WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3538

Controlled Substances

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Robert Williams

Deletes paragraph 5 of G.L. c.159B, §6B and requires the DPU to study and reform how involuntary tow rates are set, including public hearings and a findings report.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3538

Bill Summary — H 3538 (House No. 3538) — “An Act relative to reduce administrative burden for government and industry”

Status & Procedural Timeline
- Introduced (prefiled): 2024-12-05; introduced and read first time: 2025-01-14 (Rep. James J. O’Day, 14th Worcester).
- Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs (1/14/2025) and to Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (committee action noted). Senate concurred (2/27/2025).
- Hearing scheduled: 05/06/2025 (A‑2). Reporting date extended to 12/03/2025.
- Classification: bill. Related bill: HD 1113 (replaces).

Overview / Purpose
- Although the file header lists a “Controlled Substances” title and the docket includes unrelated South Carolina controlled‑substance text, the operative Massachusetts bill language provided focuses on involuntary towing of motor vehicles. The primary purpose is to (1) delete a specified paragraph of G.L. c.159B, §6B (text not provided in the file) and (2) require the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to conduct a study and make recommendations to improve the process for determining reimbursement rates for involuntary tows.

Key Provisions
1. Statutory amendment
- Section 1: Amends Section 6B of Chapter 159B (as in the 2022 official edition) by striking the fifth paragraph in its entirety. (The bill does not include the struck paragraph’s text so the concrete effect is not specified in the bill document.)

  1. DPU study and report (Section 2)
    • DPU must study the process for determining reimbursement rates for involuntary towing and propose improvements.
    • Required elements of the analysis include:
      1. History of the rate‑setting process, including the number of rate adjustments, requests for adjustments, and outcomes.
      2. Identification of issues with the current process, including distinctions between regulatory rulemaking and rate setting.
      3. Comparison of methods other states use to determine involuntary towing rates.
      4. Counts and trends of tow companies engaged in involuntary towing in Massachusetts, including certificate holders who do not perform involuntary tows.
      5. Identification of economic factors affecting towing companies and how those costs are (or should be) incorporated into the involuntary towing rate.
      6. To the extent possible, analysis of cost differences for trespass (private) towing versus police‑ordered tows for companies authorized under an involuntary certificate.
    • Public input: At least two public hearings (with at least one held outside Boston).
    • Deliverable: A written report with findings, recommendations, and draft legislation if needed.
    • Deadline: Initial report to legislative leaders and committee chairs not later than 6 months after the act’s effective date.

Who Would Be Affected
- Tow companies operating in Massachusetts, especially those performing involuntary tows (tows without vehicle owner consent, e.g., towing from private property or at police request).
- Vehicle owners whose cars are involuntarily towed (potentially affected by any rate changes).
- Municipalities and police departments that use towing services or regulate towing.
- DPU and relevant legislative committees (Telecommunications, Utilities & Energy; Medical, Military, Public & Municipal Affairs; Ways and Means).

Potential Impacts
- The study could lead to legislative or regulatory changes altering how reimbursement rates for involuntary towing are established (potentially affecting rates paid to towing companies and fees charged to vehicle owners).
- Clarifying distinctions between rulemaking and rate‑setting processes may change procedural requirements (notice, hearings, timing) for future adjustments.
- Comparative analysis of other states might prompt adoption of alternative rate‑setting formulas or administrative approaches.

Notes / Clarification
- The file contains appended South Carolina statutory language regarding rapid scheduling of synthetic drugs by a State Board of Pharmacy; that material appears unrelated to this Massachusetts bill and likely reflects a clerical inclusion. This summary treats the Massachusetts bill language (towing/DPU study and the Chapter 159B amendment) as the operative content of H 3538.
- Because the text omits the specific content of the struck paragraph in G.L. c.159B, §6B, the precise legal effect of that deletion cannot be determined from the provided document.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.