BILL ANALYSIS
AB 709
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 709 (Lieu) - As Amended: April 22, 2009
SUBJECT : Charter-party carriers of passengers: driver
background checks.
SUMMARY : Requires the PUC to adopt rules requiring that a
complete criminal history background check be conducted and
identification credential be issued for drivers of charter-party
carriers that serve most of the larger airports.
EXISTING LAW prohibits the governing body of any airport from
imposing any vehicle safety, licensing, or insurance
requirements on charter-party carriers operating limousines, but
authorizes the governing board to require a charter-party
carrier operating limousines to obtain an airport permit for
operating authority at the airport.
THIS BILL :
1)Prohibits the governing body of an airport to require criminal
history background checks on a driver for a charter-party
carrier who provides transportation to and from airports, but
permits the governing body of an airport to request a list of
all drivers to whom identification credentials have been
issued.
2)Before issuing a permit or certificate, requires the PUC to
certify that for any airport that regularly serves an air
carrier holding a certificate issued by the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, the applicants' drivers have successfully
completed a criminal history background check and have been
issued an identification credential.
3)Requires the PUC to adopt rules requiring that a complete
criminal history background check be conducted and
identification credential be issued for drivers of
charter-party carriers that serve specified airports.
4)Requires the rules to provide that all drivers that are
employed by a charter-party carrier shall carry identification
credentials at all times on airport property and produce the
AB 709
Page 2
credentials when requested by law enforcement officers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to provide uniformity, consistency, and cost savings to
charter-party drivers who service multiple airports. There is a
movement among California's airports to require background
checks. Some airports are considering requiring the U.S.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checks and badges,
others are considering a different set of disqualifying crimes
for drivers. The sponsor is concerned that each airport may
have its own distinct background check and badge requirements
that would over-burden charter-party carrier drivers who serve
multiple airports and require them to undergo multiple
background checks and carry multiple identification badges.
1) What are charter-party carriers : Charter-party carriers
furnish limousines-for-hire or passenger charter transportation
service in motor vehicles. Charter-party carriers do not
include vehicles on a set schedule or between fixed termini,
taxi cabs, car rentals, or a city bus. Typical charter party
carriers provide different sized vehicles to take a scheduled
group of people to another location and/or back. The group
would usually reserve the vehicle as a group, and would not
reserve a "seat" individually.
Current law requires charter-party carriers to possess a
certificate to operate, provided by the PUC. The intent is to
secure adequate and dependable transportation by carriers
operating upon the public highways, and to promote carrier and
public safety through its safety enforcement regulations.
2) Homeland security is on its way: In 2003, AB 1645
(Ridley-Thomas) would have established a process at the PUC to
ensure greater security is exercised when companies hire and
employ key employees and drivers to operate vehicles carrying
paying passengers to and from airports. There was concern that,
in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, homeland
security would be substantially enhanced by establishing a
comprehensive criminal screening and identification process for
the people who drive privately-owned vans and other vehicles
that take passengers to and from airports. Potential future
terrorist attacks could be led by or somehow involve these
drivers. AB 1645 failed passage in Assembly Appropriations
AB 709
Page 3
Committee.
The TSA has not yet required background checks or badges for
individuals entering the public area of California's airports.
Should such requirement to be implemented, charter-party
carriers would be federally mandated to comply. The sponsor of
this bill, the Greater California Livery Association, is
concerned that the TSA will allow each airport to implement its
own requirements.
To ensure rights to privacy, this bill requires the background
check results to be confidential and retained by the PUC, unless
the applicant fails passage. The applicant will be provided the
ability to respond or clarify with the PUC if he or she has
failed passage.
This bill does not apply to charter-party carrier employees who
do not provide transportation to and from an airport, and does
not apply to the non-public areas of the airport.
3) Losing cabin pressure: As introduced, AB 709 was opposed by
San Francisco International Airport. The Airport's concern was
that this bill would prohibit an airport's ability to require a
separate and distinct background check of charter-party carrier
drivers. The sponsors of this bill offered to allow individual
airports to impose additional unique requirements; however, the
costs of the unique requirements should be born by the airport
requiring them. The Airport did not concur with that solution
and continues to oppose this bill.
4) Does the penalty fit the crime : AB 709 requires the PUC
rules on background checks to apply retroactively to drivers
employed on or after January 1, 2009, and to all future
applicants. It imposes civil penalties not to exceed $2,000 per
incident when a carrier has employed individual as drivers who
have not successfully completed the criminal background
investigation. Repeated violations are grounds for revocation
of the charter-party carrier's certification or permit. The
author and this committee may wish to evaluate whether the
$2,000 is the appropriate penalty, especially in cases where the
omission may have been inadvertent or unintentional.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 709
Page 4
Greater California Livery Association (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Gina Adams / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083