BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 2144|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                    CONSENT


          Bill No:  AB 2144
          Author:   Gilmore (R)
          Amended:  8/3/10 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SEN. TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE  :  8-0, 6/29/10
          AYES:  Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Harman, Kehoe, Pavley,  
            Simitian, Wolk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Ashburn  

          SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 5/6/10 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Commercial motor vehicles:  driver compliance

           SOURCE  :     Department of Motor Vehicles


           DIGEST  :    This bill amends various provisions of  
          California state law to conform with the requirements of  
          new federal law governing commercial vehicle drivers.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law permits a court to order a  
          continuance of a proceeding against a person who receives a  
          notice to appear for a traffic offense in order for that  
          driver to attend a traffic violator school.  Successful  
          completion of the traffic violator school course results in  
          a dismissal of the complaint.  The Department of Motor  
          Vehicles' (DMV) records pertaining to a driver's traffic  
          violator school dismissal are confidential.
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 2144
                                                                Page  
          2


          Existing law prohibits a driver from operating a commercial  
          vehicle for a period of between 90 days and three years if  
          the person is convicted of violating an out-of-service  
          order and imposes a penalty of between $1,100 and $2,750  
          for anyone convicted of violating an out-of-service order  
          (i.e., operating a commercial motor vehicle when a  
          California Highway Patrol or other authorized officer has  
          deemed it unsafe or out of compliance with federal  
          regulations).  An employer who knowingly allows or requires  
          a driver to violate an out-of-service order is subject to a  
          penalty of $2,750 to $11,000.

          Existing law prohibits a driver from operating a commercial  
          vehicle for 60 days:

          1.If the person is convicted of a second serious traffic  
            offense within three years in a commercial vehicle; or

          2.If the person is convicted of a second serious traffic  
            offense within three years in a noncommercial vehicle  
            that results in a revocation, cancellation, or suspension  
            of the driver's license.

          A third offense results in a 120-day period in which a  
          person may not operate a commercial motor vehicle.

          Existing law makes it illegal to drive a vehicle onto a  
          railroad or rail transit crossing under certain conditions.

          This bill:

          1.Modifies, beginning July 1, 2011, provisions of state law  
            related to traffic violator schools to reflect that the  
            referral to a traffic violator, now a dismissal, is a de  
            facto guilty plea and conviction and not a dismissal of  
            the complaint.

          2.Provides, beginning July 1, 2011, that DMV records  
            related to traffic violator school conviction, normally  
            held confidential, are not confidential if the person  
            convicted holds a commercial license, the violation  
            occurs in a commercial vehicle, or if a conviction would  
            result in a violation point count of more than one point.  







                                                               AB 2144
                                                                Page  
          3

             If the conviction is kept confidential, no violation  
            point count may be assessed. 

          3.Increases the length of disqualification periods and the  
            amount of penalties related to out-of-service convictions  
            such that they range from 180 days to three years and  
            from $2,500 to $5,000 for drivers.  The bill increases  
            the maximum penalty for employers to $25,000.

          4.Provides that a driver shall not operate a commercial  
            vehicle for a period of 60 days if the person is  
            convicted of a second serious traffic violation within  
            three years if the incident involves either a commercial  
            or noncommercial motor vehicle, and for 120 days for a  
            third offense within three years.

          5.Distinguishes between two separate railroad crossing  
            violations depending on whether the driver's vehicle is  
            on the tracks or crosses them to an unsafe position on  
            the other side.

          6.Makes other, technical, non-substantive changes.  

          7.Contains double-jointing language with AB 2499  
            (Portantino).

           Comments

          Purpose.  DMV  sponsored this bill in order to bring  
          California into conformance with current federal  
          regulations required under the Motor Carrier Safety  
          Improvement Act (MCSIA).

          In November 2008, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety  
          Administration conducted a Commercial Driver License  
          Program review audit in California.  If California is  
          unable to resolve findings from that audit by the next  
          audit (anticipated being in early 2012), the state may be  
          found out of compliance and may face sanctions.  Failure to  
          achieve compliance with federal regulations may result in a  
          significant loss of state highway funds and grant money.   
          The initial penalties for substantial non-compliance are a  
          five percent loss of federal highway aid, complete loss of  
          all federal grants, and a $5,000-a-day fine. I f a state  







                                                               AB 2144
                                                                Page  
          4

          remains out of compliance for a second year, the loss of  
          highway funds is increased to 10 percent.  Failure to  
          comply for a third year results in the Federal Motor  
          Carrier Safety Administration decertifying the state.  If a  
          state is decertified, it may no longer issue or renew  
          commercial licenses.

          DMV representatives also assert that the bill's proposed  
          changes to state law will ensure that only safe drivers  
          operate commercial motor vehicles on California's highways.  
           Commercial motor vehicle drivers are held to a high  
          standard because they earn their living by operating large,  
          heavy vehicles and in some cases, transporting passengers.   
          In recognition of this fact, Congress has established  
          national guidelines with the passage of MSCIA (Public Law  
          106-159) and both the prior and the current administrations  
          have indicated that they expect states to impose strong  
          enforcement measures against violators.  DMV sponsored this  
          bill in order to provide for those measures. 
           
           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/4/10)

          Department of Motor Vehicles (source)


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,  
            Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles  
            Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De  
            Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,  
            Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,  
            Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,  
            Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,  
            Niello, Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,  
            Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,  
            Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,  
            Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Bass, Block, De La Torre, Gilmore,  
            Mendoza, Vacancy







                                                               AB 2144
                                                                Page  
          5



          JJA:cm  8/4/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****