Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield and to take other specified security measures for the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require those fees to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a drivers license, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced drivers licenses, provisional licenses, and identification cards.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield and to take other specified security measures for the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require those fees to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a drivers license, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced drivers licenses, provisional licenses, and identification cards.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield and to take other specified security measures for the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would require the fees to be deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require those fees to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a drivers license, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced drivers licenses, provisional licenses, and identification cards.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield and to take other specified security measures for the enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card.

The bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card as a condition of employment or to discriminate or otherwise retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize an employee who is discriminated or retaliated against by his or her employer because the employee has exercised his or her rights pursuant to those prohibitions to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, as specified. Because a violation of those employer prohibitions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license, permit, license or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would establish the Enhanced Drivers License and Identification Card Subaccount in the Motor Vehicle Account and would require the additional fee to be deposited into the subaccount. require the fees to be deposited into the Motor Vehicle Account. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the moneys in the subaccount those fees to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced drivers licenses, instruction permits, provisional licenses, and identification cards.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to provide a protective shield for the enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card.

The bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card as a condition of employment or to discriminate or otherwise retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize an employee who is discriminated or retaliated against by his or her employer because the employee has exercised his or her rights pursuant to those prohibitions to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, as specified. Because a violation of those employer prohibitions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license license, instruction permit, provisional license, and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license, permit, or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would establish the Enhanced Drivers License and Identification Card Subaccount in the Motor Vehicle Account and would require the additional fee to be deposited into the subaccount. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the moneys in the subaccount to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified. The bill would make all laws related to the privacy or security of a drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification document, or a similar document, or regulating the use, access or sharing of information, applicable to enhanced drivers licenses, instruction permits, provisional licenses, and identification cards.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travels travel within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Because the knowledge of the submission of fraudulent information is a crime, the bill would create a new crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would, except as specified, prohibit the disclosure of information submitted to the department. Because a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card as a condition of employment or to discriminate or otherwise retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card. The bill would authorize an employee who is discriminated or retaliated against by his or her employer because the employee has exercised his or her rights pursuant to those prohibitions to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, as specified. Because a violation of this provision those employer prohibitions would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license, permit, or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would establish the Enhanced Drivers License and Identification Card Subaccount in the Motor Vehicle Account and would require the additional fee to be deposited into the subaccount. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the moneys in the subaccount to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions. The bill would prohibit specified information submitted by an applicant for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card from being disclosed by the department, as specified.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon proper application, to issue drivers licenses and identification cards.

The federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitates travel within the western hemisphere by authorizing the use of enhanced drivers licenses and identification cards meeting specified requirements as travel documents.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purpose of facilitating travels within the western hemisphere pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative through the issuance of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. The bill would authorize the department to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons. The bill would require a person applying for the initial issuance or renewal of an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit, under the penalty of perjury, additional proof of identity, residency, and citizenship that satisfies the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Because the knowledge of the submission of fraudulent information is a crime, the bill would create a new crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would, except as specified, prohibit the disclosure of information submitted to the department. Because a violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card as a condition of employment or to discriminate or otherwise retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced drivers license or identification card. Because a violation of this provision would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would also require the department to submit an annual report to specified committees of the Legislature on the implementation of the enhanced drivers license and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced drivers license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee. The bill would require the department to set, by regulation, the application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost of issuing or renewing the license, permit, or identification card, or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant. The bill would establish the Enhanced Drivers License and Identification Card Subaccount in the Motor Vehicle Account and would require the additional fee to be deposited into the subaccount. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require the moneys in the subaccount to be expended by the department in implementing the above provisions.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 VETO  

Bill No: SB 249

Author: Hueso (D)

Amended: 9/9/15

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/7/15

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Moorlach, Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 36-3, 6/1/15

AYES: Allen, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nguyen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NOES: Anderson, Moorlach, Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 38-1, 9/11/15

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NOES: Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-2, 9/11/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which individuals can use at border crossings as proof of both identity and citizenship.

ANALYSIS: Existing law authorizes DMV to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver’s license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back of the license or identification card.

This bill:

1. Authorizes DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to obtain approval to issue an EDL, provisional license, or identification card (hereafter referred to generally as an EDL) that meets Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requirements. Requires DMV to consult with stakeholders prior to entering such a memorandum.

2. Authorizes the DMV to issue an EDL to an applicant who is 16 years or older and is both a California resident and a U.S. citizen.

3. Requires an applicant to submit proof of identity, California residency, and U.S. citizenship, and to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid.

4. Requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance and to inform the applicant in writing that the information stored on the EDL can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge if it is not enclosed in the protective shield. Requires the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.

5. Requires DMV to include in the EDL reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information. Provides that the RFID technology in the EDL shall contain a randomly assigned number or employ other security measures deemed necessary by DMV to make any information on the card unintelligible to an unauthorized reader. Limits the RFID technology in the EDL to the information needed to comply with U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requirements and a machine-readable zone or bar code that contains only as much information as required by the WHTI to permit a border crossing.

6. Requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her photograph and signature at the time of application or renewal and provides that these items shall only be available to border patrol or DHS.
   
   

7. Requires DMV to verify the validity of an EDL application or renewal and accompanying proof. Authorizes DMV to require the applicant to submit additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship. Authorizes DMV to deny an application if it finds the application or supporting documentation is inadequate or invalid.

8. Establishes a non-refundable fee of $55 for application or renewal, in addition to other fees required by state law, to be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA).

9. Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature including, but not limited to, information on the number of EDLs and related documents issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at ports of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs or related documents.

Background

To address the need for increased security measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). To implement this legislation, with an eye to reducing border congestion, the Department of State and the DHS established a plan called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The WHTI requires U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or other document proving identity and citizenship to enter the country beginning in 2007 for air travel into the U.S. and in 2009 for land and sea travel into the U.S. The EDL is one of the documents meeting WHTI requirements.

An EDL is a driver’s license that an individual can also use as a travel document to enter the U.S. from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. A key feature distinguishing an EDL from a California driver’s license is RFID technology. RFID systems allow information contained in a wireless device or “tag” to be read from a distance. RFID technology can be found in car keys, security access cards, and highway toll lanes (such as FasTrak).

Under the WHTI, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) created “ready lanes” at some ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border.

Ready lanes are dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents, such as EDLs; frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these lanes to expedite the inspection process. Specifically, as a traveler approaches inspection lanes at the border, authorized readers read the EDL from 10 to 15 feet away. The WHTI provides that no personal information is stored on the EDL, but rather a number that points to information housed in the secure database. Upon reading this number, the reader signals the database to display biographical information, a photo, and the results of terrorist/criminal checks to the border patrol officer as the vehicle pulls up to the inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Four states (Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs.

Comments

Purpose. The author states that each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California through the six ports of entry from Mexico. Long wait times, as high as three to four hours, between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 jobs lost nationally in 2007. More recent studies indicate a $620 million loss due to congestion at the Imperial County ports of entry and a nearly $1.3 billion revenue loss at the San Diego ports of entry. The author states that the EDL could both significantly reduce wait times at the border and strengthen border security.

EDLs and RFID technology. An RFID tag with a power source is an “active” tag that can transmit a radio wave transmitting information to any reader in the area. An RFID without a power source is a “passive” tag; a reader can remotely read the information when the tag gets within a certain range of the reader. While an RFID tag is similar to bar code technology, it differs in that it can be read remotely, without having to swipe the bar code, and in that much more information can be stored on an RFID tag chip than on a bar code. The EDL proposed in this bill would include a passive tag. In addition, as required by the WHTI, this bill specifies that the EDL would contain only a number that points to information housed in the border patrol’s secure database. This bill also requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance.

What about AB 60? AB 60 (Alejo, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2013) requires the DMV to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S. These applicants must meet all other qualifications for licensure and must provide satisfactory proof of identity and California residency. AB 60 specifies that a license issued under these provisions is valid only for driving privileges and cannot be used for identification or federal purposes. The DMV began issuing these licenses on January 2, 2015. Because this bill requires that an individual must be a U.S. citizen in order to obtain an EDL, individuals holding an AB 60 driver’s license would not be eligible.

Prior Legislation

SB 397 (Hueso), which passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on an 11-0 vote in 2013 but was subsequently held on the suspense file by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was almost identical to this bill. This bill differs from the version of SB 397 voted on by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in that it incorporates several provisions added in subsequent committees to address privacy concerns raised by civil rights organizations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee (July 16, 2015 version):

• One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal years, if the DMV exercises the authority to develop the EDL program. Start-up costs would include completing a memorandum of understanding with DHS; 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. (MVA)

• Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. (MVA)

• Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however; thus DMV would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/20/15)

Baja California State Government

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

Chula Vista Mayor Mary Casillas Salas

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego City Councilmember Todd Gloria

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

U.S. Representative Juan Vargas

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/20/15)

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Calegislation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of California

Consumer Watchdog

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Eagle Forum of California

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Gun Owners of California

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Liberty Guard

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Tenth Amendment Center

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 249 without my signature.

This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, allowing the department to issue "enhanced" driver's licenses, provisional licenses and identification cards.

While I support the purpose of this bill to allow easier passage across certain borders within the Western Hemisphere, I believe that there are other means, such as the U.S. Passport Card, that achieve the same goal without imposing new burdens on the Department of Motor Vehicles.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-2, 9/11/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Wilk, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Gatto, Levine

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Dahle, Harper, Waldron, Williams

Prepared by: Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121

11/4/15 13:34:10

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 249

Author: Hueso (D)

Amended: 9/9/15

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/7/15

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Moorlach, Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 36-3, 6/1/15

AYES: Allen, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nguyen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NOES: Anderson, Moorlach, Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not available

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which individuals can use at border crossings as proof of both identity and citizenship.

Assembly Amendments remove instruction permits from this bill; require DMV to consult with stakeholders prior to entering a memorandum of understanding with the federal government; clarify what shall be included in the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology in the EDL; remove the provision allowing an applicant to appeal a denial of an application; remove the provision establishing a new account within the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA) and instead provide for the funds to be deposited in the MVA; and require DMV to provide a protective shield for the license or identification card at the time of issuance.

ANALYSIS: Existing law authorizes DMV to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver’s license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back of the license or identification card.

This bill:

1. Authorizes DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to obtain approval to issue an EDL, provisional license, or identification card (hereafter referred to generally as an EDL) that meets Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requirements. Requires DMV to consult with stakeholders prior to entering such a memorandum.

2. Authorizes the DMV to issue an EDL to an applicant who is 16 years or older and is both a California resident and a U.S. citizen.

3. Requires an applicant to submit proof of identity, California residency, and U.S. citizenship, and to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid.

4. Requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance and to inform the applicant in writing that the information stored on the EDL can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge if it is not enclosed in the protective shield. Requires the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of RFID technology.

5. Requires DMV to include in the EDL reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information. Provides that the RFID technology in the EDL shall contain a randomly assigned number or employ other security measures deemed necessary by DMV to make any information on the card unintelligible to an unauthorized reader. Limits the RFID technology in the EDL to the information needed to comply with U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requirements and a machine-readable zone or bar code that contains only as much information as required by the WHTI to permit a border crossing.

6. Requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her photograph and signature at the time of application or renewal and provides that these items shall only be available to border patrol or DHS.
   
   

7. Requires DMV to verify the validity of an EDL application or renewal and accompanying proof. Authorizes DMV to require the applicant to submit additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship. Authorizes DMV to deny an application if it finds the application or supporting documentation is inadequate or invalid.

8. Establishes a non-refundable fee of $55 for application or renewal, in addition to other fees required by state law, to be deposited in the MVA.

9. Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature including, but not limited to, information on the number of EDLs and related documents issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at ports of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs or related documents.

Background

To address the need for increased security measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). To implement this legislation, with an eye to reducing border congestion, the Department of State and the DHS established a plan called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The WHTI requires U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or other document proving identity and citizenship to enter the country beginning in 2007 for air travel into the U.S. and in 2009 for land and sea travel into the U.S. The EDL is one of the documents meeting WHTI requirements.

An EDL is a driver’s license that an individual can also use as a travel document to enter the U.S. from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. A key feature distinguishing an EDL from a California driver’s license is RFID technology. RFID systems allow information contained in a wireless device or “tag” to be read from a distance. RFID technology can be found in car keys, security access cards, and highway toll lanes (such as FasTrak).

Under the WHTI, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) created “ready lanes” at some ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border.

Ready lanes are dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents, such as EDLs; frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these lanes to expedite the inspection process. Specifically, as a traveler approaches inspection lanes at the border, authorized readers read the EDL from 10 to 15 feet away. The WHTI provides that no personal information is stored on the EDL, but rather a number that points to information housed in the secure database. Upon reading this number, the reader signals the database to display biographical information, a photo, and the results of terrorist/criminal checks to the border patrol officer as the vehicle pulls up to the inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Four states (Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs.

Comments

Purpose. The author states that each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California through the six ports of entry from Mexico. Long wait times, as high as three to four hours, between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 jobs lost nationally in 2007. More recent studies indicate a $620 million loss due to congestion at the Imperial County ports of entry and a nearly $1.3 billion revenue loss at the San Diego ports of entry. The author states that the EDL could both significantly reduce wait times at the border and strengthen border security.

EDLs and RFID technology. An RFID tag with a power source is an “active” tag that can transmit a radio wave transmitting information to any reader in the area. An RFID without a power source is a “passive” tag; a reader can remotely read the information when the tag gets within a certain range of the reader. While an RFID tag is similar to bar code technology, it differs in that it can be read remotely, without having to swipe the bar code, and in that much more information can be stored on an RFID tag chip than on a bar code. The EDL proposed in this bill would include a passive tag. In addition, as required by the WHTI, this bill specifies that the EDL would contain only a number that points to information housed in the border patrol’s secure database. This bill also requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance.

What about AB 60? AB 60 (Alejo, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2013) requires the DMV to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S. These applicants must meet all other qualifications for licensure and must provide satisfactory proof of identity and California residency. AB 60 specifies that a license issued under these provisions is valid only for driving privileges and cannot be used for identification or federal purposes. The DMV began issuing these licenses on January 2, 2015. Because this bill requires that an individual must be a U.S. citizen in order to obtain an EDL, individuals holding an AB 60 driver’s license would not be eligible.

Prior Legislation

SB 397 (Hueso), which passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on an 11-0 vote in 2013 but was subsequently held on the suspense file by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was almost identical to this bill. This bill differs from the version of SB 397 voted on by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in that it incorporates several provisions added in subsequent committees to address privacy concerns raised by civil rights organizations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee (July 16, 2015 version):

• One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal years, if the DMV exercises the authority to develop the EDL program. Start-up costs would include completing a memorandum of understanding with DHS; 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. (MVA)

• Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. (MVA)

• Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however; thus DMV would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/15)

Baja California State Government

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

Chula Vista Mayor Mary Casillas Salas

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego City Councilmember Todd Gloria

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

U.S. Representative Juan Vargas

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/15)

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Calegislation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of California

Consumer Watchdog

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Eagle Forum of California

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Gun Owners of California

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Liberty Guard

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Tenth Amendment Center

Prepared by: Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121

9/11/15 19:33:59

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso)

As Amended Ver:September 9, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-3

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, the federal government's endorsement of EDLs that allow for far faster processing of border crossers, and limiting an employer's ability to require an employee to obtain an EDL.

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, 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 citizenship pursuant to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). Requires DMV, prior to entering into the MOU, to consult with the appropriate interested parties relative to the issuance of EDL's, as specified.

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 or related document can be read remotely without the holder's knowledge. Further requires that the applicant sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of radio frequency identification (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 that RFID technology contain only a randomly assigned number or employ other security measures deemed necessary by the department that make any information on the EDL unintelligible to an unauthorized reader. In any event the radio frequency technology shall contain no more information than is required by the United States Department of Homeland Security requirements to permit a border crossing.

8. Allows an EDL to be suspended, revoked, or restricted as are other driver's licenses under existing law.

9. 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.

10. Requires DMV to deny an application or renewal of an EDL, or related document, if it does not satisfied certain requirements as specified.

11. Requires DMV to retain copies or digital images of documents provided by applicants for EDLs and related documents.

12. 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.

13. 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, and be used to implement the EDL program.

14. 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.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal 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. [Motor Vehicle Account (MVA)]

2. Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. [MVA]

3. Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be funding by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however, thus the department would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.

4. Unknown, likely absorbable costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate discrimination and retaliation complaints against employers. [Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund]

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 United States (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 this bill is to reduce travel and processing times and strengthen security at border crossings as a means of stimulating cross-border business activities.

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 author introduced this bill because DMV currently lacks the authority to issue EDLs. The author notes this bill will provide 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.

Analysis Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002289

Date of Hearing: September 8, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:September 4, 2015

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: 36-3

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

KEY ISSUE: Should the Department of Motor Vehicles enter into a memorandum of understanding with the federal government in order to issue, to drivers who opt to obtain them, an "enhanced driver's license," which uses "RFID" CHIP Technology to facilitate movement across the california-mexico border?

SYNOPSIS

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government to issue "enhanced driver's licenses" (EDL) that would effectively serve as both a driver's license and a passport to persons who request them. Pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), persons entering the United States by land or sea from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the Caribbean must present a passport, EDL, or some other official document that proves identity or citizenship. Before 9-11, land travel across borders, especially between the U.S. and Canada, tended to informal. However, more rigorous enforcement since 9-11 has slowed border crossings and led to longer wait lines. To reduce congestion, WHTI authorized the use of EDL and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection created "Ready Lanes" for persons possessing an EDL. Under WHTI, and rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), states bordering Mexico and Canada may enter into agreements with DHS to allow issuance of EDL that meet certain criteria, including the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. Proponents of this bill, mostly business groups and local officials from Southern California and Northern Mexico, argue that this measure will reduce wait times and facilitate cross-border travel and trade. Opponents contend that RFID-enabled documents, which can be read remotely, pose a significant threat to personal privacy and could be surreptitiously copied to allow unauthorized border crossings. When the Committee heard a version of this bill in July of this year, the author responded to privacy concerns by stressing the voluntary nature of the program and noting that RFID-enabled licenses will only contain a randomly-assigned number, not personal information. However, for reasons detailed below, recent amendments undermine those responses to privacy concerns. The author will take amendments in this Committee to restore, albeit partially, some of the earlier protections that were in the bill. Privacy rights groups remain opposed.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with a federal agency to allow DMV to offer an enhanced driver's license, as defined, to applicants who request it. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes various legislative findings and declarations regarding traffic congestion and wait times at points of entry between California and Mexico and the potentially negative impact of these wait times on international trade, travel, and commerce. States that it is the intent of the Legislature that employers be prohibited from requiring employees to obtain an EDL as a condition of employment or retaliating against employees who refuse to obtain an EDL.

2. Authorizes the DMV to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of issuing an enhanced driver's license, provisional license, or identification card [hereafter EDL] to a person who is at least 16 years of age, a resident of California, and a citizen of the United States. Requires the applicant to submit sufficient proof that meets the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to establish his or her identity, residency, and citizenship.

3. Requires an applicant for an EDL to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

4. Requires the EDL to include reasonable security measures, including the use of tamper-resistant features, to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of personal information.

5. Requires DMV to provide the applicant with a protective shield at the time the EDL is issued and inform the applicant that information on the EDL may be read without the holder's knowledge if the protective shield is not used.

6. Requires that RFID technology contain only a randomly assigned number or employ other security measures deemed necessary by the department that make any information on the EDL unintelligible to an unauthorized reader. In any event the radio frequency technology shall contain no more information than is required by the United States Department of Homeland Security requirements to permit a border crossing.

7. Requires an applicant for an EDL to have his or her photograph and signature captured or reproduced by DMV at the time of application or renewal.

8. Makes the facial image, signature, and copies or digital images of any documents required for application exempt from public records request.

9. Permits DMV to deny an application for an EDL if it is not satisfied with the genuineness of the applicant's supporting materials, subject to the applicant's right to appeal the denial, as specified.

10. Requires an applicant for an EDL to pay a fee, as set by the DMV but not to exceed $55, and provides that fees shall be deposited in an account and to be used by DMV to implement the provisions of this bill.

11. Requires DMV to make an annual report to relevant legislative committees, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires DMV, upon proper application, to issue driver's licenses and identification cards.

2. Authorizes, under the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the use of EDLs to prove identity and citizenship for purposes of traveling between the United States, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean, so long as the EDL meets specified requirements, including radio frequency identification (RFID) that signals a secure government data base maintained by the United States Customs and Border Protection. (Public Law 110-53.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) represents a joint effort by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. As of January 1, 2009, WHTI began requiring U.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean by land or sea to present a valid U.S. Passport or another WHTI-compliant document. Among the accepted documents are passports, a U.S. passport card, Trusted Traveler Program cards (NEXUS, FAST, or SENTRI), or an enhanced driver's license (EDL). Before 9-11, land travel across borders, especially between the United States and Canada, tended to be informal and less rigorous, with border agents often accepting a birth certificate or even a person's verbal affirmation of citizenship. However, more rigorous enforcement and new requirements under IRTPA slowed border crossings and led to longer wait lines. In an effort to reduce this congestion, WHTI authorized the use of EDLs (including state-issued identification cards), and the CBP created "Ready Lanes" dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents. The goal of the EDL program is to strengthen border security and facilitate ease of entry into the United States for U.S. Citizens, especially those driving across the border on a regular basis.

Federal law requires that any border state wishing to adopt EDLs must first sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. So far at least four states – Vermont, New York, Michigan, and Washington – have enacted authorizing legislation and already have EDLs in place. New York was the first state to sign an MOU in 2007.

In other states the program has been a success. For example, the New York State DMV reports that over 100,000 persons have availed themselves of the new licenses, especially in upstate New York, near the Canadian border. In addition to decreasing overall wait times for travelers, EDL holders often use RFID-enabled "Ready Lanes" created by CBP. According to other states' DMV websites, use of RFID allows border patrol agents to pull up a person's information and photograph immediately without having to collect paper documents, inspect them, and then key in any required information. All of this is done automatically when the traveler holds the EDL in front of the RFID reader. The system does not allow the EDL holder to simply pass through, as in the case, for example, with FasTrak; the border patrol agents must still make a visual identification with the accessed photograph and may ask questions or inspect the EDL.

This bill would permit California citizens traveling across the California-Mexico border to take advantage of this more convenient and time-saving process. According to the author, the idea for this bill grew out of his experience as Chair of the Select Committee on California-Mexico-Bi-National Affairs, where he became aware of the significant impact of border wait times on our state's economy. Indeed, the author provided the Committee with a 2007 report suggesting that long wait times slow commerce and discourage personal trips across the California-Mexico border. The report claims that delays at the border at the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate points-of-entry result in the loss of millions of dollars (and even billions) in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs in the San Diego-Baja region. (San Diego Association of Governments and the California Department of Transportation, 2007 Update to Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border: Final Report.) Not surprisingly, many of the supporters of this bill represent chambers of commerce and local officials who believe that shorter wait times and more travel across the border will translate into more trade and tourism. In addition to these economic benefits, the author also believes that this bill will allow persons who regularly cross the border to make use of the RFID-enabled "Ready Lanes."

Under the MOU authorized by this bill, the DMV could only issue an EDL to a person who requests it and is willing to pay the designated fee. Although many of the details of the program would presumably be specified in the MOU, the bill nonetheless sets forth a number of specific requirements that the MOU must contain. For example, the bill would specify that the RFID technology must only contain a random number or, if it contains other information, the EDL must employ other security measures that render the information unintelligible to an unauthorized reader. All of the states that have adopted EDL to this point apparently use only the randomly assigned number on the RFID chip. The border patrol matches this random to the personal information already in a database. Presumably, a California EDL would similarly contain only a random number, but the bill, as recently amended, would potentially allow the EDL to contain other information, including personal information, so long as it is rendered unintelligible to an unauthorized user and so long as the license contains no more information that is required to permit a border crossing. The bill requires DMV to employ other reasonable security measures, including a shield that would prevent interception by an unauthorized reader. EDL applicants must acknowledge their understanding of RFID technology and be informed that the information on the card or license may be read remotely without the holder's knowledge if the EDL is removed from the protective shield. The DMV websites of other states indicate that these protections are standard practice.

Finally, the bill also sets forth requirements for applying for an EDL. In addition to paying a fee not to exceed $55 and submitting documents proving identity and citizenship, applicants would also be required to agree to have their photograph and signature captured by DMV at the time of application or renewal. The bill exempts the photograph, signature, or other required documents from required disclosure under the Public Records Act. Finally, the bill seeks to make the program self-funding. Proceeds from the application fee will be deposited into the Enhanced Driver's License and Identification Subaccount, which DMV will use to implement the program.

Privacy Concerns Surrounding the use of RFID. Much of the concern relating to EDLs, and especially the DHS rule that they include RFID technology, has focused on potential threats to privacy. Despite some technical-sounding terminology, RFID technology is fairly easy to understand. RFID "tags" or "chips" can be embedded into objects, including documents, clothing, pets, and even people. The RFID technology used in the EDL typically consists of a microchip (that stores a randomly assigned number) and one or more antennae. Remote “readers” can read this tag via radio waves. The reader constantly emits radio signals. As a person or object with an RFID tag moves near the reader – the distance varies depending upon the device – the antennae pick up the signal and transmit the number stored on the RFID tag to the reader. Most RFID tags, and apparently all of the ones used thus far for EDLs are "passive," meaning they can only be activated by the reader's radio signal. Some RFID tags are "active," meaning they can actively search out readers in the area. In either case, an authorized reader with access to a secure database can then match the number to the holder's information in the database.

In some ways, RFID technology is a higher-tech version of bar code and magnetic strip scanning. However, bar code and strip scanning requires direct contact between the scanner and the stored information (or at least the magnetic strip or barcode must be in the direct line of sight of a laser). RFID readers, on the other hand, can read the information stored on the RFID tag remotely. Many of these, like the security badges used in the Legislature, must be held within a few inches of the reader. Some RFID readers, however, may read tags from distances of 30 feet or more, according to some studies. Experts disagree on the potential range of RFID readers in the future, but as technology advances it seems reasonable to assume that those ranges will increase. However, the fact that RFID tags can be read at any distance creates the possibility that information stored on an identification document could be read remotely without the holder's knowledge or consent.

Information Stored on the RFID Tag. Given that RFID tags can be read at a distance, and potentially without the holder's knowledge, the critical privacy concern relates to the kind of information that is actually stored on the RFID tag and the usefulness of that information to any unauthorized reader. According to CBP and agency websites in the four states that have adopted EDLs, the RFID chip only contains a randomly assigned number that has no meaning until an authorized reader matches the random number to information already in the secure data base. The random number does not provide access to the database; it only allows those who already have access to pull up the EDL holder's data. Where EDLs have been used, personal information does not appear on the card, and the random number, therefore, is only useful to someone who already has access to the database.

Even if the RFID tag contains only a random number, however, privacy concerns do not necessarily stop there. For example, privacy advocates claim that security measures must address more than the ability of the reader to access intelligible information from the tag; they must also address potential security breaches along the entire transmission process from tag, to reader, to computer database. Proponents of RFID, on the other hand, claim that RFID applications are confined to a closed system of authorized tags, readers, and databases within that system. Even if outsiders with remote readers obtained information from an RFID tag that "information" will typically only consist of a random number that is only intelligible to persons within the system or to those who can access that system. If an unauthorized person has accessed a secure government database, then clearly there is bigger problem than the unauthorized reading of the random number on an RFID tag. That number does not provide access to a database or make it easier to hack the data base.

Opponents also contend that a random number can itself become a piece of personally identifiable information, noting Civil Code Section 1798.3, which defines "personal information" as "any information that identifies or describes an individual." Opponents note, for example, that the social security number was originally a more or less random number that nonetheless has become permanently associated with the person to which it was assigned for the limited purpose of tracking social security benefits. However, the danger that results from the unauthorized disclosure of a social security number stems from the fact that a social security number is used for identification purposes in a variety of other contexts, such as obtaining credit, opening a bank account, or applying for a job. No one could use the random number on the EDL, as one could use a social security number, to open a line of credit or otherwise commit identity theft. The comparison between the random RFID number and a social security number, therefore, is not persuasive. In addition, according to the websites of the states that have entered into MOUs with DHS, the EDL is issued with a protective "sleeve" or "Faraday shield" that covers the EDL and thereby prevents unauthorized reading of the RFID chip – so long as the sleeve is in place.

RFID and Possible Border Security Concerns. Opponents also contend that using RFID technology could pose security as well as privacy risks. That is, even if an RFID reader cannot access the secure data base it could potentially copy the random number and use it to create a counterfeit license. According to the ACLU of Washington State, studies suggest that such duplication is possible. However, the bill appears to anticipate this problem by specifying that security measures shall include the protective sleeve. In addition, even if a counterfeit EDL were made with the help of a surreptitious reader, the border patrol must still visually determine that the person presenting the EDL matches the photograph that is pulled up from the secure database. Obviously there is no unassailable means of preventing a determined person from making counterfeit EDLs, just as there is no unassailable means of preventing that person from obtaining counterfeit copies of regular driver's licenses or passports or any other form of identification.

Recent Amendments Cause Concern: The Committee is hearing this bill for a second time because of recent amendments that eliminate some of the privacy and employee protections that were added to earlier versions of the bill. Although opinions differ on the extent to which the EDL will create privacy or security risks, the author's strongest responses to privacy concerns raised in the past were as follows: (1) the decision to obtain an EDL is entirely voluntary; and (2) the only information that the EDL will contain is a random number that is meaningless to anyone other than an authorized reader who has access to the relevant data base. Recent amendments undermined both of these responses.

First, when the Committee heard the first iteration of this bill (AB 2113 in 2012), the author agreed to amend the bill to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to obtain an EDL as a condition of employment. The Committee felt, and the author agreed, that this ran contrary to the author's desire that the EDL program be strictly voluntary. When the present bill was heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, that Committee recommended, and the author agreed, to add enforcement provisions to the employer prohibition. Recent amendments removed the entire subdivision setting forth these employee protections. As noted below, the author has agreed to amend the bill again in this Committee to clarify that it is the Legislature's intent to prohibit employers from both requiring employees to obtain an EDL as a condition of employment and taking adverse action against an employee who refuses to obtain an EDL. While the author realizes that intent language is not binding in the same manner as statutory language, he notes that this bill merely permits DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding and, as such, it will be some time before EDLs are issued. The bill now requires DMV to consult with interested parties, including privacy rights groups and employers, among others, before entering into the MOU. Once the MOU is approved by the federal government, there will still be some amount of time before the EDLs would become available. State law could be enacted to place restrictions on the use of EDLs in the future. Therefore, according to the author, there is no urgent need to address the respective rights of employers and employees at this time.

In addition to the employee protections, the prior versions of this bill contained a number of security provisions suggested by privacy rights groups, including, most notably, that the EDL only contain a randomly assigned number and that it not contain any other personal information. The most recent amendments removed these protections. Specifically, the recent amendments eliminated the requirement that the EDL contain only an encrypted random number and replaced that provision with a requirement that the EDL contain only as much information as required by DHS to permit a border crossing. This means, contrary to the amendments previously negotiated and agreed to, the RFID technology on the EDL could, in fact, contain personal information. This could apparently include, at minimum, a name, photograph, and passport information. In short, if the RFID technology did not contain a random number used to match the personal information in the data base, then the EDL would presumably include personal information on the license or card.

PROPOSED AUTHOR AMENDMENTS: In an effort to restore some of the privacy and employee protections that were in the version of this bill when it was heard and approved by the Committee, the author has agreed to take the following amendments:

• In the Section 1 findings and declarations, a new subdivision (m) will be added to read as follows:

(m) It is the intent of Legislature that the decision to obtain or not obtain an enhanced driver’s license is strictly voluntary.  To that end, if California enters into a Memorandum of Understanding to issue an enhanced driver’s license pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-458), it is the intent of the Legislature that an employer shall not require an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced driver’s license, provisional license, or identification card as a condition of employment, nor shall an employer discharge an employee or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced driver’s license, provisional license, or identification card.  

• Replace subdivision (d) in section 15401 with a new subdivision (d) that reads as follows:

(d) Radio frequency identification technology shall contain only a randomly assigned number or employ other security measures deemed necessary by the department that make any information on the license or card unintelligible to an unauthorized reader.  In any event the radio frequency technology shall contain no more information than is needed to comply with the United States Department of Homeland Security requirements and a machine-readable zone or barcode that contains only so much information as is required by the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-45) to permit a border crossing.

• In paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 15401 replace "randomly assigned radio frequency identification number" with “information on the license or card”

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Chamber of Commerce, the "ports of entry along the California-Mexico border are among the busiest ports in the world." The Chamber claims that each year forty-five million vehicle passengers cross the border at one of six points of entry, and that "the average wait for travelers at these ports is over an hour." The Chamber further claims that these delays "result in a loss of eight million trips each year," and that in San Diego County alone this translates into an estimated loss of $1.2 billion in revenues. The Chamber believes that this bill will relieve border congestion by allowing travelers to use "ready lanes," and that it will allow CBP officers to quickly assess information "and focus on the traveler's vehicle as opposed to scanning documents – reducing wait time by up to 60%."

The Imperial County Transportation Commission supports this bill for substantially the same reasons, claiming that border wait times cause "a devastating loss of nearly $1.5 billion in revenues, 3.4 million potential working hours, 39, 500 jobs, and $59 million in wages annually in the San Diego and Imperial region alone." Several other business groups, both from Southern California and from Baja California, support this bill and cite similar statistics for the economic impact on their respective locales.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a joint letter, the ACLU, Consumer Watchdog, the Eagle Forum of California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Privacy Rights Clearing House oppose this bill primarily due to their "profound privacy and security concerns about the use of insecure Radio Frequency Identity (RFID) computer chips in EDL identity documents." In addition to their general concerns that EDLs will compromise the privacy of the holder's personal information, opponents also point out that the EDL lacks some of the security measures used in passports. For example, they claim that in U.S. passports a new random number is generated each time the RFID is read, whereas EDLs now in use in other states appear to use a random number that does not change with each reading. Also, while the data embedded on the passport is encrypted, this bill only provides that the number will be encrypted if "agreed to by the United States Department of Homeland Security." Finally, opponents claim that while EDLs may be optional now, "optional government programs often turn into permanent mandatory programs."

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC) oppose this bill for many of the same reasons raised by the ACLU and others; however, the Baker Center and LSPC also believe that SB 249 will "allow law enforcement officers to racially profile Californians from a distance and without their knowledge." The Baker Center contends that "personal information contained on EDLs will be accessed by [CBP] through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), which in turn is "accessible to local law enforcement."

In addition to the above arguments, which were made to prior versions of the bill, the ACLU and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse have submitted additional letters expressing grave concerns that the recent amendments mean that the bill will pose an even greater threat to privacy rights and civil liberties. They also object to the author removing previously negotiated provisions from the bill.

PREVIOUS LEGISLATION: SB 397 (Hueso) of 2014 was substantially similar to this bill except that it did not contain a requirement that the applicant be informed, in writing, that RFID random number could be read remotely and it did not provide penalty provisions enforcing the prohibition against employers taking adverse action against an employee who refused to apply for or use an EDL. That bill passed unanimously off the Senate Floor and unanimously out of this Committee but was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2113 (Hueso) of 2012, was similar to SB 397. That bill passed unanimously out of this Committee but was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

Chula Vista Mayor's Office

City of El Centro

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce

Todd Gloria, San Diego City Council Member

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

Representative Juan Vargas

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego Regional Chamber

San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

State of Baja, California

Opposition

ACLU

Consumer Watchdog

Eagle Forum

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Electronic Frontier Federation

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 249

Author: Hueso (D)

Amended: 8/28/15

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/7/15

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Moorlach, Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 36-3, 6/1/15

AYES: Allen, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Nguyen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk

NOES: Anderson, Moorlach, Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-2, 9/01/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which individuals can use at border crossings as proof of both identity and citizenship.

Assembly Amendments remove instruction permits from this bill; remove renewals of licenses, provisional licenses, and identification cards; require DMV to consult with stakeholders prior to entering a memorandum of understanding with the federal government; remove the provision allowing an applicant to appeal a denial of an application; remove the provision establishing a new account within the Motor Vehicle Account (MVA) and instead provide for the funds to be deposited in the MVA; and require DMV to provide a protective shield for the license or identification card at the time of issuance.

ANALYSIS: Existing law authorizes DMV to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver’s license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back of the license or identification card.

This bill:

1. Authorizes DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to obtain approval to issue an EDL, provisional license, or identification card (hereafter referred to generally as an EDL) that meets Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requirements. Requires DMV to consult with stakeholders prior to entering such a memorandum.

2. Authorizes the DMV to issue an EDL to an applicant who is 16 years or older and is both a California resident and a U.S. citizen.

3. Requires an applicant to submit proof of identity, California residency, and U.S. citizenship and to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid. Also requires the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.

4. Requires DMV to include in the EDL reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information. Limits the RFID technology in the EDL to contain only a randomly assigned number, encrypted subject to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approval, and a bar code that can only be read by border patrol.

5. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to apply for or use an EDL as a condition of employment or to discharge, discriminate against, or retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL.

6. Requires DMV to inform the applicant that the randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge. Requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance.

7. Requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her photograph and signature at the time of application or renewal and provides that these items shall only be available to border patrol or DHS.
   
   

8. Requires DMV to verify the validity of an EDL application or renewal and accompanying proof. Authorizes DMV to require the applicant to submit additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship. Authorizes DMV to deny an application if it finds the application or supporting documentation is inadequate or invalid.

9. Establishes a non-refundable fee of $55 for application or renewal, in addition to other fees required by state law, to be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account.

10. Specifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with any other state or federal law.

11. Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature including, but not limited to, information on the number of EDLs and related documents issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at ports of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs or related documents.

Background

To address the need for increased security measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). To implement this legislation, with an eye to reducing border congestion, the Department of State and the DHS established a plan called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The WHTI requires U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or other document proving identity and citizenship to enter the country beginning in 2007 for air travel into the U.S. and in 2009 for land and sea travel into the U.S. The EDL is one of the documents meeting WHTI requirements.

An EDL is a driver’s license that an individual can also use as a travel document to enter the U.S. from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. A key feature distinguishing an EDL from a California driver’s license is RFID technology. RFID systems allow information contained in a wireless device or “tag” to be read from a distance. RFID technology can be found in car keys, security access cards, and highway toll lanes (such as FasTrak).

Under the WHTI, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) created “ready lanes” at some ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border.

Ready lanes are dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents, such as EDLs; frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these lanes to expedite the inspection process. Specifically, as a traveler approaches inspection lanes at the border, authorized readers read the EDL from 10 to 15 feet away. The WHTI provides that no personal information is stored on the EDL, but rather a number that points to information housed in the secure database. Upon reading this number, the reader signals the database to display biographical information, a photo, and the results of terrorist/criminal checks to the border patrol officer as the vehicle pulls up to the inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Four states (Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs.

Comments

Purpose. The author states that each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California through the six ports of entry from Mexico. Long wait times, as high as three to four hours, between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 jobs lost nationally in 2007. More recent studies indicate a $620 million loss to due to congestion at the Imperial County ports of entry and a nearly $1.3 billion revenue loss at the San Diego ports of entry. The author states that the EDL could both significantly reduce wait times at the border and strengthen border security.

EDLs and RFID technology. An RFID tag with a power source is an “active” tag that can transmit a radio wave transmitting information to any reader in the area. An RFID without a power source is a “passive” tag; a reader can remotely read the information when the tag gets within a certain range of the reader. While an RFID tag is similar to bar code technology, it differs in that it can be read remotely, without having to swipe the bar code, and in that much more information can be stored on an RFID tag chip than on a bar code. The EDL proposed in this bill would include a passive tag. In addition, as required by the WHTI, this bill specifies that the EDL would contain only a number that points to information housed in the border patrol’s secure database. This bill also requires DMV to provide a protective shield for the EDL at the time of issuance.

What about AB 60? AB 60 (Alejo, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2013) requires the DMV to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S. These applicants must meet all other qualifications for licensure and must provide satisfactory proof of identity and California residency. AB 60 specifies that a license issued under these provisions is valid only for driving privileges and cannot be used for identification or federal purposes. The DMV began issuing these licenses on January 2, 2015. Because this bill requires that an individual must be a U.S. citizen in order to obtain an EDL, individuals holding an AB 60 driver’s license would not be eligible.

Prior Legislation

SB 397 (Hueso), which passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on an 11-0 vote in 2013 but was subsequently held on the suspense file by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was almost identical to this bill. This bill differs from the version of SB 397 voted on by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in that it incorporates several provisions added in subsequent committees to address privacy concerns raised by civil rights organizations. Specifically, this bill requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture or reproduce his or her photograph and signature, rather than his or her facial image and signature; clarifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with any other state or federal law; and requires DMV to inform applicants that the random RFID number can be read remotely without their knowledge. This bill also authorizes DMV to charge a $55 fee rather than a $75 fee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee (July 16, 2015 version):

1. One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal years, if the DMV exercises the authority to develop the EDL program. Start-up costs would include completing a memorandum of understanding with DHS; 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. (MVA)

2. Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. (MVA)

3. Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however; thus DMV would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/31/15)

Baja California State Government

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

Chula Vista Mayor Mary Casillas Salas

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego City Councilmember Todd Gloria

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

U.S. Representative Juan Vargas

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/31/15)

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Calegislation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of California

Consumer Watchdog

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Eagle Forum of California

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Gun Owners of California

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Liberty Guard

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Tenth Amendment Center

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-2, 9/01/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Gatto, Levine

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Harper, Waldron

Prepared by: Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121

9/1/15 21:35:23

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-3

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, 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 citizenship pursuant to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). Requires DMV, prior to entering into the MOU, to consult with the appropriate interested parties relative to the issuance of EDL's, as specified.

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. Further specifies that the EDL or related document shall include reasonable security measures to protect the privacy of the EDL holder and if a RFID technology is used, requires DMV to encrypt EDL stored information, as specified.

9. Allows an EDL to be suspended, revoked, or restricted as are 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; 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.

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, 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.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal 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. [Motor Vehicle Account (MVA)]

2. Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. [MVA]

3. Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be funding by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however, thus the department would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.

4. Unknown, likely absorbable costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate discrimination and retaliation complaints against employers. [Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund]

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 United States (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 this bill is to reduce travel and processing times and strengthen security at border crossings as a means of stimulating cross-border business activities.

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 author introduced this bill because DMV currently lacks the authority to issue EDLs. The author notes this bill will provide 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.

Analysis Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0001748

Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:July 16, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes the DMV to issue enhanced driver's licenses, which include transmission technology to denote identity and citizenship, for purposes of entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes the DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to allow the department to offer applications for an enhanced driver's license, instructional permit, provisional license, or identification card [hereafter EDL] to any person who is at least 16 years of age, a resident of California, and a U.S. citizen.

2. Requires DMV to provide a protective shield with the ELD and to inform the applicant that the randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder's knowledge, especially if the EDL is not enclosed in the protective shield.

3. Requires an applicant for an EDL to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology and the purpose of the protective shield, and requires the EDL to include reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of personal information.

4. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to obtain or use an EDL as a condition of employment or from taking an adverse action against an employee for refusing to do so.

5. Authorizes an employee that is discriminated or retaliated against per (4) to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations.

6. Requires the DMV to set an EDL application fee, not to exceed $55, and provides that fees shall be deposited in the EDL and Identification Card Subaccount and expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement this bill.

7. Requires DMV to report annually to relevant legislative committees on the number of EDLs issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at points of entry, and whether there have been any security or privacy breaches related to the use of the EDL.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time upfront costs of around $4.4 million over several fiscal 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. [Motor Vehicle Account (MVA)] 

2. Ongoing costs of about $1.2 million to operate the program. [MVA]
   
   

3. Offsetting revenue for the above costs from EDL application fees. If DMV sets the fee at the maximum $55, implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded by 2021-22. No revenue would accrue until after DMV incurs most of the start-up costs, however, thus the department would need to cover these costs through borrowing from internal funds or from programmatic efficiencies or reductions.
   
   

4. Unknown, likely absorbable costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate discrimination and retaliation complaints against employers. [Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund]

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Before 9-11, land travel across borders, especially between the U.S. and Canada, tended to be somewhat lax and informal. More rigorous enforcement since 9-11, however, has slowed crossings and led to longer wait lines. To reduce congestion, the federal World Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) authorized the use of enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection created "Ready Lanes" dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents. Under WHTI, and rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), states that border Mexico and Canada may enter into agreements with DHS that allow them to issue enhanced driver's licenses that meet certain criteria, including use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

So far four states – Vermont, New York, Michigan, and Washington – have enacted authorizing legislation and already have EDLs in place. For the most part, the programs have met with success. For example, the New York State DMV reports on its website that over 100,000 persons have availed themselves of the new licenses, especially in upstate New York near the Canadian border.

2. Purpose. This bill would permit California citizens traveling across the California-Mexico border to take advantage of this more convenient and time-saving process. The author cites a 2007 report suggesting that long wait times slow commerce and discourage personal trips across the California-Mexico border. (San Diego Association of Governments and the California Department of Transportation, 2007 Update to Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border: Final Report.) The report claims that delays at the border at the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate points-of-entry result in the loss of millions (and even billions) of dollars in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs in the San Diego-Baja region. Proponents, mainly business groups and local officials from both Southern California and Northern Mexico, argue that this measure will reduce wait times and facilitate cross-border travel and trade.
   
   

At the time of this analysis, the author was continuing discussions with privacy advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, in an attempt to address their concerns.

3. Less Costly Alternative May Exist. The State Department issues passport cards—equipped with RFID technology—which the department describes as more convenient and less expensive than a passport book can be used to enter the United States from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda at land border crossings or sea ports-of-entry. The passport card costs $55 for first issue and $30 to renew and is good for ten years. A person does not have to first have a passport in order to obtain a passport card.

4. Prior Legislation. SB 397 (Hueso) of 2014 and AB 2113 (Hueso) of 2012, both similar bills, were held on this committee's Suspense File.

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:April 30, 2015

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: 36-3

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

KEY ISSUE: Should the Department of Motor Vehicles enter into a memorandum of understanding with the federal government in order to issue, to drivers who opt to obtain them, an "enhanced driver's license," which uses "RFID" CHIP Technology to facilitate movement across the california-mexico border?

SYNOPSIS

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government to issue "enhanced driver's licenses" that would serve as both a driver's license, and a passport to persons who request them. Pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), persons entering the United States by land or sea from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the Caribbean must present a passport, enhanced driver's license, or some other official document that proves identity or citizenship. Before 9-11, land travel across borders, especially between the U.S. and Canada, tended to be somewhat informal. However, more rigorous enforcement since 9-11 has slowed border crossings and led to longer wait lines. To reduce congestion, WHTI authorized the use of enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection created "Ready Lanes" dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents. Under WHTI, and rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), states that border Mexico and Canada may enter into agreements with DHS to allow issuance of enhanced driver's licenses that meet certain criteria, including the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. Proponents of this bill, mostly business groups and local officials from Southern California and Northern Mexico, argue that this measure will reduce wait times and facilitate cross-border travel and trade. Opponents contend that RFID-enabled documents, which allegedly can be read at distances of up to 30 feet or more, pose a significant threat to personal privacy and could be surreptitiously copied to allow unauthorized border crossings. The author and proponents respond that RFID-enabled licenses will not contain any personal information beyond a randomly-assigned number. They also stress the voluntary nature of the program. The author will take amendments recommended by opponents in this Committee; however, as noted in the analysis, two outstanding issues remain, and it is not clear that the amendments will remove any of the opposition to this bill. Both the author's office and the opponents have informed the Committee, however, that they will continue to work on this issue if the bill moves forward. This bill recently passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee by a 15-0 vote.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with a federal agency to allow DMV to offer an enhanced driver's license, as defined, to applicants who request it. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes various legislative findings and declarations regarding traffic congestion and wait times at points of entry between California and Mexico and the potentially negative impact of these wait times on international trade, travel, and commerce.

2. Authorizes the DMV to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of issuing an enhanced driver's license, instructional permit, provisional license, or identification card [hereafter EDL] to a person who is at least 16 years of age, is a resident of California, and is a citizen of the United States. Requires the applicant to submit sufficient proof that meets the requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to establish his or her identity, residency, and citizenship, and to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information submitted is true and correct to the best of the applicant's knowledge.

3. Prohibits an employer from requiring that an employee obtain or use an EDL as a condition of employment, or take an adverse action against an employee for refusing to do so, and provides a remedy for an employee if the employer violates this provision.

4. Requires an applicant for an EDL to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

5. Requires the EDL to include reasonable security measures, including the use of tamper-resistant features, to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of personal information.

6. Requires DMV to provide the applicant with a protective shield at the time the EDL is issued and inform the applicant either orally or in writing that the randomly assigned radio frequency identification number can be read remotely without the holder's knowledge if the EDL is not enclosed in the protective shield.

7. Requires the EDL to include both of the following:

1. RFID technology that contains only a randomly assigned number and that shall not contain any other personal data, biometric information, or any number other than the randomly assigned number. Specifies that the randomly assigned number shall be encrypted if agreed to by the Department of Homeland Security.

2. A machine-readable zone (MRZ) or barcode that can be electronically read by the border patrol and contains only as much information as is required by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to permit a border crossing.

8. Requires an applicant for an EDL to have his or her photograph and signature captured or reproduced by DMV at the time of application or renewal. Prohibits DMV from disclosing the photograph or signature, or a copy of a digital image of any required document, except that DMV may make the photograph and signature available to the United States Customs and Border Protection data base or as required by the Department of Homeland Security for purposes of facilitating the purpose of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

9. Makes the facial image, signature, and copies or digital images of any documents required for application exempt from public records request.

10. Permits DMV to deny an application for an EDL if it is not satisfied with the genuineness of the applicant's supporting materials, subject to the applicant's right to appeal the denial, as specified.

11. Requires an applicant for an EDL to pay a fee, as set by the DMV but not to exceed $55, and provides that fees shall be deposited in an account and to be used by DMV to implement the provisions of this bill.

12. Requires DMV to make an annual report to relevant legislative committees and requires the report to include information on the number of enhanced driver's licenses and identification cards issued, the effect of EDL use on wait times and traffic congestion at points of entry, and whether or not there have been any security or privacy breaches related to the use of the EDL.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires DMV, upon proper application, to issue driver's licenses and identification cards.

2. Authorizes, under the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the use of EDLs to prove identity and citizenship for purposes of traveling between the United States, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean, so long as the EDL meets specified requirements, including radio frequency identification (RFID) that signals a secure government data base maintained by the United States Customs and Border Protection. (Public Law 110-53.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) represents a joint effort by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004. As of January 1, 2009, WHTI began requiring U.S. citizens traveling between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean by land or sea to present a valid U.S. Passport or other WHTI-compliant document. Among the accepted documents are passports, a U.S. passport card, Trusted Traveler Program cards (NEXUS, FAST, or SENTRI), or an enhanced driver's license (EDL). Before 9-11, land travel across borders, especially between the United States and Canada, tended to be more informal and less rigorous, with border agents often accepting a birth certificate or even a person's verbal affirmation of citizenship. However, more rigorous enforcement and new requirements under IRTPA slowed border crossings and led to longer wait lines. In an effort to reduce this congestion, WHTI authorized the use of EDLs (including state-issued identification cards), and the CBP created "Ready Lanes" dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents. The goal of the EDL program is to strengthen border security and facilitate ease of entry into the United States for U.S. Citizens, especially those driving across the border on a regular basis.

Federal law requires that any border state wishing to adopt EDLs must first sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. So far at least four states – Vermont, New York, Michigan, and Washington – have enacted authorizing legislation and already have EDLs in place. New York was the first state to sign an MOU in 2007.

For the most part, the programs have met with success; for example, the New York State DMV reports on its website that over 100,000 persons have availed themselves of the new licenses, especially in upstate New York, near the Canadian border. In addition to decreasing overall wait times for travelers, EDL holders often use RFID-enabled "Ready Lanes" created by CBP. According to these official websites, use of RFID allows border patrol agents to pull up a person's information and photograph immediately without having to collect paper documents, inspect them, and then key in any required information. All of this is done automatically when the traveler holds the EDL in front of the RFID reader. The system does not, of course, allow the EDL holder to simply pass through, as in the case, for example, with FasTrak; the border patrol agents must still make a visual identification with the accessed photograph and may also ask questions or inspect the EDL of the holder.

This bill would permit California citizens traveling across the California-Mexico border to take advantage of this more convenient and time-saving process. According to the author, the idea for this bill grew out of his experience as Chair of the Select Committee on California-Mexico-Bi-National Affairs, where he became aware of the significant impact of border wait times on our state's economy. Indeed, the author provided the Committee with a 2007 report suggesting that long wait times slow commerce and discourage personal trips across the California-Mexico border. The report claims that delays at the border at the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate points-of-entry result in the loss of millions of dollars (and even billions) in lost revenue and tens of thousands of jobs in the San Diego-Baja region. (San Diego Association of Governments and the California Department of Transportation, 2007 Update to Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border: Final Report.) Not surprisingly, many of the supporters of this bill represent chambers of commerce and local officials who believe that shorter wait times and more travel across the border will translate into more trade and tourism. In addition to these economic benefits, the author also believes that this bill will allow persons who regularly cross the border to make use of the RFID-enabled "Ready Lanes."

Under the MOU authorized by this bill, the DMV could only issue an EDL to a person who requests it and is willing to pay the designated fee. No one would be forced to obtain a license. Although many of the details of the program would presumably be specified in the MOU, the bill nonetheless sets forth a number of specific requirements that the MOU must contain. For example, the bill would specify that the RFID technology must only contain a random number, and not any other personal information or biometric data; that the EDL would employ reasonable security measures, including temper-resistant features; that EDL applicants acknowledge their understanding of RFID technology; and that applicants would be informed that the random RFID number could be read remotely, especially if the EDL is removed from the protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device. According to the DMV website, in states that already issue EDLs, these protections appear to be the standard practice.

The bill also sets forth requirements for applying for an EDL. In addition to paying a fee not to exceed $55 and submitting documents proving identity and citizenship, applicants would also be required to agree to have their photograph and signature captured by DMV at the time of application or renewal. The bill specifies that the photograph or signature shall only be available to CBP and only used for purposes authorized by WHTI. It exempts the photograph, signature, or other required documents from required disclosure under the Public Records Act. Finally, the bill seeks to make the program self-funding. Proceeds from the application fee will be deposited into the Enhanced Driver's License and Identification Subaccount, which DMV will use to implement the program. Finally, the bill prohibits an employer from taking any adverse action against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL and provides remedies for a violation of this prohibition.

Privacy Concerns Surrounding the use of RFID. Much of the concern relating to EDLs, and especially the DHS rule that they include RFID technology, has focused on potential threats to privacy. Despite some technical-sounding terminology, the basic outline of how RFID and related technologies work is fairly easy to understand. RFID "tags" or "chips" can be embedded into objects, including documents, clothing, pets, and even people. The RFID technology used in EDLs typically consists of a microchip (that stores a randomly assigned number) and one or more antennae. Remote “readers” can read this tag, via radio waves. The reader constantly emits radio signals. As a person or object with an RFID tag moves near the reader – the distance varies depending upon the device – the antennae pick up the signal and transmit the number stored on the RFID tag to the reader. Most RFID tags, and apparently all of the ones used thus far for EDLs are "passive," which means that they can only be activated by the radio signal; others are "active," which means that they can actively search out readers in the area. In either case, an authorized reader with access to a secure database can then transmit this number to the database where it can be matched to information about the holder. The distinction between "passive" and "active" tags is important because, despite some claims to the contrary, EDLs do not "broadcast" any information, personal or otherwise.

In some ways, RFID technology is a higher-tech version of bar code and magnetic strip scanning. However, bar code and strip scanning requires direct contact between the scanner and the stored information (or at least the magnetic strip or barcode must be in the direct line of sight of a laser). RFID readers, on the other hand, can read the information stored on the RFID tag remotely. Many of these, like the security badges used in the Legislature, must be held within a few inches of the reader. Some RFID readers, however, may read tags from distances of 30 feet or more, according to some studies. Experts disagree on the potential range of RFID readers in the future, but as technology advances it seems reasonable to assume that those ranges will increase. However, the fact that RFID tags can be read at any distance creates the possibility that information stored on an identification document could be read without the holder's knowledge or consent.

Information Stored on the RFID Tag. Given that RFID tags can be read at a distance, and potentially without the holder's knowledge, the critical privacy concern relates to the kind of information that is actually stored on the RFID tag and the usefulness of that information to any unauthorized reader. According to CBP and agency websites in the four states that have adopted EDLs, the RFID chip only contains a randomly assigned number that has no meaning until an authorized reader transmits it to a secure government data base, where the random number is then matched to information in the secure data base. In other words, a person or agency that already has access to the data base, like the CBP, uses the random number to locate the information on the cardholder. That information does not appear on the card, and the random number, therefore, is only useful to someone who already has access to the database. Similarly, this bill expressly states that the RFID chip will contain "only a randomly assigned number" and expressly states that it "shall not contain any personal data, biometric information, or number other than the randomly assigned number." [Emphasis added.]

Even if the RFID tag contains only a random number, however, privacy concerns do not necessarily stop there. For example, privacy advocates claim that security measures must address more than the ability of the reader to access intelligible information from the tag; they must also address potential security breaches along the entire transmission process from tag, to reader, to computer database. Proponents of RFID, on the other hand, claim that RFID applications are confined to a closed system of authorized tags, readers, and databases within that system. Even if outsiders with remote readers obtained information from an RFID tag, that "information" will only consist of a random number that is only intelligible to persons within the system or to those who can access that system. If an unauthorized person has accessed a secure government database, then clearly there is bigger problem than the unauthorized reading of the random number on an RFID tag. That number does not provide access to a database or make it easier to hack the data base. Rather, the number will merely allow the border patrol, or anyone who already has access to the data base, to pull up stored data to which the number refers. If an unauthorized person could access the data base, he or she would not need the random RFID number.

Opponents also contend that the random number can itself become a piece of personally identifiable information, noting Civil Code Section 1798.3, which defines "personal information" as "any information that identifies or describes an individual." Opponents note, for example, that the social security number was originally a more or less random number that nonetheless has become permanently associated with the person to which it was assigned for the limited purpose of tracking social security benefits. However, the danger that results from the unauthorized disclosure of a social security number stems from the fact that a social security number is used for identification purposes in a variety of other contexts, such as obtaining credit, opening a bank account, or applying for a job. No one could use the random number on the EDL, as one could use a social security number, to open a line of credit or otherwise commit identity theft. The comparison between the random RFID number and a social security number, therefore, is not very persuasive. Finally, to the extent that there is any danger of unauthorized reading of the random number, this bill takes additional precautions. For example, this bill would require encryption, if agreed to by DHS, and other "reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized disclosure of personal information regarding the person who is the subject of license, permit, or card." The bill, as proposed to be amended, clarifies that all EDL applicants must receive a protective sleeve that prevent unauthorized reading.

According to the websites of the states that have entered into MOUs with DHS, the licenses appear to adopt standard tamper-resistant security measures, such as a protective "sleeve" or "Faraday shield" that covers the EDL and thereby prevents unauthorized reading of the RFID chip – so long as the sleeve is in place. Some privacy groups claim that these shields are not always adequate – in part because they are apparently not always impenetrable, and in part because there is no guarantee that people will use them. (For example, banks often place debit cards in sleeves when they first issue them and, almost as often, people throw away the sleeve.) However, this bill, like the authorizing legislation in other states, requires an applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of RFID technology. As recently amended, the DMV would also be required to inform applicants that the random RFID number could be read without the holder's knowledge, especially if the holder does not use a protective sleeve that must be provided at the time the EDL is issued. If a person chooses not to use the protective sleeve, that will be the EDL holder's choice, just as it will be a person's choice to request an EDL in the first place. However, even if the person removes or loses the shield, it deserves reiterating that the only thing the unauthorized reader would obtain would be the random number. That number is only meaningful to someone who has access to an existing database containing information about the EDL holder.

RFID and Possible Security Concerns. Opponents also contend that using RFID technology could pose security as well as privacy risks. That is, even if an RFID reader cannot access the secure data base it could potentially copy the random number and use it to create a counterfeit license. According to the ACLU of Washington State, studies suggest that such duplication is possible. However, the bill appears to anticipate this problem by specifying that security measures shall include the protective sleeve. In addition, it should be noted that even if a counterfeit EDL were made with the help of a surreptitious reader, the border patrol must still visually determine that the person presenting the EDL matches the photograph that is pulled up from the secure database. Obviously there is no foolproof means of preventing a determined person from making counterfeit EDLs, just as there is no foolproof means of preventing that person from obtaining counterfeit copies of regular driver's licenses or passports or any other form of identification.

Proposed Author's Amendments: The author will take the following amendments in this Committee. In additional to some non-substantive clarifications, the amendments listed below address two concerns raised by the ACLU: (1) the language will expressly provide that the applicant be provided with a protective shield and be informed of its purpose at the time that the document is issued (this may be implicit in the bill in print); (2) specify that all privacy laws and regulations that apply to standard driver's licenses will also apply to EDLs.

• On page 5, line 18 after "shall" insert: provide a protective shield at the time the document is issued to the individual, and

• On page 5, line 22 delete "a" and insert: the

• On page 5, lines 22-23 delete "similar tamper resistant device"

• On page 5, line 26 after "technology" insert: and the purpose of the protective shield

• On page 6, line 9 after "license" insert: instructional permit, provisional license

• On page 7, line 6 after "chapter." insert: All laws related to the privacy or security of a driver's license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification document or similar document, or regulating the use, access, or sharing of information, shall apply to enhanced driver's licenses, instruction permits, provisional licenses and identification cards.

Remaining Issues. While the amendments above meet some of the opposition's concerns, the author and opponents, and particularly the ACLU, continue to work on two other issues. However, at the time of this writing, it did not appear that those issues would be resolved in time for this hearing; any further amendments that the author agrees to will most likely need to be taken in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where this bill will be referred should it pass out of this Committee. The two remaining issues – encryption and information sharing – are detailed below.

Encryption Requirement. One of the remaining areas of disagreement between the opposition and the author concerns the need to encrypt or otherwise make a randomly assigned number unintelligible should it be intercepted by an unauthorized reader. As opponents observe, the federal government allows states to participate in the EDL program only on a "take it or leave it" basis. This bill seeks to "require" encryption of the randomly assigned number on the RFID tag, but only "if agreed to by the United States Department of Homeland Security." Opponents would like to make two changes to this provision. First, the opponents would strike the phrase, "if agreed to by the United States Department of Homeland Security." In short, the MOU would demand encryption whether the DHS agrees or not. The only option for the federal agencies at that point would be to either accept this condition or not enter into the MOU with the state at all. Second, opponents would like to revise this provision so that the EDL number must either be encrypted or it must "generate a different unique random number each time the card is read."

At this point, the author is unwilling to take those amendments. While the federal program apparently does not presently require encryption – or at least the DMV websites for the other states that issue EDLs do not list this as one of the security features – it is unknown whether or not the federal government would honor the state's demand for encryption or approve an MOU that contained such a demand. In addition, it is not entirely clear if the cost of encryption would outweigh the benefits of encryption. Encryption, after all, simply means that the sequence of characters is scrambled when sent via technology that allows unscrambling at the other end by an authorized recipient. Encryption, therefore, is generally required where a magnetic stripe or RFID tag contains information other than a random identification number (e.g. name, address, social security number, bank account number, etc.) that would be intelligible and useful if not scrambled. The value of requiring encryption of an already-random number, relative to the cost, is not entirely clear. Because the cost, benefit, and the federal government's willingness to accept an MOU that requires either encryption or a number that changes with each use are not certain, the author does not want take this amendment at this time. However, the author's office has indicated to the Committee that it is willing to work on this issue and is attempting to consult with technical staff at DMV about the feasibility of these options. The author wants to also ensure that any technological requirements required in the bill are not so specific that they preclude using more effective technologies that may become available in the future.

Law Enforcement Access and Sharing of Information. The author and opponents continue to discuss a second issue: the extent to which information about the EDL holder may be shared with other public agencies, especially law enforcement. ACLU has requested an amendment that would prohibit CBP from accessing or using information obtained through the EDL for any purpose other than facilitating border crossings. It would also prohibit CBP from sharing this information with any other public agency or private entity for information obtained through the EDL. Again, the author is not willing to take this amendment without having additional information. For example, it is not entirely clear what rules currently limit CBP's ability to use and share the data that it collects from other sources, such as standard licenses and passports. Once it is in the database, it is not entirely clear why information obtained from an EDL would be treated any differently than information obtained from some any other sources. As noted above, the author has already accepted an amendment providing that any privacy laws that apply to standard driver's license will also apply to EDLs. Of course, this begs the question of just what privacy laws apply to standard drivers' licenses. This, too, is one of the unknowns that the author wishes to explore.

Conclusion: This is the third consecutive session that the author has brought this proposal, with only minor variations, before this Committee. Both of the earlier bills – AB 2113 (2012) and SB 397 (2014) – passed unanimously out of this Committee but were held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, notwithstanding the fact that neither of those earlier bills ever received a single negative floor or committee vote. The author has taken a number of amendments to meet some of the privacy concerns raised by opponents, and the author and opponents have informed the Committee that they will continue to work on the remaining issues identified in this analysis if the bill moves forward.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Chamber of Commerce, the "ports of entry along the California-Mexico border are among the busiest ports in the world." The Chamber claims that each year forty-five million vehicle passengers cross the border at one of six points of entry, and that "the average wait for travelers at these ports is over an hour." The Chamber further claims that these delays "result in a loss of eight million trips each year," and that in San Diego County alone this translates into an estimated loss of $1.2 billion in revenues. The Chamber believes that this bill will relieve border congestion by allowing travelers to use "ready lanes," and that it will allow CBP officers to quickly assess information "and focus on the traveler's vehicle as opposed to scanning documents – reducing wait time by up to 60%."

The Imperial County Transportation Commission supports this bill for substantially the same reasons, claiming that border wait times cause "a devastating loss of nearly $1.5 billion in revenues, 3.4 million potential working hours, 39, 500 jobs, and $59 million in wages annually in the San Diego and Imperial region alone." Several other business groups, both from Southern California and from Baja California, support this bill and cite similar statistics for the economic impact on their respective locales.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a joint letter, the ACLU, Consumer Watchdog, the Eagle Forum of California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Privacy Rights Clearing House oppose this bill primarily due to their "profound privacy and security concerns about the use of insecure Radio Frequency Identity (RFID) computer chips in EDL identity documents." In addition to their general concerns that EDLs will compromise the privacy of the holder's personal information, opponents also point out that the EDL lacks some of the security measures used in passports. For example, they claim that in U.S. passports a new random number is generated each time the RFID is read, whereas EDLs now in use in other states appear to use a random number that does not change with each reading. Also, while the data embedded on the passport is encrypted, this bill only provides that the number will be encrypted if "agreed to by the United States Department of Homeland Security." Finally, opponents claim that while EDLs may be optional now, "optional government programs often turn into permanent mandatory programs."

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC) opposes this bill for many of the same reasons raised by the ACLU and others; however, the Baker Center and LSPC also believe that SB 249 will "allow law enforcement officers to racially profile Californians from a distance and without their knowledge." The Baker Center contends that "personal information contained on EDLs will be accessed by [CBP] through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), which in turn is "accessible to local law enforcement."

PREVIOUS LEGISLATION: SB 397 (Hueso) of 2014 was substantially similar to this bill except that it did not contain the requirement that the applicant be informed, in writing, that RFID random number could be read remotely and it did not provide penalty provisions enforcing the prohibition against employers taking adverse action against an employee who refused to apply for or use an EDL. That bill passed unanimously off the Senate Floor and unanimously out of this Committee but was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2113 (Hueso) of 2012, was similar to SB 397. That bill passed unanimously out of this Committee but was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

Chula Vista Mayor's Office

City of El Centro

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce

Todd Gloria, San Diego City Council Member

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

Representative Juan Vargas

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego Regional Chamber

San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

State of Baja, California

Opposition

ACLU

Consumer Watchdog

Eagle Forum

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Electronic Frontier Federation

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 249

Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver: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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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:

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

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

Analysis Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 249

Author: Hueso (D)

Amended: 4/30/15

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/7/15

AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15

AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

NOES: Moorlach, Anderson

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which individuals can use at border crossings as proof of both identity and citizenship.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). This act was intended to address the need for increased security measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To implement this legislation, with an eye to reducing border congestion, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a plan called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The WHTI requires U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or other document proving identity and citizenship to enter the country beginning in 2007 for air travel into the U.S., and in 2009 for land and sea travel into the U.S.

2. Establishes the EDL as one of the documents meeting WHTI requirements. An EDL is a driver’s license that an individual can also use as a travel document to enter the U.S. from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. A key feature distinguishing an EDL from a California driver’s license is RFID technology. RFID systems allow information contained in a wireless device, or “tag,” to be read from a distance. RFID technology can be found in car keys, security access cards, and highway toll lanes (such as FasTrak).

3. Establishes, under the WHTI, “ready lanes” at some U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border. Ready lanes are dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents, such as EDLs. Frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these lanes to expedite the inspection process. Specifically, as a traveler approaches inspection lanes at the border, authorized readers read the EDL from 10 to 15 feet away.

4. Provides that no personal information is stored on the EDL, only a number that points to information housed in the secure database. Upon reading this number, the reader signals the database to display biographical information, a photo, and the results of terrorist/criminal checks to the border patrol officer as the vehicle pulls up to the inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Four states (Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs.

Existing state law:

1. Authorizes DMV to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver’s license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back of the license or identification card.

2. Prohibits the DMV, unless requested by the licensee, from distributing or selling the licensee’s photograph or any information pertaining to the licensee’s physical characteristics to any private individual, other than the licensee, or to any firm, co-partnership, association, or corporation. That prohibition does not apply to any private business entity that contracts with DMV for the production of driver’s licenses and identification cards, if the contract prohibits unauthorized use and disclosure of the information.

3. Provides that a person or entity that intentionally remotely reads or attempts to remotely read a person’s identification document, including a driver’s license or identification card, using radio frequency identification technology (RFID), without that person’s knowledge and prior consent, shall be punished by imprisonment. Further, a person or entity that knowingly discloses, or causes to be disclosed, the operational system keys used in a contactless identification document system shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of not more than $1,500, or both.

This bill:

1. Authorizes DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to obtain approval to issue an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card (hereafter referred to generally as an EDL) that meets WHTI requirements. Authorizes the DMV to issue or renew an EDL to an applicant who is 16 years or older and is both a California resident and a U.S. citizen.

2. Requires an applicant to submit proof of identity, California residency, and U.S. citizenship and to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid. Also requires the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of RFID technology.

3. Requires DMV to inform the applicant in writing that the randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, if the EDL is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device.

4. Requires DMV to include in the EDL reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information. Limits the RFID technology in the EDL to contain only a randomly assigned number, encrypted subject to DHS approval, and a bar code that can only be read by border patrol.

5. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to apply for or use an EDL as a condition of employment or to discharge, discriminate against, or retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL.

6. Authorizes an employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated or retaliated against in relation to an EDL to file a complaint with the Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards within one year.

7. Requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her photograph and signature at the time of application or renewal and provides that these items shall only be available to border patrol or DHS.

8. Requires DMV to verify the validity of an EDL application or renewal and accompanying proof. Authorizes DMV to require the applicant to submit additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship. Authorizes DMV to deny an application if it finds the application or supporting documentation is inadequate or invalid.

9. Establishes a non-refundable fee of $55 for application or renewal, in addition to other fees required by state law, to be deposited in a special account within the Motor Vehicle Account.

10. Specifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with any other state or federal law.

11. Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature including, but not limited to, information on the number of EDLs and related documents issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at ports of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs or related documents.

Comments

Purpose. The author states that each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California through the six ports of entry from Mexico. Long wait times, as high as three to four hours, between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 jobs lost nationally in 2007. More recent studies indicate a $620 million loss due to congestion at the Imperial County ports of entry and a nearly $1.3 billion revenue loss at the San Diego ports of entry. The author states that the EDL could both significantly reduce wait times at the border and strengthen border security.

EDLs and RFID technology. An RFID tag with a power source is an “active” tag that can transmit a radio wave transmitting information to any reader in the area. An RFID without a power source is a “passive” tag; a reader can remotely read the information when the tag gets within a certain range of the reader. While an RFID tag is similar to bar code technology, it differs in that it can be read remotely, without having to swipe the bar code, and in that much more information can be stored on an RFID tag chip than on a bar code. The EDL proposed in this bill would include a passive tag. In addition, as required by the WHTI, this bill specifies that the EDL would contain only a number that points to information housed in the border patrol’s secure database.

What about AB 60? AB 60 (Alejo, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2013) requires the DMV to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S. These applicants must meet all other qualifications for licensure and must provide satisfactory proof of identity and California residency. AB 60 specifies that a license issued under these provisions is valid only for driving privileges and cannot be used for identification or federal purposes. The DMV began issuing these licenses on January 2, 2015. Because this bill requires that an individual must be a U.S. citizen in order to obtain an EDL, individuals holding an AB 60 driver’s license would not be eligible.

Prior legislation. SB 397 (Hueso), which the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee passed on an 11-0 vote in 2013 but the Assembly Appropriations Committee subsequently held on the suspense file, was almost identical to this bill.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Initial DMV costs of approximately $4.37 million (Motor Vehicle Account) over several fiscal years, to the extent DMV implements a program to issue EDLs. These costs must be incurred prior to collecting application fee revenues.
  
  

• Ongoing DMV costs of approximately $641,000 in 2019-20, $1.28 million in 2021-22, and $1.22 million annually thereafter to handle increased workload for Investigations and Privacy staff and in field offices (Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Subaccount, created by this bill).
  
  

• Unknown revenue increases, beginning in 2019-20. If DMV set the fee at the maximum of $55, it is estimated that implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded during the 2021-2022 fiscal year. (Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Subaccount).
  
  

• Unknown workload costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to handle any discrimination or retaliation complaints against employers. (Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/15)

Baja California State Government

Calexico Chamber of Commerce

California Chamber of Commerce

Casa Familiar

City of San Diego

El Centro Chamber of Commerce

Imperial County Transportation Commission

Mayor of Chula Vista

Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce

San Diego Association of Governments

San Diego Regional Chamber

Smart Border Coalition

Two individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/15)

American Civil Liberties Union

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Chamber of Commerce (Cal Chamber) states that border delays result in the loss of eight million trips each year. In the San Diego region alone, this results in an estimated loss of $1.2 billion in revenues. Cal Chamber states that by reducing border wait times, this bill will promote economic growth through the increased movement of both travelers and consumers.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states that it has “profound privacy and security concerns about the use of insecure Radio Frequency Identity (RFID) computer chips in EDL identity documents.”

Writing in opposition to the prior version of this bill, the ACLU argued that RFID chips in EDLs are not as secure as those used in passports, which use a different identifying number each time the passport is used. The ACLU argued that RFIDs can transmit the holder’s identifying number, which is not encrypted, up to 30 feet, which potentially compromises the holder’s personally identifying information associated with that number. Although this bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee to require DMV to inform the applicant in writing that the randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, if the EDL is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device, the ACLU is still opposed to this bill.

Prepared by: Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121

5/31/15 13:09:37

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 249 (Hueso) - Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 249 would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue an enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card (collectively referred to as an EDL) that is acceptable as proof of identity, residency, and citizenship for purposes of cross-border travel at United States land and sea ports of entry.

Fiscal Impact:

• Initial DMV costs of approximately $4.37 million (Motor Vehicle Account) over several fiscal years, to the extent the department implements a program to issue EDLs. These costs must be incurred prior to collecting application fee revenues.
  
  

• Ongoing DMV costs of approximately $641,000 in 2019-20, $1.28 million in 2021-22, and $1.22 million annually thereafter to handle increased workload for Investigations and Privacy staff and in field offices (Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Subaccount, created by this bill).
  
  

• Unknown revenue increases, beginning in 2019-20. If DMV set the fee at the maximum of $55, staff estimates that implementation and ongoing costs would be fully funded during the 2021-2022 fiscal year. (Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Subaccount).
  
  

• Unknown workload costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to handle any discrimination or retaliation complaints against employers. (Labor Enforcement Compliance Fund)

Background:

Existing law authorizes the DMV to issue driver's licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver's license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. The DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back card. Existing law, AB 60 (Alejo), Chap 524/2013, requires DMV to issue a driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S., if the applicant meets all other qualifications and provides proof of identity and California residency. An AB 60 license is only valid for driving privileges.

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) was established by the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement legislation passed after the 9/11 attacks to enhance security measures. By requiring all citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted document that establishes identity and nationality to enter or depart the US, the WHTI is intended to facilitate entry into the United States while also enhancing border security. The WHTI requires proof of identity and citizenship beginning in 2007 for air travel, and in 2009 when entering at a land or sea port of entry. In addition to a valid passport and U.S. passport card, an EDL is a valid travel document for purposes of the WHTI. An EDL must contain technology that facilitates inspection at a border crossing, such as Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID technology).

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) has established “ready lanes” at some ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border, that are dedicated for travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents such as EDLs. Frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these ready lanes to expedite the inspection process. An EDL facilitates the verification process because it includes a vicinity RFID chip that will signal a secure system to pull up biographic data, a photo, and terrorist/criminal background information as an EDL holder approaches a border inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Five states (Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs. The province of Quebec recently discontinued the issuance of EDLs, citing low demand.

Proposed Law:

SB 249 would authorize DMV to issue EDLs that is acceptable as proof of identity and citizenship pursuant to the WHTI. Specifically, this bill would:

• Authorize DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a federal agency for purposes of obtaining approval to issue EDLs.

• Authorize DMV to issue an EDL to an applicant who is at least 16 years of age, a resident of California, and a citizen of the United States, and requires the applicant to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid, and to acknowledge understanding of RFID technology.

• Require DMV to inform an applicant that a randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge if the EDL is not in a protective shield or other tamper-resistant device.

• Require DMV to include reasonable security measures in the EDL to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information.

• Require an EDL to include RFID technology that would only contain a randomly assigned number, encrypted subject to DHS approval, and a barcode or machine readable zone that can be read by border patrol.

• Prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for or use an EDL as a condition of employment or to discharge, discriminate against, or retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL.

• Authorize an employee subject to that treatment to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards and Employment against the employer within one year of the violation.

• Require an applicant for an EDL to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her facial image and signature at the time of application or renewal. These items would only be available to border patrol or DHS.

• Require DMV to examine and verify the genuineness, regularity, and legality of an application and proof, and authorize DMV to require submission of additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship.

• Require DMV to deny an application for an EDL if it is not satisfied with the genuineness, regularity, and legality of the application and supporting documentation, and authorizes an applicant to appeal the denial, as specified.

• Authorize DMV to establish a non-refundable fee of up to $55 for application or renewal of an EDL, in addition to other fees required by state law.

• Require EDL fees to be deposited into the Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Card Subaccount, a special account established by the bill the Motor Vehicle Account.

• Require DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature that includes information on the number of EDLs issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at border points of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs.

Related Legislation:

SB 397 (Hueso), introduced in the 2013-14 session, would have authorized DMV to issue an enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card, and was nearly identical to this bill. SB 397 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File in 2013.

Staff Comments:

DMV would incur substantial up-front costs of approximately $4.37 million to implement an EDL program. It would be at least several years before such a program could be fully implemented. DMV would be required to enter into a comprehensive MOU with DHS and establish secure database connectivity with multiple entities to verify source documentation. In addition, DMV would need to adopt regulations that include procedures for accepting documents proving identity, residency, and citizenship, prescribing an interview process, and establishing criteria for approval or denial of an EDL, including an appeals process. DMV also anticipates significant programming costs and equipment purchases, such as RFID readers.

DMV anticipates there would be approximately 300,000 EDL applicants over five years. The department would likely award a new driver’s license/ID card contract that includes EDLs in 2019, so issuance of EDLs would not commence until January 2020. To minimize costs and impacts on field offices, DMV would strategically select those that are expected to demonstrate high demand for the new cards, including offices with high tourism rates and those near the California-Mexico border. Since fee revenues would not begin to come in until the program is implemented in 2019-20, the initial $4.37 million in estimated startup costs would be a cost to the Motor Vehicle Account, which could be reimbursed over several years.

Staff notes that the State Department currently issues a passport card that can be used to verify identity and citizenship at border ports of entry, in compliance with the WHTI. The application fee for a passport card is $55 and it is valid for ten years.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 249 (Author:Hueso)

Amended: Version: February 18, 2015

Hearing Date: April 21, 2015

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: TMW

SUBJECT

Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

DESCRIPTION

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the issuance of an enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card. This bill would authorize the DMV to issue or renew, upon request, an enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card for specified persons.

This bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an enhanced driver’s license or identification card as a condition of employment or to discriminate or otherwise retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an enhanced driver’s license or identification card.

This bill would also require the DMV to submit an annual report, as specified, on the implementation of the enhanced driver’s license and identification card. The bill would require a person applying for an enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card to submit an additional application fee, not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost or $55, whichever is less, and to provide specified information to the applicant.

BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was passed and, as of June 1, 2009, requires all citizens of the United States (U.S.), Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted document that establishes the bearer’s identity and nationality to enter or depart the U.S. from within the Western Hemisphere. (Public Law 108-458.) In 2008, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53) (WHTI) established the document requirements for travel by land or sea into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the goal of WHTI is to strengthen border security while facilitating entry in the U.S. for its citizens and legitimate international travelers, making the process more efficient and convenient. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Fact Sheet, WHTI Land and Sea Travel Document Requirements <http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/whti_state_ factsheet.pdf> [as of Apr. 9, 2015].)

To re-enter the U.S., U.S. citizens can present a valid U.S. passport, passport card, enhanced driver’s license, trusted traveler program card, U.S. military identification card, U.S. merchant mariner document, FORM I-872 American Indian card, or enhanced tribal card. Several states, including Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington, are producing enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which fulfill the WHTI requirements and provide travelers with an additional means to prove identification and citizenship when entering the U.S. EDLs contain a radio frequency identification chip (RFID) that is machine readable and transmits and receives data.

This bill would authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to contract with a federal agency to issue EDLs, which would contain RFIDs that transmit a number associated with the identification and citizenship of the holder. This bill would also provide employment retaliation protections for individuals who do not want to obtain an EDL, and make the documentation required to be provided by an EDL applicant to the DMV confidential and non-disclosable.

This bill is substantially similar to SB 1213 (Hueso, 2014), which was held in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, SB 397 (Hueso, 2013), which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, AB 2113 (Hueso, 2012), which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and AB 17 (Hueso, 2013), which was held in the Assembly Transportation Committee.

This bill was heard by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 7, 2015, and passed out on a vote of 11-0.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that all people in this state have an inalienable, constitutional right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art I, Sec. 1.)

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, precludes a state agency from disclosing personal information it possesses “in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains,” except in specified circumstances. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.24.)

Existing law provides that a person or entity that intentionally remotely reads or attempts to remotely read a person’s identification document, including a driver’s license or identification card, using radio frequency identification (RFID), for the purpose of reading that person’s identification document without that person’s knowledge and prior consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of not more than $1,500, or both that fine and imprisonment. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.79(a).) Further, a person or entity that knowingly discloses, or causes to be disclosed, the operational system keys used in a contactless identification document system shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of not more than $1,500, or both that fine and imprisonment. (Civ. Code Sec. 1798.79(b).)

Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards (IDs). (Veh. Code Sec. 12500 et seq.) Existing law prohibits the DMV, unless requested by the licensee, from distributing or selling the licensee’s picture or photograph or any information pertaining to the licensee’s physical characteristics to any private individual, other than the licensee, or to any firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. That prohibition does not apply to any private business entity that contracts with the DMV for the production of driver’s licenses and IDs, if the contract prohibits the unauthorized use and disclosure of the information. (Veh. Code Sec. 12800.5(a).)

This bill would authorize the DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency for the purposes of obtaining approval for the issuance of an enhanced driver’s license (EDL), instruction permit, provisional license, or ID that is acceptable as proof of identity and citizenship pursuant to the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-458).

This bill would authorize, upon the request of an applicant, the DMV to issue an initial EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID to, or renew the EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID of, a person who satisfies all of the following: (1) is 16 years of age or older; (2) is a resident of this state; and (3) is a citizen of the United States.

This bill would require, in addition to other information required to apply for a driver’s license, the applicant to submit sufficient proof that meets the requirements of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-458) to establish his or her identity, residency, and citizenship.

This bill would require the EDL applicant to certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the information submitted is true and correct to the best of the knowledge of the applicant, and require the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of radio frequency identification technology.

This bill would require the EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID to include:

• radio frequency identification technology that will contain only a randomly assigned encrypted number, as specified, and no personal data, biometric information, or number other than the randomly assigned number;

• a machine readable zone or barcode that can be electronically read by the cross border patrol and contains only as much information as is required by the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-458) to permit a border crossing; and

• reasonable security measures, including tamper-resistant features to prevent unauthorized duplication or cloning and to protect against unauthorized disclosure of personal information regarding the person who is the subject of the license, permit, or card.

This bill would provide that an EDL may be suspended, revoked, or restricted.

This bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for, or use, an EDL or ID as a condition of employment, and prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee who refuses to apply for, or use, an EDL or ID.

This bill would require the DMV to inform the applicant, either orally or in writing, that the randomly assigned radio frequency identification number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, especially if the EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device.

This bill would require an applicant applying for an initial EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID, or renewing an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID, to have his or her photograph and signature captured or reproduced by the DMV at the time of application or renewal.

This bill would provide that the photograph and signature would only be available to the United States Customs and Border Protection database or as required by the United States Department of Homeland Security for purposes of facilitating the purpose of the federal Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (Public Law 110-53 and Public Law 108-458), and prohibit the DMV from disclosing the person’s photograph or signature, or copies of a digital image of any document required.

This bill would require the DMV to examine and verify the genuineness, regularity, and legality of an application and proof submitted to the DMV for an initial issuance or renewal of an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID.

This bill would authorize the DMV to require the submission of additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship.

This bill would require the DMV to deny an application or renewal of an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID if the DMV is not satisfied with the genuineness, regularity, and legality of the application or supporting documentation or the truth of any statement contained in the application or supporting documentation, or for any other reason authorized by law.

This bill would authorize an applicant to appeal, as specified, the DMVs denial of an application for the issuance or renewal of an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID.

This bill would require the DMV to retain copies or digital images of documents provided by the applicant.

This bill would require the DMV, except as required by other law, in the case of the denial of an application for the issuance or renewal of an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or ID, 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 shall be retained for not less than 10 years.

This bill would exempt the required photograph, signature, copies, and digital image of documents from public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

This bill would prohibit, except as required by federal law, information submitted by an applicant from being disclosed to a foreign nation.

This bill would require the applicant, in addition to other required fees, to submit an additional nonrefundable application fee with the application. This bill would require the DMV to set, by regulation, that application fee in an amount not to exceed the reasonable regulatory cost or $55, whichever is less.

This bill would require fees submitted to be deposited into the Enhanced Driver’s License and Identification Card Subaccount, as specified.

This bill would require the DMV to submit an annual report, as specified, to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary, the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing, and the Assembly Committee on Transportation. This bill would require the report to include, but not be limited to, information on the number of EDLs and IDs issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at points of entry, and whether or not there have been any security or privacy breaches related to the use of the EDLs and IDs.

This bill would make various related legislative findings and declarations.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

There are seven land crossings referred to as Points of Entry (POEs). The San Diego County-Tijuana/Tecate region is home to the San Ysidro-Puerta México, the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, and the Tecate-Tecate port of entry, Otay Mesa East (proposed) while the Imperial County-Mexicali region hosts the Calexico-Mexicali, Calexico East-Mexicali II, and Andrade-Los Algodones.

Each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California from the six ports of entry -- San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, Tecate, Calexico, Calexico East and Andrade. In San Ysidro, the busiest port of entry in the world, an astounding 50,000 vehicles and 25,000 pedestrians are processed into the U.S. each day. Congestion at these POEs has led to significant negative impacts on air quality, neighboring communities, businesses, tourists, and employees traveling to work.

Long wait times (as high as three to four hours) between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 lost jobs nationally in 2007. More recent studies on the Imperial POEs show that losses to California, alone, were $620 million. The San Diego POEs have similarly been impacted, with a loss of nearly $1.3 billion in revenues, three million potential working hours, 35,000 jobs and $42 million in wages annually in the San Diego region alone.

In order to fully leverage California’s economy and improve trade, business, and tourism, the state needs a modern, efficient and responsible way to expedite the movement of people across the California-Mexico border. The [enhanced driver’s license (EDL)] can greatly reduce wait times at the border by incentivizing significantly more cross-border travel thereby resulting in increased revenue and other economic benefits to California, while strengthening border security.

2. Radio frequency transmission chip transfer of information

As of June 1, 2009, a change in federal law requires most United States citizens to present a valid passport or other document to enter the United States at all land and sea border crossings between the United States (U.S.) and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and some countries in the Caribbean. This bill would authorize the DMV to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs) and identification cards (IDs) containing a radio frequency identification number (RFID), which transmits identification and citizenship information in the form of a randomly assigned number associated with the EDL or ID holder to the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol monitoring points of entry into the U.S.

The author asserts that state-issued EDLs and IDs, which are already in use in four other states, are cheaper than passports and are expected to ease long lines at border crossings between the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and Mexico. The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), in support, states that “[t]he ports of entry along the California-Mexico border are among the busiest ports in the world. Each year, forty five million vehicle passengers cross the border via one of the six ports of entry. At San Ysidro Port, fifty thousand vehicles are processed by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) each day. The average wait for travelers at these ports is over an hour. These delays result in a loss of eight million trips each year. In the San Diego region alone, this results in an estimated loss of $1.2 billion in revenues.” CalChamber contends that easing border crossings is a plus for the economy, ensuring that commerce continues to flow freely and securely, while offering a convenience for all U.S. citizens who travel in North America.

The American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU), in opposition, argues that the information transmitted by the radio frequency identification chips (RFIDs) are not like those used in passports, which use a different identifying number each time the passport is used. Those groups argue that RFIDs can transmit the holder’s identifying number, which is not encrypted, up to 30 feet, which potentially compromises the holder’s personally identifying information associated with that number.

According to a recent news article, RFIDs in passports “can be scanned only by someone at close range with an RFID reader, usually within a couple feet. While there’s valid concern about having your microchipped passport ‘skimmed’ [(collected)] by a tech thief, actually having it happen is unlikely, some security officials say.” The article further reported:

“Yes, someone nearby could read what’s in your wallet. That’s why I keep my passport in an RFID-shielded wallet,” said G. Mark Hardy, president of National Security Corp., based in Rosedale, Md., which provides cybersecurity expertise to government and corporate clients. But, he said, “it’s less likely to happen, at this point in time, because it’s so much easier to do fraud some other way.”

Since August 2007, all U.S. passports have come embedded with an RFID chip, intended to deter fraud and improve security. The chip contains the same information as on the passport’s picture page, including a digital version of your passport photograph. (You can still use a pre-2007 passport that doesn’t contain a chip. Once your passport expires, a new one will contain an RFID chip.)

According to the federal Bureau of Consular Affairs, the passport chip is designed with security features to thwart unauthorized access. Also, it can be “read” only when the passport book is open. When the cover is shut, the information on the chip supposedly can’t be scanned by an RFID device.

Separately, a newer U.S. travel document, a wallet-sized passport card, also has a chip. It contains only an identification number, not personal information from the card itself. However, “To address concerns that passport card bearers can be tracked by this technology,” the consular bureau’s website says, “We are requiring that the vendor provide a sleeve that will prevent the (passport) card from being read while inside it.” (C. Buck, Microchips in our passports and credit cards: Are they safe?, The Sacramento Bee (May 18, 2014) <http://www.sacbee.com/news/ business/personal-finance/claudia-buck/article2599038.html> [as of Apr. 9, 2015].)

Opponents also contend that this bill fails to include any provisions requiring shielding or other physical tamper-resistant measures, basic protections that can and should be added to any use of EDL and have been found to effectively reduce the potential of long-range unknown reading and other tampering. Supporters note that an EDL is an optional method of identification and border crossers can still use a passport if they prefer. The author also notes that the bill explicitly requires applicants to sign a declaration acknowledging their understanding of RFID technology and applicants would be informed by the DMV that the randomly assigned RFID can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, especially if the EDL or ID is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device. However, another article discusses the weakness of RFIDs in passports as follows:

To be sure, the RFID tags contain no personally identifiable information, but rather what amounts to a record pointer to a secure Department of Homeland Security database. But because the pointer is a unique number, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil libertarians warn the cards are still susceptible to abuse, especially if their RFID tags can be read and captured in large numbers. Cloning the unique electronic identifier is the first step in creating fraudulent passport cards, they say.

The cards also amount to electronic license plates that could be used to conduct clandestine surveillance. Law enforcement officials could scan them at political rallies and then store them in databases. The tags could also be correlated to other signals, such as electronic toll-booth payment systems or RFID-based credit cards, to track the detailed movements of their holders. (D. Goodin, Passport RFIDs cloned wholesale by $250 eBay auction spree, The Register (Feb. 2, 2009) <http://www. theregister.co.uk/2009/02/02/low_cost_rfid_cloner/?page=2> [as of Apr. 9, 2015].)

The author contends that this bill requires encryption (if agreed to by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) and prohibits the RFID from containing any other personal data, biometric information, or number other than the randomly assigned number. The author also notes that the EDL or ID would contain a barcode that can be read and used only by border patrol or the Department of Homeland Security. Further, the bill requires reasonable security measures, including tamper-resistant features to prevent unauthorized duplication or cloning and protection against unauthorized disclosure of personal information of the holder of the EDL or ID. Additionally, existing law provides criminal and civil liability against individuals who unlawfully remotely reads or attempts to remotely read a person’s identification document, including a driver’s license or identification card, using RFID.

Notably, the bill would require the DMV to annually report to DHS a number of statistics, including the number of security or privacy breaches from using an EDL. Because of the ever-increasing use of RFIDs in credit cards, security badges, other forms of identification, car keys, and toll tags, it may be difficult for the DMV to determine whether a privacy breach is related to transmission of the RFID in an EDL.

It is important to note that this bill would require the DMV to notify the applicant, either orally or in writing, that the randomly assigned RFID can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, especially if the EDL or ID is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device. To clarify this requirement and make certain the applicant is aware of the need to carry the EDL or ID in a protective shield, the author offers the following amendments:

Author’s amendments:

1. On page 5, strikes lines 30-35.

2. On page 5, before line 1, insert: “(3) The department shall inform the applicant in writing that the randomly assigned radio frequency identification number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, especially if the enhanced driver’s license, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar tamper-resistant device.”

3. On page 5, in line 1, strike and insert “(3)” with “(4)”.

This notice could be placed in the application for the EDL or ID so the applicant is informed prior to filling out the application.

3. Retaliation and discrimination prohibition

This bill would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to apply for or use an EDL as a condition of employment and prohibits the employer from retaliating against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL. Supporters state that this provision is necessary to protect employees who cross borders on a regular basis in the course of their employment. This provision would prohibit an employer from coercing an employee to use an EDL or ID if the employee prefers to use his or her passport or other recognized means of proving identification and citizenship at U.S. borders.

Although this bill would provide protection from retaliation or discrimination against a worker who does not want to obtain an enhanced driver’s license, the bill does not contain any mechanism to enforce this protection. For other employment retaliation claims, existing law provides that any person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within six months after the occurrence of the violation. (Lab. Code Sec. 98.7.)

To provide enforceable retaliation protection, the author offers the following amendment to cross-reference the applicable employment retaliation enforcement provision under the Labor Code:

Author’s amendment:

On page 5, between lines 29 and 30, insert:

(3) An employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has exercised his or her rights as set forth in this subdivision may file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 98.7 of the Labor Code.

(4) Notwithstanding any time limitation in Section 98.7 of the Labor Code, an employee may file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the Department of Industrial Relations based upon a violation of this subdivision within one year from the date of occurrence of the violation.

4. California Public Records Act exemption

This bill would exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act the photograph, signature, copies, and digital image of documents of an applicant required by the DMV to obtain an EDL or ID. This provision recognizes the public policy of maintaining individual privacy, provides protection against identity theft, and is consistent with the confidentiality statutes for driver’s licenses and identification cards. (See Veh. Code Secs. 12800.5, 12800.7.)

Support: Baja California State Government; California Chamber of Commerce; Casa Familiar; City of San Diego; Councilmember Todd Gloria, City of San Diego; Hon. Juan Vargas, Representative, 51st District, California, United States House of Representatives; Imperial County Transportation Commission; Mayor Mary Casillas Salas, City of Chula Vista; Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce; San Diego Association of Governments, Executive Committee; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce; San Diego-Tijuana Smart Border Coalition

Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union of California; Calegislation; Consumer Action; Consumer Watchdog; Eagle Forum of California; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Gun Owners of California; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

HISTORY

Source: Author

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

SB 1213 (Hueso, 2014) See Background.

SB 397 (Hueso, 2013) See Background.

AB 2113 (Hueso, 2012) See Background.

AB 17 (Hueso, 2013) See Background.

Prior Vote: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee: (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 249 Hearing Date: 4/7/2015

SUBJECT: Vehicles: enhanced driver’s license

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue enhanced driver’s licenses (EDLs), which individuals can use at border crossings as proof of both identity and citizenship.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law authorizes DMV to issue driver’s licenses and identification cards. In order to obtain a driver’s license or identification card, an individual must provide, among other things, a social security number, verification of birth date and legal presence in the U.S., and a thumb print. DMV encodes the individual’s basic personal information in a magnetic strip on the back of the license or identification card.

To address the need for increased security measures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). To implement this legislation, with an eye to reducing border congestion, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a plan called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). The WHTI requires U.S. and Canadian travelers to present a passport or other document proving identity and citizenship to enter the country beginning in 2007 for air travel into the U.S. and in 2009 for land and sea travel into the U.S. The EDL is one of the documents meeting WHTI requirements.

An EDL is a driver’s license that an individual can also use as a travel document to enter the U.S. from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. A key feature distinguishing an EDL from a California driver’s license is Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. RFID systems allow information contained in a wireless device or “tag” to be read from a distance. RFID technology can be found in car keys, security access cards, and highway toll lanes (such as FasTrak).

Under the WHTI, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol) created “ready lanes” at some ports of entry, including Calexico East, Otay Mesa, and San Ysidro on the California-Mexico border.

Ready lanes are dedicated to travelers with RFID-enabled travel documents, such as EDLs; frequent travelers who hold EDLs can use these lanes to expedite the inspection process. Specifically, as a traveler approaches inspection lanes at the border, authorized readers read the EDL from 10 to 15 feet away. The WHTI provides that no personal information is stored on the EDL, but rather a number that points to information housed in the secure database. Upon reading this number, the reader signals the database to display biographical information, a photo, and the results of terrorist/criminal checks to the border patrol officer as the vehicle pulls up to the inspection booth. While the officer must still conduct a visual inspection, and potentially interview the driver, he or she does not have to take the time to collect paper documents and key them in. Four states (Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington), as well as several Canadian provinces, are currently issuing EDLs.

This bill:

Authorizes DMV to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a federal agency to obtain approval to issue an EDL, instruction permit, provisional license, or identification card (hereafter referred to generally as an EDL) that meets WHTI requirements. Authorizes the DMV to issue or renew an EDL to an applicant who is 16 years or older and is both a California resident and a U.S. citizen.

Requires an applicant to submit proof of identity, California residency, and U.S. citizenship and to certify under penalty of perjury that the information is valid. Also requires the applicant to sign a declaration acknowledging his or her understanding of RFID technology.

Requires DMV to include in the EDL reasonable security measures to protect against unauthorized duplication or disclosure of the holder’s personal information. Limits the RFID technology in the EDL to contain only a randomly assigned number, encrypted subject to DHS approval, and a bar code that can only be read by border patrol.

Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to apply for or use an EDL as a condition of employment or to discharge, discriminate against, or retaliate against an employee who refuses to apply for or use an EDL.

Requires DMV to inform the applicant that the randomly assigned RFID number can be read remotely without the holder’s knowledge, particularly if the EDL is not enclosed in a protective shield or similar cloaking device.

Requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture and reproduce his or her photograph and signature at the time of application or renewal and provides that these items shall only be available to border patrol or DHS.

Requires DMV to verify the validity of an EDL application or renewal and accompanying proof. Authorizes DMV to require the applicant to submit additional information to establish identity, residency, and citizenship. Authorizes DMV to deny an application if it finds the application or supporting documentation is inadequate or invalid.

Establishes a non-refundable fee of $55 for application or renewal, in addition to other fees required by state law, to be deposited in a special account within the Motor Vehicle Account.

Specifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with any other state or federal law.

Requires DMV to submit an annual report to the Legislature including, but not limited to, information on the number of EDLs and related documents issued, the effect on wait times and traffic congestion at ports of entry, and whether or not there have been security or privacy breaches related to the use of EDLs or related documents.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author states that each year, 45 million vehicle passengers and 15 million pedestrians cross the border into California through the six ports of entry from Mexico. Long wait times, as high as three to four hours, between Imperial County and the Mexico border accounted for an estimated output loss of $1.4 billion and 11,600 jobs lost nationally in 2007. More recent studies indicate a $620 million loss to due to congestion at the Imperial County ports of entry and a nearly $1.3 billion revenue loss at the San Diego ports of entry. The author states that the EDL could both significantly reduce wait times at the border and strengthen border security.

2. EDLs and RFID technology. An RFID tag with a power source is an “active” tag that can transmit a radio wave transmitting information to any reader in the area. An RFID without a power source is a “passive” tag; a reader can remotely read the information when the tag gets within a certain range of the reader. While an RFID tag is similar to bar code technology, it differs in that it can be read remotely, without having to swipe the bar code, and in that much more information can be stored on an RFID tag chip than on a bar code. The EDL proposed in this bill would include a passive tag. In addition, as required by the WHTI, this bill specifies that the EDL would contain only a number that points to information housed in the border patrol’s secure database.

3. What about AB 60? AB 60 (Alejo), Chapter 524, Statutes of 2013, requires the DMV to issue an original driver’s license to an individual who is unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the U.S. These applicants must meet all other qualifications for licensure and must provide satisfactory proof of identity and California residency. AB 60 specifies that a license issued under these provisions is valid only for driving privileges and cannot be used for identification or federal purposes. The DMV began issuing these licenses on January 2, 2015. Because this bill requires that an individual must be a U.S. citizen in order to obtain an EDL, individuals holding an AB 60 driver’s license would not be eligible.

4. Previous legislation. SB 397 (Hueso), which this committee passed on an 11-0 vote in 2013 but was subsequently held on the suspense file by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was almost identical to this bill. This bill differs from the version of SB 397 voted on by this committee in that it incorporates several provisions added in subsequent committees to address privacy concerns raised by civil rights organizations. Specifically, this bill requires an applicant to allow DMV to capture or reproduce his or her photograph and signature, rather than his or her facial image and signature; clarifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with any other state or federal law; and requires DMV to inform applicants that the random RFID number can be read remotely without their knowledge. This bill also authorizes DMV to charge a $55 fee rather than a $75 fee.

5. Double referral. The Rules Committee has referred this bill to both this committee and the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, if this bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the Judiciary Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 1, 2015.)

SUPPORT:

City of San Diego

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --