BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 249
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
SB
249 (Hueso) - As Amended April 30, 2015
SENATE VOTE: 36-3
SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver's license.
SUMMARY: Allows the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue
enhanced driver's licenses (EDLs) that are acceptable at border
crossings as proof of identity and citizenship. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding traffic congestion
at California/Mexico border crossings and the federal
government's endorsement of EDLs that allow for far faster
processing of border crossers.
2)Allows DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
with a federal agency for the purposes of obtaining approval
for the issuance of an EDL, instruction permit, provisional
license, or identification card (all of these instruments,
other than EDLs, are hereafter referred to as "related
documents") that is acceptable as proof of identity and
SB 249
Page 2
citizenship pursuant to the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative (WHTI).
3)Allows DMV upon the request of an applicant, to issue an
initial EDL or related document, or renew any of these
documents, for a person who is 16 years of age or older and is
a resident of California and a citizen of the United States.
4)Requires the applicant to: submit sufficient proof that meets
the requirements of the WHTI to establish his or her identity,
residency, and citizenship and certify under the penalty of
perjury that the information he or she has submitted is true
and correct to the best of his or her knowledge.
5)Requires DMV to inform an EDL applicant in writing that the
information stored on the EDL's radio frequency identification
(RFID) chip can be read remotely without the holder's
knowledge. Further requires that the applicant sign a
declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of RFID
technology.
6)Requires DMV to include in the EDL or related document
reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized
disclosure of personal information regarding the person who is
the subject of the document.
7)Requires the EDL or related document to include RFID
technology which will contain, if agreed to by the United
States Department of Homeland Security, a randomly assigned
identification number and a machine readable zone or barcode
that can be electronically read by the cross border patrol.
8)Specifies that the EDL or related document shall not contain
any personal data, biometric information, or any number other
than the randomly assigned number and the information gathered
for the machine readable zone or barcode shall be limited to
the information required by the WHTI.
9)Allows an EDL to be suspended, revoked, or restricted as are
SB 249
Page 3
other driver's licenses under existing law.
10)Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to apply for
or use and EDL or identification card as a condition of
employment and prohibits an employer from discharging or
discriminating against an employee who refuses to apply for or
use an EDL or identification card. Additionally permits a
person who received adverse action by an employer associated
with refusal to applying for an EDL to file a complaint with
the Division of Labor Standards within the Department of
Industrial Relations, as specified.
11)Requires an applicant applying for an initial EDL, or related
document, to have his or her photograph and signature captured
or reproduced by DMV at the time of application or renewal,
requires DMV to review and approve the appropriate documents,
and limits DMV's ability to provide an applicant's information
to the appropriate federal agencies, as specified.
12)Requires DMV to deny an application or renewal of an EDL, or
related document, if it does not satisfied certain
requirements as specified, and allows an applicant to appeal
DMV's denial of an application for the issuance or renewal of
an EDL or related document.
13)Requires DMV to retain copies or digital images of documents
provided by applicants for EDLs and related documents.
14)Requires DMV, after denying an application for an EDL or
related document, to retain the photograph of the applicant
and the reason for denial for not less than one year, unless
fraud is suspected, in which case the applicant's photograph
and the reason for denial must be retained for not less than
10 years.
15)Requires DMV to set the application fee in an amount not to
exceed its regulatory cost of issuing or renewing an EDL or
$55, whichever is less. Further requires revenues to be
deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA), as specified,
SB 249
Page 4
and be used to implement the EDL program.
16)Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the following
committees: Assembly Transportation, Assembly Judiciary,
Senate Transportation and Housing, and Senate Judiciary. The
annual report will include data on (but not be limited to) the
number of EDL's and information cards issued, the effect on
wait times, traffic congestion at points of entry, and any
identified security or privacy breaches related to the use of
EDL's and identification cards.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes DMV to issue driver's licenses and identification
cards.
2)Requires a person applying for a driver's license or
identification card to provide certain documentation,
including, but not limited to, a social security number,
verification of birth date, and legal presence in the United
States.
3)Requires DMV to issue a driver's license to an applicant who
is ineligible for a social security number if the applicant
can provide additional documentation, as specified. Further
specifies that a driver's license issued to an applicant who
is ineligible for a social security number cannot be used for
identification purposes.
4)At the federal level, the Real ID Act of 2005 includes
provisions to improve the security of driver's licenses and
SB 249
Page 5
identification cards.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, in an analysis of an almost identical bill, SB 397
(Hueso) of 2013:
1)One-time costs special fund costs of around $4.5 million over
two to five years, if the DMV exercises the authority to
develop the EDL program. Start-up costs would include
completing an MOU with the Department of Homeland Security;
establishing secure, verifiable database connectivity;
adopting regulations to require documentation to prove
citizenship, identity and residency and the criteria for EDL
denial. This would involve significant information technology
programming and purchase of RFID readers and other equipment.
2)Ongoing costs to operate the program would likely be in the
low millions of dollars for additional staff.
3)The above costs would be offset by EDL fee revenue, however no
revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the
startup costs, thus the department would need to cover these
costs through borrowing from internal funds or from
programmatic efficiencies or reductions.
COMMENTS: Current state law does not allow DMV to implement a
process to issue EDL's to applicants within the state.
Travelers that currently cross the U.S.-Mexico border must use
other documentation to present proof of identify such as a
passport which has minimal impact on expediting a traveler's
processing time across the border. The author's office states
that the intent of SB 249 is to reduce travel and processing
times and strengthen security at border crossings as a means of
stimulating cross-border business activities.
SB 249
Page 6
According to the Department of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), an EDL is "the standard document issued by a
state or (Canadian) province that has been enhanced in process,
technology and security to denote identity and citizenship for
purposes of entering into the United States at the land and sea
port of entry." CBP goes on to explain, "When the EDL is
presented by a United States or Canadian citizen traveler, no
other documentation is required for purposes of proving identity
and citizenship."
An EDL may be used in "ready lanes," which are vehicle lanes
operated by CBP at border crossings exclusively for travelers
who possess RFID-enabled travel documents (which may also
include U.S. passport cards and so-called "trusted travel
documents"). These documents allow information contained in a
wireless device or "tag" to be read from a distance at ready
lanes, similar to those contained in car keys and employee
identifications. This technology eliminates the need to key-in
traveler information and translates into faster processing than
manual queries.
The genesis of the EDL was the need for heightened security
measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Congress passed the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
requiring U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or
other document that denotes identity and citizenship when
entering the U.S. The WHTI went into effect on June 1, 2009,
for land and sea travel into the U.S. The goal of WHTI is to
facilitate entry for U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign
visitors, while increasing U.S. border security. The states of
Washington, New York, Michigan and Vermont as well as four
Canadian provinces have all implemented EDLs.
The author introduced SB 249 because DMV currently lacks the
authority to issue EDLs. The author notes SB 249 will provide
SB 249
Page 7
DMV with the authority to issue EDLs and eliminate the need to
manually key-in traveler's information at ports of entry -
resulting in faster processing times and a decrease in wait
times for cross-border traffic. Thus, with the ability to
expedite crossing the U.S.-Mexico border using "ready lanes" and
RFID technology, travelers may see the option of using an EDL as
a viable alternative to meet their traveling needs.
Writing in support of SB 249, the San Diego-Tijuana Smart
Boarder Coalition asserts "EDL's will help decrease boarder wait
times by at least 30 minutes and encourage people to travel from
Mexico into California using CBP's Ready Lanes."
In opposition, the American Civil Liberties writes "It has long
been understood that the federal government selected the most
insecure RFID technology for WHTI-compliant documents like the
EDL without the proper assessment of costs and benefits or
attention to the significant and well-supported privacy and
security concerns expressed by lawmakers, the electronics
industry, security researchers, the public, and its own internal
experts."
Double referral: This bill is will be referred to the Assembly
Judiciary Committee should it pass out of this committee.
Previous legislation: SB 397 (Hueso) of 2013, an almost
identical to SB 249, would authorize DMV to enter an MOU with
the federal government to issue EDLs. SB 397 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 249
Page 8
Support
Baja California, Mexico
California Chamber of Commerce
Calexico Chamber of Commerce
Casa Familiar
City of El Centro
City of San Diego
El Centro Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Bureau
Honorable Juan Vargas, Member of Congress
Honorable Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor, City of Chula Vista
Honorable Todd Gloria, Councilmember, City of San Diego
Imperial County Transportation Commission
SB 249
Page 9
Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego-Tijuana Smart Boarder Coalition
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Consumer Watchdog
Eagle Forum of California
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
SB 249
Page 10
Analysis Prepared by:Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093