Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. We have a total of 17 measures on today's agenda. First, as usual, a few housekeeping items are going to allow for two primary witnesses each for support and opposition. And is our custom each witness will have two minutes.

Any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the bill. We have four measures proposed for consent today. I'm going to go ahead and list them since it's only four. We'll list them again later when we have a quorum and before we take them up.

But those items, in case you're tracking them, as a courtesy, want to let you know that item three, AB 272, Aguiar Curry is on consent. Item nine, AB 620, some of you remember, Jackson is on consent. Item 11, AB 875, Assembly Member Muratsuchi on consent. And item 16, AB 1479, by Assembly Member Tangipa, is on consent.

In addition, if you're tracking AB 431, it has been pulled from the agenda and will not be heard today. So when we have sufficient numbers, we'll establish a quorum. In the meantime, I think we can get started with item one, under special order of business, AB 1340. I know this is a WICS Berman Bill.

If you don't mind me using your surnames. And you may come forward as joint authors. I understand it. To present at this time. Again, we're hoping to get Members here so we can establish a quorum and entertain a motion on your bill. But in the meantime, we can take the presentation.

We understand. We know what it's like running around. Okay, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for letting us present AB 1340 today. Let me begin by thanking this Committee and the staff and the chair for their excellent work and thorough analysis.

As it illustrates, AB 1340 provides rideshare drivers, also known as transportation network companies, or TNC drivers, with the choice to organize, join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits and workplace conditions.

It has the potential, power, has the potential to empower hundreds of thousands of workers, giving more Californians the right to unionize than any other legislation in recent state history. The purpose of AB 1340 is straightforward.

As the text of the Bill states, its aim is to give TNC drivers an opportunity, or the choice, quote, to self organize and designate representatives of their own choosing in order to bargain collectively with transportation network companies.

The goal is to prevent or quickly resolve disputes between companies and drivers and to improve the working conditions of those drivers, thereby improving the services provided to the public.

Assemblymember Berman and I are honored to stand shoulder to shoulder today with California's Ride Share drivers as they continue in their multi year journey to improve their own working conditions. We believe, as I know many of you do, in the principle that all work has dignity.

That all workers, regardless of how their labor is classified under the law, deserve to have a right to organize and raise their collective voice. Through that voice, drivers can and will advocate for better wages, for fairer treatment, for greater financial certainty and stability. AB 1340.

With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of Californians to raise the bar in the rideshare industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector.

Because as we all know, when we work together, we can achieve the common dream and a shared vision that California is with within all of our reach. We have some witnesses here to testify. I will let themselves introduce in a second, but first I want to hand the floor over to my joint author, Assemblymember Mark Berman.

Thank you very much, Chair and Sanders. I'm pleased to join Assemblymember Wicks in presenting this really important Bill. As was already stated, AB 1340 simply provides rideshare drivers a seat at the table in deciding the future of an industry for which they are taking on the risk and getting on the road and working long hours.

Fundamentally, this is no different than so many other industries where the workforce already has the ability to choose if they want to organize and collectively bargain.

We've heard from countless drivers about their love for the work that they do, but the desire to organize in order to better their job and their industry and it may sound cliche, but these workers are literally driving this segment of our economy.

And so I invite everyone to join us in uplifting their efforts and and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And your witnesses can come forward at this time. Please have a seat here at the table and preferably on one side in case we have opposition witnesses.

I should also note we also have Matt Lajay from SEIU to answer any technical questions, perhaps sitting at the end of the table.

Be available at the microphone. Thank you. And you can proceed in whichever order you'd like. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you. Thank you Committee Members for listening to rideshare drivers today. My name is Mike Robinson. I've been a rideshare driver for Lyft for 10 years, since 2015.

In years past, driving eight hours a day, five days a week, I could bring home around 700 a week today, doing the exact same work I would bring home, but only about 500. And that's before expenses like gas maintenance, car insurance, which alone cost me over $200 a month. The real breaking point for me came in 2000.

In 2023, when I was diagnosed with cancer, I was working full time for Lyft, a major rideshare company. When I got sick, there was nothing to fall back on. No meaningful health care benefits, no sick leave, nothing. This is the expense of many Lyft and Uber drivers.

We're experiencing a decline of wages protections, while gig companies have increased rideshare prices and profits. We need fair pay. We need livable wages. We need protection on the job. We need meaningful benefits, health care, sick leave, and a way to appeal unfair deactivations. We need a voice at the table.

That is why I'm asking you to support the 800,000 plus California rideshare drivers and support AB 1340. Thank you for your time.

Next witness.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dariush K. Mobarake and I'm from San Jose. I've been driving since 2014. Thank you to the Committee Members for listening to us today. Before I start driving, I work as a security officer and a security supervisor. I started driving for better opportunities and more flexibility. I love driving. I like people.

I like talking to people and understanding where they are coming from and where they are going and then helping them get to where they need to go. But it has become increasingly difficult for me to make a living driving for Uber. I have made thousands of rides. I am good at what I do.

I want to continue driving. But US drivers are getting less and less of the fares from each ride while the company is taking more and more. Having a union means drivers won't be taken advantage of. It means drivers like me will have a chance of getting a living wage and being able to negotiate for what we deserve.

We are not asking for special treatment. Drivers like me support AB 1340 because we want a real voice on the job. AB 1340 will provide a pathway to form a union, protections against retaliation, and the chance to collectively bargain with their companies with Drive for like Uber and Lyft.

The gig company is not the future unless we make it fair. I'm asking that you please vote yes on AB 1340 and stand with me and fellow rideshare drivers across our grave state. Thank you for your time and your support.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in support by identification purposes only.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Hector Castellanos. Uber And Lyft driver since around 10 years ago. Only in support in support of AB 1340.

Thank you. Next up. Thanks for being here.

My name is Francisco Martaleno and I support 1340.

Thank you sir for being here. Next up, I'm here a driver for 10 years and I'm in support of 1340. Thank you for being here.

Joseph Augusto, I've been a driver for 10 years and I support 1340. Thank you. Thank you sir.

My name is Nicholas Cavlar from Stockton, California, driving since 2016. I am in support for AB 1340. Thank you.

Next up, Maxwell Drotty, Western center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Anil setawla, driving for 2017. Support AB 1340.

Thank you, thanks for being here. Ibrahim Jello. I live in San Francisco. Been driver for both Lyft and uber for about 10 years, 20,000 miles. I support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

My name is, I'm working with Uber and Lift 6 here living for University California. I support for AV3040.

Thank you for being here. Next up, my name is Paramji Singh, I live in Juba city. I Sport for AB in 1340.

Thank you for being here. I'm Ferrarian, I'm working for Lyft and Uber driver. I support 1348. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Eugene Chang and I worked for Uber and Lyft for seven years and I'm in support of AB 1340. Thank you.

My name is Alma Corral, I'm working for over 14 years and I support.

Thank you for being here.

Margarita Penalosa from Los Angeles and I ask you to say yes on AB 1340. Gables.

Thank you for being here.

Next up, My name is Armando Gorona, I'm working for ruberal nib for 11 years and I appreciate your take consideration this AB14. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks for being here.

Next up, Mr.

Chair Member Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you for being here. My name is Sergio Lopez, I drive for Uber and Lyft for 10 years in the Bay Area in support to AB 1340. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Jesus Guerrero from Los Angeles, California and I support AB 1340.

Thank you for being here. I'm Gustavo Vega, I support 1340. Thank you.

My name is Marta Gavara, I am Barstow, California. I support to the AB 1340.

Thank you. I am Haravender Singh, live in Sacramento. I support AV30 40. Thank you for being here.

My name is Ofelia Rosas, I am Uber driver for Lyft and Uber driver for six years. I'm support to AB 1340.

Thank you for being here.

Next up, my name is Marvin Zigaran and I'm from LA. A Lyft driver and I support the IB 1340.

Thank you for being here. Next up. Hello, my name is Luis Funes. I am a Los Angeles lyft driver of four years. I support AB 1340. Thank you. Thank you.

Group AB 1340. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cassie Mancini. On behalf of the California School Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Hello, my name Gurvinder Singh and I work Uber and lift three year and I support AB 3040. Thank you. Hi, my name is Duvinder. I definitely support AB 1340. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

My name is Sabaidullah. I am four years the left Uber driver in California. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, my name is Shandeep Singel. I work with Uber Lift. I sport apart. Thank you for being here.

I'm sorry for Proposition 1340 and thank you very much for your help.

Thank you so much for being here. Any other witnesses in support? See none witnesses in opposition. You can come up here. You should get two minutes. Who wants to open? I'm happy just to get a starter. All right, please. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Hit that red button and then put it close to your.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice Chair Strickland and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Malcolm Mcfarland II, representing Lift and we respectfully oppose Assembly Bill 1340.

In our view, this Bill directly contradicts the will of 10 million California voters who, through the passage of Proposition 22, affirmed the importance of maintaining independent contractor flexibility and provided historic benefits to tens of thousands of drivers in the state. LIP supports policy proposals that guarantee driver Independence and flexibility along with benefits.

This was and remains the goal of Prop 22. However, we believe these goals must be pursued in an objective manner based on market realities. We have collaborated with drivers and bipartisan legislators around the country to support legislation that achieves this balance.

In our latest economic impact report, we found that 89% of California drivers support a policy proposal in which they remain independent contractors and keep their current flexibility.

Prop 22 does this by giving drivers guaranteed minimum earnings during engage time and requires companies to provide $1 million in insurance coverage for medical costs and lost income due to injuries or illnesses sustained while driving. Prop 22 also provides drivers who average more than 15 hours of driving per week a stipend to help with healthcare costs.

Additionally, Lyft has Built on top of the Prop 22 structure through our driver earnings commitment, guaranteeing drivers on our platform will earn 70% or more rider payments each week after after external fees and costs.

Lyft is committed to protecting access to rideshare as both an important transportation option and earning opportunity, while also maintaining the Independence and flexibility that drivers value. Working through the Legislature with relevant stakeholders is the best way to balance the needs of drivers, riders and the TNC industry while respecting the will of the voters. 5 seconds.

Therefore, Lyft must oppose AB 1340. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for being here.

Next. Thank you very much. John Finley here, chair and Members, speaking on behalf of Uber Technologies Incorporated in respectful opposition. As my colleague from Lyft stated, this Bill would override the will of California voters, undermining the Independence of tens of thousands of app based drivers and raise costs for millions of Californians.

AB 1340 as currently written, proposes several changes that are in conflict with Prop 22, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters and in 2020 with nearly 60% of the vote and was recently upheld by the California Supreme Court. That decision reaffirmed voters intent to protect driver Independence, a model that drivers overwhelmingly support.

If passed as written, AB 1340 would fundamentally alter the way that platforms such as Uber operate. By targeting just a single segment of the broader gig economy, AB 1340 risks destabilizing a service that Californians rely on every day and will continue to drive up costs rather than adding cost and complexity.

We believe the Legislature should be focused on expanding opportunity and affordability for both drivers and riders in the state. But without significant changes, AB 1340 will lead to more legal uncertainty and delay real progress.

We are committed to working with this Legislature and with others to find a balanced solution that protects flexibility for drivers while improving the experience and affordability for riders. We respectfully urge your opposition to AB 1340 and welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating with all engaged stakeholders.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Any other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes?

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and opposition and also Registering opposition for TechNet. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Members Colton Samler on behalf of Chamber of Progress and respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelsey McCauley on behalf of the Protect app based drivers and Services coalition in opposition.

Thank you. Any other witness opposition? Seeing none goes back to the Committee. Any. Any questions? Right, Right here. Go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you. Assembly Members bringing this forward, one of my questions. They talk about independent. Will they be independent drivers under this or they lose their Independence and become employees.

I think the idea would be. I mean, what this Bill does is it allows the ability to organize and for the workers to determine exactly sort of what that would look like in terms of the relationship with the company. That's the whole point of the Bill. But I'd also refer to Matt lashay if you have any questions.

On the technical side, this wouldn't alter their employment status. They would still be independent contractors.

Yeah. So the employee status is off the table. What we're talking about is maintaining under the National Labor Relations act that they're able to have the right to organize and the right for collective bargaining and they may be able to create their own unions within themselves. Is that pretty much it?

Because they're not asking for additional wages, Are you? No, I don't think so. Are you asking for next Monday or Tuesday off? No, I don't think so. You're asking for the right to sit at the table and bargain. Is that correct? That's correct. And with that, I think that.

Can you elaborate that there's anything else that they're asking for that would be out of line within the National Labor Relations act to protect workers, as all workers in California should be in our protected.

And I think this is their step forward to fall under that umbrella of protection that the State of California will afford them and that right to organize and have free state free will to go ahead and bargain.

I don't think we could have said it better ourselves. This bill's about their right to organize. All the details around that, that would happen later.

But this is like you said, Senator, this is just about making sure that all the gig workers here and across California get the right to organize and then have those conversations with the companies moving forward.

Now, we just heard testimony from someone who drove for a number of years, had medical problems and so on and received no benefits. So these things can be worked out at the bargaining table. Their future, their stability, employment and that sort of thing and to maintain their way of life will be worked out at the bargaining table.

Right. Good. So with that, I will support the Bill and move it at the appropriate time.

Go ahead, Senator, I'd like the Assembly Members an opportunity to respond to the opposition regarding Prop 22.

Go for it. So Prop 22 provided, and this is kind of technical, so I'm going to go ahead and just read this off the. Off the page.

But Prop 22 provided that rideshare drivers are independent contractors, which means they are not covered by the National Labor Relations act and have no right to organize or collectively bargain with rideshare companies. But AB 1340 uses the state's authority under the federal antitrust doctrine of state action immunity to empower drivers to organize.

Specifically, AB 1340 meets the two part test of the state action immunity doctrine because it one furthers state policy to encourage and protect rideshare drivers freedom of Association and ability to join together to negotiate improvements and two, it provides for the necessary state oversight or supervision of the organizing and collective bargaining process.

And so that's how we think that this is fully legal under existing law because it doesn't fall under the parameters that were within Prop 22.

So you're going outside of that.

So Prop 22 required that the workers right to collective bargaining be approved by seven eighths of the Legislature. But that provision was struck down in court. Exactly. And basically the court didn't want to tie the future hands of legislatures. Thus we are the future here we are.

And so this Bill essentially gives us the right to establish this, which is exactly what this Bill does. So we think it's very in line with Prop 22, particularly with the court struck down. Thank you.

I have a couple questions. One, you said this hurts the will of Prop 22 and the independent contractor status for your employees, for your workers who are independently contracted, in what way does it hurt the ability for independent contractors if this Bill passes? Sure, sure, I'm happy to take that.

So we just, we feel that the Bill as written is in direct conflict with the spirit of Prop 22, which was to protect the independent status and flexibility of drivers.

At that time there was discussion about what the, what the status should be and Prop 22 overwhelmingly passed with 60% of the vote and then was upheld by the Supreme Court. Afterwards there was a decision that struck a certain portion and I think that's the conversation that we're having here today.

But me not being an attorney, I can only say that we feel that this violates the spirit of Prop 22.

But we are continuing to have conversations in a collaborative spirit to find policies that can both protect driver flexibility and make sure to protect affordability for riders without adding too much cost and complexity to the State of California. That was the point of Prop 22, was to protect that. And we look forward to advancing policies like that.

What is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor? Just want you to elaborate.

Under current California State law, the difference. So an employee under me, not being an attorney, I wasn't necessarily prepared to answer that, but I can say that Independent contractors under Prop 22 are rideshare drivers who are granted this status to continue working flexibly, not have their hours assigned or dictated by the company.

And also it's an exemption from the National Labor Relations act. And that was in Prop 22. Prop 22 guaranteed the independent contractor status of rideshare drivers and other gig economy workers. Okay.

Do you have anything to add? Yeah, just to kind of elaborate on John's point. Thank you for eloquently answering. Thank you for your question. We just feel that this Bill is a slippery slope.

We know that flexibility and Independence are important drivers, and we support policy proposals that protect that flexibility under Prop 22 provided historic benefits, earnings, guarantees. We just feel pieces of legislation such as this opened up a slippery slope for issues that could impact Prop 20. What Prop 22 provided drivers, specifically Independence and flexibility.

Okay, great. Would you like to close?

Sure. Just quickly on that issue, you know, we'd argue the Bill doesn't. And it's important to note that the Bill does not require unionization of rideshare drivers. It gives drivers that choice. And so if, you know, the companies are right and the drivers don't want to start a union, they won't.

And if they're wrong and they do this says that they can. And so, you know, that's really at the crux of this Bill. With that, I'd respectfully ask an aye vote, but defer to my colleague.

You did a great job as Senator Berman, and thank you for the conversation and the comments. Senators respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. When that time comes, it's been moved. And when we have a quorum, we'll bring that up. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here, all of you. Really appreciate it. Once we get a quorum, we can move it and vote on it. Next up, Berman. Man, we see each other a lot.

We really do. Yeah, I love it.

So you got final item number six, Members AB382. I said to Ms. Wicks, I think Senator Strickland is on every Committee that I present a bill at.

I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee staff for their work on analyzing this bill, especially the Committee staff, who I had the privilege of working with for a long time in my office. It's great to see you, Isabel. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for school age children in California.

Children, parents, and all Californians should feel safe walking or biking to school. That's why I am once again authoring legislation to update our policies to advance safety in school zones and put kids well being first. AB 382 would lower the speed limit in school zones to 20 miles per hour.

This would go into effect beginning in 2029, recognizing that local jurisdictions need more time to implement but does not prohibit them from lowering the school zone speed limit sooner if they choose to. Currently, California is just one of nine states that sets our school zone speed limit at greater than 20 miles per hour.

Research shows that reducing speed limits in school zones can bring significant safety benefits by reducing vehicular speeds, fatal accidents and injury crashes. This bill would also provide cities with the flexibility to use flashing beacons and specific hours in addition to quote when children are present to make clear when the 20 mph speed limit would be in effect.

This would better meet the needs of local communities and improve compliance, which is critically important for student safety. Respectfully ask for an Aye vote and I'm joined today by Mark Vuxevich, Director of State Policy at Streets for All. Thank you for being here. Two minutes.

Thank you, Vice Chair and Committee. My name is Mark Vukcevich, Director of State Policy for Streets for All. I'm here today because of the fact that somebody Remember Berman mentioned traffic violence is the number one cause of death for school age children in California.

It's not cancer, it's not guns, it's not drowning, it's getting hit by a car while you're in a car or outside of a car. And the problem is getting worse. Pedestrian deaths across this country have shot up 77% since 2010, a horrifying trend that is unique to the United States and even worse in California.

And we know that many of these deaths are occurring in school zones like 2 year old Max Almanza, who was struck and killed by a car in front of a Napa elementary school, or by 7 year old Jace Board who was struck and killed by a truck while crossing the street in front of a school in San Bernardino county just moments after being dropped off by his mother.

In both of these cases, the driver was going roughly the school zone speed limit of 25 miles per hour and that speed killed them.

AB382 will lower the school's own speed limit to 20 miles per hour, putting California in line with the prevailing standards of a majority of US States and aligning with the recent recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics and and as well as empirical data underscoring the nexus between speeds and crash outcomes.

At 20 miles per hour, drivers will have more time to react to unexpected events like a child darting in the street and while AB382 won't solve the pervasive problem of distracted driving, it will decrease the likelihood of fatality in the instance a distracted driver going 20 miles per hour is safer than a distracted driver going faster.

Most importantly, AB382 will also give our cities and schools much more local control over what school zone standard works best for them, specifically around the when children are present versus the time based standard versus the when flashing be concerned standard, which is what other states use as well.

Because we've learned, talking to school administrators and crossing guards and city officials across the state that what works best for a school in downtown San Francisco, San Francisco may not work for a school in suburban Orange County.

Streets for all is committed to fighting for safer school zones where children don't have to risk their lives just to get to school. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Other witnesses in support.

Good afternoon. Chair, Member. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education and support, thank you.

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and Senators on behalf of the cities of El Cerrito, Foster City, Mountain View and Redwood City, all in strong support. Thanks for being here.

Jeannie Wardwaller, on behalf of Transform and support.

Thank you.

Kendra Ramsey, on behalf of the California Bicycle Coalition and support.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz, on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Members, Any questions? Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Assemblymember. Bringing it forward. I just would like to send out a message to the parents, slow down, because it is the parents who are dropping off the kids and running off to work and so on. So yes, if they wouldn't have done that overall, we wouldn't be doing this. Accidents happen, we know it.

But it is up to us to protect probably our most precious asset, which is, I think is our children. I've raised five. And I will tell you every day when I go to school, I worry about it and thank God they've survived. They're all grown. But how about the little ones now, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade.

And it's so important. So I know that law enforcement is behind this bill. All the City Council Members we can think of, independent cities, you name it, because we have to protect our children. So I will support the bill, move it at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Okay. As soon as we get a quorum, we'll get that up and running. Thank you, Senator. Thanks, Assembly Member. Appreciate it. Good to See you again. See you. Next up, Sean Alvarez. You have File item number 2 AB 30. Thanks for being here.

Nobody here to play play this game.

Good afternoon, Senators. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present. Appreciate you all being here. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 30, the cleaner, cheaper Fuels Act. And I would like to begin by thanking staff for their work on this measure and the analysis.

AB30 will authorize the use of E15 gasoline blend which includes up to 15% of ethanol for sale and use here in the State of California. This will make California the 50th state as the other 49 states already allow for the sale of E15.

The reason for this bill is due to the regulatory delays that we've seen as a result of the process that the Air Resources Board. According to the Senate analysis, that is before year regulatory approval at CARB should take between two to five years.

CARB initiated the regulatory approval for this blend of gasoline of E15 more than seven years ago in 2018. And CARB estimates that another at least full year may be needed before they complete their rulemaking on this. That means that it will be eight years or more probably before we see this being implemented.

Last October, Governor Newsom sent a letter directing CARB to expedite the rulemaking on the use of this. And that was a welcome partnership for us in the Legislature. AB 30 responds to the governor's directive by approving this E15 blend of for sale while still preserving CARB's ability to complete their regulatory process in the long run.

By approving the bill, California drivers could see a 20 cent 20 cents per gallon reduction to their cost of gas, according to a study by UC Berkeley. The bill also has an urgency clause so it can take effect immediately upon the governor's signature. AB 30 has received strong support from a diverse coalition of individuals.

Bipartisan support it is one of. I want to recognize the work of the Problem Solvers Caucus. This is one of the priority bills for the caucus and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate moments. Joining me to take Testify today is Mr. Neal Kohler from the Renewable Fuels Association.

Thanks for being here. I remind you that it is support on both sides.

Yes, really appreciate the bipartisan common sense approach that this bill addresses. Neil Koehler with the Renewable Fuels Association representing ethanol producers. Four of our Members are here in California. This bill increases the supply of cleaner fuels. It reduces the cost consumers, addressing affordability and giving consumer choice and it significantly reduces both tailpipe emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.

So we respectfully Ask for your support of this bill. Thanks for being here.

Other witnesses in support, please come up.

Hi, good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Acxiom Advisors here on behalf of Growth, Energy and support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Steve Wallach here on behalf of Poet in support. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Jared Moss on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cassandra Moore on behalf of John Deere in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alessandra Magnasco on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience alliance. In support. Thank you. Thank you.

Juanita Martinez, on behalf of the Multicultural Business alliance, the California League of United Latin American Citizens, lulac, the California Listed Association of National Guard of The United States, CalPACE, Los Amigos De La Comunidad, Association of US Army, Southern California, National Federation of Independent Business and the Marine Corps League Department of California.

Thank you for being here. Thank you.

John Moffatt on behalf of the alliance for Automotive Innovation.

Thank you. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

See please come forward. Afternoon chair Jerry Desmond on behalf of Recreational Boaters of California, opposed because E15 fuel ruins boat engines and destroys our warranties as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Kasia Hunt with Nosman on behalf of the motorcycle industry, similar to the previous witness, concerned that there's no notice to consumers with the urgency clause that therefore people might be using this lower cost fuel into non compliant vehicles.

So have an opposition unless amended because we think there needs to be some public education and labeling so that the fuel is not used in motorcycles and ATVs.

Great. Thank you.

Members, go ahead. Yes, thank you. Assembly. In bringing this forward, are the refineries ready to take this on? I know the CARB is trying to help us and, you know, to bring our costs down, make it efficient. But we heard that there's other, whether motorboats or bikes or whatever it might be, because it's got to.

We've got to maintain that power that we're used to, but we don't like the cost. Is this going to give us that same power value per se and a reduced cost and can their fineries handle it and when?

Thank you. I'll answer the first question. This is an optional blend of gasoline, so it wouldn't be required. It would be optional and to the point that we've heard consistently from the boaters and the motorcyclists.

We believe there are federal regulations and I'll ask for permission just to show what the label very clearly identifies that the use of E15, this plant of gasoline should be used only in vehicles that are 2000 from the year 2001 or newer. Also not to be used in vehicles like boats or gasoline powered equipment.

These are federal required labels which would be part of this gasoline blend so that those issues can be addressed. The question of the gasoline being made available by refiners, I'd ask our public, our testimony to provide some response.

Yes, thank you for the question. The refiners are prepared. They already have the infrastructure to be putting the 10% ethanol to. That's in all the gallon of gas today. Ethanol is blended downstream at the terminals. It's a matter of just increasing the blend rate for that, that option that for those stations that like to carry it.

There's ample supply of ethanol in the United States and the refiners are, you know, the real problem is with the refineries being shut down. We need incremental supplies of clean fuels and ethanol is a great opportunity.

Opportunity to provide that. And I see you've got disclosures where the consumer can see exactly what's taking place at purchase, correct? Yeah, that's a federal requirement. Good. With that, I'll move the bill.

Any scene would you like to close? Thank you very much for the questions. Respectfully asked for I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, someone Rogers. File item 10 AB 830, you may open. Thanks for being here.

Yeah. Good afternoon. We're here today to present AB 830. This is a district bill for the city. Well, the unincorporated area of Hopland in Mendocino County. We have a like many of you have a freeway that runs directly through, through this jurisdiction.

Caltrans has oversight and there is a proposed project to make it safer, including Ada and signaling changes. Under current law, Caltrans is actually not able to do all of the project. So it's been currently split into two different portions.

Even though Caltrans has a specific pot of funding for things like relocating the utilities to make this project work. The public utilities district that oversees the area has 400 people. It can't afford the project without a pretty substantial rate increase. And Caltrans has been partnering with us to be able to advance this and work on this project.

With me today is our local supervisor, Madeline Klein, who was just elected this last November and has dug in on this issue and will tell you a little bit more about the project.

Congratulations first, but thank you so much for being here.

Good afternoon. I'm Madeline Klein, Mendicants Casino, County Supervisor. I want to thank Assemblymember Rogers for authoring this legislative Fix for Hopland. When a state highway bisects a small community's downtown, it certainly complicates things.

Highway 101 is the main route of travel on the north coast and along with it comes quite a bit of high speed traffic and large trucks. For decades, the Hopland community has been calling for safety upgrades to protect the locals, tourists, small businesses, the elementary school that are all in the vicinity of this Highway 101 project.

So when Caltrans announced the Ada project, the Hofland Public Utility District was notified it would be responsible for paying for the relocation of the utility lines due to the restrictions in current state law.

Hopland PUD has less than 400 rate payers and provides both water and sewer services on a very small operating budget with 20% currently going to debt services. So the district is unable to Fund the approximately $1 million to move their utility lines without quite a dramatic and burdensome rate increase for their residents.

My predecessor, Supervisor McGordy, worked with Caltrans. He worked with organizations like RCRC, our county grant writers searching for funding opportunities, but came up empty. So this is our last chance. AB 830 is necessary to prevent additional delays and ultimately provide the much needed safety upgrade that are needed for the Hopland community.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and ask for your support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors. And I was going to say Mendocino, but I think she said everything better than I could. So thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here.

Lee Cameron, with the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Thank you for being here. Any witnesses? Opposition? See? None. Members, any questions?

Yes. Okay, my question is, how long have you been working on this between the two of you? I know supervisor just got elected. Congratulations. But obviously this has been a problem for some time for your district. What have you done in the past? How did you get so much motivation to bring this forward?

Because it's obviously going to set a precedence because a lot of us in our districts have issues that we can hope that Caltrans would jump in and be a partner rather than an obstacle.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the question, Senator. And I'll say we were elected at the same time and have been working on it together since then. But especially in my first term, one of the things that I really wanted to do was focus on local rural issues, areas that didn't typically get a lot of attention from the Legislature.

And we started this bill, actually broader to apply to all public utilities districts. There's about 50 across the state that are experiencing similar issues to this. Obviously, with the budget being what it was this year, we had to narrow it to continue to advance it.

But I do think that it's a significant issue that the Legislature is going to need to address that there are communities that feel left behind because oftentimes when they're left on their own to fund these projects, they just don't have the ratepayers, ratepayer base to be able to do so.

But I'll see if the supervisor has more to add.

Yeah, happy to add on. The community, like I had mentioned, has been working on this for decades. So originally there was initiative to have a bypass happen to protect the downtown, and that was never funded, never came to fruition.

So there's been quite a concerted effort from the community over the last, especially the 15 years asking for these kinds of upgrades to happen and with no result.

Well, I'd like to point out that Caltrans is a great, great agency and a great arm of our Senate and Assembly and everyone else here in California. The employees are great, and I'm glad to see that you're reaching out to them to be that partner.

You need to take this responsibility on financially to go ahead and help your district. So with that, I'll move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you.

I already did. Opposition? Everything's done. Do you want to close?

No, just thank you so much for the consideration. Like I said, this is an area that very much relies on traffic through this area. It is an agriculture community and a tourism community. And those roads really are important.

And this one, with a substantial upgrade, will serve that community, but only if we can get both phases of the project complete. Otherwise, you leave people behind.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Congratulations. And we'll bring that bill up as soon as we get a quorum. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Can you call authors to get them over here? We went through so fast that we're waiting for authors now.

If you're an author of a bill and transportation, please come down to the hearing room here.

Okay. Welcome Assemblymember Bennett. We are on a file, item 13, which is AB 954, and we welcome you to come forward and your witness. Great. And proceed when ready. Thank you much.

I mean, thank you very much. And Madam Acting Chair and Members, AB 954 directs California to incorporate planning for bicycle highways into the inter regional corridors within the Department strategic plan. I have a great witness here and in the interest of time, I'm going to turn right to her.

With me today is Kendra Ramsey and she's from the California Bicycle Coalition in support of the bill.

Great. Thank you. And thank you to the Committee for Hearing us today. Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're very excited about this bill taking the first step to help Caltrans make bike highways a reality across California.

California has an extensive and growing highway system for vehicles and roadway violence against vulnerable road users, including folks riding bikes, walking rolling transit users.

And as the climate crisis worsens, bike highways can serve as new system of connected and protected bike networks for our most vulnerable road users, while allowing folks to get out of their cars if they so choose and alleviate environmental burdens along the way.

As the threat of climate disaster grows exponentially each year, California must significantly change its transportation systems and give folks options for their transportation needs that are safe and convenient. Bike highways, a network of long distance routes and an excellent way to do that.

They'll create routes where people can get where they're going easily by bike, making this an excellent alternative to taking a freeway or a highway. Protected bikeway networks will encourage more people to get around by this mode and really just facilitate that additional option.

We really should be doing everything possible to protect the safety of vulnerable road users and the well being of those users. By tapping into funding sources that primarily are used for motor vehicles and really expanding our transportation options for people throughout California. The bill should open up these new possibilities to transform our transportation system.

And for these reasons, California Bicycle Coalition is pleased to be a sponsor of this bill and respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express support, please state your name and organization.

Jeannie Wardwaller, on behalf of Transform and People for Bikes and Support, thank you.

Anybody else wishing to express support? Okay. Any lead witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward and express opposition? Not seeing any. We'll ask anyone in the room who's opposed to come forward and express your position. Okay, not seeing any. We'll turn it back to the Committee. Any comments?

Yes, thank you. Assemblymember for bringing this forward bikeway safety. You know, I think California is leading the way in the nation with our bicycles, our children. You know, the summer months are here, young men and women racing one another. So having access to safe bicycle lanes is really, really important.

But what I like about it is consistent with Caltrans and their plans. So implementing it, I think it's a great idea, and I think that it's a way of California's future when it comes to bike safety and innovation. So with that, I'll move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to ask a question of the author. So this is a great Bill and a really important idea and I'll just share that. In my County of San Diego, there was a freeway widening project and they built.

Caltrans built a fully separated bicycle highway right next to the freeway as it was widened. And underneath, as it goes across the San Elijah Lagoon, underneath there's a bridge that's suspended and so people can ride their bikes underneath this beautiful bridge and walk across it. It's a tremendous improvement.

But I wanted to understand exactly what this bill is doing, because I had understood that that was really required already, that Caltrans was supposed to be doing this. And the language in the bill says that Caltrans will assess incorporating bicycle highways into strategic inter regional corridors within the ITP.

So, so I wanted to understand exactly what specifically is new with this bill compared to what Caltrans is already doing.

So Caltrans can. But this would be requiring Caltrans to always assess this when they're doing things, just to assess it. And so right now that hasn't been a requirement of Caltrans. So I agree with you.

The benefits of these Class 1 bike lanes, when they did that along the 101 between Ventura and Santa Barbara, the bicycle population exploded.

Using bike trails and with electric bikes out there now, and the ability for people to literally commute 15 and 20 miles to work easily or to community college, et cetera, it should be a requirement for Caltrans to have this. I shouldn't say so much a requirement, but it's never been identified.

The technical definition of a bike highway connecting two communities has never been officially identified for Caltrans. That's what Caltrans asked us to help them with with this legislation.

Well, that's great to hear. So when they have to assess, that's in writing or is that. Will we be able to see an in writing assessment? Not sure.

I don't have the details for that answer. With you. I wish I had somebody here.

Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. Okay. Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. Sorry I'm late to the party. I was at another hearing. So let's get back to the assessment. Are they assessing weather, temperature, whether it's feasible for people or whether it's financially feasible?

What kind of assessments are they doing to determine whether they should be subverting and taking gas tax money away from railroads and putting them into bicycle lanes? Especially in regions like I represent, where I don't care if it's five miles. It's not feasible because of the temperatures in the summertime and also the conditions oftentimes in the winter.

Now, the answer to that question is all the above. It's not a requirement that they only assess one thing or the other. You have to, you know, you have to put on your common sense hat if this is not an appropriate place for people to be biking, Caltrans must assess that.

Just like, if it doesn't make cost benefit, if there's not a cost benefit at the analysis that is positive, they shouldn't do it, et cetera. So they should look at all of those things when they're trying to make that assessment.

And while they're doing the assessment, how long do they have to do the assessment? I didn't get to see that in here. I don't have that answer.

Because a lot of times Caltrans is assessing things and it puts projects off for two or three years because they're assessing, and that's the reason they give cities, why they can't approve something or a project. Well, we can't approve that we're assessing it.

So that makes me concerned that we're layering on another assessing situation where we wind up with delays. And those delays wind up costing communities a lot of money because the ensuing projects that need to get built are waiting for an assessment. And at the end of the day, the assessment says, yeah, it's not feasible there.

And my word choice probably could have been better. It doesn't require that they have to do this assessment every time they go to do something. It allows them to do this assessment. And right now, they don't have even a definition of bike highways as part of the assessment. Okay, seems a little bit premature to me then.

Thank you. All right. And with that, anybody else have any input? Okay, we have a motion up here. Yeah. When appropriate, I guess. Thank you very much. We have not established a quorum yet. Wow. Okay. Thank you.

All right, where are we at?

All right, next up, we have Assembly Members of Zbur and you have AB 891 welcome.

Shut this off real fast. Thank you Mr. Chair Members, I am proud today to present AB 891 which will expand efforts to address the safety and mobility needs of vulnerable road users.

California as Californians turn to alternate forms of transportation, it's essential that we ensure proper planning is underway to address the growing rates of traffic fatalities and injuries among pedestrians. Despite many efforts of state and local agencies to curb this issue, such as Vision Zero policies and strategies, these reforms have been insufficient to reduce safety concerns.

AB 891 represents a critical step step forward as it will require the Department of Transportation Caltrans to develop a Quick Build program that will quickly and cost efficiently create safe routes on California State highways for people who travel by bike, on foot or by alternative low impact, low cost modes of transportation.

The program will require that Caltran complete six quick build improvements by the end of 2028. Quick build improvements are interim capital infrastructure projects. They require minor construction activities but are built with durable and to moderate cost materials. These projects are intended to rapidly respond to safety needs with urgent and meaningful improvements to active transportation infrastructure.

Additionally, Quick Build projects allow for community Members to benefit from changes made while simultaneously having an opportunity to review and share their input of the improvements before they before permanent construction takes place. These projects allow for cost efficient, community driven designs which can easily be modified to align with the accurate needs of those impacted.

Based on stakeholder feedback and Further technical analysis, AB891 aims to address the crisis of traffic fatalities and serious injuries as it necessitates a comprehensive approach that includes both immediate action and long term commitment coupled with innovative solutions.

Quick builds are essential in advancing this goal as they condense timelines, minimize planning and engineering costs, and use inexpensive materials to create safe roadways in months rather than years. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote at the appropriate time. With me today in support of the bill is Kendra Ramsey from the California Bicycle Coalition.

Hello again. Thank you. If you can keep your comments to two minutes, that would be wonderful.

Thank you again. Kendra Ramsey, California Bicycle Coalition I want to thank the Assembly Member for introducing this bill. We think this is a much needed policy change that will allow Caltrans more flexibility in the methodologies they use to improve safety for people using our state roadways, specifically vulnerable road users.

We've been working to help Caltrans on these issues for a number of years.

State routes are often main streets through our communities and serve to get people within their neighborhoods as well as throughout regions, they're often the most direct route and they're often where people are walking, biking, and taking transit to school, to work, to all of their daily needs.

And they are often as essentially many freeways and have high rates of injuries and fatalities for people walking and bicycling. Poor road design and lack of safe and accessible infrastructure is something that our local agencies as well as Caltrans are working to remedy.

And this bill does allow Caltrans to use methods that have been successfully used by many municipalities throughout California, adding paint, planter boxes, bollards, and other easily sourced materials to quickly improve intersections in roadways where there have been instances of collisions with people on foot or on bicycle and really get that in the ground in months instead of, you know, many years or decades.

We really should be doing everything possible to help our vulnerable road users. This is a common sense measure that will improve public safety. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. At this time, we'll take #MeToos up at the microphone. If anybody would like to come up and express their support for the Bill, you may do so by stating your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill.

Jeannie Wardwaller, on behalf of Transform, People for Bikes and also the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, we'll go to opposition. Is there any opposition witnesses in the room that want to testify for like the whole two minutes? No. All right, how about people just want to come under the MIC and say, I don't like the Bill? None of those either.

All right, we're going to bring it back to the dais.

Mr. Archuleta. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a great opportunity for California to really enjoy the outdoors and of course, to be able to quickly, quickly expedite the signage that's necessary for bike safety, for. And pedestrian safety and so on. And at the same time, look at some of the projects that Caltrans working on.

But quickly, signage, getting that out there, so important. So with that, I'll move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Attaking.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly, for bringing this bill forward. I'll note that this is just establishing a pilot program for a minimum of six quick bill projects. I look to my district. San Pablo Avenue is a state highway.

And we have been working with the state as well as with counties and cities to implement a multimodal corridor project that would include protected bike infrastructure, transit priority lanes, as well as other pedestrian Safety improvements. So many of our state highways are not just, you know, highways, but also main roads that go through communities.

And so I think this is about making our streets safer in communities throughout California. And I will strongly support the bill today. Thank you.

Okay. And with that, I guess I'm the only one left. Same concerns as I had about the other bicycle bill. I don't like taking lanes away and using them exclusively for bike traffic. Yes. The issue when you're talking about Caltrans, that's highways, and you're mixing them with pedestrians and bicycles, there are bound to be problems.

And we have. I think the regional agencies are best left to figure out what works in their region and what kind of money is needed to make a bikeway. Because, frankly, I see a lot of these bikeways like in Colorado, and they're not anywhere near the highway.

People can drive, go from one end of Denver to the other without visiting a highway. And I'd rather see us move in that direction if we're going to spend money. I don't know that there is a quick build process in Association with the agency that we have been talking about.

So with that, I will not be supporting this bill, but you may have the last say, so go ahead.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. You know, again, these are quick projects, minimal capital improvements. Generally, they're things that are going to be making improvements for pedestrians and folks that are using bicyclists by, you know, changing the painting on the streets and by putting barriers in.

And so this, at this point, this bill has strong support, no known opposition, and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. And did we have a. We had a motion by Senator Archuleta. Okay, we'll bring that back. You want me call the roll? We still don't have a quorum. And still we have no quorum. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it. Thank you. Ms. Burner, welcome.

This Item, Number 17, that is AB 1532. I don't know why I took my glasses off to read that.

Well, I know it's a problem these days.

Yes. So, anyway, when you're ready, you may present your bill.

Good morning, members. Today I'm presenting AB 1532, on behalf of the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. The committee omnibus bill includes several policies relevant to the jurisdiction of the Assembly C&C Committee. I'll keep my presentation brief to portions relevant to this committee.

Relevant to this committee, the bill extends the funding authority to 2032 for the Transportation Network Company Access for All Program, AFA. This program is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Benefits disables Californians with access--with accessing wheelchair-accessible transportation on TNC platforms. Without this bill, the program would expire as of January 1, 2026.

This provision of the bill does not increase any existing surcharges or consumer fees and is revenue-neutral. I respectfully request your aye vote at the appropriate time on this bill and welcome any questions.

Thank you, and I see your witnesses are not here.

Isn't it a lovely day?

It's a lovely day. So at this time, we will take anybody who wishes to express their support for the bill. You can come up to the microphone, state your name, the organization you represent. I don't see anybody scrambling up there, so I'm going to skip the rest. At this time, we'll take opposition witness.

Anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this bill may come forward at this time. Is it primary witness? No. Is just a #MeToo witness? No. Okay, back to the dais. Anybody have questions?

Move the bill at the appropriate time.

At the appropriate time. We have another motion by Archuleta to move a bill someday.

It's A's. A's are winning.

You may close.

At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. We are now waiting. Yes. So if we have other committee members that are lounging around, this would be the time to come down and unlounge. Lounge here. It's a welcoming environment. All these folks are waiting to hear from you.

Folks, at this time, we're going to go and put the committee on recess until we can get authors or get a quorum of members up here. So we will go, some of us will go search for them and bring them in physically so that you will not have wasted your time waiting for us. The Committee on Transportation--the Senate Committee on Transportation is now in recess.

Alright, the assembly. I mean the Senate Committee on Transportation will come back to order. And we have author Assemblymember Wilson. And you have. Let me look at billy ad. You have AB 435.

I do.

You may present.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate you. Good afternoon, Senators. Mr. Feist, if I hear you. Vice Chair. You're just filling in. Interim Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 435, a bill that will implement the five step tanzer. Excuse me, five step test standard to our child passenger safety laws, otherwise known as CPS laws here in California.

While effective, the current California CPS law contains elements that must be better aligned with research based practices. This practice, recognized internationally and nationally is not just theoretical, but has proved to minimize injuries and fatalities in vehicular incidents involving children.

The five step test is a small but important change in our CPS laws that chp, CDPH and safety seat educators already utilize to determine if a child is wearing a seat belt properly and when to leave a booster seat. I want to highlight that the five step tap is simple and reasonable.

First, the child is sitting all the way back against the auto seat. Second, the knees of the child bend over the edge of the seat. Third, the shoulder belt snugly fits snugly across the center of the child's- child's chest and shoulders, not on the child's neck.

Fourth, the lap belt is as low as possible and is touching the child thighs. And fifth, finally, the child can stay seated like this for the entire trip. Implementing straightforward testing can significantly enhance child safety and this Bill mirrors policy that has been successfully passed in Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Washington to date.

While earlier forms of this bill also raised the age in which kids could leave their child safety seat, we have amended the bill significantly to just codify the five step test and keep the ages the same as in current law.

Now with me today to speak in support of this bill is Stephanie Tombrelo, founder of Safety Belt SAFE USA and Tim Chang with AAA.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. If you could each take two minutes, that would be great. And each one of you or whichever one wants to start, go right ahead. Thank you.

Good afternoon members. I'm Stephanie Tombrello, Social Worker, Child passenger safety technician, instructor. And since 1972 I've pursued child passenger safety as a founder of safety belt safe USA and Executive Director from 1982 to 2021. And in 2017 I was inducted into the inaugural member in the Manufacturers Alliance for Child Passenger Safety Hall of Fame.

I am so happy to see the five step test coming to California formally because we actually did the work of developing it 25 years ago and shared it nationally and internationally. Children ages 8 to 12 have the highest fatality rates in crashes among the birth to 14 age group.

And so the way the law is written right now, it encourages folks to get children into belts only too soon.

And the reason we're concerned about that is that if you don't have the belt in the proper position, you can have situation significant abdominal injury from the lap belt because our iliac crests don't start to develop really well until you're 10. So you really have to be able to keep that lap belt down.

The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that children under 12 needed booster seats. And the Washington state research showed that boosters reduce crash injuries by 19%. We did a study and found that 27% of the children at 4 foot 9 failed the 5 step test while 5% of shorter children passed.

The point is you want to take the proportions of the person and the proportions of the vehicle seat into the. That's what the five step test does. So you get both together and you get the right answer. It's kind of like an algebra problem. And so this would be an exciting thing.

And as the author states, we have this now very long in Louisiana, since 2019. It's used in Australia and I hope that it will be a part of our law in California. Thank you so much. On behalf of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Occupant Protection Committee, I ask for your aye vote for AB 435. Thank you for listening.

Yeah. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. The two prior witnesses have done an excellent job of extolling the virtues of this bill. I would just add that, yeah, the research many years ago indicated that 4ft 9 was a good standard. That research has moved on.

We are now to the 5 point test. And the research has been overwhelming such that entities such as NHTSA and the California Department of Public Health are now promoting the use of the five step test. And we urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have others in the committee room who wish to come forward and express support position? Please do so now.

Mr. Chair, members. Beverly on behalf of AAA Mountain West Group in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on the support side? Alright. Do we have opposition witnesses? I've seen none come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position at the microphone? If so, please come forward. I'm seeing none will come back to the committee at this time. Committee comments or questions?

We have a motion available by Senator Richardson. Senator, gonna do that right now. Thank you. We've got multiple encouragers here. Okay. Senator Seyarto, just hold on just a second. We'll go ahead and establish a quorum. Thank you.

[roll call]

Alright, we do have a quorum established as we'll go back to committee comment. We'll have the author close as usual and then we'll come back to to a motion right after Senator Seyarto. I'll come to Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Alright, thank you for having a concern about small people. I hearken back to the days when I was 13 or 14 and I was particularly small. And- But if I showed up at school and climbed out of a booster seat, I'd be laughed out of school and it'd be the bullying part would start.

So the 5 point test I think is a lot better than an age requirement. I'm hoping that the auto industry would respond to the 5 point test by making it so that their vehicles can fit that without the trauma of having to climb into a booster seat. If you are a smaller individual at that age.

Some of us didn't blossom until after we got. I would have had to be in there at 15 or 16. That wouldn't have been good.

Thank you for your comments.

We're going to support you bill today. But oh, the original one, I had big concerns.

Well, it was interesting. Although we didn't have formal opposition, I definitely heard from members who were concerned and had examples of that are their own children and things of that nature. And so a lot of people had a lot of feedback about their concern, concern about it being confusing for parents and, and all of that.

What's helpful about the five step test, it incrementally gets us to where our children are safer. It is something that they are told if they go to CHP and get a car fitting, their pediatrician will tell them.

And so this just puts into law at least that steps and gives parent another tool to be able to determine when is it best. Even though law won't require it. They might decide, oh, you can be in there longer. And I will say one thing to give a plug to our auto manufacturers.

They have made adjustments of seat belts, which has been really helpful to pull down so that you do have it across the body. They have changed their seats to where some, especially in minivans, include a version of a booster seat. And so they've- they've- they've adjusted and hopefully that will continue to your point, adjust. Senator, thank you.

Yes, yes.

Senator, I'm glad you made it. Just before, before the fire academy size requirements kicked in, it was a struggle. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I think maybe I may be the only one up here that has grandchildren that would fit in this category, but walk me through it.

Does that mean that when my son comes to visit with the grandkids, do I need a new seat that I've got to buy, or is it the automobile itself that will accommodate. How does this work where we're within the law, when it becomes the law, is a new seat or is the car going to be able to.

So everything that exists in law. So right now, as far as age requirements exist in law right now. So if your grandchildren needed a booster seat today, they will still need a booster seat. However, this gives guidance. There's language in our current law that says properly restrained. And it gives about two elements.

And so what this bill does is clarify what does it mean to be properly restrained for a child. And so that's where we go through the steps of can they sit all the way back in a seat and can their legs be taken over the side, perpendicular?

Think about if a child's feet is up like this and they were to get in an accident, their life might be saved, but then they'll have an issue with, you know, their legs being severely injured. Can the seat belt go all the way across the shoulder, not hitting the neck?

Can, as she noted in testimony, can the seat belt sit across the lap and not at the belly? Or where they can be, if they were in an accident, injured, and then can they do that the entire time? And so we would say that law doesn't require it.

But given that that's the safety requirement now, then you should consider if that is not. If they cannot do that, you should consider putting in some type of assistance to be able to help that child. And it could be a booster seat. It could be a larger type of car seat.

It could be using the existing feature on a car where you can adjust the seat belt up and down and pull that seat belt down. And taking that time to make sure that your grandchildren are safe. I'm a new grand. Well, not new, I guess now two years.

Been a grandmother for two years now and my son still will not let me drive my grandbaby. So I'm not opposed to that. You know, I haven't got to that issue, but I best believe, and sometimes I can, I'll be honest, most people know me as an assertive driver is what I call it.

But if my grandbaby gets in my car, I'll be less assertive and I'll make sure that he can pass the five step test before I get him out of any type of car seat or booster seat.

So going back to my question, will I need to buy a new car seat?

Booster seats come in all sizes, right? And you can get a very inexpensive booster seat that will accommodate your grandchild or grandchildren anytime. Or the parents can bring that booster seat very easily. The child will be able to carry it.

In other words, you can adapt if your child needs that, because your grandchild, you certainly don't want them to have the lap belt get into their belly and the kinds of injuries that that would occur would do. That's the reason we developed this test 25 years ago working with actual school children.

And I've got data on, you know, how many pass at each age. And so I'll just tell you that at age 8, 23%. I'm sorry, 7% and 23% at age 9 and almost 50% at age 10. So it depends on the child's build and the vehicle.

You have a small vehicle with small seats, you know, the eight year old might fit even though the iliac crests are not developed by then. If you have an enormous SUV, it'll probably be close to 12. What I would tell a pregnant woman is expect to consider car seats for the first 10 years.

That's what I would tell them. But we're not focusing on age right now. We're focusing on the five step test. And when you pass it, you pass it.

I think it's a great bill and my colleague will probably move it down at the end.

Yes, Senator Archuleta, I'd suggest you just get a new car seat for each one of your classic cars. And so you're, you're ready.

It's enjoyed. Bipartisan, unanimous so far.

Anybody else, or should we ask the author to close? I think we're going to ask the author.

I want to keep Senator Seyarto on this bill. And so I. All I'm going to say is I respectfully asked for an aye vote. Did that do it for you?

Alright, Senator Richardson, we're going to go ahead and take. He's going to move to motion. So we have a motion by Richardson and we'll go ahead and call the roll call. Okay.

The motion is do pass as a committee on appropriation. [roll call].

9, 0. The bills on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you, senators.

Okay, and our next author available. Looks like Assemblymember Haney. There's a couple of bills here. File item four is AB 289. File item five is AB 1190. And while he's getting ready, let me thank Vice Chair Strickland for presiding earlier and helping out so much. Thank you.

All right, should I start with 289? All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. It's no secret that speeding vehicles pose a deadly threat. Threat to both drivers and construction workers on California's highways. Over the last three years, there have been five work fatalities and 19 serious injuries that were the result of vehicles entering construction zones.

In 2023 alone, there were more than 100 vehicle intrusions into highway construction zones. While statewide efforts like the presence of California Highway Patrol in the these construction zones have helped to deter speeding drivers, these efforts cannot and do not capture all speeding vehicles through active construction zones. AB289 will implement automated speed enforcement in active construction zones.

A proven solution to reduce crashes, protect workers, reduce speeding and enhance driver safety, while also keeping in mind privacy protections for drivers. Automated speed enforcement has been proven to save lives in at least 16 other cities, states, including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, New York, Texas and many more.

Pennsylvania saw a 19% reduction in work zone crashes after implementing automated speed enforcement. And Maryland saw an 80% decrease in speeding violations in work zones in two years. Now is the time that we act on this proven solution.

We received strong bipartisan support in the Assembly and we will continue to to engage the one group that is still in opposition. We've taken many amendments to align this with past efforts at automated speed enforcement and make sure that we protected the privacy of all involved and also ensure access to affordability in any violations.

With me here to testify in support of the bill are James Thuerwachter, legislative advocate for The California State Council of Laborers, and Justin self, a highway worker with the Griffith company. Chris Lee is also here on behalf of the United Contractors.

Thank you very much for being here, and you may proceed in any order you wish. A couple minutes each.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is James Thuerwachter. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm with the California State Council of Laborers. And on behalf of the 80,000 men and women throughout the state that proudly build and maintain California's transportation infrastructure, I'm here to strongly support AB 289.

This piece of legislation is critical, and I want to commend the author and his staff for prioritizing the safety of not just our Members, but of every single worker out there on the highways who is out there working on the front lines.

The overwhelming majority of workers that you see out on the highways, they're often at the job sites long before the sun rises. And they get at home, they. They come back home well after dark. These are the workers who ensure the integrity and reliability of the roads that we travel on every day.

Unfortunately, these men and women come within inches of death every time they show up to their job sites. The numbers speak for themselves. The construction industry has the highest number of workplace fatalities and injuries than any other industry. AB289 is not a punitive measure that punishes drivers, but rather a punishment. Pragmatic policy that protects workers.

There's no question about it, as this Bill. This Bill already is demonstrated in several other states that it will save lives. AB289 is a lifesaver. And I think nobody is better positioned to speak about this than somebody who has actually endured a tragic experience while working out on our state's highways.

So with that, I respectfully ask for you to support this, and I'm going to turn it over to Justin self. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Justin Self. I've worked in highway construction with granite and Griffith Companies for 20 years. A while back, I was hit by a speeding vehicle While working in an active work zone. Luckily, I survived. I think about what could have happened every single day.

How close I came to never seeing my family again. I want to ask you all something. What if one of your loved ones was out there on that job site? Your wife, your husband, your son, your daughter. Wouldn't you want every possible piece of protection in place to make sure they came home safe?

Now, I work along with my own son in the same industry And I'll be honest, I worry every day. Every car that flies by too fast, I feel it in my chest. Because out there, everything can change in a second. Second.

We have safety measures of our own in place, but they won't stop speeding drivers going 708090 miles an hour by you. AB289 is about saving lives. Automated speed enforcement means fewer drivers will fly through work zones like their race tracks. It means fewer families will get the call that someone they love isn't coming home.

I got lucky. But there's many who didn't. We build roads, you drive on. We work in the heat, the dark, the danger. Because it's our job. Please support AB 289. Not just for us, but for every family who depends on someone in a hard hit. Thank you.

Thank you. Others here in the Committee room who would like to express a support position, would you please come forward at this time? Thank you.

Good afternoon. Gus Flores, on behalf of United Contractors in support. Thank you.

Tim Chang, with the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Good afternoon. Melanie Perrin, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors, California Tractors. And strong support.

Connie Chan, on behalf of State Treasurer Fiona Law in support.

Keith Dunn, here for the State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Ironworkers in support. Thank you.

Beverly Yu, on behalf of the California Asphalt Pavement Association as well as the AAA Mountain West Group in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Senators. Matt Cremins, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. And strong support.

Good afternoon. Senators. Jason Bryant, on behalf of Transportation California. We're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have opposition witnesses? Is there any witness in the Committee room who wishes to express opposition? If so, please come forward at this time. I've seen none. We'll come back to the Committee for comment questions. Senator Archuleta. Yeah.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I just would like to remind the Senators who weren't here a few years ago, we had a memorial service at the Footsteps of the Capitol honoring Caltrans workers and so many lives lost by Caltrans. You're absolutely right. Every single year we lose 8610 Caltrans workers.

Whatever the number is, it's too many. Because we don't honor those signs that say slow down Men, women at work, Construction zone. And I think it's so vital that we do this. So I'm glad you're bringing this forward. Love to be a co author on this and I would definitely move the vote. Move it forward.

I think we have a Committee. We have full Everyone here? Yeah, we have a quorum, so I move the vote.

Great. Thank you. Senator Seyarto.

I have a question regarding when this is enforced and when these cameras are going to be on. You know, sometimes we have work zones that are inactive, and they'll be inactive for a couple of three weeks. There's nobody there, but there are cones. And it says work zone.

Is it going to be active through when nobody's there, or are these turned on when there are workers there?

That's a great question. The bill is clear that the cameras can only be used to issue citations when construction workers are present. And there will only be 75 total statewide. So they can only be deployed at state highway construction zones that are active, and citations can only be issued when there are workers present.

And the 75 is because we only have 75 work zones. Or is this like another test? Because we have a pilot program already with 66 of these cameras, and we haven't even got the information from them yet.

And that's what I'm concerned about is rolling out a longer, bigger program when we haven't even got the data back for the ones that we have. Because that's. That's what got people on. That was. It was a test program. Test pilot. Sure. If we're not going to let our pilots work, then why have them?

Sure. And I think that the six are related to the particular area where they are. These will be the first that are. That are focused on active highway construction zones in California. And it is 75, because we're going to put them where they are most needed. And also.

Yes, because this will be a pilot program, as you say. This, though, as we also stated, follows the efforts of 16 other states that have them in active construction work zones. And those efforts have been very heavily studied. And we believe strongly that this is a proven method.

So even though it is a pilot program, as you say, for California, 16 other states are doing this already, including, as I said, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, many others. And they've studied these and have found very positive results for safety.

I would like to see some of those, the positive results, because for the public safety side, there's also the motions of the vehicles themselves when somebody slams on their brakes because all of a sudden they notice something flashing, because then what happens to cars behind them, it can create massive chain reaction crashes.

If it's a surprise like that to somebody and that endangers everybody, including the workers. I'm just a little concerned about making sure that our studies aren't just about how many tickets we give out.

But if there's indeed people being saved, if those rates are lower in these other states, because California has a whole different vibe than everywhere else and our drivers have a different vibe as well.

So we have to find that balance, that sweet spot between making sure that our Caltrans workers and our road highway workers are as safe as we can make that job without creating more hazards on the other side.

Absolutely appreciate that. I agree. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks so much for bringing this forward. Assemblymember. I remember the program for the pilot program that was done by Assemblymember Friedman at the time when I chaired this Committee. And it was a very long and arduous process, lots of stakeholder input.

And I absolutely believe in this program and ensuring that we have a program that works for our workforce on our state highways, because that is absolutely essential. I think that Committee analysis brings forward a couple of questions.

Well, just the big question is Caltrans and if they have the capacity and scope to do and run a large scale program, you know, to build off of what Senator Syrto had mentioned. So I'd just like to hear your thoughts on what you think and how you would engage with Caltrans in doing this.

I mean, we ask Caltrans for a lot of things like cleaning up our highways, and oftentimes that doesn't get done. With all due respect to Caltrans, we want to make sure this is successful. So I'll pump that question to you and hear your thoughts.

Sure. I appreciate that.

In terms of the previous efforts that took place, we really wouldn't be doing this Bill and couldn't do this bill if it wasn't for all of the work that was done to think this through and to really ensure that we thought about privacy, that we thought about warnings, that we thought about how folks would be able to afford these and the different ways that we would have warnings and then go from there to have different levels of tickets based on income level.

There's a lot that we put on our bill and we had a whole chart that's in front of me here that essentially says for our bill, same standards, same standards again in. And again we adopted what was in those efforts.

And so really what you see here is a pilot program that is, yes, for active construction zones, but is built on the prior efforts that you all helped to lead and ensure had the proper approaches and protections. I do think, you know, we've engaged very, very extensively with Caltrans on this.

This is actually the second year that I've run this Bill and we introduced the Bill last year, went through a long process with both CHP and Caltrans in terms of how to limit this to 75. That's a part of it, too. We don't want this to be everywhere.

A lot of clarity on what their responsibility will be and how they will help to support it. I don't know if our witness has any further thoughts on on Caltran from a technical standpoint.

But again, our goal was to really align the standards that you all had already put in there and create a limited pilot program that we thought they could run effectively through the Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Chris Lee, here on behalf of United Contractors. I'll just say we have been talking closely with Caltrans about what are their ability to implement in the program. I think one of the key elements there is the ability to fund the startup cost.

In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs act, there used to be a prohibition on doing automated speed enforcement with the safety funding that California receives by formula from the Federal Government that was removed in the last infrastructure law. And so we're hoping to align this with the broader safety planning that happens.

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a federal requirement. Since that started in 2005, work zone safety has been identified as a challenge area where the state needs to improve and address the safety issues that are there. But this tool here, authorized by this bill, just hasn't been something that's been available. So we've had a persistent problem.

And here we're offering a tool that we hope Caltrans will use and test it out. And hopefully we'll have the same sort of reductions in crashes and fatalities that we've seen in other states that have used this technology.

Well, thank you very much. I think you have an opportunity here to continue building on the Caltrans capacity and ask more questions of them, even with limited funding at the federal level.

And then also the Safe highway work zone account, you know, retooling that given the audit that came out that, you know, needs additional transparency and insurance, that we actually get this program up and running and that. And that ultimately it's successful. So thank you.

Thank you. Great. I see no other questions or comments. Let me just add before you close. Assembly Member, you know, great job in terms of leadership bringing this forward. It's.

I look at this Bill as one of those bills not alone in, in this context, but one of those bills where we, when you start, you don't know exactly where the support and opposition is going to come from. You took it on anyway.

And I know that you agree with most, if not all of us at CHP is doing a tremendous job out there. And as we augment their resources, they're able to complement and help what was at one time solely tools in their toolbox before technology existed to start helping with this.

So I'm glad to see, you know, what I think is at least on our. On our. Especially on our freeway system, our state system, our highway system, this kind of breakthrough legislatively, I hope you get it all the way to the finish line. So with that, hopefully get out of Committee here, first finish line.

But with that, would you please close?

Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your work and your Committee's work on this. It definitely has been a process, you know, starting a number of years ago to really lay the foundation with the first adoption of the pilot. And then we've been working on this with a huge coalition.

I want to say that the workers are the ones who brought this forward. They're the ones who are living this every day. They are the ones who help to make sure that we all get here safely by both building and repairing and. And renovating our roads and highways. And we worked with them. They brought this forward.

This has been a huge, top priority for them. And we worked with the chp, who are also out there keeping us safe.

And what is reflected here is all of us working together to try to get this right and try to make sure that our roads and freeways are safe, both for the people who drive on them and for the people who build them and repair them. So with that, again, respectfully ask your Aye vote.

And thank you so much for. For your comments and, and for your leadership on this issue.

All right, thank you. We'll ask the assistant to please call the roll at this time.

The motion is due. Pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, we're 82. We'll keep the bill on call for absent Members. Thank you. And your next bill up, item five is AB 1190.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair and members, hello again. AB 1190 will protect Californians, especially seniors, families and low income residents from paying excessive fees for registration renewals processed online through second line business partners. No one should have to pay double or triple just to renew their car registration.

However, some online vendors who are partners with the DMV are using websites that mimic the DMV's official website, which is misleading users to think that they are using the official government website instead of a third party link.

These businesses charge hidden and excessive fees with no limits, sometimes over $150 more than the DMV's actual fee, and then threaten legal action when customers try to dispute these charges. In one case, a customer was charged $956 for two registrations only to discover $150 in hidden fees and that only one transaction was processed.

Between 2023 and 2024, these second line business partners processed 7.5 million transactions and collected over 3.4 billion on the DMV's behalf. Essentially what you do is if you Google DMV Car Registration California it is pretty easy to find yourself on a website that looks just like the DMV's website but is in fact not the DMV's website.

With little disclosure and much greater fees, AB 1190 will cap the fees that online second line business partners can charge for registration renewals to no more than $29 per transaction, matching the existing cap applied to first line business partners like car dealers and vehicle dismantlers.

This will put an end to junk fees and exploitative markups that unfortunately are being facilitated by our own state government.

This will also requires these require these websites to prominently display a link to the DMV's official site along with a clear disclosure that the same services are available directly from the DMV at no added cost, ensuring customers consumers are informed before they pay.

We also worked very closely with the chair and the staff to really change the bill.

Initially there was a 5% cap on all fees and instead we all agreed that the existing $29 cap, applying that specifically to online second line business partners was the right way to do it and the fairest way for everyone while protecting consumers and protecting those who are doing business with DMV in a way that actually expands access.

With me today in support of the bill is Robert earrell on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, who is also available to answer technical questions.

Hi, welcome and you may proceed. You'll have a couple minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Robert Herrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California here in support of this measure, I'll be brief. You have a lot still to hear from. The problem here is twofold.

One is in some cases people being spoofed by sites that through font size, every design are intending to try to fool the consumer into thinking they're on the DMV website when they're not.

The other problem that happens, irrespective of whether the site is spoofing the DMV website or not, is that people are searching, you know, kind of California DMV and they're winding up on a site that isn't the California DMV and they're not sure about that.

Then they find out after the fact they've been significantly up charged for something that if they went to the DMV's website directly, they wouldn't get charged that extra amount for only the 1.8% if they pay by credit card, which is essentially a pass through. So that's the problem here.

The bill, I would just also note for the committee, the bill's been significantly narrowed. It only now applies to registration services and online in the long run, we think there are other high profile transactions, but we think this is a really good place to start.

It actually uses a cap amount that DMV uses on some of the first line business partners and uses that amount.

So what it's going to do in the situation that the author pointed out for online registration services, it's going to bring that upcharge down all the way down to something in the neighborhood of $30 and that's indexed to inflation over time. But that's a big difference from what some of these sites are out there charging.

So with all that said, happy to answer questions, we urge your support.

Yeah, appreciate you being here for questions in case they come up. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to express the support position? Please come on up.

Good afternoon, Danny Kando Kaiser on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support.

Chair, members, Ted Toppin on behalf of the the California State Retirees, strongly in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward in support. Do we have opposition witnesses?

Hello, welcome. And you'll have a couple minutes each in whatever order you wish to start.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Members, John Wenger here on behalf of Samba Safety. We do have an opposed position, but in the interest of time, I'll turn it over to Mohammed.

Hi, good afternoon, Senators. My name is Muhammad Gutala. I'm with Sticker Quicker. We're a registration and title service provider in Fremont, California. I wanted to oppose the cap on charging the fees because it would severely impact our ability to, excuse me, to process these transactions. We do have a lot of overhead.

With our overhead we are training our staff. We have insurance requirements, we have technology, all which continue to rise. And also our services that we offer on our website are services that are not able to go through the DMV website. Some of them, not all of them.

We are clearly stating what we are doing and that we are transparent with our customers that we are not the DMV. And we help a lot of our customers in our office and online that don't have Internet access by allowing them to call in. Our wait times are significantly lower for that.

And also we cover a lot of areas where DMV would not be able to reach. So, Excuse me. The market also does regulate this because of the competition that's online. Every online provider knows what the online providers are charging. And same with our local providers.

So we are not significantly charging more than the other ones to stay competitive with each other. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express an opposition position? Please come forward. You ought to say your name, affiliation in opposition.

Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of ETags, in strong opposition.

Greg Sanders with Car Registration Incorporated. We strongly oppose the Bill.

Alright, seeing no other opposition testimony, we'll come back to the Committee for questions and comments. Senator Blakespear.

Yeah, I just want to commend the author for bringing forward this really important Bill to reduce the, truly the reality that. And this is no disrespect to the companies that are doing this business, but there's no question that this is spam. Spoofing is the word that was used. Spoofing. But it's basically a junk fee.

I mean, in very small print to say we are not the DMV. But then to have the big bolded headlines that say you can renew your license here. I mean, it is tricking people into thinking that they are using a government service when they aren't. And I've seen this. We also receive these things in the Mail.

And it really is important that we eliminate this or at least reduce the cost of it. If somebody wants what you call a white glove service where they don't have to deal with the administrative hassle, which I highly doubt, there's actually a difference.

They still have to fill out their license plate and their various information in order to be able to get, get a renewal in the first place. But being able to charge a modest amount for that seems like something that is acceptable. But being able to charge egregiously high amounts seems like something we should be cracking down on.

So I applaud the author for bringing this. I definitely support it. And I think we need to be looking across a whole range of things to make sure that people are not being tricked into participating and paying exorbitant fees when they don't need to. So thank you. And at the appropriate time, I'll move it.

Okay, thank you, Senator. Anybody else? Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So I have a little bit of a different take on this. The first part of it, I totally agree, is our job to make sure that that doesn't happen. And that's duping people into thinking that they are accessing a official website of an official government agency.

And that part, yes, we need to, we need to make sure that they are not impersonating basically an official agency. The second part of it is when you're looking at capping fees and things, I had kind of a similar Bill, only was related to mail.

And so now they have to put on the outside that, hey, this is. No matter how official the envelope looks, they have to put on the outside. This is an advertisement. So that takes away this, this issue where people are thinking that they're accessing the real DMV. Now these companies, now consumers have a choice.

They can either deal with sometimes an agency they hate dealing with, or they can use these third party folks to do that. And there's a fee for that third party folks. And they need to be able to make that choice whether they want to pay the fee and the original DMV charge, whatever that fee is.