Committee hears that New Hampshire already allows rental fleets to use state as IRP base; DMV says fiscal note staffing unnecessary

The House Transportation Committee opened a public hearing on HB 119 FN, which would allow rental companies applying to register a passenger rental fleet to choose New Hampshire as their base jurisdiction under the International Registration Plan (IRP). Representative Henry Geisen introduced the bill.

The bill drew technical testimony from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Liz Michaud, registration bureau at the New Hampshire DMV, told the committee the IRP already allows rental fleets to select New Hampshire as a base jurisdiction and that the fiscal noteproposing additional staffing was unnecessary. "It's on page 48 of our International Registration Plan," Michaud said. "So we already have this capability, and, therefore, we would not need the proposed additional staffing that's on the fiscal note."

The brief hearing focused on how the IRP option is implemented in practice. Michaud answered questions about stickers, inspections and what the state would need to do to help a large rental company track apportioned mileage and remit fuel taxes to other states. She told the committee that under the IRP, a rental company must meet the usual base-jurisdiction requirements: have a business presence in New Hampshire and primarily store its fleet in the state, and that annual inspection and registration processes would still apply. On practical matters of plate decals she said: "Every year, they would need to renew their registrations and put those stickers on the plates that coincide with that car."

Bob Skelly of the Hampton Motor Transport Association testified that the bill is not required because New Hampshire already permits the practice for passenger vehicles and apportioned registrations for trucks. He raised concerns about commercial fleets and local property tax impacts: when a large operator moved its vehicles out of Manchester, that city lost local revenue. Skelly also reminded the committee that trucks over 10,001 pounds are regulated and apportioned differently, and that truck fleets often choose a base jurisdiction for tax and property-cost reasons.

No formal action was taken at the hearing. Committee members asked clarifying questions but did not receive testimony that the bill would change enforcement or inspection requirements; DMV testimony indicated the agency can already accommodate rental fleets that choose New Hampshire under the IRP.

What happens next: the public hearing closed after testimony and committee questions. If the bill advances, staff and members will have to decide whether statutory language is needed to reflect the existing administrative practice or whether no change is required because the IRP already covers the requested option.

(Reporting note: testimony and committee questions cited above are drawn from the public hearing record of HB 119 FN.)