A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 25, 2013 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

First I'd like to introduce our Sergeants at Arms. We have Carleton Adams, Lauren Lee, Jesse Hayes, and Martha Parish. Welcome, and thank you for your service. We have pages, and if you'll stand up and wave as I call your name. Ree Guthrie, Mecklenburg, Representative Chatham, Lewis Hallow the Third, Pitt County, Representative Brown, Brian Brown, Allison Henderson, Sampson County, Representative Lewis, Haley Jessup, Stokes County, Representative Holloway, Vanessa May, Way County, Representative Hall, Duane Hall. Thank you. If anyone notices and addition to the chairman's face today, discover that my nearsightedness has crept back in. I've had to get glasses in order to read your names on your cards out there, and so it makes you look smart. I guess I need something to make me look smart. We're going to go through our bills and various expeditious orders this morning. I've been asked by Senator Harrington if we can go with her bill first, and we'll honor that. Senator Harrington, are you ready? So that's Senate bill 353, motorcycle safety act. Do we have PCS or not? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. Thank you mister chair members. Senate bill 353, the motorcycle safety act is just kind of an extension of last year's bill that Representative Torbett ran. It increases the penalty for unsafe motor vehicle movement violation involving a motorcycle that causes property damage over $5000 or serious bodily injury. The increased penalty would be not less than $750, 4 driver's license points, and a discretionary license suspension of up to 30 days at the judge's discretion. I'd be glad to take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Representative Torbett first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion mister chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you , hold that just a minute, Representative Pittman. Okay. Further questions or comments? Okay, Representative Torbett you're recognized. Mister chairman, my motion is that the house transportation committee report out favorable senate bill 353. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In referral to judiciary B? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, you've heard the motion . All in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. Second bill, Representative Walters is with us. Second bill is going to be senate bill 493 prohibit after-market HID headlights. Senator Walters. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister chair. This bill succinctly stated, doesn't allow any person shall operate a motor vehicle that's equipped with headlights that changes original design or performance of the head lamps that must compare with federal motor vehicle safety standards. I know of no opposition, all my bill industry has weighed in on this. Everybody's fine with this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, any comments or questions? Representative Shepard? [SPEAKER CHANGES]?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, hold that. Representative Bumgardner? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to, I got a lot of emails from the SEMA people and all about this, and I just want to make sure they're all okay with this. I want the after-market parts people to be happy with it, and if they are, I'm fine with it to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the initial language of the bill there were some questions about that, and I worked with those groups and they all weighed in on that, and I think we're okay now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well, tell me what we're actually doing, because I'm just not familiar enough with it. To me, I would think an after-market part. Is that talking about if your headlights go out and you ?? and want to buy a generic headlight? Is that what it is, or is it saying you have to go to the Ford place and have to get a Ford headlight? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Starnes, what this does is, now you can buy the headlights anywhere you want. It must have DOT stamp on it where it federally approved. And what we're having is folks that buying headlights with a lot more candle power that are not DOT approved, and that's what this bill addresses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay for

comments and questions? Okay, Rep. Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Senator, I just want to clarify that's- is that primary concern about headlights being too bright and blinding people on the roads, is that what it's mainly about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is- yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, further questions and comments? Okay, I believe Rep. Shepard you wanted to make a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I move that we have a favorable report for Senate bill 493. Is there any referral I need to see when I ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Referral to regulatory reform? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Referral to regulatory reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And you heard the motion? All in favor say "Aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, "no"? Thank you Senator. It passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We had some discussion about the motion. I believe we covered- it's going to regulatory reform. I believe that was covered. Okay, at this time I'm going to give the gavel over to Chair Brawley and take the podium for House bill- Senate bill 709. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 709, new PCS on motion of chairman is now before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is the bill that you all saw as the "allow 75 mile an hour" bill last week, and it went to the floor, and it did not do as well as it did in the Senate, and so we decided to come back to Transportation and improve it. And you now see before you a bill to study, for DOT to study a proposed pilot program- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt your for a moment? I believe the PCS has not been passed yet, so. Okay, they do have a- you do have the PCS- [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's not the latest one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's not the latest. Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCS- [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The PCS should say v9, version 9, it should be [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've got- [SPEAKER CHANGES] 757, last ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've got version 9? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that correct? that's not [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correction, the chairman had the wrong one also. The latest PCS is on the way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, 71 v1. All right. I don't- I'm not sure how material the differences are Rep. Iler, if you'd like to continue your explanation sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, I would like Mr. Perry, if you will, to tell us the difference between the 757 last night version and the 1040 opening version. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, if the members would look at version 71 v1, if you look at lines 24, 25, 26, there's an addition of language to require a study to include the need for changes to state law concerning use of the left lane for passing on multi lane facilities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, and I understand there is already language and statue about that? Is this just confirming that? Mr. Perry. Is there already language and statute concerning this? And this is just confirming? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There is language in the statute requiring use of the right hand lane if signs are posted. It's not required if signs are not posted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. Okay, lastly, that is the bill, it's a study for a pilot program and to emphasize the need to use the right lane except for passing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Martin for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No Mr. Chair, just whenever you're ready to take comment from the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I've already got a volunteer for the motion. So discussion or debate, Rep. Martin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I was one of the folks that- in this committee when the bill was in its original form voted against it, but I think this is a great way forward, I think there is a place for these speed limits potentially in North Carolina, and having the experts study it and report back to us is the absolute right path, so I fully support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore from Mecklinburg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to echo the same simple- same sentiments and I look forward to studying this as we go forward and hopefully it'll be something that can be implemented safely and would all parties concerned, so thank you for the improvement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dobson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. So just for freshman clarification, if I can, it says to develop a pilot program for proposal and report to the joint legislative, and this is line

five. Legislative Transportation Oversight committee by January 2014. After it goes to the Transportation Oversight committee would it then have to come back before the General Assembly for approval to go up on the speed limits or would it just be approved by the Oversight committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding, and Mr. Perry can help us with this possibly, is when they come back to us, that we can make a decision there whether to bring it to the General Assembly or not. It would have to have approval of the General Assembly, I believe that's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. That's correct; it would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just as a reminder, this bill has passed out of our committee, went to the floor, it was pulled after a lot of discussion. It's being turned into a study committee, and they're going to study it. That's the only decision we're making today-- do we want a study or not. All right, Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My feeling is people are already doing a hundred miles an hour and stuff like that. I've been out there on I-40 doing 70 or 75 and have people I couldn't even barely see in the rearview mirror pass me like I was standing still. I just don't think this is good safety policy. I know the roads may be designed for that kind of speed, but the road doesn't put hands on wheel in that car. And so... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, we're debating whether to do a study, not the merits of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm getting to that, sir. And so, I don't even think it's worthy of a study and I'm going to have to oppose this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, thank you. I just want to speak on the bill. I certainly support this effort to do a study and, matter of fact, a fellow legislator's wife told me this week when they came down to the coast, that she could even understand we might want to drive 75 miles an hour on I-40 coming down east. So with all that said and done, I certainly support this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could comment, hopefully it'll relieve some of Representative Pittman's concerns. When they come back to our committee, and I am the co-chair of that committee along with Representative Torbett and Senator Harrington, when they come back to our committee, I expect to have good reasons for or good reasons against doing that. So either way we go, we should have good reasoning on either side. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still not convinced that we need to go there. And I understand a study, and I also understand that sometimes when we have a study bill they probably generate more discussion prior to the study than any other bill up here. I have a question. And it's serious. And... how.. and I'm not going to do it to the bill's sponsor but maybe to someone within the department since they are going to be charged with this study, this is about the pilot program... are they here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe someone is here. Is DOT... Representative Carney, I don't think they're here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, my question is how do you do a pilot program on 75 mile per hour study? Do we have people... I'm curious. How do you do a pilot there? Is it to... well, bill sponsor has the answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's a proposal for a pilot project. They aren't going to do a pilot until they come back and tell us what their proposal for a pilot program would be. We'll know what that looks like when they come back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand it's a study for a pilot program. And that would be just to put, potentially, just a study opening for interstates to allow 75 mile per hour speed limits, then that pilot would maybe have a sunset? And we would show that numerous accidents or speeding tickets or whatever, is that what would be the end result from this study and a pilot? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. They would provide whatever information that they propose in doing a pilot program. So this is not authorizing a pilot program. It authorizes a study and a proposal for a pilot program. Yes, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I guess sometimes... Mr. Chairman for just a comment... I'll support this study, but I will tell you that sometimes when a bad bill should be killed, it's revived by a study. And I certainly hope that, and I trust you all are the ones that are going to be heading this up, to look seriously at this. It is a serious issue. It is a serious move that we're about to make to keep, incrementally, moving the speed limit up more and more, and I, too, spent the weekend with a lot of people. And I brought this up and people brought it up to me. We get caught up up here within our beltline and go home and people flippantly say, "Yeah, I do 80." But until you realize the ramifications and the safety...[AUDIO ENDS]

two grandchildren fifteen years old, looking at drivers and they were mortified and this new generation on. I just think that it's a serious issue, and ahead of the results that come back to repot a lot of us have been talking about it is a safety issue Change speaker:represented Ross. Change speaker:yes, I just have not really a question bill sponsor of in the bill. it references so additional driver safety, education, including instruction on driving in the right whale multilane facility. this is really a two-part problem is to increase the speed limit and you still have people that drive in the left lane below the posted speed limit. that's really were a lot of traffic jams come from is part of this palette program really don't look at that problem because that's a similar problem that really needs to be addressed. in addition, it's the is is is our method of being able use multilane highways. we have so many people that go into the left lane and drive below the speed limit creates bottlenecks and if so what you really be able to get up seventy five, or any UK to go seventy and almost highways because of slower traffic in the left lane is a substance can be addressed really by the study Change speaker: strength and valor of that Change speaker:story suggests, but that the is the to the two-pronged kindness information others statutory employees. they are not being thoroughly enforced and Hattie get a confession website was passing of not passing thing on the core of all our interim difference aware of it. so for me, and it is also educational piece was to educate drivers to the first thing our training about how to use wireless LAN services module# will imagine when we come back, and not by January, in the immortal nation include about that as well as the proposal is represented on Frankie Change speaker:is any particular reference in here, but can we assume that the power control would be engaged in this pilot or are you telling us that the department will come back and recommend what role they see the Highway Patrol laying in a study Change speaker:I see mostly will be involved and know that if they would include them in the recommendation. this is where I won't go any further except to say that I share version of carnage. Change speaker: concerns represented Holly Committee Chairman Mark# even with appellate project or for roads is once people you get used to doing something if it doesn't work out really hard for me back this weekend I drove down to Wilmington on forty one away down there. it was towing down rain the whole trip and people were doing seventy five and it was quite heavy traffic. it was quite painful. the only way back. the role was clear of an seventy five was right easy to do, but my concern is that we creatures of habit and once we start with a heavy foot if we used to it in that it doesn't working out the pulling back, you know that that's a problem. I just want to express that concern the diverse set of our is again, Change speaker: this is a search for information approve or disapprove is a good idea to do a site to do the program so we will be changing it. during this time, but they'll come back with proposal that we can look at more information about Change speaker:representative from motion on this day, Change speaker:whenever, and him them Broward and Martin 's and my first house and understand that we all always address the seriousness of everything we do here, but the varying degrees due to accommodate revenue parties on the verifiable report tests Senate Bill seven oh nine Change speaker:we have a motion from representative torment favorable to the proposed house committee substitute Senate Bill seven oh nine are unfavorable to the original bill, all in favor say I opposed, motion carries

Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I wonder if some members would like stricken from the record themselves acknowledgement of exceeding the speed limits. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Noted. So, you believe Senator Brock. Senate Bill 571, authorize various special plates. There is a PCS and they have incorporated the plates that are now into the House Bill into this bill. I believe there are two plates, there some language that was left out that might be corrected in finance or if someone has an amendment today, we can do that today. But, we've been promised it would be corrected in finance. The automation of PCS is enforced, all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The PCS is enforced. Senator Brock? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is the only bust bill for all the plates for everybody who wants one. If you don't have a plate on here you're not cool, so I'll suggest trying to an amendment so your organization can have a plate. [SPEAKER CHANGE] We have an amendment . . . Who sponsored this amendment? We don't have a sponsor. Okay. It's a ?? and I'll be happy to read it if Representative Brawley will sponsor it. Representative Dollar? [SPEAKER CHANGE] While you all are looking at that amendment, if you got a question . . . You know, I think, if I recall correctly. We finally did settle on a structure for all the plates and so, my only question for this, and I apologize for not having time to sort of, read into it to see. This does not change in anyway the structure that we've set forward for how the plates are to be done, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That's just adding additional ones to the structure that we finally settled on. [SPEAKER CHANGE] It just adds to additional organizations and also adds a, I believe it was the Silver Star recipient, which was paid for, I mean, that they had to pay for in the beginning. I believe the Silver Star we added in the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The staff can help with that question also. Representative Dollar, the staff can help with that. That's okay. Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Dollar, section 8 of the bill does repeal the changes that made last session, concerning colored background plates. Those would continue to be authorized with this change in section 8. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Is that it, Mr. Chairman? You have it in front of you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Is that as to the amendment or as to the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGE] As to the PCS. The . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Where is the PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up question, Mr. Chairman. Does the PCS have the PCS have the amendment or do you need a motion to adopt whatever this amendment is and then for the PCS? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'm not sure if the amendment is before us. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay, Representative Brawley, has an amendment ARW 5697V1 which says the following, Representative Brawley moves to amend the bill on page three, line three by deleting the words and the letters ML, and on page four, lines sixteen and seventeen by deleting the words and the letters SA. I don't know if you find that in the PCS, but page three, line three. Page four, lines sixteen and seventeen, deleting the words and letters ML and SA. Representative Shepherd. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask the bill sponsor a question or even staff. [SPEAKER CHANGE] On the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well, let me wait and do it on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chair. One the second part of the amendment, what line numbers where those? On page four, I have . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Page four, lines sixteen and seventeen, by deleting the words and the letters SA. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yeah. I've got lines nineteen and twenty on my PCS. I'm on 69V7 on my PCS.

Thank you Representative Martin I've been told that It should be page four lines and 19 through 20 And words "And of the letters SA" Everybody clear with that now Representative more Any more questions on the amendment All in favor of the amendment please say I Oppose no The amendment is adopted Any questions on the bill I believe representative more I have a light hearted question Senator Brock I saw in this bill referenced A tag for retired members How does one become a retired member Are they willingly retired or the retired by the People how does that work I don't know why someone would want to have one but you can have one The staff may have an answer also. The staff may have a serious answer Represented more the way the bill is written Service and the general assembly The general assembly would constitute your retirement Represented more This is just to follow up You serve one term That would constitute him as a retired member correct? Yes and the situation it would be thank you. Okay Representative Cleveland Did I understand correctly when staff said That this bill changes what we did I believe last session In clarifying or making the tags Easier for law enforcement to see The numbers and cameras to record the numbers i think Mr can clarify that My understanding is is that It removes The sun set on the picture plates Keeps the white box and keeps it more visible The staff says that's correct Okay Representative Martin Thank you Mr. Chair for our fresh Members You're you're getting exposed to the agony of the license plate And Senator Brock has been a round away too long To step up to volunteer for this And that you upset somebody in leadership And you got you do this anyway To put you on this thankless task I want to express my concerns on the questions Raised by representative dollar and Cleveland I thought we did a good thing when we Crossed the measure That would preserve the existing colored backgrounds And then eventually phase them out Limited to that I didn't know that this bill Appeal that provision I'm upset that it I also don't think that Retired legislators Or had been reached retired legislator Or retired deeds for that matter I'm going to channel the spirit of one of retired members is Representatives Sutton who Was a longtime opponent On general principles Of the license plate bills I'm going to vote against this one I don't urge anyone to join me In that folly but I'm voting no Okay representative Stearne Thank you Mr. Chairman I think I'm looking at the right page Because mine isn't stapled it is lose On page 13 line 21 You've got a provision for functionality of plate Then on line 38 You've got a provision for Functionality plate And the language is identical What is why the redundant thing I believe the staff can help us with that That is a typo we discovered before the meeting We will correct that States that type of for a follow-up And that is a provision where any punctuality in the sate If they get to 300 applications They can get a tag for their town So that my question is that on page 14 Where you have a special Holden beach and Matthews Shouldn't those be incorporated into punctuality Plate just to clean up the language The reason those are still in there is because They have different uses specified For the funds of those plates And the difference was preserved in PCS It might be an issue for the finance committee

Thank you. Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Do we have any idea how many people, what percentage of the people left in the state are gonna have a regular state tag? Does the staff an idea how many special plates are out there? We don't have that figure? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner if there are plate, if there are just a few of them that are left, their plate will then be special and we can charge them more money too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I've found the answer to my question when I was investigating this I might wanna do an amendment for the North Carolina shrimp festival ??. I was told they had to have a minimum of 300 orders before they would even process any. Is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman I did wanna make sure the commercial fisherman were still gonna be able to get the red drum plate. I wanna make sure that there's a section on the summary of the bill that references the Carolina Motor Speedway. And I believe for technical purposes, I'm assuming they mean the Charlotte Motor Speedway but I've been unable to find that particular part of the bill, I just wanna make sure that I understand that correctly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ?? do you know that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He says there's a reference on the ?? Summary about the. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman that is in the text to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the text to the bill it says Charlotte or. In the text to the bill apparently says Charlotte? Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to ask the bill sponsor or his staff. You mentioned in section 8 last year we approved, well first off all the bill sponsor. Do you have a example of what the tag will look like if this changes section 8? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles the picture plates that were before I think The Great Smokey Mountain will still stay the same, but now they will have the white block, instead of being sunsetted where the picture plate would go away, they can still keep em. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Changes the sunset, doesn't change the white box is what I'm understanding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just changes the sunset. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I understand that. I know in last session I'm echoing a lot of the other people that we went through this quite a bit and with law enforcement and everybody, as far as identifying. So I'm kind of a visual. So the, we'll still have all these multiple color plates under if we do sunset this section 8 take it away. Whereas right now it would show the symbol, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right the current one would have the symbol with the seal would put the plate back around the Wright Brothers flyer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK have we had any expert concerns or anything from law enforcement? I know because last time they were concerned that there just, they just can't identify the plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator I can help you I was involved in some of that discussion last session. And it appears that there's no change in the design that we passed last session. It's a change in the date at which we said the picture plates would all go away. It's just saying we can determine that date later, right now we're saying we're taking that sunset of 2015 out of it and we're gonna set a sunset later that'd be to a future session if we do this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK and so follow up. So lifting the sunset as far as the design plate so that in 15 you're saying is that they would have to be all uniformed and then they would have the decal at that point in time? Or they'll still be multiple color plates?

Does that clarify? Follow up Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, I don't know what to follow up with? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: It just repeals the sunset date. It doesn't change the design. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I understand but I think the initial Section 8 was to change the design, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Staff will help us with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, all the color background plates would have been sunsetted in 2016 and this would remove that sunset. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: So, the only thing we would have accomplished was to put the white box and the numbers in there. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: That's correct. As it was passed last session. The design would be what we passed last session. It will continue. That's the intent of the Bill, striking out the date. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I thought the intent was to just add the silver star but there's a lot of other intentions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Boles. We heard a lot of feedback from people that have the picture plates and the amount of revenue that comes back to those are pretty significant and working on the budget I was grateful to have that much money to come back to help in some of these areas but without those we may not have the same type of sale with the standard background, but there was a whole lot of people that were upset and if you travel on I-40 I believe when you cross the Catawba River there is a giant billboard that says "Save our Plates", so we've been receiving a lot of feedback from those to keep this and to remove the sunset date. The issues that were brought up last year with the ability to read the plate when we went with a white background with dark black letters, I think also I was here in a discussion when we went to red ink on white, which I think was a problem or issue was heard from law enforcement they themselves did not like the red ink on white ink because it was tougher to read, back to the standard plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Just one further comment if I can. We're going to repeal something that hasn't even been implemented yet. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Let me just follow up on what Senator Boles was saying and to a certain extent what Representative Martin was saying. It does seem to me and I don't have an amendment ready right now, but it does seem to me what we should do, the compromise should be on the full color plates as they've been redesigned with the box, is to just grandfather the full colored plates that we have, grandfather those plates so they can move forward and not have any others that are full colored. Just make sure that all of the new special plates are all done with the logo and then the numbers out and that we you satisfy people for example with the Great Smoky Mountains or whatever that have had those for many years but you're not adding to the problem. I just offer that. I think, in my opinion, that ought to be the ultimate compromise on what we do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Doll. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The only thing I would worry about is as far as production value. Once you set up for printing how many would you actually print at one time if it came to those that were already grandfathered in and they would have to replace a plate in say two years or three years whenever it came time to replace a plate. Would you print a lot of plates right now or just keep those in the background. I don't know. I mean I'm not in the plate making business and hope that I never have documentation where I'm making plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, you can be an inmate. We'll let you make some plates. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a concern. This program started out years ago for service agencies and various types of clubs and so forth to recognize their members or ?? members. It seems no we have moved to the point that we're going to allow commercial advertising on these plates.

An example is Charlotte Checkers, and on there it’ll say “gocheckers.com”, which is a commercial address, a company that’s doing business, a sports company that’s doing business, and how are we going to tell the real estate company that they can’t put theirs on there next time around? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth, if they have 300 requests, I would say that the issue that we have, that it’s already out of the bag with the Carolina Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes, and other for-profit companies already have it, so they’ve got thousands of plates out there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t deny that; I just think it’s opening a real kettle of fish because there’s a lot of folks who would like to have that advertising on their plate, and that may begin to grow. It may be a real profit-maker for the state, I don’t know, but I think it’s going to cause some problems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is short and sweet. This is one I think we need to err on the side of citizens, need to just take their thoughts into it. If they’re willing to purchase these plates, there’s a limit of 300 you’ve got to come up with. I don’t care if they’re green and red or like the new state permit colors, orange and black to suit for the Halloween folks, but if they’re willing to pay for that, there’s no reason we should… We’re here for them, so let’s just let them make those determinations now that we have the standardization built across the board. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have basically two questions, one for staff. In the back of my mind, I think we did something last session that instructed DMV to remove plates that they did not have the number required to issue them and if they’d been laying around for a number of years. Did we actually do that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that was enacted and is not changed by this PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The more I listen to the discussion here, the more problems I have with what we’re doing. Production cost for plates is nil really, and the money does go to special interest groups, and I don’t think the state funds special interest groups. At least I hope we’re not. We’re funding a lot of people we shouldn’t be funding, but I really think we’re starting to bite off a lot more than we should. We’re going to come to a point where there will be fewer and fewer recognizable North Carolina license plates on the road. I see many plates travelling now that I think are from other states, or other countries, actually, some of them look so gaudy, so I don’t know where we’re going to draw the line. We attempted to last session, and I think when this thing gets to the floor, we should run an amendment to bring back the sunset in 2015 and get back to having a license plate that is visibly North Carolina. That’s my comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comments and questions? Do I have a motion? Representative Moffitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I make a motion for a favorable report to the PCS for Senate Bill 571 as amended, with permission granted to staff to make that one technical correction on that one duplication, and unfavorable to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With a referral to finance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes clearly have it. The ayes do have it. Passes. Thank you, Senator Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin, Senate Bill 717, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Law Change. And we have a PCS. We have to pass out a PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the PCS be before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion by Representative Brawley the PCS be before us. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. It’s being passed out as we speak here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin, you’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you like me to wait a second until this is…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can begin your explanation if you’d like, I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker changes.]...Does everyone have version 8, this should be version 8 of Senate Bill 717, I believe. Is that correct? [Speaker changes.] Version 13. [Speaker changes.] Okay...Senate Bill 717 has two parts, two sections...sections one through six adds some flexibility or gives some flexibility to the Department of Motor Vehicles on inspections and the current inspection law...and the second section, sections seven through twelve address various changes to motor vehicle dealers and manufacturing...licensing law, which is referred to as the "grandchild law". In the first part, as many of you may know...as many of you may know, if a violation occurs now and is discovered by the Department of Motor Vehicles, they have no flexibility and they must suspend the licensing of the person carrying out those inspections. This ...these sections allow on first offense, the DMV to waive the suspension, not the penalty but the suspension, and allow the inspector or the place of business doing the inspections to carry on. But this is first time only and this is because sometimes the person doing the inspection and maybe more than once...does something that they shouldn't but the owner or proprietor may have no knowledge of it and, when it is discovered, if they take steps to correct those problems and with the DMV, it's much easier for them to be forgiven and to go ahead and take the necessary personnel acts or whatever that they have to. That's pretty much the first...sections one through six, we have staff DMV here...they can help you if you have questions on that. The second part, sections seven through twelve, basically address the franchise law and I would like to tell you that the provisions included in the PCS for Senate Bill 17 are only those provisions agreed to by all industry stakeholders and, secondly, the provisions from the other Senate Bill that remain in controversy among the industry stakeholders are not included in the PCS. So this should be relatively acceptable by everyone. As you...if you'd like, I'll run through all of the subsections: Subsection 30 is the extension of existing grandfather provision and that provides for the extension of existing grandfather provision dealing with certain manufacture incentive programs from 2016 to 2018; Subsection 44 has to do with dealership memorabilia and it permits a dealer to maintain control over his or her memorabilia, in their own facilities and displays their awards and donor-ships, etc. Things like that. Section 45, ancillary consumer products, permits the dealer to sell or offer to sell multiple competitive ancillary products, such as service agreements, rather than being limited by a manufacturer to a specific product offered by that manufacturer or endorsed by that manufacturer. Subsection 46, dealer choice of goods and services permits a dealer to purchase goods and services required by a manufacturer from a dealer selected vendor rather than just a manufacturer required by the vendor, provided that the goods and services are substantially similar in kind and quality. It provides the means for a manufacturer to assess that goods or services are substantially similar in kind and/or quality cannot be provided by another source other than the manufacturer-designated source. Subsection 47, signs, franchiser image elements...this permits a dealer to purchase or lease signs or other franchiser image elements from a dealer-selected vendor rather than the manufacturer-required vendor. Subsection 48, dealership staffing, promotes a dealer's independence in staffing the dealership with qualified personnel by prohibiting un... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

[Speaker changes.]...reasonable manufacturer, interference and staffing decisions; Subsection 8, factory warranty service, insures that dealers who are required by factories and distributors to provide very costly service facilities, training technicians, special tools and equipment and parts, are reasonably compensated for those factory direct repairs ?????? ???????; Section 9, protection of dealership customer data, amends existing law to strengthen provisions which allow dealers to maintain customer data in a secure manner by clarifying that the law covers providers of dealership, management, computer software service, it also clarifies that existing indemnification provisions in these data protection statutes include the cost related to notice of the security branch; and Section 10, clarifies existing warranty rate calculation,mechanism provisions establishing effective date that rates are calculated. Mister Chairman, that's a brief summary of the bill and, as I say, we have staff for specifics and DMV is present as the representive from the automotive association. [Speaker changes.] Ok, we're running short on time so any questions quickly? Alright, do I have a motion. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chairman for a motion. [Speaker changes.] You're recognized Representative Brawley. [Speaker changes.] ....... report to the proposed Committee Substitute Senate Bill 7171, unfavorable to the original bill; this bill will be reported to the floor. [Speaker changes.] Okay...further comments or questions from the committee. Representative Dollar? [Speaker changes.] Just to...for clarification since we've just gotten this language. So Senator, there's no one opposed to the language in either of the two major sections that you're addressing here. Is that ??? [Speaker changes.] That is not my understanding. The Department of Motor Vehicles did request that I made a clarification that, in Sections One through Six, if this is for first time violators only. And they're good with that from now on. They're here if you would like to verify. [Speaker changes.] We're running out of time for that. Any further questions? Okay, you've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. (Ayes.) Opposed, no? The bill is approved, goes to the floor. Thank you, Senator. I apologize to Senator Hartsell and others, did not get to your bills today but we anticipate another meeting, either this week or next week. ENDS AT 2:37