Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB532

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/25
• Refer: 4/2/25

Caption

In rules of the road in general, providing for private parking lots.

Summary

SB 532 would create a new section in Pennsylvania’s Vehicle Code governing private parking lots. It authorizes private parking lot owners, operators, and their agents to set parking rules and rates on their property, including fees for violations, and requires clear signage at entrances stating the lot is privately operated and listing parking charges and violation fees. The bill also requires invoices for unpaid charges to be placed on the vehicle or mailed to the registered owner within 10 business days of a violation. The bill further creates a process for private parking lot operators to obtain limited vehicle registration information from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. After filing an affidavit and executing a department-prescribed contract, operators or their agents could access only the name and mailing address of a vehicle registrant for the purpose of mailing an invoice for unpaid parking charges or rule violations. The bill specifies that this access is not considered a prohibited sale or disclosure of driving records and is treated as a permissible use under federal driver privacy law. It also caps the department’s record-request fee at $1 in 2025 and 2026, with later increases tied to inflation. The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new statutory framework for private parking enforcement, including notice requirements, billing timelines, and a formal mechanism for accessing DMV records. It would affect private property owners, parking operators, agents acting on their behalf, and PennDOT by defining when and how owner information may be released and by setting fee rules for those requests. It would also reinforce the distinction between private parking enforcement and government-operated parking facilities. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from formal debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to support private property owners’ ability to manage parking and collect unpaid charges, while also imposing consumer-notice safeguards through signage and invoice deadlines. Potential points of contention likely center on privacy concerns about access to vehicle owner information, the scope of private enforcement authority, and whether the bill could lead to increased fees or aggressive billing practices by private operators.

Impact

SB 532 would amend Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new section on private parking lots. It would authorize private lot owners and operators to set and enforce parking rules and rates, require specific signage and invoice procedures, and create a limited process for obtaining vehicle registrant name and mailing address information from PennDOT. The bill would also establish a fee cap and inflation adjustment mechanism for those record requests, and it would clarify that the disclosure is a permissible use under state and federal motor vehicle record privacy rules.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or vote data was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. From the bill text, the measure appears generally favorable to private parking operators and property owners, while including consumer-facing notice requirements intended to make enforcement more transparent. The absence of debate records means any support or opposition can only be inferred, not confirmed.

Contention

The main likely points of contention are privacy and enforcement. Supporters would likely emphasize property rights, clearer parking enforcement, and a practical way to identify vehicle owners for unpaid charges. Opponents may object to private operators gaining access to DMV records, even in limited form, and may worry about mass record interrogation, billing practices, and the potential for private parking fines to be used aggressively. The bill’s requirement for signage and prompt invoicing suggests an attempt to balance those concerns, but no formal testimony or votes are available to show where legislators or stakeholders stood.