BILL ANALYSIS 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 2858 - Ridley-Thomas Hearing Date:
June 22, 2004 A
As Amended: May 13, 2004 FISCAL B
2
8
5
8
DESCRIPTION
Current federal law establishes the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) as part of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The TSA is responsible for taking specific
measures to ensure aviation security through the increased
screening of passengers and commercial activity at airports.
This includes hiring, training, and retention of personnel for
the screening of passengers and baggage, as well as conducting
background checks on people who have access to secure areas of
airports.
Current law requires the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) to impose specified obligations on charter party carriers
and passenger stages, vehicles which transport passengers on a
charter, or pre-arranged, basis such as limousines and airport
shuttles. Those obligations include maintaining safe vehicles,
ensuring driver fitness, and maintaining adequate workers
compensation insurance.
This bill requires charter party carriers who transport
passengers to or from airports and specified railroad terminals
to also certify that its drivers and "key employees" have
successfully completed a criminal history background check.
"Key employees" are defined as owners, partners, or officers and
directors.
This bill requires the CPUC to adopt regulations implementing a
criminal background check program. The program shall include a
fingerprint-based criminal background investigation to uncover
prior convictions for the following criminal acts:
Unlawful transportation of hazardous materials
Carrying weapons or explosives aboard an aircraft
Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area
Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility
Violence at international airports
Unlawful possession or distribution of explosives or assault
weapons
Felony arson
Hate crimes
A driver or other key employee who has been convicted of
committing any of these crimes may not be employed by the
charter party carrier in that capacity. This requirement
applies to drivers and key employees employed on or after
January 1, 2003. Employees who pass the background check shall
be issued an appropriate credential by the CPUC. Such
credentials are subject to inspection by airport law enforcement
officers.
This bill requires the fingerprint-based background check to be
performed by the Department of Justice.
This bill makes violations of this provision subject to civil
penalties up to $2,000. Repeated violations are grounds for
revocation of the carrier's CPUC operating permit.
This bill provides that any person authorized to operate school
activity busses is exempt from the credentialing requirements.
This bill provides for charter party carriers to pay fees to the
CPUC to cover the cost of the program.
This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2005.
BACKGROUND
This bill is aimed at ensuring drivers and key employees of
charter party carriers have obtained security clearances and
providing uniformity in credentialing among charter party
carriers.
The threshold questions raised by the bill are whether imposing
criminal background checks on charter party carrier drivers will
improve airport security and whether the CPUC is the proper
entity to execute this duty.
COMMENTS
1.Will This Lead To A More Secure Airport? The City of Los
Angeles is the sponsor of this measure and notes that
following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the east
coast, Los Angeles International Airport was closed for
several days. When it re-opened, bus, van taxi and limousine
drivers were the only vehicles allowed access to the airport's
central terminal area for several weeks. While taxi drivers
had undergone background checks pursuant to city ordinance,
none of the bus, van or limousine drivers were subject to a
similar check..
This bill only covers charter-party carriers, which are the
limousine operators. It doesn't cover airport shuttles, which
are classified as passenger stages, nor does it cover hotel or
rental car shuttle busses or taxi cabs. The author and
committee may wish to consider whether it's appropriate to
expand the bill to include all of those entities.
Even if the bill is expanded, it's worth noting that
limousine, shuttle, and taxi cab drivers are just a fraction
of the people who drive through an airport passenger terminal
to drop off or pick up airport-goers. The number of passenger
cars passing through an airport each day far outweigh the
number of drivers covered by this bill. Furthermore, the
limousine drivers covered by this bill cannot be expected to
inspect the luggage accompanying the people they're taking to
the airport. As such, the author and committee may wish to
consider whether the licensing structure by this bill will
truly improve airport safety.
2.Local Control vs. Statewide Standard . According to the City
of Los Angeles, local jurisdictions already have the authority
to require the background checks and credentialing procedures
specified in this bill. There is certainly a benefit to
creating a statewide background check and credentialing
procedure to prevent a hodge-podge of regulations which differ
for each local jurisdiction. Supporters note that San Diego
International Airport has required background checks for
certain public transportation vehicles. From a local
government standpoint, the other benefit of creating a
statewide system is the state, not the local government, winds
up paying for it. However, this bill does not bar local
governments and special districts from also requiring their
own background checks and credentials. The author and
committee may wish to consider pre-empting the ability of
local governments to implement a system on top of the
statewide system established by this bill.
3.Is The Exemption For Long-Term Employees Appropriate? This
bill will take effect on July 1, 2005, but exempts from the
licensing requirements any employee who was hired before
January 1, 2003. It's not clear why someone who has been on
the job for 2 years and 7 months should be exempt from the
background check, while someone who has been on the job for 2
years and 5 months should have to go through a background
check. The author and committee may wish to consider whether
it would be appropriate to require all of the people covered
by this bill to go through a background check regardless of
their hire date or whether only people hired after the
effective date of this bill should have to go through a
background check. As a technical amendment, if the author and
committee choose to exempt long-term employees the section
should speak to persons initially employed on or after January
1, 2003.
4.Is The CPUC The Appropriate Entity To Do The Background Check?
As a general rule, the CPUC doesn't do background checks,
though it does work with other state agencies to ensure its
requirements are met. For example, the CPUC and the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) together ensure drivers are
properly licensed, and that license revocations are
immediately communicated to the CPUC.
However, the CPUC has no expertise in criminal matters or in
determining whether a driver represents a security risk.
Those questions are better answered at the Department of
Justice (DOJ), which already handles background checks for a
number of state agencies and other entities. The author and
committee may wish to consider shifting the responsibility for
creating the fingerprint-based criminal background
investigation to the DOJ, and give the department some
flexibility in determining what types of convictions should
disqualify a person from driving a charter party carrier.
This will also help with the privacy issues, because the
confidential data necessary to complete the background check
would be retained at DOJ and the CPUC would merely receive a
pass/fail designation from the DOJ.
The same concern applies to issuing credentials. The CPUC has
no experience in developing, implementing, and administering a
credentialing program. The author and committee may wish to
consider whether this duty would be handled more efficiently
by another state agency, either DOJ or the DMV. As a
technical matter, the bill also requires the CPUC to establish
its regulations through the Administrative Procedures Act, a
procedure with which the Commission is unfamiliar. To the
extent regulations are required, the CPUC should be permitted
to follow its customary rules.
5.How Much Will This Cost? The Assembly Appropriations
Committee estimates that the bill will cost $2.5 million in
the 2004-05 fiscal year and $1.9 million annually thereafter.
With 3,500 charter party carriers in California, the cost of
this program to the carriers would be $500-$700 annually,
assuming all carriers service airports or rail stations.
6.Can I See This Bill, Too? The Senate Rules Committee has
directed this bill to be returned to its possession if it's
approved by this committee.
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor (48-27)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (16-5)
Assembly Public Safety Committee (4-2)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
City of Los Angeles
Support:
California Airport Coalition
California Bus Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles International Airport
Palmdale Regional Airport
Port of Oakland
Oppose:
Greater California Livery Association
California Public Utilities Commission
Randy Chinn
AB 2858 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 22, 2004