BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
3
7
AB 2378 (Huber) 8
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
Food and Agricultural Code; Vehicle Code
MK:dl
RENDERING: ENFORCEMENT
HISTORY
Source: Pacific Coast Rendering Association
Prior Legislation: SB 1738 (Kelley) - Chapter 394, Stats. 1998
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE CRIMINAL FINES FOR VIOLATING SPECIFIED STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS REGARDING RENDERERS AND TRANSPORTERS OF INEDIBLE KITCHEN
GREASE BE RAISED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to increase the fines for violations
of the renderers and transporters of inedible kitchen grease
(More)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageB
statutes and regulations; provide court procedures for handling
appeals and judgments; expand the requirements for keeping
records for renderers, collection centers and transporters of
inedible kitchen grease; and make conforming changes to related
codes
Existing law requires any licensed renderer, collection center
operator, or transporter to keep specified records for one year
and failure to do so is a misdemeanor. (Food and Agriculture
Code § 1903)
This bill would require that those records be kept for two
years.
Existing law provides that any person who violates specified
provisions in the Food and Agricultural Code and regulations
promulgating related to those sections shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail and a
fine of not more than $1,000. (Food and Agriculture Code §
19440)
This bill increases the fine to $5,000.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of
renderers, operators of collection centers, and transporters of
inedible kitchen grease. (Food & Agricultural Code Section
19220 et seq.)
Existing law requires renderers, collection center operators,
and transporters to retain for one year specified transaction
records reflecting sales and transport of inedible kitchen
grease. (Food & Agricultural Code § 19306(a); Vehicle Code §
2462.)
This bill requires the records to be kept for two years.
Existing law specifies fines and jail, or both, for misdemeanor
violations of the above recordkeeping requirements, as provided,
including escalating fines for repeat offenses. (Food &
Agricultural Code Section 19440, Vehicle Code Section 2468.)
(More)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageC
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person to
engage in the transportation of inedible kitchen grease without
being registered with the Department of Food and Agriculture and
without being possession of a valid registration certificate
issued by that department. (Vehicle Code § 2470)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who is
not a registered transporter or licensed renderer of inedible
kitchen grease to transport that product from any place within
the state to any place outside the borders of this state.
(Vehicle Code § 2472)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person to
steal, misappropriate, contaminate or damage inedible kitchen
grease or containers thereof. (Vehicle Code § 2474)
Existing law provides that no licensed renderer, registered
transporter or any other person may take possession of inedible
kitchen grease from an unregistered transporter or knowingly
take possession of stolen inedible kitchen grease. (Vehicle
Code § 2476)
Existing law provides that any person who is found guilty of
violation Section 2470, 2472, 2474 and 2476 or regulations
promulgated under those provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor
subject to imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one
year, or a fine of not more than $1,000 or both that
imprisonment and fine. If the conviction is a second or
subsequent violation or the violation was committed with the
intent to defraud it is a jail felony with a fine of not more
than $10,000. (Vehicle Code § 2478)
This bill would make the fines for the above $5,000 for a first
offense and $15,000 for a second or subsequent or offense made
with the intent to defraud.
Existing law authorizes the Secretary of CDFA, in lieu of
seeking prosecution, to levy civil penalties for violations in
an amount not more than $1,000 for each violation. It further
(More)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageD
provides an administrative hearing process for persons upon whom
a civil penalty has been levied to appeal the penalty, as
provided. (Food & Agricultural Code §19447.)
This bill would make the civil penalty $5,000, and it lengthens
the time allowed for appeal..
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
(More)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageE
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(More)
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
With the increase in demand for inedible kitchen grease
to use as biofuel as well as the rising prices for all
commodities, there has been a significant increase in
the cases of theft of inedible kitchen grease.
When reviewing enforcement procedures and penalties
with California Department of Food and Agriculture and
local law enforcement representatives, it was
(More)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageG
recognized that the current penalty structure for
violating the law is too low and has become a "cost of
doing business" for some offenders.
This bill will increase the penalties for violations of
the Food and Agricultural Code and the Vehicle Code
sections that govern inedible kitchen grease theft,
licensing and manifestation.
Specifically, the bill increases from one year to two,
the time period in which an offender is considered a
repeat offender if caught violating the code more than
once. Additionally it increases specific penalty
provisions from a $1,000 fine to $5,000 and from
$10,000 to $15,000 for repeat violators.
2. Increased Fines
Existing law creates misdemeanor fines for people who violate
Food and Agricultural Code provisions relating to rendering,
inedible kitchen grease, etcetera. Currently the fines are
$1,000 (approximately $3,800 with penalty assessments) and
$10,000 ($38,000 with penalty assessments) if the offense is
committed with the intent to defraud.<1> This bill would
increase those fines to $5,000 (approximately $19,000 with
penalty assessments) and $15,000 (approximately $57,000 with
penalty assessments).
Existing law also makes specified Vehicle Code violations
related to the transportation of inedible kitchen grease a
misdemeanor with a $1,000 fine (approximately $3,800 with
penalty assessments) for a first offense and a jail felony with
a fine of $10,000 (approximately $38,000 with penalty
assessments) for a repeat violation or a repeat violation with
the intent to defraud. This bill would increase the misdemeanor
---------------------------
<1> Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty
assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are approximately 280%. (See Penal Code § 1464;
Penal Code § 1465.7; Penal Code § 1465.8 Government Code §
70372; Government Code § 7600.5 Government Code § 76000 et seq;
Government Code § 76104.6)
AB 2378 (Huber)
PageH
to $5,000 (approximately $19,000 with penalty assessments) and
the felony fine to $15,000 (approximately $57,000 with penalty
assessments).
Are these increased fines appropriate?
3. Senate Agriculture Committee
This bill passed Senate Agriculture Committee on June 19, 2012
with a vote of 7-0.
***************