already know who I am. I'm also a safety inspector, so this is directly relevant to my trade and business. We oppose this bill not only on our behalf. Because, as moped safety inspectors, we're the first line of defense against like illegally modified mufflers engines and things like that that can cause all kinds of noise violations. So we've been taking part in fighting that problem for the last nine years.

I myself was actually involved with the Hawaii state DOT back in 2016. We helped implement the finalization of the noise standard measure taking so that we would have a standard for everybody across the board. So we have directly cooperated with Hawaii state in helping establish this particular program on that level. The thing about having this law here is that it unfortunately wants to do a couple of things which may be overreaching a little bit.

One issue that we have as safety inspectors is that there is a connection of where an offending vehicle, offending moped in this case, if there is a possibility of it having been approved by a safety inspection station and there are still problems with that moped's engine noise or muffler, that could be traced back to the moped shop or inspector who did it.

And then the burden of proof would be on them to prove that they don't deserve to be fined or, even in worst case scenario, have their license revoked. Because you'll notice that there's a very clear section on. That that after subsequent offenses that there could be fines, suspension, and even your license being revoked.

Now, quite frankly, in the moped business, it is our lifeblood that we have the ability to to do our own mopeds and safety in order to make them legal in order to sell them. Now, one reason why most moped shops even get the license, the safety inspection status, is to be able to sell their mopeds because they can't rely on outside factors to control that.

Now that would basically hurt the entire industry and not be able to allow them to do that because of a few errant possible rogue individuals who like to modify their engines. And also this also would possibly impact the car and motorcycle industry inspectors. Because I've spoken to motorcycle inspectors and car inspectors, and currently there is no noise provision. There's no specific inspection for sound at this point.

So they would be forced to go through additional training, spend more money on new equipment, and go through a lot more procedures and time on this particular issue, which they didn't have to do before, which could burden them as car inspectors and motorcycle inspectors are incredibly busy people. Because we have a lot of cars in Hawaii. We have a lot of cars, a lot more than mopeds.

And at the same time we believe that when you have this, they would be subject to the same possibility of losing their licensing, which is difficult to get and very arduous and very valuable to any car or a moped mechanic shop. And also there was a little section of this bill. Can I see that? There's a little section of this bill that we, the moped industry, had a question about. And I don't know if you have a copy of SB 1216 in front of you.

But at the very bottom on line 15, it says needs the issuing insurance carry policy number of the motor vehicle identification card for the inspected motor vehicle as specified by Section 431 or state the information contained in the proof of insurance card as specified by 43110G106. My confusion is, does that only apply to cars and motorcycles? We just want to clarify that. Because, at this point, mopeds do not require insurance in the State of Hawaii. Would anybody be able to clarify that?

Unfortunately, we can ask questions, but I cannot allow testifiers to ask Members questions.

Would there be any possible way for me to find out later on?

I would have to defer for you to ask the introducer of the measure.

Sure, no problem. Okay, I understand. Now that's why we oppose it. We don't think it's fair or equitable to put people who are actually trying to help Hawaii bring down noise on mopeds and in this case cars to put up with a liability of possibly losing their license.

And at the same time, there's an increase in electric mopeds, electric motorcycles, and electric cars, which actually renders the point a little bit moot on the emerging market of EVs. So thank you very much for your time, and if you have any questions, I'll be more than pleased to answer them. And our inspection number station is number 1926, by the way.

Thank you.

We're not. Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition. We have five individuals in support and three in opposition. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Please come before and state your name for the record, please.

Mike Rosenman. So...

Sorry. Individual or with an organization?

I did as an individual. So. So the only exception, I mean, we know that we need to have insurance for when you drive a vehicle, a car or a motorcycle, the laws are already there. So it's almost a little bit redundant. I'm not sure why this has to be like that. And the noise requirements are already there.

The problem I have is that the insurance, the mopeds are not required insurance. So unless they miss, you know, something in the bill saying expect mopeds because mopeds do not require insurance. So otherwise, I mean that that'll be a whole different issue, which there was a bill, and it didn't pass. So that's my only, my only issue. If you have any questions, let me know.

Sorry, just clarify. You're opposing the measure as written with this? Okay, thank you. Okay. Anybody else?

Mr. Chair, I have a question. Did I make my position clear that I was opposing the bill?

That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Members, questions? Rep. Muraoka.

Moped Doctors. You know, if they're in your inspections, do you guys do the iPad picture?

It's all controlled by the PI system, the moped safety inspectors, the subsection of the entire state safety inspection program under the cars and motorcycles.

Okay, so it is the same one. So as a licensed inspector myself, I can do a moped.

No, you have to be qualified to do that particular subset. Okay. Like as a moped inspector, I can do mopeds, but I can't do cars. I can't do motorcycles. But a car person can take on the additional licenses of motorcycles and mopeds if they choose to. It depends on the company.

The reason I asked that question is, if you folks are doing the DOT safety inspections with the iPads provided by DOT, then that renders your argument moot in the fact that they can come back and come back to your station because that picture is required at that time.

No difference in my station is to provide tint proof. That's why we take the pictures. You agree with that? At the time of the inspection, that picture will release you of any liability. Because like myself or like many other inspection stations out there, we cannot control what the individual does once they leave our stations.

On these islands, many people peel their tint, come get their safety inspection, and then go reapply tint. They could be doing the same thing with the mopeds, putting on the stock muffler, getting their safety, getting their inspections, and then putting the muffler back on. That picture with the iPad would protect you in that situation.

Okay. Senator Muraoka, I have a question. So you yourself, are you yourself a safety inspector?

Well, as of January, I no longer am, but I was previously, yes. So I'm very familiar with the process.

Okay. So that's good. Okay. So you know that there's no sound standard for cars and motorcycles, correct?

I do.

Okay. We're the only ones that have to deal with the sound standard. So the thing is, this is about sound. Okay. And a picture, unfortunately...

Sir, I'm not... I don't want to argue. I was just...

I'm not arguing, sir. I just... Can I just finish this up? One point real quick. This is about noise and sound. And if there's like visible photographs of a part that might cause that, like a modified muffler or a carburetor that's open, that does make sense.

And at that point, obviously we would reject it because we're only allowed to test mopeds up to four miles an hour. So we can't test other than the sound. Now we have a sound meter that does that. Now, the thing is that a photograph, unfortunately, you're saying that the PMVI system makes everything moot on my point.

But my point is that because we have to do a sound check, which cars and motorcycles do not have to do, we actually can hear that noise at that time, which no photograph can take a picture of unless they do like maybe an additional video kind of thing to the future PMVI system.

So I respectfully have to disagree with your assessment that my point is moot because this is about sound and a photograph will not be able to reveal that unless it's like a video with audio content. Does that make sense? So. And at the same time, it would add more burden to safety inspectors.

You were a safety inspector too. I don't know how much more difficult it'll be to be an auto safety inspector or motorcycle safety inspector, but I know it'll impact a lot more people than it will mopeds because there's only a handful of us. But there's way more people who work in the motorcycle industry and the car industry, and I know that their stuff is generally going to be a little bit more expensive than our stuff probably. So that's just the assumption I'm making.

So it might be great for the PMVI system, they might make more money on it, but whether the automotive stations will be able to easily transfer to that new system is a different story. Because the moped system was built with sounds and questions from the ground up, so we never knew anything else. The motorcycle and the car people would have to make an adjustment, and how severe that would be is something that could be in question. Any other questions, anybody?

You're good. Thank you, Rep. Rep. Miyake.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sato, real quick. Can you tell when you do an inspection if a person has modified their exhaust system on a moped? You can. Okay, so Section 2.9, Chapter 291, Section 24, states, no person shall modify the exhaust system of a motorcycle or a moped in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of such motorcycle or moped above the emitted by the muffler originally installed on the motorcycle or moped. So that's already written in law.

So, unfortunately, when we establish our sound standards, there are a couple of other factors that are not being addressed by these bills which always target the muffler. The problem is that on a moped, the carburetor often has a lot to do with it in terms of noise.

Now, if we see a modified muffler in a carburetor, usually on visual inspection you'll know. And also, there's damaged mufflers that come in. There's mopeds that hit potholes and stuff. They damage their mufflers, which is not a modified muffler. It's a noisy muffler, but it's not a, it's not a modified muffler.

So there's different exceptions that are not being fully covered by the bill, which, if it was more nuanced, would possibly go into that. So, yes, I understand that if you're focusing on stock mufflers, you want it to be stock mufflers. We do too. And if they come in with anything that's loud or anything that looks strange to me, I kick them out of my place because I don't lose my license, I protect it. I work hard for that license. But there's other factors involved that can also create noise beyond just a modified muffler.

I understand. Thank you, Mr. Sato. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Rep. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. As we move on to the next agenda Item before us.

SB 1102 SD2 relating to the Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Unit establishes a chief of the State Air Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Trade Unit of the Airport Division of the Department of Transportation shall serve not more than three terms of four years.

Each requires Department Director of Transportation to appoint the chief from a list of three qualified candidates submitted for consideration by the State Fire Council. Effective July 1, 2050. Vive Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation and Support.

Good morning, Robin. With DOT and standby or written testimony. Thank you. Thank you.

Frank Schultz, individual in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. Let's go to our next measure, SB 1522, relating to vehicle title transfers. Clarifies that a transfer should not be liable for any violating resulting, violation resulting from the operation of a transferred vehicle if the transfer complies within the portions of the statute requiring actions on the transfer's part. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of, Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu in support. National Kidney foundation of Hawaii in support on zoom.

Aloha, Glen Hayashida, National Kidney Foundation of Hawaii. I just want to thank you and acknowledge the work to clarify the statute. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Pacific Auto Auction in support. And Frank Schultz, individual in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Thank you. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. Take a recess.

Reconvening the 9am agenda here in the House Committee of Transportation for decision making on the measures before us.

Members, I just want to clarify that we'll be making decision making on the measures that we discussed today and then decision making to also follow on the same agenda for two bills that we previously heard on Tuesday, SB1117 and SB1667. So if you folks will indulge me, we'll start at the top of the agenda with SB 1095.

Members would like to adopt an HD1 and we will defect the effective date, July 1st, 3000. Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you so much. Members, if you folks will move on with me to the next measure before SB344 looking to highway safety, Members would like to adopt an HD1 will defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. We'll do technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And Members on this one like to increase the minimum age requirement from 16 to 18 on helmets operating a skateboard. Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, but sure. For the vote, please.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Members, move on to the next measure before us, SB30 relating to mopeds. Members like to adopt the HD1 will defect the effective date to 3-1-3000. We'll clarify that no individual under the age of 21 shop rate a moped without wearing a helmet and that no individual under the age of 16 shall operate a moped.

We'll do technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency and style. And just for a comment, again, this is a comment that regarding the quad line of questioning raised on measures SB 30 and SB 1216, there are no insurance requirements as it's applicable to motor vehicles.

There are no new language requiring insurance for mopeds in both languages of the Bill. So just to clarify with that Members, any questions, comments or concerns seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on SB30. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any representatives voting no, any with reservations. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. If you can move on to the next measure with me. SB 1216 related to transportation Members like to adopt the HD1 will defect the effective date July 13000. I'd like to incorporate the Motorcycle Industry Council's proposed amendments that a motor vehicle muffler has followed.

No person shall sell, use or public highway, offer for sale, alter or install a muffler including but not limited to cut out, bypass or similar device that noticeably increases the noise emitted by a motor vehicle beyond the level emitted by the vehicle as originally equipped from the factory except for motorcycles and mopeds that comply with U.S.

EPA regulations as specified in 40 CFR Chapter 205.1.52.

I want to amend Section 3, line C to increase the fine to 150amend Section 4, subsection B, paragraph 1 to 150, amend Section 4, Subsection B, paragraph 2 to 3, 350 amend Section 4, subsection B, Paragraph 3 to 950 and make technical amendments for clarity consisting style Members any questions, comments or concerns non [unintelligible].

For the vote Please voting on SB 1261216 SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to the next measure, SB 1102 relating to aircraft Rescue Firefighting unit Members I'd like to adopt the HD1 will effective effective date 7-1-3000.

I want to clarify and insert language that each appointed chief of the Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Unit within the Airports Division of the Department of Transportation shall serve a term of four years with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

Director of Transportation may also appoint a chief from a list of up to five qualified candidates submitted by the State Fair Council with strong consideration of prioritization given to the candidates recommended and the appointment shall also be subject to advise the consent of the State Senate and I'll make technical amendments for clarity consisting style Members Questions, comments or concerns Seeing none make sure for the vote Please.

Voting on SB 1102 SD2 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments any nos any with reservations Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. We went to the next measure before us, SB 1522 relating to vehicle title transfers. Members like to adopt the HD one on this one and we will defect the effective date 3-1-3000. Members, I also like to amend the bill to adopt the language of HB 532, HD1, which we previously considered and supported.

I also want to require the courts to create new forms extending the date to December 31, 2025 instead of as is when we adopt it. And I want to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Members, questions, comments or concerns? Okay, Seeing none Vice Chair for the.

Vote please voting on SB 1522. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no< Any with reservations? Chair the recommendations.

Thank you Members. Okay, moving on to the measures that we previously heard on the March 11 agenda for decision making, only SB117 related to transportation. Okay, if you folks indulge me, Members like to adopt the HD one.

So we'll first start by saying an individual should not receive more than $750 in total assistance or $1,500 if classified as a qualified recipient under the program within any three consecutive fiscal years. Upon reaching the limit, the individual shall be ineligible to receive assistance under the program for the following three fiscal years.

Page 8, Section C Department of Transportation shall allocate a minimum of 700,000 and up to $1.5 million in total into the sub account for the administering of the rebate program. Should additional funding be required, the lower allocation amount and available funds be adjusted accordingly. Section 30 and Section 31.

The appropriated funds will come from the State Highway Fund shall align with the amendment specified on page 8. Section 31 on any unencumbered Fund shall lapse if the Legislature does not reappropriate the funds and extend availability of the sub account for the same three fiscal years, again subject to Legislature approval.

Clarify that any funds not expended within the fiscal year shall roll over for the expenditure in the following fiscal year and that the special Fund shall have a ceiling cap and shall not exceed a total of $2 million. On page nine, eligible purposes must be made at a realtor seller on or after July 12023.

Page 9 Section F We're GOING to Apply Failure to apply for the rebate within six months from the date of purchase shall constitute a waiver of the right to claim the rebate. However, if an individual applies after a six month period but within the 12 months of the purchase date, the program administrator may consider granting the Rebate.

Each claim filed after the six month period within 12 months shall be subject to approval by the Department, the Director of Transportation or the designated authority. On page 11, line 10, subsection 2, the exemption shall be subject to audit by the Department of Transportation instead of May. Page 11911 subsection 3.

Financial needs shall be determined, Dem determined, Demonstrated and prioritized based on Pell Grant eligibility. Other VI and other verifiable indicator indicators of financial aid exemptions may be granted upon approval of the Director of Transportation or the designated authority.

We are going to make applicable definitions of bicycles, E bikes, micromobility devices and other relevant terms with language in HB958HD1 to ensure accuracy and consistency. This includes, but not limited to the classifications and definitions of Class 12 and 3E bikes.

We're going to insert language that any modification or alteration to an E bike or micromobility device after purchase from the manufacturer that affects the classification, performance or compliance with the specification set forth in the actual result in the disqualification of the rebate.

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

I also would like to remove sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 for in their entirety and all references to insurance requirements. Also in a technical amendment, we're going to repeal 291C197 in its entirety and incorporate this new language into Chapter 291C.HRS is a new section.

I'm also going to remove all the appropriation amounts stated in the bill and document the original figures in the Committee report for reference and further discussion and consideration by the Finance Committee. And I need to make technical amendments for clarity because this is Dean style. Members, questions, comments or concerns?

Is that it? Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

[Roll call]

Thank you, Members. Okay. Last measure, SB 1667 related to transportation. Members like to adopt the HD one. We're going to affect the effective date July 1, 3000. On page four. We're going to strike section B its entirety. Page four. I'm sorry, page five. Section six.

I'm going to insert language specifying that proposals for emergency exit routes shall prioritize areas with significant populations of asset limit asset, limited income, constrained employed households as well as communities and households experiencing high levels of poverty.

Consideration shall we give into data from sources such as the United Way Alice Report, US Census, American Community Survey, Hawaii Housing data from Department of Business, Economic Development and tourism and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Tax and social Services data, geographical information Mapping, economic studies and other relevant data sources.

This provision shall also be implemented in compliance with all applicable Federal state emergency management regulations to ensure alignment with established disaster response to evacuation protocols.

On page six I'm going to amend the language to require that the submission shall include a list of five areas with at least one area to be considered on the Waianae coast of Oahu.

On page six Amend to provide that the State Highway Safety Modernization Council may Recommend up to 10 intersections in coordination with the Department of Transportation where feasible on an annual basis.

Page 7 Amend to Safe Amend to provide the safe routes, the School Advisory Committee may Recommend up to 10 intersections in coordination with the Department of Transportation where feasible on an annual basis.

Also noting expansion of the red light and our speed camera system should account for impact on district courts statewide provide up to six months from the time of identification for courts to collaborate with the Hawaii Department of Transportation before implementing any expansion of the Traffic enforcement camera system and require annual reports to be submitted by the Legislature.

Members Question comments or concerns not thank you. Okay seeing none F for the vote.

Voting on SB 1667 SD2. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair your recommendation is thank you.

Members. We are admitted SA.