NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Larranaga |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
250/aHJC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Commercial Driver’s License Changes |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Significant |
Recurring |
Federal |
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases
Duplicates SB 242 & SB 262.
Relates to other bills amending the same
section of the law.
Responses
Received From
State
Highway and Transportation Department (SHTD)
Taxation
and Revenue Department (TRD)
Department
of Public Safety (DPS)
Administrative
Office of the District Attorneys (
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HJC
Amendment
The House Judiciary Committee amendment removes
all references dealing with the creation of a presumption that a person under
twenty-one years of age is intoxicated with a blood or breath
alcohol concentration of .02. Also, the
HJC amendment removes the newly added requirement that a breath test machine
certified by the scientific laboratory of DOH is presumed to measure the breath
sample based of the grams of alcohol in two hundred ten litters of breath.
The HJC amendment also removes the discretion
given to TRD to hold hearings on the telephone.
In addition, the HJC amendment removes language
describing a train’s warning signal. The
removed wording explained that the train’s warning signal indicated how
close the train was although it was not in sight.
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 250
provides sanctions for drivers of commercial motor vehicles who have been convicted
of railroad highway grade crossing violations and adds additional requirements
for railroad highway crossings. Additionally, HB 250 increases the penalties
for violating out-of-service orders. HB
250 also establishes “per se” DWI violations for individuals driving a
commercial motor vehicle at point 0.04 and for individuals less then twenty-one
years of age at .02.
Significant
Issues
HB 250 brings
The intent of HB 250 is to reduce all motor
vehicle related crashes, injuries, and deaths by requiring higher standards for
drivers with commercial drivers licenses.
The only portion of HB 250 not required by federal law is the section allowing TRD to conduct administrative license revocation hearings telephonically.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
If
HB 250 is not enacted, the state will face the loss of $8.4 million of
In
addition, there is the potential loss of approximately $5.6 million from the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program as well as additional sanctions.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The loss of funds and sanctions imposed would have a very negative impact on SHTD, DPS and the Motor Vehicle Division of TRD.
DUPLICATION/RELATIONSHIP
HB 250 duplicates SB 242 &
SB 262.
HB 250 amends the same section of law, 66-8-102, as HB
40, HB 117, HB 139, HB 189, HB 249, HB 327, HB 335, HB 405, SB 16, SB 93, SB
99, SB 248, SB 261, SB 245, SB 266, and SB 341. All of these bills relate to
DWI, but do not have conflicting language with HB 250.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
DPS notes the language in Section 10, page 8,
paragraph C, paragraphs 1 thru 3 attempts to establish “per se” blood alcohol
concentration violations. Unfortunately,
in Section 12 of the amendment to NMSA Section 66-8-110, the drafter reinserted
language removed previously with respect to presumptions. When a “per se” limit is established, any
language in the statute with respect to presumptions must be removed because
presumptions destroy the effect of the “per se” language in the statute. Presumptions can be rebutted. “Per se” limits are by definition are not
supposed to be able to be rebutted. “Per
se” language and presumptive language are incompatible.