BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
91 (Feuer)
Hearing Date: 08/27/2009 Amended: 07/16/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
5-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 91 creates a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
pilot project mandating the installation of an ignition
interlock device (IID) on every vehicle owned or operated by all
driving under the influence offenders (DUI) in the Counties of
Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare. This bill provides
that DMV, upon receipt of the court's abstract of conviction for
one of the specified DUI violations, shall:
1. Inform the convicted person he or she is required to
have an IID installed for the specified period of time.
2. Place a restriction on the driver's license record of
the convicted person that states the driver is restricted
to driving only vehicles equipped with a certified IID.
3. Monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition
interlock device installed under the pilot project.
4. Receive nonstate funds for the programming costs of the
pilot program by January 31, 2010, in order for DMV to
implement the program.
5. Report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of
the pilot program in reducing the number of first-time
violations and repeat offenses.
This bill requires that individuals in the pilot program
counties, who are convicted of DUI violations to (a) arrange for
each vehicle owned or operated by the person to be fitted with
an IID by a certified ignition interlock device provider, and
serviced every 60 days; (b) notify DMV and provide proof of
installation, as specified; and (c) pay a fee, determined by
DMV, sufficient to cover the costs of administering this
program.
This bill specifies the time period of mandatory IID
installation for each offense, as well as the exemptions and
exempted parties. This bill establishes a mandatory fee schedule
for manufacturers, and authorizes them to verify a parson's
income and charge the specified amount. The provisions of this
bill go into effect only if SB 568 is also implemented. This
bill makes legislative findings and declarations.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
DMV programming $300 Federal*
Pilot administration $800-1,000 ongoing costs,
fully offset by fees Special**
Report to Legislature
Minor and absorbable Special**
*Implementation is contingent on "nonstate" funds to start the
pilot.
** Motor Vehicle Account
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Page 2
AB 91 (Feuer)
This bill requires DMV to operate a specified IID pilot program
for DUI offenders in four counties. DMV estimates the initial
programming costs to start the program to be $300,000, which it
will seek as a block grant from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Implementation of this bill is contingent
on receiving "nonstate" money; either federal or private
funding. Upon implementation, this bill allows DMV to collect a
fee from participating DUI offenders that is sufficient to cover
the cost of administering the program.
This bill requires a report to the Legislature regarding the
effectiveness of this pilot program, by January 1, 2015. DMV
believes the bill provides sufficient time to study the effects
of the program and report to the Legislature, within its
existing research and development staff resources.
Staff notes that this bill may result in significant cost
pressure. This bill mandates a specific fee schedule for IID
manufacturers and their certified agents, which limits the
amount that can be charged for use of an IID based on the
participant's income level. A participant whose income level is
100% of the federal poverty level (and below) is only
responsible for 10% of the cost of the IID. A participant whose
income level is 101-200% of the federal poverty level (and
below) is only responsible for 25% of the cost of the IID. A
participant whose income level is 201-300% of the federal
poverty level (and below) is only responsible for 10% of the
cost of the IID. The bill specifies that the provider of the IID
is responsible for absorbing the cost that is not paid for by
the participant. To the extent that providers are unwilling to
do so, there will be pressure on the state to either change this
provision or to provide financial assistance to low-income
participants. Some states with similar programs currently have
state-funded assistance for low income individuals.