BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  1


          1046 (Hill)

          As Amended  August 19, 2016

          Majority vote

          SENATE VOTE:  39-0

          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                   |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |Transportation  |10-0 |Frazier, Linder,       |                     |
          |                |     |Baker, Brown, Chu,     |                     |
          |                |     |Daly, Dodd,            |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia, Kim,   |                     |
          |                |     |O'Donnell              |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |Business &      |16-0 |Salas, Brough, Baker,  |                     |
          |Professions     |     |Bloom, Campos, Chávez, |                     |
          |                |     |Dahle, Dodd, Eggman,   |                     |
          |                |     |Gatto, Gomez, Holden,  |                     |
          |                |     |Jones, Mullin, Ting,   |                     |
          |                |     |Wood                   |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  2

          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,     |                     |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, |                     |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang, Daly, |                     |
          |                |     |Eggman, Gallagher,     |                     |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,        |                     |
          |                |     |Holden, Jones,         |                     |
          |                |     |Obernolte, Quirk,      |                     |
          |                |     |Santiago, Wagner,      |                     |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood, McCarty   |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |

          SUMMARY:  Requires a driving under the influence (DUI) offender  
          to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on his or her  
          vehicle for a specified period of time in order to get a  
          restricted license or to reinstate his or her license and to  
          remove the required suspension time before a person can get a  
          restricted license.  Specifically, this bill:

          1)Extends the existing pilot project until January 1, 2019.
          2)Requires, beginning January 1, 2019, and until January 1,  
            2026, all DUI offenders to install an IID for a specified  
            period of time in order to have their license reinstated,  
            except as specified.

          3)Removes, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January 1,  
            2026, the time a person must have a suspended license before  
            applying for a restricted license if the person installs an  

          4)Allows a court, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January  
            1, 2026, to order a person convicted of a "wet reckless" to  
            install an IID on a car the person operates.


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  3

          5)Requires the Transportation Agency to issue a report to the  
            Legislature by January 1, 2024, regarding the implementation  
            and efficacy of the requirements under this bill and  
            authorizes the Transportation Agency to collect the necessary  
            data and contract with educational institutions.

          6)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to submit  
            specified data to the Transportation Agency by March 1, 2024,  
            for purposes of issuing the report to the Legislature. 

          7)Requires, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January 1,  
            2026, IID manufacturers to adopt a fee schedule under which  
            the manufacturer will absorb a varying amount of an offender's  
            cost for the IID based on the offender's income relative to  
            the federal poverty level.

          8)Authorizes the relevant bureaus under the Department of  
            Consumer Affairs (DCA), the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)  
            and the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home  
            Furnishing, and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI), to impose a  
            civil assessment not to exceed $1,000 upon a manufacturer or  
            manufacturer's agent certified to provide ignition interlock  
            devices who fails to inform a DUI offender of the fee schedule  
            or who fails to comply with the fee schedule requirements.

          9)Makes other technical and conforming changes to both the  
            existing pilot program and the program under this bill.

          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  4

          1)DMV.  The DMV will incur one-time special fund costs in  
            2018-19 of about $300,000 for staff to promulgate regulations  
            and to revise programs, forms, and procedures, and $700,000  
            for computing programming.  Ongoing costs, starting in  
            2019-20, will be $2.4 million for headquarters and field  
            office processing of submission of proof of IID installation  
            for DUI offenders seeking a restricted license.  This bill  
            authorizes DMV to collect an administrative fee to cover its  
            reasonable costs.  Under the existing four-county pilot, the  
            DMV charges a $45 fee.  In addition, the state may be eligible  
            for up to $1.5 million annually in federal transportation  
            funds that are earmarked for states that mandate IIDs for DUI  

          2)DCA.  Costs will be minor and absorbable for additional  

          3)Transportation Agency.  Unknown costs.


          Purpose.  This bill is sponsored by the author and Mothers  
          Against Drunk Driving (MADD).  According to the author, "In  
          California, each year about 1,000 people die from drunk drivers  
          and more than 20,000 are injured.  ?Over the last five years  
          ignition interlock devices have prevented drinking and driving  
          over one million times in California.  Let me state that again:   
          California's ignition interlock program for DUI offenders has  
          prevented someone from drinking and driving over 1 million times  
          during the last five years.  This bill expands the program  
          statewide so all Californians can benefit from safer roadways."


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  5

          Background.  This bill requires any person convicted of a DUI to  
          install an IID on all the cars he or she owns for a specified  
          period of time.  As proposed by this bill, a person convicted of  
          a first offense has a six month suspension and the IID must be  
          installed for six months.  A person with a second offense has a  
          two-year suspension and the IID must be installed for 12 months.  
           A person with a third offense has a three year suspension and  
          the IID must be installed for 24 months.  A person with a fourth  
          or subsequent offense has a four year suspension and the IID  
          must be installed for 36 months.

          Pilot Project.  AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009,  
          created an IID pilot project in four counties which mandates the  
          use of an IID for all DUI offenders.  The rationale for a pilot  
          project was to see what impact a mandatory IID program has on  
          recidivism in California.  

          While the impact of IID has been studied elsewhere, with mixed  
          results, the comparisons are not perfect because while some of  
          the other states began mandating IID at the same time they  
          strengthened other sanctions, California has had a complex group  
          of sanctions including high fines, jail time, licensing  
          sanctions, mandatory DUI treatment programs and optional IID in  
          place since the mid-1980s with sanctions being evaluated,  
          changed and strengthened on an ongoing basis since.  

          The thought was that with a pilot project, the DMV can evaluate  
          how best a mandatory IID system should work in California.  By  
          evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory  
          programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.  

          DMV Reports on AB 91.  So far, the DMV has released two studies  
          on the efficacy of the county pilot programs.  The first report  
          was published in 2015 and was entitled General Deterrent  


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  6

          Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in  
          California.  In the report, the DMV found that:

            The IID pilot program? does not appear to be associated with  
            a reduction in the number of first-time DUI convictions and  
            repeat DUI offenses in the pilot counties.  ?Even though the  
            IID pilot program was not found to have a general deterrent  
            effect on the occurrence of DUI convictions in designated  
            pilot counties, this evaluation does not provide information  
            about the specific deterrence effect of this pilot program.   
            To determine if this IID pilot program is associated with  
            changes in the specific behavior of individual drivers who  
            were convicted of DUI subsequent to the implementation of  
            the AB 91 law and thus were subject to the IID pilot program  
            requirements, a separate, so called, specific deterrence  
            evaluation needs to be conducted.

          The second report was the DMV's Specific Deterrent Evaluation of  
          the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California, published on  
          June 17, 2016.  In sum, the DMV found that, while the pilot  
          programs did not demonstrate a greater general deterrent effect  
          (i.e. preventing drinking and driving before it happens), it did  
          find that IID installation is associated with a lower risk of  
          DUI recidivism (i.e. potentially more effective at preventing  
          DUI offenders from offending again).  However, because the DMV  
          contends that there may be superior combinations of mandatory  
          suspension periods and IID installations based on offender  
          types, the DMV does not recommend expanding the pilot program  
          statewide at this time.  Specifically, the DMV recommends:

          1)Convene a task force including representatives from the  
            Legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, and other public  
            agencies to develop recommendations for strengthening  
            components of California's comprehensive DUI countermeasure  
          2)Evaluate the traffic safety benefits of the IID program  


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  7

            implemented under SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of  
            2009, including the effectiveness of shortening a hard license  
            suspension or revocation period for those DUI offenders who  
            choose to obtain an IID-restricted license.

          3)Collaborate with representatives from the courts, law  
            enforcement, and other entities to explore options for using  
            IIDs as an effective DUI countermeasure, including using IIDs  
            as an "alcohol-abstinence-compliance" monitoring tool in a  
            modified version of the traditional DUI court model.

          4)Conduct and report to the Legislature an evaluation of prior  
            studies on the effectiveness of DUI countermeasures in place  
            in California (including IIDs).  This report will offer  
            recommendations on legislative reforms to both retain and/or  
            expand effective countermeasures and revise and/or strengthen  
            less effective countermeasures.

          This bill requires the Transportation Agency, the DMV's parent  
          agency, to issue the next report.  It also requires the DMV to  
          provide information to the Transportation Agency for the report  
          and authorizes Transportation Agency to collect other  
          information necessary to do so.

          Hard Suspension.  Under existing law, a person convicted of a  
          DUI must wait a period of time before they can apply to the DMV  
          for a restricted license.  Since 2005, all licensing actions  
          have gone through the DMV, not the courts.  This bill removes  
          that mandatory suspension and allows a person to immediately get  
          an IID if he or she installs an IID and meets the other  
          requirements.  It may also allow the installation during any  
          time of any administrative suspension since it allows the  
          installation without "any suspension."


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  8

          The DMV's prior reports have all indicated a link between the  
          decline in DUIs and the mandatory suspension of a license  
          because a significant decline occurred after a mandatory  
          administrative suspension (APS) was indicated:

            The re-offense rates of second offenders remain higher than  
            those of first offenders across all years.  Previous DUI  
            -MIS [management information system] reports suggested that,  
            while many factors may be associated with the overall  
            decline in DUI incidents for both first and second  
            offenders, the reduction may largely be attributed to the  
            implementation of APS suspensions in 1990.  An evaluation  
            (Rogers, 1997) of the California APS Law documents  
            recidivism reductions of up to 21.1% for first offenders and  
            19.5% for repeat offenders, attributable to the law  
            (California DMV 2013 Annual Report of the California DUI  
            Management Information System).

          Sliding Scale for IID Costs.  The sliding scale language in the  
          bill describes the provider absorbing portions of  
          "manufacturer's standard ignition interlock device program  
          costs, and any additional costs accrued by the person for  
          noncompliance with program requirements" for those that meet  
          specified income limits.  The BAR and BEARHFTI already have the  
          authority to enforce compliance with the fee schedule among its  
          registrants through administrative action.  

          The bill also specifies that the DCA has the authority to impose  
          a $1000 fine upon a manufacturer or manufacturer's agent  
          certified to provide IIDs who does not inform an offender of the  
          fee schedule or fails to comply with the fee schedule.  However,  
          it is not clear how the bureaus enforce the penalty against  
          those who are not registered with either bureau since there is  
          no registration to revoke.


                                                                    SB 1046

                                                                    Page  9

          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301  FN: