Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Aloha. And it's not Friday yet. Okay. It's Tuesday. Okay. Welcome everyone. For our 2026 session for the Committee on Transportation and Testifiers. For your information, we ask you to stand on your written testimony or you limit your oral testimony to two minutes. But we'd love to hear from you as well. And we may call you back again.

And this, the live and archival video of this hearing can be found on the Senate's YouTube channel. I guess after we depart and you can, you can review yourselves again as well. Decision making will follow after the hearing from all the testifiers. Time permittee. Okay, we'll proceed then with. I need my agenda. Yeah, I got it. Yeah.

SB 2008. Okay. Here we go. Can I borrow yours? Okay. All right. Okay. And as you note, when you see agendas, just for your information, you know, if it says amended, that means that there was the first one posted and then we added or changed. And that's why it says amended. All right. Just so you understand.

And you may have had a bill on it and we took it out, but then we can deal with this later. However, let's proceed with SB 2008. And this is relating to statewide traffic code. It establishes 55 miles per hour as the maximum speed limit on all parts of the DKI highway.

And let's speak and hear Sherry Bird, Hawaii Police Department. Okay. She's not present. Not on Zoom. Interesting. They oppose this. Okay, interesting. Megan Blasek in support. Okay. Larry Verray, an individual in support and of course our Director. This is very interesting. I have to share with you.

When I decided I put the 60 mile per hour, I initiated this when we first opened the new DKI highway and it was well received. And then of course, we did have many, many accidents. And so I was not happy. However, let me share with you. I did this for a purpose.

I wanted to test our community and our travelers. Just to see. I mean, it's not like I'm going to. I may even defer my own Bill, but just to test it, just to let people know how bad things are on our highways.

Not only DKI highway on Hawaii county or Saddle Road, as we've known to call DKI highway, but Saddle Road, as we all grew up and knew Saddle Road was there, however many other highways in our state. And we're not happy.

And just to add that even though that there is opportunities that we can do, you know, statutorily we can add, we can take away. But when I first announced it, Tribune Herald did it a good article Guess what?

The tons of oppositions came out in social media to my bill and I'm surprised that we have only this view in a. I mean, in one opposition. So I wonder if people realize that, you know, changing from a 60 mile an hour to 50 was probably was problematic to many drivers, even my husband.

So no deal with that kind of stuff. But I, and I'm on that highway a lot, however, see what happens with my bill.

But just to give notice that there's concerns that we have, people should realize, you know, don't drink when you drive, stop speeding and stop road raging and just be good citizens and worry that your child will probably be one that has gotten so bad that you may lose a person. So just remember, take care.

All right, let's proceed then with zero, reminder. Anyone else wishes to speak on SB 2008 on Zoom or present hearing? None. Seeing None. Let's move on to SB2009. And this is relating to motor vehicles. Requires new number plates and tags or emblems for used motor vehicles transferred between private individuals. Director.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you, Director. Macon Blasek. Okay. In support. Larry Viray in support as well. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2009, is that correct? Yeah, two times.

Here. Okay. Mayor Alameda County of Hawaii, Mayor's office in opposition. Interesting. Department of Customer Services, City and County of Honolulu in opposition as well. Megan Blasek in opposition this time. Sorry about that. Anyone else here wishes to speak on SB2009? Let's move on then. Let's proceed with SB2026. And this is relating to traffic safety.

It requires drivers of vehicles approaching stationary motor vehicles stopped on the shoulder or roadside due to a traffic collision or vehicle maintenance or mechanical problem to slow down and make a lane change if necessary. Attorney General's Office. And happy to have you folks at our hearings. We're very pleased.

We need all the help we can and we need.

Good afternoon, Chair Inouye and Members of the Committee. The Department of the Attorney General is in support of the expansion of the law that requires drivers to slow down when approaching a stationary vehicle. To ensure that the law is enforceable, the Department has some recommendations.

First, the Department recommends deleting the requirement that the stationary vehicle is stopped from the shoulder or roadside. Not every stationary vehicle may be on the side of the road. They may be stopped in the roadway or in a traffic lane, especially when the vehicle is disabled.

The second recommendation is that delete the condition that the stationary vehicle be stopped due to a collision or a Mechanical problem. In enforcing the law, it may be difficult to prove that an approaching driver could reasonably determine that the stationary vehicle was stopped specifically because of a collision or a mechanical problem.

If you delete the provision, then drivers will have the duty to slow down when they approach any stationary vehicle that has its emergency lights flashing. The third concern is that the current law only requires a driver to slow down when it's approaching a emergency road situation.

So under the current law, an emergency vehicle can be stopped for an emergency, for a routine traffic violation and to render assistance. So therefore, under the current law, there's no requirement for a driver to slow down when approaching an emergency vehicle.

If the emergency vehicle stopped for a routine traffic violation or for rendering assistance, we think that if that condition is deleted, then drivers will be required to slow down when approaching any emergency vehicle stationary vehicle that has emergency lights flashing. The fourth recommendation is that the definition of stationary vehicle be deleted. HRS 2862 already defines vehicle.

Stationary simply means stopped or not moving. So the Department feels that there's no further definition needed. And finally, I want to apologize to the Committee and correct my written testimony. In my written testimony, we ask that additional language be added that the stationary vehicle be unable to proceed when stopped. That is, we want to eliminate that addition.

Stationary vehicles may be stopped for a variety of reasons. In a minor fender bender, the car might be stopped, but able to proceed later on. Therefore, we'd like that requested edition deleted. So thank you very much.

You want it deleted?

Yeah, we added it by mistake and upon closer review, realized that's probably not the right thing.

And Members, feel free to ask questions when our testimony is being presented anytime. Okay. I think it's much easier while they're still here. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. D.T. and maybe, maybe. Good. You can, if you want to add to the Attorney Generals, we send support and comments.

It's really good.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ed Bliro, on behalf of 888.

Okay. And also for you folks as well, if you feel like, you know, you're interested in this measure, also because the Attorney General is here as well. So you can also ask a question to the Chair and we can ask the Attorney General to come to explain if you have any comments. Okay. All right.

Thank you so much. OMPA, and that's the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, and they're in support as well. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2026, okay, please come forward. Good to see you again. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Our famous Bicyclist. How many pounds have you lost so far?

Not enough since I don't commute. But I remember when the move over law was passed in 2012 with Major Curt Kendrew of HPD and Hawaii Bicycling League pushing it. And the short blurb that describes this requires drivers to slow down every and.

Sorry, got to introduce yourself again. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Chad Taniguchi.

Okay, thanks.

Okay. The short blurb says, requires drivers, et cetera, to slow down and make a lane change if necessary. And I'm not sure what the language actually says, but shouldn't it be that they slow down and make a lane change not if necessary, but that when they see that they do that.

You're asking me the question. I'm going to call Ed or Attorney General here.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

But you're asking me, so I would prefer hearing from them as well. Okay, all right, Attorney General. Okay, so we looked at that. No, you know what, we have folks on Zoom as well, so things are being recorded and for clarity as well.

So we looked at that provision and I think the issue is that it may not always be possible for a vehicle to make a lane change. And so that's why there's sort of that qualifying condition that only if necessary, it's safe. So we agree with how the Bill is currently worded because it just might not be possible.

Okay. All right, Chad, are you gonna be confused or questions? Sit down. Yeah, yeah, Chad, you too. Let's hear the discussions.

Well, I remember Chad Taniguchi In 2012, the law was passed because two police officers were killed that year and you know, helping with a roadside stop. So the move over law in my mind was mandatory that you had to move over at least one lane.

So if you're going to say if necessary is in the mind of the driver, then they may feel like, hey, it's not necessary.

So wouldn't be better to find some other language that says when there are two lanes or when you can, let's see, I wouldn't expect them to go into the opposing lane of traffic because that's dangerous too. So you know what I'm saying? Make it mandatory that they move over when it's possible to move over.

Right. And I think, you know, the issue is it just might not be possible.

So even in a two lane road, you know, if you have a, you know, like a multi car pile up in one lane and for some reason the police officer's on the shoulder, you know, there's no lane to change over to So I think I, I know, I understand what you're saying, but I think we just can't accommodate every single situation.

But you know what, on Big island we got many, only two lane roads. So that's. Yeah. So we might just experience that and what happens, you stay, they close the road entirely in most cases.

Right. So may I speak? Yeah. But if you're talking about enforcement, if the driver knows that they must move over, but then in their mind, of course using their common sense, they're going to see there's no place to move over, then they're going to slow down. But what about the guys where there is room and they don't?

That's the guys you want to have the requirement. So I say, though it's not perfect, but there's way to make language so that in their mind they must move over.

Well, when you do, statutory changes or additions to some complications may also refer back to insurances as well, you know what the law says and how it applies. So I'm not sure anyone has some questions. No, I think.

And that's why we were requesting some of the language be cleaned up as far as enforcement is concerned. So we wanted to make sure that as long as the vehicle stopped, any vehicle stopped on the side of the road and its emergency lights are flashing, it's good.

You have to slow down and then if possible change over to another lane. But we're trying to simplify the enforcement and make it easier for that violations to be established. And proved.

And did we cover what happens aside from a car, if there's something happening on the shoulder and there is an accident on, in the lanes, the moving lanes. So if there is an accident there, the vehicle must, if the vehicle that was part of the accident remains there, must be there.

Right, right. And so that's why we're recommending that the requirement that the stopped vehicle be on the shoulder of the roadside, that language be eliminated because there are situations where the vehicle might be stopped, stopped in the roadway and we want the driver to have a clear duty to slow down and if necessary change lanes.

So in that case, you know, if it's a single lane, hopefully the officers on the scene, they have to direct the drivers around whatever the obstruction is.

Okay.

All right.

Senator, there's a organization that was started because a tow truck driver was killed in trying to tow somebody off. So I just want to say to me, if you can find a way to make it where it's possible, they have to move over. I think those people who work on the Roads would be benefited.

Now, who goes on the shoulder in this incident?

The tow truck was towing a car that was disabled and the tow truck operator was on the side of the tow truck.

Okay, so the tow truck hasn't moved yet? No, no, stationary. And then they loaded the car onto.

The tow truck and in that process, a car that did not move over killed the tow truck driver.

So the passing car then.

Yeah.

That's why we have to be careful when we're driving. Keep your eyes on the road and see what's happening. So. But thanks.

Okay.

For the discussion. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And for my. The record, Michael Moriyama. Thank you, Deputy Attorney General. Thanks. Thank you.

Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 2026? Okay, hearing none and seeing none, let's proceed to SB 50. 2053. This is relating to transportation. This authorizes supporting documents used to transfer ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurer after payment of damages from the result of a total loss.

Insurance settlement to be signed electronically requires insurance companies to indemnify and hold harmless the Director of Finance for any claims resulting from the issuance of motor vehicle titles utilizing documents signed electronically without a notary. And this is Dot Stern. Thank you, Chair. We stand in support of. Okay, thank you so much. AG no comment on this one.

Yeah. Honolulu Seating County Customer Services in support. Mike Onofrietti testifying for Hawaii Insurers Council. Come on up.

Michael Onofrietti . We stand on our testimony and support and are available for.

Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Mark Binder on Zoom and testifying for Copart. Aloha.

Aloha. And good afternoon, Chair. You know, and Vice Chair Elefante and the Members of the Committee just thank you for this time. We really appreciate. I really appreciate it for Copart. My name is Mark Bender.

It's B I N D E R. And I'm testifying on behalf of Copart for support of SB 2053 with technical amendments that there was a few errors in the language which were caught, and we're asking that those be amended as well. Copart is a vehicle auction service company across the entire United States.

And we have a facility in Kapolei and we service the entire state. Our business model involves working closely with insurance companies. What we do is we liquidate vehicles that have been declared a total loss following a claim settlement.

And 2053 modernizes this process by allowing electronic signatures for transfer from the vehicle owner to the insurance company without a notary. So you can see this is a very narrow transaction type. But with significantly reduced delays for customers.

Because if you think about it, in the current system, owners must locate a notary, mail title documents, which could take several days or longer. And they're doing this all without a vehicle because their vehicle's a total loss. So the bill allows many of these transfers to complete much more quickly, often in one phone call.

And it's helping people with families replace vehicles and return life to be normal a lot sooner. So this is very similar to other laws across the country and it's supported by federal and national transportation authorities.

I just lastly disrespect, respectfully ask for your support of 2053 with the technical amendments which is described in our written testimony, which you should have. So thank you for the opportunity and I'm definitely available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Mark. Another Mark set none. Testifying for the American Property Casualty Insurance association also in support. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB2053? Otherwise we will say aloha to that one and we'll proceed with SB 1221782. And this is relating to vehicles.

It allows an all terrain vehicle to drive in the evening and night if they are equipped with headlights, tail lights, turn signals and brake lights. And while displaying a slow moving vehicle emblem. It also allows the drivers from all terrain vehicles to wear a safety helmet with a securely fastened chin strap rather than required.

And includes the definition of utility terrain vehicle, a motor vehicle that accommodates one driver and one passenger sitting side by side and up to six people in seat belts. And it includes all terrain vehicles in the definition of motor vehicle under the state's motor vehicle insurance laws. DOT.

Hello, Chair, Ed Sniffin with the Department of Transportation. We sent in our comments to this bill with some concerns for the use of this type of vehicle on the facilities. That all being said though, we want to make sure we can support our AG producers.

So we were looking at this building and we saw we could support this if these vehicles were kept in areas of low speed. So 35 miles per hour or less and the helmet requirement goes to a Shell versus A Mei. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Megan or Megan Oka, Attorney General's Office. Thank you for being here as well. And thank you for being here in person. It's better being on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Megan Oka. We submitted our written testimony available for comments if there's anything. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. This sounds like more of an egg bill in its entirety. Okay. All right. City and county of Honolulu Customer Services in opposition, Hawaii Farm Bureau in support, and an individual, Tiahiro Fukumitsu, in support. Is anyone here wishing to speak to SB 2172?

Matt, on behalf of TCCA Insurance Division, I believe we submitted the two testimony, but we'll stand on our written comments.

Okay, come on up. I want to know what the comments are. We didn't get anything.

Our testimony simply stated that as written, the bill would require ATVs to have and at all times be insured under a standard motor vehicle policy, which would be subject of your normal. Our cars that we drive. ATVs would be required to have that level of insurance under the current provision of the law.

So that's simply what we were noting.

Okay. And interesting, because ATVs, I think in the industry as well, in AG, rarely are provided any type of insurance or coverage. They're not even covered to be on the road. Right.

Well, ATVs, there are certain products that apply to ATVs, such as, you know, depending upon the actual business that's being conducted, whether, you know, I mean, for example, say the rancher or the ranch owns a general liability policy that would cover everything, the scope of all of their activities that might include ATV actions.

I think on the flip side, you have things like your recreational use, ATVs that are covered by recreational policies as well. So this would sort of create a new scheme, I guess, for ATV insurance structures.

In my mind, ATV would be like those small scooters or big scooters or whatever your people use to do transportation or recreation, more recreation. But interesting that this measure says to include utility terrain vehicle. So in your mind, what is the utility terrain vehicle?

Well, I think, to take a step back, Senator, I think the Bill actually only addresses ATVs, so it's only amending sections to include ATVs. I believe the UTV portion of the law is. It's untouched. But my understanding of what a UTV is compared to an atv, this may be incorrect. So.

And I apologize if this is a mischaracterization, but UTVs I think of as, like, golf carts. ATVs are sort of like the ones HPD drives around on, like a Waikiki.

Well, you know, you look at golf courses, I mean, the golf vehicles. I'm a golfer, so I know what it is. But this says include the utility terrain vehicle, a motor vehicle that accommodates one driver, one passenger sitting side by side, but up to six people in seat belts.

But I've never seen a golf cart that can do both, except for those, I guess, probably used in transportation.

And I, I'm not sure if Kilohana on Kauai that hosts, you know, that has a lot of luncheon guests and they do tours on their farm, they may have a vehicle that's probably up to six people that I've seen.

But interesting, but anything to do with agriculture activity, if this is referral, it's interesting because not too many agriculture industry works at night, except for pineapple industry. The flower industry don't work at night. But if it's a concern for a community, it sure would be nice to know, you know, who benefits, what, what particular area.

Because sometimes there are areas that shouldn't be on the road at night, particularly, you know, the, the industry that supports AG. But I'm not sure if I really understand coming. And we're farmers.

So we just want to make sure though that those in the industry, in agriculture that do probably be at night and must transport their employees for one reason or another or the size of the farms, it could be thousands of acres would benefit as well. Members, any questions you may have?

Yes, Senator DeCorte.

And this might be a question for DOT, but with regards to the term utility terrain vehicle, are you anywhere under the impression that this includes golf carts?

I think golf carts is already covered under low speed community vehicles and it's already allowed. I think there was something in the law that we had to adjust to allow electric golf carts in the past, and I'll check on that. But when I look at UTVs, I'm considering things like polarises and those types of views.

Yeah, that's what I was under the impression of.

Yeah. So when I read this bill and be correct if I'm wrong, when I read it, I see that it's written for rural areas and focused on farm law. So I'm reading it as going from field to field or location to location for those purposes.

And I can see that because, you know, take as an example my island, the District of Waimea. You have lots of farms there. And the danger that I see in the Hamapua coastal, you know, where you have a highway, and that's pretty concerning, particularly when you don't have good lightings on the highways.

Yeah, this is why I was saying that we could be supportive if this is limited to areas of low speed. If it's on a highway, we cannot be supportive.

I gotcha. Okay, Any further questions? Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2172? Okay, we'll say aloha to that one. And then we'll proceed with SB 21722. I'm sorry, SB2253, this is relating to highway safety. And this is.

This amends the offense of negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers. And dot. Thank you, Chair. DOT is in strong support. Thank you. Maui Prosecutor's office in support. Okay. My island testifying. County of Hawaii office of the prosecuting attorney. Attorney in support and testifying from Oahu on post in support. Daniel.

Okay. Hugo, prosecuting attorney. Okay. Good to see you again. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante, Senator DeCorte. Senator Lee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we are in support of this bill. We welcome the support from the Maui Prosecutor's office. But we would respectfully disagree with the offered amendment.

The language that we chose was deliberately to ensure that this offense could continue to be prosecuted as a lesser included offense of negligent homicide. And so it's made to reconcile with another negligent homicide statute rather than importing ovuii and the DUI laws. I'm available for questions from the Committee and we would appreciate support on this Bill.

Thank you.

Okay. And I, I think, I believe county of Hawaii also had some. You had a chance to look at the county of Hawaii's amendments?

I have their testimony with me. If I could just briefly review.

Yeah. And was it different then from the Maui County was Kauai.

Oh, no, this is 2355. 2253. Yeah, I have.

So I think the amendments were offered from county of Maui in General. The county of Hawaii's comments. We are in agreement with.

Zero, the Maui's come Maui's amendment. This is the one you said you don't support? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Just for clarification. Thank you so much. Okay. In support, citizen of Hawaii. Okay. It can be all of you. All right. Okay. Citizen, your turn. Okay. All right.

Anyone wishes to speak to SB 2253, we're going to say aloha to that one. We'll Proceed then with SB2355 relating to vehicle safety. And this requires the Director of Transportation to adopt rules allowing for mobile vehicle safety inspections. DOT.

Thank you, Chair. The DOT has submitted comments on this. If we ask. Just submitted comments on this. Just. Just with discussing the potential impacts for cost and consistency as we push a program like this. So we submitted comments. We're not against the bill like this.

We want to make sure that we look Forward to seeing how we can better service our communities. We just haven't put the work into finding out more information on how this would work for Hawaii.

Okay, thank you. Any questions of the Director? Okay. Hearing none. Nicholas Wong, an individual. Yes. Aloha. Thank you for being here.

Senator Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante, Senator DeCorte, Senator Lee, My name is Nicholas Wong. Just in support of this bill, really, it's just in my mind, a common sense bill. I've had issues, I guess, trying to get our safety inspection with inspectors not being there, canceling appointments, and it's just a little tough.

And I think we're in a little age where we're finding that a lot of these inspections are able to be. Are required to be done with an Ipad that they take pictures of and everything's recorded. And I don't.

We don't really see the issue of being able to do it or tie it to an actual vehicle inspection site. I did see some comments that came through from the Department of Transportation regarding kind of quality control. And I really think that's really got taken care of by the Ipad situation.

Everything is really now taking pictures recorded and the equipment, technology. Again, we're in a little age where we have cell phones that can mobile each know, tell it, transport all of our data, all of the inspection reports, all of that. And I think kind of last one is that inspector safety.

In my mind it would be just, you know, areas especially even the Capitol, where there's a lot of cars parked downstairs where we can get our inspections done while we're at work. And again, that's kind of my. My thought on it.

And again, I did see at the bottom where it was, you know, to do a pilot program. I mean, we're happy in my mind, I'm happy to have any conversation to kind of keep this Bill going. So I think a pilot program would be even fantastic. But thank you, really appreciate your time.

Are you in the business?

No, absolutely not.

Okay, well, reason I ask is, you know, this sounds like, well, with technology now, you know, anything's possible. AI is waiting to come in anywhere duty part of the inspection. And you know, with this process that's recommended by this new measure, allows the only thing, I mean, we all drive.

But how would one inspect the braking mechanism if we're doing it by phone or electronically? Because to me, I think the inspection part, braking to me is one of the important inspections that should be done on a vehicle. So I'm just kind of curious if it would be an impact or it.

Shouldn't, yeah, I mean from, again, from the research that I've done, kind of looking through the HRS and the requirements seen there. And to me it seemed like this whole vehicle safety inspection really began in the process of before when we, they would actually drive your car, lift your car, take a better look at it.

And what it's evolved to now is just turn your blinkers on, flashing lights and you know, rather than try to solve really that big, big problem of, you know, where does these vehicle safety inspections go? I really believe that.

Well, you know, the comments from DOT, you know, it's part of, you know, the rulemaking as well. And I think the Director did say that they're willing to look at all these, you know, six points. I think that was recommended in this testimony. You had a chance to. Yes, I did. To see it.

I think all of those are very valid comments. And yeah, again, really, it's just kind of keeping that conversation going.

Well, you know, vehicle inspections has always been an issue with this. You know, we talked about having inspections every two years that never passed for some reason. But I think maybe we should even consider going back to it again. I don't know. It's. The Bill never passes.

But see, that's a good discussion because I don't think I introduced one like that. But we know it's good for, you know, to hear things. Okay.

Yeah. So we're interested in looking to see how we can improve the services to the public. We got to make sure we talk to our service providers to see how they would provide those services and how we make sure that we keep them consistent. Several things.

We want to make sure that vehicles are in good working order when we review them so that when they get on the system, they don't cause any delays to everybody else on the system when they break down or two cause crashes or fatalities as they're out there. Those are the two big things.

But now we tied our inspections into our road user charge program. Very difficult for us to go to a two year timeframe now because everybody's paying off of that road user charge or that inspection time.

So it's difficult to decouple those types of things, but always easy to look at how we can improve the services to ensure that it's a minimal impact to everybody.

Yeah, good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, yes. Senator, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wong, for your testimony. If DOT, as suggested in your testimony, would look into a pilot, would that something DOT would procure out and go out for an RFP for mobile inspectors?

We would just do it probably off of the contractor we already have with our mobile inspector program. I got to see how we, how we set that contract up. Okay, thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair.

That would be kind of interesting because if one does it on your own car, I can see quite a bit of consequences, whether it's good or not, but how it relates back to the person.

Yeah. Or from my perspective, it would be certified. It would be certified inspectors that they would be able to do it. Right. Right. Now that certification is given to a location, a business in a location. It could be given to inspectors per se, and it could potentially increase the number that we could have to service the community.

Like I said, I got to check on it to be sure.

I think it's. Yeah, we really need to kind of study this as well because as we all know, sometimes, and I think was already mentioned that it takes a while to get your inspection scheduled as well.

And so, yeah, for me, I just schedule them when I do my service. Every six months when I take them in, I just have them do the inspections.

I think I do that too as well. Okay, moving on.

Thank you.

Thanks so much. Thanks, Nicholas. Kenneth Hsu your perspective.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members Committee. So my name is Kenneth Hsu. I came to just four voice my support for this bill.

I think that it's something that could be revolutionary in a sense because safety checks have always been like this ever since I started driving, ever since my dad would take me with him to get his safety checks done. And throughout the decades, you know, same issues always arise.

And for me now it's a driver for the past decade is same things drive down. Hopefully they have there's someone there to check your car. If there's not, I'll come back tomorrow and then it's delayed and then try to get an appointment. You can't get an appointment.

So I think this would add a lot of convenience, as in maybe not the requirement, but as an option to have. Because for me, like as you guys touched on, currently there's like so many new technologies coming out for.

I mean, you can have someone come to your house to wash your car, deliver your groceries and things like that. So I think this would be a very good option for people that would like it.

And yeah, I think I'm excited to see this go through and see how it does pan out, because I'm sure like any other drivers, I don't even. I'm not an expert of how to know if my car is safe.

And I would like to kind of see some learning from, like, the inspectors coming over, maybe chatting with them. Because, you know, sometimes when I go get inspectors now, I'm just in and out. They just look at a few things and I go home. But it'll be interesting to see.

Do you support the inspection program that we have?

Yeah. And it'll be interesting just to learn more and kind of see this grow.

Thank you for your input.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director. I have a question. You know those heavy trucks that transport heavy stuff, cargo, do they go through inspection?

They. Do they have their own inspection program?

I don't know because my eyes are always open on the road, and I followed some of these big trucks on my island. And in Hiro, I don't see the safety sticker, sticker on the trucks.

So we took over.

So I thought, oh, maybe they're examined.

They're not examined. So we've taken over enforcement. These broken up before. The safety check portion was with the DOT and PUC used to take care of the registration and all that kind of stuff. We pulled it all into DOT now to make sure we can enforce everything together.

So if you do see any areas where there's, there's trucks without the, of the, the formal requirements, let us know so we can get out.

There's a lot, you know, those that transport the Mex, you know, the medicine containers you got, we got heavy stuff, water carriers. I mean, those that sell the water and the tankers. Yeah, I, I followed them. And maybe you keep your eye on. Your own district, too, you know, west.

Side and the construction and I'll tell you, construction companies as well. So I don't know if the stickers are in another part of the vehicle, but don't you always have the sticker in the backside?

Yeah, backside and the side of the truck. We have the requirements, too.

Okay, so. So they are not ex. They're not exact. No, not exact. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Senator DeCorte.

No, I, I was going to ask that also if they're, if they have their sticker in a different location that maybe we're not identifying. But you answered that already, so. Yeah.

And just so I'm clear, when I read the bill, I thought it was. This was for motor carrier vehicles. Those are the commercial vehicles. But what we're talking about right now is you want to see the safety check program for passenger vehicles, Right? This or this, this, this mobile safety check program for passenger vehicles.

Well, this one here is motor carriers.

Yeah. So the way the Bill is written is for the commercial vehicles. And I don't think that's the intent, just based on what I'm hearing from, from testimony here.

Yeah, you guys understood that, too.

Okay, so we're looking at passenger. Okay.

Yeah.

So maybe there's an amendment that we're going to consider in our next.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Oh, did I call Chris Ito in support. Rex Katahara in support. Anyone else wishes to speak on SB2355, we'll move on to SB2392 relating to traffic safety.

And this specifies that operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant while a highly intoxicated driver is a Class C felony and outlines additional requirements for Probation Director.

Thank you. Duty supports the intent and only we cannot say we support because I know that the AG has some concerns that they're trying to work here right now, so we'll work with them.

Okay. Let's see. Attorney General, were you here on this? I don't see. Yeah, I don't. I don't see you on. Let's proceed then with a judiciary followed by public defender. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair. Mr. Court. Senator DeCorte. The judiciary stands on our written testimony with. We're providing comments. We make no position, have no position on the. On the bill itself. We just wanted to identify the impacts that might happen operationally for us both for our trial divisions as well as probation services.

And I'm available for any comments.

Okay. Any questions? Hearing None. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Okay. Public Defender Aloha.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Senator. My name is Haley Chang. I am the First Deputy of the Office of the Public Defender for the State of Hawaii. We have submitted testimony in opposition to this bill and just wanted to highlight a few important takeaways from our written submission.

First and foremost, the current statutory scheme already penalizes highly intoxicated drivers beyond a normal DUI offender. And that language is already in the existing measure. Secondly, as we've noted and in a report that we've cited by the ags, which is old, but we believe an updated one would be consistent that most DUI offenders are first time offenders.

There are a handful of those that come back as repeat offenders. But most individuals learn from the first time. These are not the normal criminal that is out there in our community. Oftentimes it is somebody who is inexperienced with drinking, went a little too far, does not know their limits, but does learn.

So we highlight that because making a criminal felony offense for a first time offender for this we believe is overly harsh. Third, in echoing what the judiciary submitted about the burden on the system, creating a new felony is a significant departure from what is now currently a petty misdemeanor offense.

This requires not just additional resources for the attorneys, but for the courts. These cases are highly litigious. If you take a stroll down the district court, you can see how many of these DUI cases are actually do go to trials, which are primarily bench trials in front of a judge.

But when we're basing something on what is just a metric, 0.15, any DUI expert or defense attorney will tell you there is a lot of problems with the testing and the way that those things are done. So there it's highly litigated. And we're also asking of the Committee to consider all of the unintended consequences of this measure.

I'll be available for questions and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Office of Prosecutor Attorney, County of Hawaii. Kelvin. Aloha, Kelvin.

Hello, Chair. Can you hear me?

We sure can. How's it, how's the weather in my town?

Today is a good day.

Okay. All right. That's good. I heard it's going to rain super bowl day and we're having a party, so I don't know about that. Okay. Good seeing you.

Good to see you too. Chair Inouye. Vice Chair Elefante, Senator DeCorte, Senator Lee, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelvin Waltjen. We stand in strong support of this bill. Highly intoxicated drivers, drivers who have a BAC greater than 0.15, which is nearly double the legal limit. They pose a significant threat on our roadways.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 202167% of alcohol impaired driving fatalities involved the driver with a BAC of 0.15. Driving at that level demonstrates an extreme disregard for the safety of others and it puts everyone at risk.

In consideration of the statements made by those in opposition to this legislation, I want to bring attention to my written testimony where I made a recommendation to create a graduated penalty structure. As such a first high end talks DUI would be a misdemeanor. A second high intox DUI would be treated as a class C felony.

My proposed SD1, which is attached to my written input also poses a loophole and addresses an ambiguity ambiguity related to Deferred Pleas and DUIs. The proposed SD1 was circulated amongst the membership of the law enforcement coalition and statewide traffic commanders.

I feel for my colleagues at the Honolulu Prosecutor's office and the Oahu community at large after reading comments. You know, not having a procedure in place with the First Circuit Court to refuel search warrants electronically is a significant concern and it puts the public at risk.

I hope that the judiciary can prioritize addressing that issue this calendar year. But that shouldn't discourage this Committee from passing this, this, this legislation. Hawaii island needs this. Also, I've reviewed the written testimony by the judiciary where they share data regarding the number of charges against highly intoxicated drivers.

That data alone shows exactly why we need it to increase the penalty structure. If what we're doing right now isn't working, it hasn't decreased the number of highly intoxicated drivers on the road. Clearly the petty misdemeanor offense is not sufficient. I encourage the Committee pass this legislation. There's overwhelming support.

There's even support from Members of the alcohol industry. This Bill promotes traffic and public safety. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify today we submit our written input. I'm available for questions.

You heard the Kalvin. Did you hear the public defenders comments? Yes, I did.

I know they're concerned about the number of. They're concerned about the number of cases.

And how first time. Yeah, I. I guess those that are affected for the first time. Can we hear your recommendation or.

Yes. So my SD one that I attached, instead of leaving it as a petty, I'm recommending that it be graduated to a misdemeanor instead of a petty misdemeanor.

That's in your recommendation? Yeah.

Yes.

Public defender, comments?

Yes, it's in my the proposed SD1.

Yeah.

You had a chance to see. No, I apologize, Senator. I have not had a chance to review Mr. Walton's amendment and I. Kelsey and I'd be happy to have a conversation with you offline as well.

What he is proposing would be much more in line with what we would be maybe not outright supportive of, but less concerned with the.

Like we said, the stark departure from a petty misdemeanor all the way to a class C felony is really significant, not just in the penalty structure, but on the impact on the system as a whole. So.

And I do think a misdemeanor offense, while again, is not our ideal resolution, it would address and maybe acknowledge the fact that most DUI offenders are first time offenders.

Okay. All right, thank you so much. Thank you. Kalvin, any comments? Kalvin, you're okay.

No, just mahalo again for the opportunity to testify today. I appreciate it.

Thanks for working on this as well. Any questions of county of Hawaii. Okay. All right. Aloha to everybody back home. Thanks a lot. Let's see, sitting county of Honolulu. Okay. Yep.

Thanks for bearing with us too. I know been in this building every day. So we appreciate your, your, your comments and, and your visit with all of us.

I think the forbearance goes both ways. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We offered comment on this bill, but I want to clarify we are in strong support of the intent of this bill. Highly intoxicated drivers are among the most dangerous on the roads.

They absolutely deserve felony prosecution. Direct response to the public defender. I don't care if it's their first time that they did it. Oftentimes it's the last crime that they ever commit. So in terms of the intent of the bill, we support it.

But what our testimony points out is some of the effects that will occur on the island of Oahu. And that's only because here, unlike the neighbor islands, the First Circuit, the judiciary has not set up a consistent system for electronic and telephonic warrants. And that arises from a judicial decision over a decade ago to do two things.

Number one, struck down the law criminalizing refusal that this Legislature had. The judiciary decided to do that. Second, the judiciary also decided that they would subject breath tests to the warrant requirement, which departs from the much more sensible distinction that the United States Supreme Court took when it said that warrants for blood tests, absolutely.

But for a breath test, they're going to treat it as a search incidental to arrest. So given that the consequence on Oahu is that many people are refusing. And because we don't have a system in place, we do have one judge who worked on a blood warrant, and we appreciate that judge for stepping up in the.

In the First Circuit, but we do not yet have a reliable system. So the likely effect of this bill only on Oahu will be on higher refusal rate.

And so it's unfortunate because many, many of the times we get evidence that the person was highly intoxicated because they consented to the test, whereas people who just contumaciously refused can't be prosecuted at all in many instances. So just wanted to make the Committee aware of that.

But there should be no ambiguity about the fact that we believe that these people do deserve prosecution. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Maui Police Department. Nicholas angel in support. Let's see. Seating. County of Honolulu. Oh, you already did this.

CSD.

Okay. Maui Brewing Company. Garrett Marrero. And thanks for making time to be on Oahu.

Oh, yes, ma'am. Thank you for the opportunity.

You know, it's. It's great to have people like you in the industry, you know, come to testify as well and just share comments. And we're pleased to have you.

Thank you. Well, it's an important issue, and, you know, we care about Hawaii, so it's important. Sure, yeah. First, I'd like to be very clear. We're adamantly against anyone drinking and driving. I know. It's obvious. You know, people make the connection. Hey, you make beer. So you're here to oppose this bill, and frankly, it's the opposite.

We support the intent of the bill. I am not a lawyer. I make beer. All the class C's and D's and all of this I don't understand so far be it for me to impose punishment.

However, I do believe that strong, strong enforcement and strong punishment and accountability for anyone that is driving under the influence, especially causing accidents, injuries and deaths, especially. We have four restaurants and the production brewery.

And oftentimes, if someone even comes in from off the street, not one of our locations, we'll pay for an Uber or we'll get a cab. We'll take them home. Even in some cases, Maui is a much smaller island. We can do that.

But my testimony today was really about comments where we support the intent because we believe no one should be drinking and driving in this age. We have computer in our pocket that can get us home safely from nearly anywhere on the planet. So that's, I think, a really good factor that shouldn't be drinking and driving.

However, we think the stronger punishments, and maybe there's a tiered system for first time all the way through recidivists and such. But most of the accidents that are causing injuries and certainly deaths occur, according to NHTSA, at least over 67% of the accidents occur above 0.15. So I'm here to support the intent of this bill.

And my comments are that it should always be strong penalties for anyone violating the law. That's for you to determine what those penalties are. However, you'll hear us testify later, we are in opposition to another bill that lowers the threshold to 0.05 because most of the accidents occur at a much higher rate.

And I think these first time offenders, even, whether it be low or high, highly intoxicated, would be, let's just face it, if accountability is a real thing, the harsher the penalty, the more likely someone is able to pay attention and say, hey, and maybe I just won't drink and drive. And that should be what it is.

Thank you, ma'am.

You're also here for the next measure that you're in opposition? We are. We'll spend time with that, of course. Thank you so much for being here. Okay. Testifying for uncle in support, Steve Haumschild, Lonnie Kai.

Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity. Appreciate it. Just to kind of echo a lot of Garrett's comments, we're definitely in support of increasing, increasing penalties for people that obviously consume and then drive and make our roads unsafe. And that's definitely what we want to see is safer.

Just logical legislation that goes after the people that are doing this. As he mentioned, we have a lot of repeat offenders in the state and many of the, many of the fatalities and things are coming above 0.15.

So a law like this is something that we stand behind and support and it's something that not only protects our community, but it protects our industry as well. Just keeps everybody safe and gets everybody home safely. So.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks, Steve. Thomas Kearns, an individual in support testifying Kauai Island Brewing Company, Brett Larso in support, a person named Lily in opposition. So Lily drives, I hope. Maybe she'll. Maybe she's an. She doesn't drink beer. Maybe. Okay. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2392? We're moving along. Sure. Yes.

Could I just ask one follow up question to the prosecutor's office?

Sure.

Thanks very much.

Yes, Senator Lee, thank you.

This issue has been obviously around for some time with respect to the issue you raised. Which is the inability to compel drivers who are suspected of being way over to actually submit to a breath test.

One of the other measures we entertained last year, and I know there's a couple floating around this year as well, would sort of flip the paradigm and say, all right, if you're pulled over. And. Asked, will you submit to a breath test because there's probable cause, you're swerving, you're whatever.

And if you refuse, then it's an automatic revocation based on your compact. Sort of the state has with you when it issues you a driver's license on the premise that you're not going to do that, you're not going to drink, I mean, and drive, and you're going to submit to a test.

Currently, the way it works, you go through an ADLRO process, through due process there, and if there's sufficient evidence or whatever it might be, your license is then revoked.

We had heard earlier from HPD and other law enforcement that because that process is so lengthy and so many hoops, both law enforcement and prosecutors and others have to jump through that for the most part, like, it kind of amounts to nothing by the end of the day.

So, in other words, there's really no penalty for just refusing up front. Is using that moment at point of refusal to put some sort of penalty or other thing there and flip it such that you lose it and you can go and appeal and get it back.

We're still enabling full due process and everything else, but in that moment, until you go through that, we're revoking your license, does that comply with Supreme Court precedent that you cited here in Hawaii and. Or are there other means in that moment to be able to put in some sort of other penalty simply for refusal?

So the one decision did leave open administrative penalties. So if those administrative penalties, at least the way that I read that case, if those administrative penalties don't amount to an effective criminal penalty, and if they don't in some other way compromise procedural due process, then it should be fine.

And at least the scheme that you're proposing, which would be a presumption that the license is revoked, would be helpful, especially in cases where those people continue to drive even though they're still. Even though they're on a suspended license, because oftentimes the facetious defense that's raised is that they didn't get the ADLRO notice in the mail.

Thank you. Thank you.

Senator DeCorte, could you stay? Yes.

With the way that the blood alcohol level is where it's at now, how would somebody, because it's deeper than just, oh, you know, this amount of alcohol level is equal to one can of beer. Or I think it's a little more complex to quantify somebody's blood alcohol level based on their height, their size, those kinds of things.

And so my question is a first time offender not really understanding what the chemical quantification is. How would they be able to know in advance what is triggering or going over the amount of that level?

So for the thresholds of blood and breath alcohol, both. So that element of being over that limit, our case law holds that, that for that specific element, it's strict liability. So it's the mere fact that you are over would be sufficient to establish that element.

That doesn't remove the state of mind requirements for other things like were you driving, were you consuming alcohol? But part of the reason why we have this uniform requirement is because alcohol does affect people manifestly in different ways. Right?

So if you look at the standardized field sobriety tests, we've seen cases where people maybe because they've been pulled over so many times, they actually do not do bad on the field sobriety test. Then we do the blood draw and it's like this person is way over the limit.

The big problem with alcohol, of course, is that many people, it impairs their perception of their own impairment. Right. And so we have tests where people assume that they're driving fine. But when you measure, you know, you put them on a video remotes, you're seeing all sorts of indications of impairment.

And just one of those small misjudgments when you are operating, you know, a massive piece of equipment that's moving at 60 miles an hour with pedestrians, with other motorists, with children, that can lead to some very deadly consequences.

Do you have any idea maybe roughly about how many first time offenders there are?

I don't have that statistic. I will note that oftentimes people are prosecuted as first time offenders even though they've been arrested many times for DUIs.

Okay, and then my very last question, we can move on. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. Do you believe that imposing this will overwhelm the system?

Well, I mean, that, that is a legitimate concern. In State versus Lee, that was one of the cases that looked at the backlog that occurred when these offenses were prosecuted as misdemeanors. And then defense attorneys just demanded jury trials.

So yes, unfortunately, a lot of people commit this crime and that means that for it to be prosecuted and adjudicated, it's going to require significant court resources. So It's a balance. That's part of the reason why the first offense is a petty misdemeanor, even though the consequences of drunk driving are so serious.

Okay. Thank you so much. Daniel thank you very much. Thank you Chair.

Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2329? Let's move on to SB233 2399. And this is relating to the GE tax exemption for aircraft maintenance and it provides a GE exemption for the sale of material parts or tools used for aircraft service and maintenance or for the construction of an aircraft service and maintenance facility.

Aditya, did you have any comments on this one? Okay. DOT taxation all right.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Garrison Kurth, Department Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony, just providing comments on Administration and I'm here for any questions.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for bearing with us today as well Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines, Jacob Aki. Aloha.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Members Jacob Aki on behalf of Alaska Hawaiian Airlines, we stand on our written testimony, but just wanted to provide a few key highlights.

You know, this bill is meant to address a loophole that the recent court ruling has unfolded which would subject locally purchased parts to the get tax while also exempting the identical parts purchased out of state and brought into the state.

So what this bill does is it also responds to the court's invitation for the Legislature to reaffirm the legislative intent of this measure or or of this particular piece of statute which was implemented in the 1990s to align the GET of the parts with the use tax framework.

I think this bill also helps to ensure that the state remains competitive with other states that have similar exemptions to not only attract but to also retain maintenance facilities here. You know, as many of you know, aircraft maintenance is a really good job.

It's a really high paying job and we employ many local maintenance folks to ensure not just the maintenance of our plane but also the safety of our guests. So we will stand on our testimony and we are available for any questions that you folks might have. Thank you.

Going back, Jacob comments with regards to, well, other states where one, I think we're the only state that has GET tax structure as well. And so that's so in some sense on the mainland as well, the work is pretty much reasonably done.

The impacts to the air, the airline industry and this is rather interesting because, you know, we also talk about trade unions and having people work in the industry and maintenance is a highly respected industry and we need workers as well but.

So I do.

You know, it's something that we should consider as well, because we need you folks.

Yeah.

You know, and you know, there's costs that extend up to all of us, the passengers as well, in picking up the cab.

Yeah. So, you know, this is something that, you know, Hawaiian. So Hawaiian had originally operated under the understanding that we were exempt from. And I think under recent times, and particularly, I think, you know, as this was being pursued in the courts, was something that we have continued to.

Did you say there was a suit that happened?

Yeah. So the Intermediate Court of Appeals recently ruled in November of last year.

They ruled. But who filed?

I think it was Hawaiian.

Okay. Pretty joining. Pre.

Combination. Yes.

Okay. And that was for the relief of the GE at that time. It was in protest of. Okay, correct. All right. Protest of payment of the use of the ge. Yeah.

Recognizing that previously Hawaiian had been operating, you know, under. Hawaiian had not been paying the. Get on it because we were under the interpretation that we were exempt. So what this does. Is just what it does is it clarifies. Yeah.

Okay, interesting. But Hawaiians thought that they were exempt.

Yeah, it was something. Yeah. And it wasn't something that was challenged until I think, DOTAX's recent years.

To refresh our memory again, you're saying the courts ruled already?

The Intermediate Court of appeals ruled. And the ruling was that Hawaiian is subject to the get of the parks.

So hence this.

Correct. Bill two. And. And I think our testimony also mentions that it. That part of the reason why this bill is so needed is it aligns with the original legislative intent of this. Of this particular piece of statute.

Well, you know, it's kind of unfortunate, though, that the courts made a decision this late because, you know, we were there when Hawaiian did the improvements to the aircraft part the facility, you know, and that was a big job building two huge facility for maintenance. But then, you know, at that time, they still. They weren't exempted. Right.

They were paying a huge amount, including the new Mauka concourse.

Yeah. Yeah. I think our main concern is making sure that we can close this loophole, because what this essentially says now is that we can just purchase the parts on the continent, import it, and we can avoid paying the tax.

We want to make sure that we're able to, you know, operate fully within the state, you know, and, and. And to keep these jobs here, you know, and to have these parts locally purchased. So.

Okay.

All right. Now, so when you purchase, you're doing your own aircraft. That's.

Yeah.

So we purchased the parts from Boeing.

Okay. So that's on your individual airlines doing the maintenance and such.

We purchase the parts from Boeing, but we do the, we do the actual work. So I think, you know, and I would have to go back to the court's ruling, but, you know, in essence, if we purchase the parts from Boeing but somebody else did the work, then they would be exempt.

But because we do the work here in State, we are not exempt.

Okay.it you know, like we're going to be doing improvements to Diamond Head side on Terminal 3. So when you do, if it's. Oh, but we hire contractors to build and maintain and they gotta change, you know, the parts or whatever, the contractor pays as well. Yes. Yeah, but they're not on in this bill.

Yeah, and, and this is more so focusing explicitly on aircraft maintenance parts. So not necessarily.

Okay. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. Construction and everything.

No, yeah, this is looking at the aircraft maintenance.

Okay, thanks. Senator Elefante.

I have a question for Mr. Aki. So with the ICA's ruling in November of last year, was there a backlog of payment that Alaska had to pay for? Anything was like in that ruling.

So. And I would have to go back and look at exactly what it was. But to my understanding, we had paid. Right. Because Boeing would be subject to, to the gt. But what we had done is that we paid Boeing, but we were going to do tax for a refund of that. I see.

And that's what spurred all this was that we were going to do tax for a refund. And, and because of the interpretation by, by them, we, they, they denied our refund of that. Get. Right. So we were still paying Boeing. Yeah.

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay.

But you never got the refund.

Correct.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Interesting. Tom Yamachika Text foundation of Hawaii on Zoom. Tom, you're still around. Okay. He did have some comments of interest as well. Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, Shari Minor or Member in support, Kekohala Coast Resort Association. Stephanie Donahoe in support. Megan Blaszak individual in support.

Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB2399? Okay. We'll. Yes, Senator, DeCorte.

It's a long day. No, it's a long day. I don't take it personal. No, but we do have some.

We have the DeCorte and DeCoite. That's true. I have to make sure that it's best not to see yet. Okay. DeCorte.

DOTAX, please. And I didn't find this in your testimony, but will this exemption result in any kind of revenue loss for the State.

Well, there has to be, I would think, but how you determine it, I would have to go back and check because obviously there's a starting point with this exemption is already in place for the facilities. So you know that. But how do you determine or how do we know or determine what parts or they purchase this?

I mean, we just don't have that information. I believe so.

Okay. But I figure because you didn't have it in your testimony, you might not have it.

And I don't. Like I said, that's. I don't know if they'd be able. To come up with anything other than a wild guess. Maybe I can go back and ask.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jacob, would you happen to know or maybe a guesstimate on how much revenue it could cost the state? I know it's a hard question. Sorry.

We do have numbers, but because of the competitiveness of the industry, publicly sharing that data in front of the Committee wouldn't be in our best interest, but would be willing to talk to folks offline to share, I think, what our estimates are. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. So this would be something new. I'm not sure if. I think we need to look at the statute, I think, and see what the effectiveness of this in order to give you guys time to work out the mechanism in the office. See. Let's look at the bill.

Yeah. And I believe the bill was set for July 1, 2026. Okay. So we had recommended just moving it to January 1 of 2027 so we can.

Okay, what they had July 1. Okay. July 1. Oh, that's right after session. That's on approval staff. Just to add, make a note on the recommendation, see if I moved up the date earlier probably to, let's see, July 1st. So. January 1st, 2027, gives you guys time, six months. Okay. All right, thanks. Thank you.

All right, let's move on. SB2429 relating to traffic safety and this establishes the framework for the use of intelligent speed assistance technology for habitual speeders and requires report to the Legislature. And I think this is part of the discussion with regards to speeding, I guess. Is this the one.duties and strong speech. Okay. Okay.

Alliance for Automobile Improvement Innovation. Tiffany.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of. The Committee, Tiffany Yajima, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the auto manufacturers support the intent of this measure. We do ask for some proposed amendments that we put in our testimony that speaks to automotive responsibility. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you so much. Thanks for bearing with us today. Okay. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the mad group Archie Cole has been so active with Committee on Transportation. Comments and recommendations in support this time as well. Okay. Testifying for Smart Start in support. Deborah, Coffee. And I know some came earlier, so they continue to send communication and support.

Chad Taniguchi.

Thank you, Chad Taniguchi. So when drivers habitually get speeding tickets or when they one time go really fast, that means they don't care or. Yeah, they don't care. And so this allows the judge to say that we're going to put a speed limiter on your accelerator.

So even if you don't care, you still can't go over certain speed, over the speed limit. And unfortunately, that's your behavior that's told us that you don't care and you're a danger to the rest of us. So. Thank the Chair and the Members of the Committee for Supporting Ignition Interlock, which functions similarly.

Red light cameras, speed cameras, and this is another technological innovation that will control the human being who can control themselves so that we can have safer roads and nobody dying on our roads. Thank you.

Okay, well, your industry, your bicyclist, too, as you know, you're on the road a lot, so it's of interest that you have safety measures all the time.

For everybody. Thank you.

Thank you so much. AMPO sends communication and support. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB2429 hearing? None. Let's proceed to. Oh, yes. Okay. What do you want?

Sorry. In reading the bill, I understand that this will. This cost will be imposed to the driver. Any idea what price ranges we're talking about?

I think it's. It's. It's equivalent to the ignition interlock. But I can get you the numbers, though. I'll get the Committee numbers. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

Yes, thank you. Let's proceed then with SB. I think it's 2463, relating to the use of intoxicants while operating a vehicle. DOT. Okay.

Okay. Office of the Governor. Sense. Will Kane sends communication in support. Public Defender Haley.

Good afternoon again. Haley Chang, First Deputy at the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted a testimony in opposition to this bill and I just want to highlight a couple of the main reasons why.

First and foremost, our existing statute already allows law enforcement, as well as any prosecuting agency to prosecute individuals for unsafe driving related to being under the influence of an intoxicant, even with, even in the absence of a blood or breath alcohol measurement. That's under A1 subsection A1 of 291E61.

Therefore, you do not need a BAC of any amount to prosecute someone who is under the influence and who is driving unsafely. So we do not believe a reduction of the existing BAC is necessary.

Additionally, although, you know, we of course support safe driving and understand the need to have people be maybe more educated and explore different options, it is not illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage and get into your vehicle as long as you do so safely and responsibly.

One of the things that I'd like to highlight to the Committee is that under the existing law, before the proposed changes, a BAC of 0.05 meant there was a presumption that you were not intoxicated because again, there's a recognition that you can have a measurement of some alcohol in your system but not be under the influence for driving purposes.

What this new measure is proposing to do is to reduce what was previously the presumption of non intoxication to now you can be prosecuted and charged with a DUI offense. So we also have cited other concerns related to congestion, diversion of resources, things of that nature in our testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. I did call you. Yeah, Ed. All right. Okay, since where I see those on Zoom, let's do the Zoom people first. Let's see. Kelvin, County of Hawaii, Kalvin Waltjen, you're on.

Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante, Senator DeCorte and Senator Lee, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelvin Waltjen. We stand in strong support of this bill. This bill is about saving lives. Alcohol related traffic fatalities continues to be a significant concern across our state. Lowering BAC to 0.05. It's a, it's, it's not uncommon. It's common across the globe.

It's the international norm. The US Is actually late to the table. Contrary to what the opposition believes, lowering the BAC will not result in significant increases in arrests or burdens on police resources. Lowering the BAC is a simple and effective way to prevent alcohol related deaths. This bill will serve as a General deterrent.

This is different from the bill that we talked about earlier. It's a General deterrent bill. It's going to address those who drink excessively and choose to drive. It will encourage people to think twice before they get behind the wheel. Get a designated driver, use rideshare, be responsible. Let's all do our part 05 will save lives.

Model for the opportunity to testify today. Submitted our written input. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Kellyn Maui Prosecuting let's see. Attorney's office in support. Let's go to the next Zoom. Rick Collins. Is that you Rick?

Yes, thank you. Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee My name is Rick Collins. I'm with the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance which is a program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We are in strong support of this bill for many of the reasons that Kelvin mentioned. It's backed by science.

It's one of the most effective pieces of legislation we know of to reduce alcohol impaired driving crashes fatalities on our roadway. In 202342% of all of our traffic fatalities involved an alcohol impaired driver compared to the national average of 30%.

I also want to point out and the SR151 working group that created a report that sent thank you to Senator Lee for authoring that Senate resolution pointed out a couple of things that I just want to note as well.

There was a meta analysis done on 0.05 around the globe and what they found from that research was on average there's an 11.1% decline in fatal alcohol crashes as a result of moving to 0.05.

I also want to just point out that the report noted that a 0.05 law is fiscally responsible as well because it reduces the strain on hospitals, families and taxpayers. Utah's 05 BAC law showed a 10.8% decrease in the number of crash injuries during the first 12 months the law was in effect.

If a 10.8% increase in Hawaii crashes were to occur, that would be 56 fewer crashes. The average cost is $275,000 per crash. So you're talking about saving tens of millions of dollars here in the state. I also just want to point out that one more piece is that Utah's showing promising effects.

They are at currently over the last four years I believe only an average of 16% DUI fatalities and we're at 31%. So nearly double that. And they're like us in many ways in terms of being a tourism driven Industry, a state as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm here for any questions.

Thank you, Rick. And just to confirm, Rick is with the Hawaii public health institute. McKenna young with MADD aloha. You're on, McKenna.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is McKenna Young. I am the program Director with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and I am here today in strong support of SP2463. The reason to support this bill is simple. It will save lives.

I also want us to think back as we've been here before, when the legal BAC was lowered from 0.1 to 0.08. There was significant pushback at that time as well. Concerns about enforcement, personal freedom, economic impact. But the results were clear. That change led to a 10.4% reduction in alcohol related traffic fatalities.

With no change in alcohol consumption. SB2463 is the next evidence based step forward. Research shows that impairment begins well below 0.08. At 0.05, drivers experience reduced coordination, slower reaction times and impaired judgment. Adopting a 0.05 BAC limit is estimated to reduce fatal alcohol related crashes by 11%, saving at least 1,700 lives every year.

And Utah's experience reinforces this. Since implementing a 0.05 law in 2018, more than one in five drinkers changed their behavior, choosing to plan ahead for a safe ride home. There was no decrease in alcohol sales and no increase in duirs. This policy does not punish responsible behavior, it simply encourages it. This issue is especially urgent for Hawaii.

As in 2025, our state experienced a 20% increase in traffic fatalities compared to 2024. And alcohol related fatal crashes here have historically been higher than the national average. I also just want to address a common misconception. Lowering the BAC does not change how law enforcement operates.

Drivers are stopped for an unsafe behavior, swerving, speeding, running red lights, not because of a number. Finally, this bill is about people. It is about victims whose lives were forever changed, families who carry unimaginable loss and tragedies that were entirely preventable. I respectfully urge you to pass SB2463. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Makenna, I have a question for you. You've been and those before you have been very active since I've been here in the many years and it seems like this bill always comes up. How many times we've had this bill before us?

I believe this is the fourth or fifth year now.

Okay. Thanks for all you do.

Thank you.

Let's See Pamela Tumpap.

Aloha. I'm Pamela Tumpap, President of the Maui Chamber of Commerce and really appreciate being here with you today. Mahalo, Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Elefante and Members of the Committee. The Maui Chamber of Commerce is deeply concerned about the proposed lowering of the blood alcohol content threshold for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.

This bill directly impacts local residents, bars, breweries, wineries and distilleries and by extension thousands of jobs. Small businesses rely on as well as responsible moderate alcohol consumption as part of Hawaii's tourism industry and community life.

We hear the concerns from Matt, but we just want to look at the research and I think we have difference of opinions on some of the research.

Research and experience from other states suggests that the vast majority of the fatal alcohol related crashes involve drivers with BAC levels well above the current legal threshold, often those with significant impairment or prior offenses.

Lowering the threshold to.05 risks criminalizing moderate legal behaviors such as having a single drink with dinner without clear evidence that meaningfully reduce serious accidents.

Utah remains the only state with a similar law and the outcomes there, in our opinion, have been inconclusive, particularly given broader trends in declining DUI fatalities and the unique circumstances of re from of recent years. Further, other states who do have a.05 bac only use that threshold for repeat offenders.

And you have another bill before you that gives different levels of addressing, you know, these offenses and having people be more responsible dictated by levels of punishment that is, you know, can be made available in a different bill.

The proposed change here though, I think your time is up. Our talk was a too late, so. Oh, I hear we gave you a little more time, but thanks for your comments as well. Okay, there should be Doug Martin on Zoom.

Yes, I'm here.

Proceed.

Okay. Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee. My name is Douglas Martin and I'm a student in the Bachelor of Social Work program at UH Manoa and I'm and I'm here to give my testimony in favor of the bill, SB 2463.

The amendment will lower the measurable amount of alcohol from the maximum of.08 to maximum of 0.05 on blood samples and breathalyzers. As a social work student, a future substance abuse counselor, and also as a former. I was an alcoholic for 13 years and I'm 13 years sober now.

I believe this is a strong amendment to thank you to help prevent drunk driving. This book can help others avoid making mistakes that I did and help others that help others make mistakes that I know they will regret because I did a bunch that I regret, and one of them was drunk driving. And if this.

And if the drunk. If the alcohol limit was lowered, I feel me, personally, I would have thought twice about having that extra drink. So personally, I vote in favor of this bill so it can help those who may not know they have a problem, much like I did, and help others. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Michael Douglas. Sorry, we're on a tight schedule here, and we got one more bill to go. Now they are. Some of you here wanted to testify on this measure. You want to come up now? Okay. Public defender, prosecutors. Yes.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, our Department did not submit written testimony for this specific hearing. But on other bills, we have consistently supported it. I just wanted to highlight again the deterrent effect of this bill as well as research that indicates that impairment begins around the 0.05 threshold.

And again, anyone who drives and follows every traffic law in Hawaii, it's legal to avoid intoxication, roadblock. Someone who follows every single traffic law is not going to be prosecuted under this because the police won't have reasonable suspicion to stop them.

All right, thank you so much. And state your name for the record as well.

Aloha, Chair, Committee Members, My name is Brittany Cass, and I'm sitting before you because I survived something that I should have never had, never have happened. I am here as a statistic. I am here as a mother, wife, military spouse, and a survivor of a violent, preventable drunk driving crash that changed my life forever.

And I want to be clear about that one thing from the start. If the laws had been stronger, I might not be here at all, because this wouldn't have happened in the first place. According to NHTSA, about 37 people in the United States die every single year by drunk driving. That's one every 39 minutes.

While sitting here, another family is being shattered. Another phone call is being made. Another life is being erased. In 2022 alone, 13,524 people were killed in alcohol impaired death, driving accident. Every one of those deaths was preventable. Not accidents, not tragedies, but could have been prevented.

I know this because I'm living proof of what happens when prevention comes to. And here's a picture of me two days after my crash. On the day that changed my life. Someone made a choice. That choice to drink, the choice to get behind the wheel, and the choice to collide with my family and our future forever.

In an instant, everything that I was and everything that I would be was ripped away. I survived. But survival is not the same as living. I live with the pain, the trauma, and the fear that never fully leaves.

I live with the knowledge that my children were almost left without a mother, my husband almost became a widower, that our story almost ended because the law told someone that they are okay enough to drive. This is why we're here today with SB 2463. And that is why 0.8 is not enough. Sorry.

Science tells us that lawmakers must not ignore. Drivers are significantly impaired at 0.05% BAC reaction time slow. Judgment fails. Vision narrows. Coordination drops at 0.05 to 0.079. Research shows that your risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash is at least seven times higher if you hadn't been drinking at all seven times.

We would never expect a product to fail seven times and continue it. Yet we continue to allow people to drive the way we call it legal. Lowering the BAC to 0.05 is not about punishment. It's about prevention. Mahalo for your support and for hearing about my story.

Can you just.

For those. Can you show your picture there to the staff and then in the. In the back there so Zoom can pick it up as well on both sides and the left. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for your. Thanks for being here as well. And good luck to you. Okay. Anybody else? Yes.

Garrett Marrero, Maui Brewing Company, Hawaiian Craft Brewers Guild. You know, with respect to Brittany, that is. It's a horrible thing, her and her family and anybody who's experienced an accident due to alcohol impairment, My heart goes out to you. I want to be very clear. This isn't about money. People don't.

People don't buy the products that I make and make in large scale the same choices. When you talk about cheap, mass produced alcohol in 30 packs that people consume on the side of the road, unfortunately, at times. And we're in a different, different world. I'm here because of the.

Yeah. State your position.

Sorry. So I'm in opposition to the bill.

All right.

I'm in very strong support of stronger penalties, as mentioned earlier. It's a very difficult thing to testify on this, and the only reason I chose to this year was because we are facing an economic crisis in Hawaii. Job creation is gone. We don't have enough employees. I see tourism continually to decline.

I see the food and beverage industry continuing to decline. And I believe that this puts us as an outlier, further into a negative impact on tourism. I want to be very clear that we're adamantly opposed to any sort of irresponsible alcohol consumption.

And we would support any measure if we could eliminate drunk drivers from the earth, that would be a wand that any one of us would choose to do. My question is around the data and the gentleman earlier, Rich, said that no arrests have gone up. I pulled data last night from NHTSA Ihas a bunch of different institutes.

And from in 2018, there were 8,500. Sorry 2019. 8,500 DUI arrests in Utah after 2019, when the BAC law was lowered, there were 11,000 last year with an average blood alcohol content of 0.14, which is nearly three times their legal limit. We did.

Utah did also set recently a record for alcohol fatalities of 69 versus 48 pre in 2018, 29 in 2019, and it's consistently gone up every year since then. So my concern is really around the data. It's not around this bill in certainty.

But again, we're in opposition to this because we feel it negatively impacts tourism, jobs and the economy. But we would support anything that makes it safer for our people. Thank you.

Any questions? Okay, let's move on then. Anyone else did I miss? Want to speak on 224. SBA2463. Moving on to the last item. Yes. Oh, Chad. Okay.

You know, before smoking was common, everybody accepted. Now still drinking, common, and many people accept. So eventually we're gonna get to 0.05 or maybe even 0.03. And.

Your support or oppose?

Sorry, Support. Strong support.

Thanks, Judge. Okay. Okay, we heard you. Thank you. Let's move on then to SB 2665. And this is relating to renewal of driver's licenses.

And it requires the applicants for driver's license renewal who have received a traffic citation or infraction within the previous five years to complete an educational course that includes a road safety video developed by DOT and a written road safety examination. Let's see.

And just for the record, on SB2463, we had 28 in support of position 7 and comments 2 Office of Public Defender on it. SB2665.

Good afternoon again, Haley Chang. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure and really want to highlight a couple of very significant things.

Anybody who is intimately familiar with the criminal system, especially as it's related to traffic offenses, especially driving without license offenses, knows that we're already in a crisis situation trying to get people validly licensed, remove stoppers from their license, being able to renew their license.

This measure which has no qualifications on the types of citations or the types of infractions as written. If you got a parking ticket, that's a citation, you would have to take a course. And I think we've outlined our concerns related to that in our written testimony.

But I do just want to convey that this, in our opinion, will not deter people from bad driving if that's the intent of the measure.

An alternative proposal would be to attach the requirement of a driver improvement class or course or video or workshop to certain criminal traffic offenses, such as reckless driving inattention to driving that already exists as a mandatory provision for excessive seizures speeding, rather than putting this burden on all of the drivers of the state who may have as little as a parking ticket or other non dangerous moving violations.

So we'll submit additional arguments on our written testimony. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much, DOT.

Thank you. Chair. It's with the Department of Transportation and strong support. Agree that we should be attaching types of citations to the types of violations or the types of courses everybody should go through. I disagree that this would not be successful in deterring people from bad behavior.

Right now we're in a society where people, when we start looking at fines, fine structures don't matter anymore. And we're in a society where people are buying $12 shakes from McDonald's so somebody else can pick it up for them so they have the ability to just stay home and get it.

So really, money is not the thing anymore. But time is. If I told somebody you're going to spend the next Saturday or the next two Saturdays in a six hour training, if you speed on the system, I'm pretty sure we'll have less people speeding.

So I would love to be able to start talking about how we can tie more of these to the types of offenses to ensure that it's appropriate. But we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, Sitting county of Honolulu Department of Customer Services sends comments. Let's see. Did you have comments on this one? No, not this meal. All right. Customer service. Sitting county of Honolulu. And Susan Davis comments as well. Larry Viray in support. Daniel Smith in support. Charmaine Duran in support.

Is there anyone else wishes to speak to? Sb2665, in other words, then we will say aloha to the measures before the Committee on Transportation and we'll go into decision making. I think we'll make the clock time. So. Yes. Okay. So the Committee on Transportation will go into recess.

Okay.

The Committee on Transportation is going into decision making. On the amended hearing notice of February 3rd, Tuesday at 3pm and we'll start with SB 2008. And this is relating to statewide traffic code. And this is the chair's 60 mile per hour bill. And Members, I think there were enough discussions on this. I will be deferring this measure.

Okay. SB 2009 relating to motor vehicles. Chair's recommendation is to. There is a technical, not substantive amendment needs to be made on this measure and I'd like to amend further that. We have the language, I believe. That's recommended by. I think this one here is.

Who made this?

Do we have the bill number? He's not his bill. Oh, this one here. Okay. All right, good. Members, with regards to SB 2009, there's a measure that's SB 2498 and the recommendation on this SB2498. The chair would like to add that language into this measure as well.

And I'd like to read this part with regards to adding this language into Section 2 of 2498, as amended. And that has to do with the section I. Upon receipt of the official form, the Director of Finance shall immediately notify all applicable state and local agencies of the transfer through a centralized notification system.

If you agree to that measure, there's for Section 2 on J as well, adding upon receipt of the official form, the Director of Finance shall immediately notify all applicable state and local agencies of the transfer through the centralized notification system. And my understanding is presently when there is a change, it could only be.

And I think the process right now only goes to one system and not applicable to all the others as well. And so I think what we're saying is when the Director of Finance and everything should notify all of the other agencies so everybody has the same information the same day.

And it's because some of the issues that has arisen is that it could happen on a check on something that the next day or a couple of days later, another island or another agency won't have the information.

So if the recommendation would be the notification portion and as well on Section 3, no later than July 1, 2027 each county Director of Finance shall establish this centralized notification system that automatically and instantly updates all the applicable agencies.

And that's what I think we want to make sure that everybody's on the same same page the same day. Okay. That also includes all of the. Including the law enforcement agencies as well and dags and Judiciary. So with that said, Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2009 with amendments and the non Substantive amendment as well. Okay.

Chair's recommendation for this measure. Chair Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes.

Chair's recommendations to pass Senate Bill 2009 with amendments. [Roll Call]. Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. SB 2026 relating to traffic safety. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and 1/2 I think previous measure SB 2009 because there's a lag of time, the recommendation is not to pass with upon approval but to move the date to July 1, 2027. I believe it's in there. Okay, thank you. All right.

The SB2026 Chair's recommendation is to pass with the amendments and that included the comments from the Attorney General's office as recognized as well. And I believe AMPO had a support with comments as well.

And the Chair would like to add a portion that would go to to Section 291 C27 on the emergency vehicle stop for emergencies and on number one, slow to a speed not to exceed this one.

Maybe your comment Director Ampo recommends that one section slow to a speed not to exceed a 20 miles per hour below the maximum speed limit on roadways with a speed limit greater than or equal to 30 mph or B5 mph when the posted speed limit is less than 30 mph.

That's the only one that I'm a little confused.

So that's a one from ample. Yeah. I think. I think all they're doing is just trying to say proceeding slowly and safely. Right. Okay. Yeah. I think. I think for in. In establishing the speed limit like that, they're trying to make sure that it's enforceable and I think the office can can indicate but it establishes the speed.

Okay. And it's something that could.

So it's okay. Yeah. All right. So we'll continue to then support Ampo's recommendation. All right. So with regards to SB2026, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Vice Chair for the vote. cheer goes aye.

Okay. Church recommendations to pass SB 2026 with amendments. Of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Recommendations adopted.

SB 2053 relating to transportation. Chair's recommendation is to pass with the non substantive amendments and technicals and the amendments that was introduced by Copart and the amendments on page 6, line 1.

Replace the term insurer with insurance company to align with terminology used throughout the chapter and on G. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary Supporting documents used to transfer ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurer insurance company after payment of the damages for the result of total loss insurance settlement pursuant to this section and on page six, line seven insert the words application for that's before duplicate title to more precisely describe the relevant document.

And for the purposes of the subsection, supporting documents includes but is not limited to the power of attorney application for duplicate title and a dominar disclosure forms so SB2053 to pass with amendments Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes Aye

Chair's recommendations to pass SB2053 with amendments of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing None. Madam Chair Recommendations Recommendations adopted.

SB 2172 Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure relating to vehicles and this was the terrain, the all terrain vehicles and driving in the in evening.

Thank you.

Ed, you did have some comments that the Department believes additional evaluation, safety analysis and coordination with the enforcement and safety partners would be necessary before considering expansion of the ATV and UTV use on public streets. So this measure and the Department of Attorney General recommends the amendments.

I'm not sure if you remember can I read the question the agency okay. They do say that they recommend the following because initially their recommendation were just to add the amendments.

It has to do with the section 28612 it's amended to read that all terrain vehicles and utility terrain vehicles used as farm equipment shall be regulated as farm equipment and not as motor vehicles and she underlines and added except that all terrain vehicles used as farm equipment shall be regulated as motor vehicles when operated on a street in accordance with subsection A to address the inconsistencies identified.

Agreed.

You agree? Okay. And then the second part of their recommendation is the addition of all terrain vehicles to the definitions in certain sections of the measure as well rather than as a whole to avoid ambiguity. Okay. Now interesting goes on.

Further, it is not clear whether the bill intends to expand the use of UTVs in the same manner as it does for ATVs by allowing them to be driven during evening and night hours if they are equipped.

But if that is the intent, then the UTVs should be included in the amendments to section 286 12A and 6 and in the definitions and sections 4311 10C, 103C.

Agree.

You agree. Okay.

Now also the Insurance Division of DCCA adds rather than require include the definition of utility terrain vehicle, a motor vehicle that accommodates one driver, one passenger sitting side by side up to six people in the seat belts Include all terrain vehicle in the definition of motor vehicle under the state's motor vehicle issue as well.

Yeah, makes sense. Makes sense. Okay, we'll add that as well. And in Section 2 of the bill, amend HRS. 431 10C 103 by adding the definition of altering vehicles. But I think we covered that as well and they concur. All right, so Chair's recommendation on SB 21782 is to pass with amendments.

Recommendation from the Attorney General and DCCA Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Okay. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments SB 2172 of the four Members present any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. SB2253 relating to highway safety. Chair's recommendation is to pass with technical non-substantive amendments. We will take the prosecuting attorney, Maui County, clarifying amendments taken from Chapter 291E to avoid vagueness issues regarding whether a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs as well as additional amendments to avoid merger and related issues as well.

And the other attorneys in sitting county of Honolulu and Hawaii county supports that measure as well. So with that said, SB 2253 pass with amendments. Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair goals Chair's recommendations to pass SB2253 with amendments. Of the four Members present any no vote. Any Volta reservations hearing? None. Madam Chair recommendations adopted.

Okay. SB 2355, relating to vehicle safety. This is the having the DOT adopt the rules with regards to the motor vehicle safety inspections, and we will pass this measure with amendments to include that DOT will continue on its part of the rulemaking, that they will concur as well.

And amendments that applies to the regular passenger vehicles, and not the commercial motor vehicles. Okay. So, with that, SB 2355, relating to safety vehicle safety. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Chair goes on Chair's recommendations to pass SB 2355 with amendments. Of the four Members present, any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Okay. SB 2332 relating to traffic safety. Chair's recommendation is to pass with the amendments and they were Office of the Prosecuting from Hawaii County on an SD1, and the version of our communications were included in his amendments as well. And oh, okay. All right. Okay. To confirm we are on SB 2392, we will also okay.

I think that's pretty much the City and County of Honolulu supports this measure as well, but no recommendations to amendments. Okay. So Chair's recommendation on SB2392 is to pass with amendments. Chairs Vice Chair for the vote. Cheerful side.

Okay. Chair's recommendations to pass SB 2392 with amendments. Of the four Members present. Any no votes?

No vote.

No vote for Senator DeCorte. Any other no votes? Any votes for reservations?

However, can I just make a really quick speech? I would like to just.