BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                             


 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 957|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
|(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
|327-4478                          |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
  
                              
                       THIRD READING
                              

Bill No:  AB 957
Author:   Scott (D)
Amended:  7/7/99 in Senate
Vote:     21

  
  SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE  :  10-0, 6/29/99
AYES:  Karnette, Dunn, Costa, Figueroa, Hayden, Kelley,  
  Monteith, Morrow, Rainey, Speier
NOT VOTING:  Murray, Polanco

  SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE  :  8-0, 7/13/99
AYES:  Bowen, Alarcon, Baca, Kelley, Peace, Solis, Speier,  
  Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING:  Brulte, Hughes, Mountjoy

  SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

  ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  79-0, 5/10/99 (Passed on Consent) - See  
  last page for vote
 

  SUBJECT  :    Vehicles:  motor carriers of property

  SOURCE  :     California Highway Patrol

 
  DIGEST :    This bill authorizes the suspension of a motor  
carrier for the failure to pay required fees under the  
Biennial Inspection of Terminals Program.

  ANALYSIS  :    Existing law requires the California Highway  
Patrol (department) to inspect every motor carrier terminal  
under the biennial inspection of terminals program at least  
                                                 CONTINUED





                                                      AB 957
                                                       Page  
2

every 25 months.  Existing law requires a motor carrier to  
schedule the inspection with the department and to submit  
the specified fees.  Applications and fees for subsequent  
inspections are required to be submitted before the  
expiration of the motor carrier's then current inspection  
term.

Existing provisions of the Public Utilities Code require  
the Public Utilities Commission, upon recommendation of the  
department, and after a hearing, to suspend a household  
goods carrier's permit if the carrier has either (a) failed  
to maintain any vehicle used in transportation for  
compensation in a safe operating condition, or (b) failed  
to enroll all drivers in the required pull-notice system.

This bill would add failure to submit any application or to  
pay any fee required through the inspection program within  
the required timeframes to the list of actions for which  
the department is authorized to recommend suspensions.

Existing provisions of the Vehicle Code require the  
department, for motor carrier's of property, to recommend  
that the Department of Motor Vehicles suspend or revoke the  
permit of a motor carrier of property, or for interstate  
operators, to recommend to the federal Highway  
Administration Office of Motor Carriers that appropriate  
administrative action be taken against a carrier, when the  
carrier has either (a) failed to maintain any pertinent  
vehicle in a safe operating condition or to comply with  
regulations relative to motor carrier safety, or (b) failed  
to enroll all drivers in a required pull-notice system.

The bill would add failure to submit any application or pay  
any fees required through the inspection program within the  
required timeframes to the list of actions for which the  
department is authorized to make those recommendations.

Existing provisions of the Vehicle Code prohibit a motor  
carrier from operating a commercial motor vehicle on any  
public highway during any period its motor carrier permit  
is suspended.

This bill would prohibit a motor carrier whose motor  
carrier permit is suspended, which suspension is based  







                                                      AB 957
                                                       Page  
3

wholly or in part on the failure of the motor carrier to  
maintain any vehicle in safe operating condition, from  
leasing, or otherwise allowing another motor carrier to  
operate the vehicles of the carrier subject to the  
suspension.  

The bill would also prohibit a motor carrier from knowingly  
leasing, operating, dispatching or otherwise utilizing any  
vehicle from a motor carrier whose permit is suspended, and  
require the department to immediately suspend the permit of  
any motor carrier that the department determines to be in  
violation of that prohibition.

  Background
  
Under the Biennial Inspection of Terminals Program, the  
department is required to conduct an inspection of every  
motor carrier terminal at least every 25 months.  It is the  
responsibility of the motor carrier to schedule the  
required inspection and to complete an application form and  
submit specified fees.  The fee ranges from $100-400,  
depending on the number of vehicles housed at the terminal.

All fees collected under this program are deposited in the  
Motor Vehicle Account.  An amount equal to the fees  
collected is required to be available for appropriation by  
the Legislature from the Motor Vehicle Account to the  
department to fund the cost of conducting the truck  
terminal inspections and for other roadside safety  
inspections required by law.  According to the department,  
the fee revenues currently cover approximately 60 percent  
of the departmental costs to conduct the inspection  
program.

Since the establishment of the inspection program, the  
department has experienced some difficulty with the timely  
collection of inspection fees.  The department indicates  
that it presently requires considerable effort by  
department personnel to effectuate program compliance by  
some carriers.  Despite these efforts, a significant number  
of motor carriers refuse to submit the required fees until  
a citation is issued.

According to the department, over 5,000 terminals are  







                                                      AB 957
                                                       Page  
4

presently delinquent in the payment of their inspection  
program fees, which represents $1,022,200 in unrecovered  
fee revenues.

The delinquency rate of the terminal inspection program is  
significant, and this measure would enhance the ability of  
the department to better ensure the compliance of motor  
carriers to the requirements of the program.  Delinquent  
motor carriers could face suspension or revocation of the  
ability to operate if they fail to pay the required fees,  
much like that is presently authorized for safety  
violations and other offenses.  In addition, the measure  
would prohibit a motor carrier whose permit has been  
suspended for operating unsafe vehicles from transferring  
vehicles to another motor carrier during the term of the  
suspension.

  FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  Yes   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
Local:  Yes


  SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/16/99)

California Highway Patrol (source)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Trucking Association
California Moving and Storage Association
Department of Motor Vehicles
Department of Finance

  ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the sponsor, since  
the beginning of the BIT program they have had difficulty  
collecting inspection fees.  Carriers may actively avoid  
inspection by relocating their terminals and/or failing to  
submit inspections applications and fees.  Because of this,  
CHP must attempt to collect these fees instead of focusing  
on the safety issues of the BIT program.  In addition, CHP  
stresses that "those who avoid the program and who are  
cited on the highways find that the fines typically imposed  
by the local courts, with some exceptions, are not  
punitive, and continued non-compliance is more cost  
effective for those carriers." 

  ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :







                                                      AB 957
                                                       Page  
5

AYES:  Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,  
  Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Bock, Brewer, Briggs,  
  Calderon, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett,  
  Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,  
  Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund,  
  Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House, Jackson, Kaloogian,  
  Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Longville,  
  Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni,  
  McClintock, Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Oller, Robert  
  Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti, Reyes, Romero,  
  Runner, Scott, Shelley, Soto, Steinberg, Strickland,  
  Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson, Washington,  
  Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright, Zettel,  
  Villaraigosa
NOT VOTING:  Vincent


RJG:sl  8/16/99   Senate Floor Analyses 

               SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                      ****  END  ****