House Bill 577, titled the Protect Our North Carolina Towers and Truckers Act, creates a new regulatory framework for towing and recovery of commercial motor vehicles in North Carolina. It establishes a Commercial Motor Vehicle Towing and Recovery Commission within the State Highway Patrol to study towing fees, adopt rules, and provide a nonbinding dispute-resolution process for extraordinary towing fees. The bill also requires towers seeking placement on rotation wrecker lists or DOT towing contracts to submit fee schedules, and it directs state and local agencies to share that information with the Commission for administrative use.
The bill further creates a new commercial motor vehicle tower permit program administered by the Division of Motor Vehicles. Towers engaged in commercial motor vehicle tow operations would need a permit, meet background-check, CDL, zoning, insurance, training, and citizenship/work-authorization requirements, and carry the permit while operating. Operating without a permit would be treated as an unfair trade practice. The bill also prohibits booting commercial motor vehicles for parking enforcement and makes that conduct a Class 2 misdemeanor.
In addition, the bill amends lien law to give towing providers a lien not only on the towed commercial motor vehicle but also on any attached trailer, while protecting certain personal items in the cab and requiring those items to be released without charge. It also clarifies removal authority for disabled, abandoned, or hazardous vehicles and ties the new towing-fee and commission provisions to DOT and Highway Patrol towing operations. Most of the regulatory provisions take effect July 1, 2026, with the booting ban effective December 1, 2025, and the trailer-lien changes effective January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is protective of both truckers and towing operators, with an emphasis on standardizing fees, improving transparency, and reducing disputes over commercial towing. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests support for stronger oversight and consumer-style protections in a sector that can involve high-cost, high-conflict towing incidents.
The main points of potential contention are the new permit requirements, background checks, and operational restrictions on towers, which could be viewed by towing businesses as burdensome or costly. Trucking interests may support the bill’s fee controls, cargo-return rules, and limits on booting, while towing and recovery professionals may be concerned about administrative oversight, fee disclosure, and the unfair-trade-practice penalty for unpermitted operations. The bill also shifts some authority and responsibilities to the Highway Patrol, DMV, and the new Commission, which could raise implementation and enforcement questions.
The bill amends Chapters 143B, 20, and 44A of the General Statutes to create a new state commission, a new DMV permit regime for commercial motor vehicle towers, a prohibition on booting commercial vehicles, and expanded lien rights for towing providers on trailers attached to commercial vehicles. It also changes Highway Patrol and DOT towing-related procedures, including fee reporting, rotation-list requirements, and rulemaking authority, while imposing new compliance obligations on towers, agencies, and commercial cargo owners.
The available materials suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s goals of protecting truckers and regulating commercial towing practices, especially through fee transparency, dispute resolution, and limits on booting. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the record supplied. The bill appears designed as a compromise between trucking and towing interests, with state agencies positioned as neutral administrators.
Likely areas of contention include the new permit requirements, criminal background checks, insurance and training mandates, and the classification of unpermitted towing as an unfair trade practice, all of which may be resisted by towing companies as regulatory burdens. Towing and recovery professionals may also object to fee oversight and disclosure requirements, while trucking interests may focus on whether the bill sufficiently restrains excessive towing and storage charges. The trailer-lien expansion and the booting ban could also draw debate over property rights, enforcement, and the scope of towing authority.