Part G
TRANSPORTATION AND MOTOR VEHICLES
MASS TRANSIT
Paratransit Services
Senate Bill 247/House Bill 921 (both passed) repeal the June 30, 1999, termination date on a provision of the law requiring the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) to provide annual grants to offset the local costs of providing paratransit services that are complementary to fixed route service as required under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Paratransit services include ADA-eligible transportation for the elderly and disabled by a variety of vehicles, including contracted taxicab services. Paratransit service is used to accommodate trips that individuals need to obtain medical treatment, including chemotherapy and kidney dialysis; to get to jobs; or to meet other appropriate transportation needs.
In 1994, the General Assembly enacted provisions of law requiring MDOT to provide annual grants of up to $3.2 million for any one fiscal year for paratransit service provided by counties or municipalities that complements fixed route transportation service as required by the ADA. In 1995, the amount was increased to $3.5 million. In 1996, the amount was again increased to its current level of $4 million, and a three-year "sunset", or abrogation, provision was added.
The fiscal 2000 budget allowance assumed the continuation of the grant program and included $3,382,051, which the budget committees subsequently deleted, citing the sunset date of the program. Passage of this legislation ensures the restoration of funding for the program. The level of funding in future years should remain relatively constant; however, by law it cannot exceed $4 million annually.
MARYLAND AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Maryland Aviation Commission
House Bill 127 (passed) gives the Maryland Aviation Commission the authority to independently set the qualifications, appointment, salaries, and leave, for up to 12 of its management employees of the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA). House Bill 127 is intended to address concerns raised by MDOT and the Commission regarding the State's difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified management personnel to operate airport facilities. During the 1998 session, the General Assembly enacted similar legislation giving the Maryland Port Administration the authority to independently set the qualifications, appointment, salaries, and leave, for up to 12 of its management employees, because of the Port's inability to recruit qualified top executives. The MAA has indicated that it will increase the annual salaries for the 12 positions by approximately $94,000 (including fringe benefits). Although it is not known what the distribution of the salary increase will be, the salaries of the seven employees currently in the executive pay plan range from approximately $71,000 to $112,400. House Bill 127 provides that fiscal 2000 increases for the 12 employees may not exceed 4% of their existing fiscal 1999 salary.
HIGHWAYS
Sidewalk Construction
House Bill 310 (passed) repeals the limitation on the State's share of the cost of sidewalk construction and reconstruction projects that otherwise would have remained in effect through fiscal 2001. Under current law, State funding for sidewalk construction is capped at $2 million. House Bill 310 responds to administrative concerns raised by MDOT that since sidewalk construction/reconstruction projects are initiated by local governments, MDOT does not control when sidewalk construction projects begin and end or when expenses are incurred. As a result, project expenditures may be carried over from one fiscal year to the next. Lifting the $2 million funding cap will allow for more flexibility in cash flow changes.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
During the 1998 interim, the Governor and the Legislative Leadership established the Transportation Investment Commission to address concerns regarding long-term transportation funding. One of the main sources of tax and fee revenue for the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is the motor fuel tax. The tax is not inflation sensitive and has not been increased since 1992 when it was raised 5 cents to its current level of 23.5 cents per gallon. The commission's charge was to review the current level of funding, to project future transportation demands, and to determine whether a revenue enhancement was necessary in the 1999 Session. Seeing no immediate need for any such revenue enhancement, the commission did not recommend any legislation increasing the motor fuel tax or any other source of revenue for the TTF.
In the alternative, House Joint Resolution 6 (passed) requests the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House to establish a 25-member Commission on Transportation Investment to further examine the transportation needs of the State, receive input from the public, and review the current transportation funding system. The commission will make recommendations on: (1) the magnitude of system preservation and unmet transportation needs that must be funded; (2) the appropriate level of funding necessary to support a viable transportation system that is within the abilities of the MDOT to administer; and (3) the development of a comprehensive, long-term solution that generates sufficient revenues to maintain a viable transportation system and meet the long-term funding needs of mass transit. The commission must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 1999.
ACCESS TO RECORDS OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION
In 1994, in response to a number of well-publicized cases in which personal information was obtained from motor vehicle records and then used to stalk and harm individuals, Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq.) as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The states were given a three-year period to bring their laws into compliance with the federal legislation under threat of civil penalties.
During the 1997 Session, the General Assembly enacted legislation that brought Maryland law into compliance with the federal statute. Rather than closing access to Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) records, however, the General Assembly granted individuals the right to protect their personal information from disclosure. Access to MVA records continued to be available if individuals did not affirmatively opt to close access to their records. Between September 1, 1997, the date the law took effect, and March 7, 1999, 943,182 of Maryland's approximately 3.5 million drivers had requested that their personal information held by the MVA be blocked from public access.
This session, the General Assembly reversed the policy on access to personal information held by the MVA from one allowing disclosure in the absence of an election to protect such information, to one prohibiting disclosure unless the subject of the record consents to its release. Specifically, Senate Bill 387/House Bill 722 (both passed) amend the Public Information Act and the Maryland Vehicle Law effective July 1, 2000, to prohibit MVA from disclosing personal information without the written consent of the person in interest. This prohibition applies to requests for individual records and requests for lists of information for purposes of surveys, marketing, and solicitations. The bills allow individuals who are willing to make their personal information available for public disclosure to do so by notifying the MVA in writing. Consent, however, may be withdrawn at any time by notifying the MVA. The withdrawal of consent takes effect as soon as practicable after it is received by the MVA.
The bills also modify the exceptions under which the MVA is required to disclose personal information, without regard to whether the person in interest has granted consent. Under the bills, the MVA must disclose personal information for use in any matter concerning Class B (for hire), Class C (funeral and ambulance), or Class Q (limousine) vehicles and involving public safety or the treatment of the public by the operator of the vehicle.
DRIVER LICENSES
Graduated Licensing System
During the 1998 Session, the General Assembly enacted a new, comprehensive graduated licensing system for all new drivers. This new program is to take effect on July 1, 1999. The General Assembly considered several bills this session that would have either altered the requirements of the program for certain drivers or imposed additional new restrictions on minor provisional licensees. However, none of these bills were successful.
Under the new graduated licensing system, every new driver must participate in a driver education program and submit a completed skills log book before obtaining a provisional license. Senate Bill 553/House Bill 598 (both failed) would have exempted new drivers who are 21 years of age or older from attending a driver's education course and submitting the completed skills log. In lieu of driver education, however, new drivers at least 21 years of age would have been required to complete a three-hour alcohol and drug education program incorporated into the standardized driver education program under the graduated licensing system.
Recently, significant attention has been given to motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers with multiple teenage passengers. The General Assembly considered two bills that were intended to limit the number of passengers an inexperienced teenage driver could transport in a motor vehicle. House Bill 900 (failed) would have prohibited an individual possessing a learner's permit or a provisional license from operating a moving vehicle unless each passenger is restrained by a seat belt or a child safety seat, absent a medical exception. Senate Bill 597 (failed) would have required the MVA to place a restriction on each minor's license prohibiting the minor, for the first 181 days after the license is originally issued, from carrying passengers under the age of 18 who were not immediate family members in a motor vehicle. The restriction could have been enforced only as a secondary action, when the driver was detained for another violation; however, a conviction would have been considered a moving violation for purposes of the assessment of points by the MVA.
Drunk driving again commanded a great deal of attention during the session. Many bills were introduced with differing approaches to curb the incidence of drunk driving in Maryland. Attempts were made to modify the Ignition Interlock System Program, increase the penalty for refusing to submit to a chemical intoxication test, and issue "DWI" vehicle registration plates to a person convicted of a drunk driving offense. These measures were largely unsuccessful, with one exception - an increase in subsequent offender penalties (discussed below).
Repeat Convictions
Senate Bill 379/House Bill 584 (both passed) increase from two months to one year the term of imprisonment that may be imposed on a person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offense of driving while under the influence of a drug, a combination of drugs, one or more drugs and alcohol, or a controlled dangerous substance. The bills also provide that a prior offense of driving under the influence of drugs or drugs and alcohol or driving under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance qualifies as a prior conviction for the purpose of the subsequent offender penalty provisions.
Intoxicated Per Se
The drunk driving issue that received the most attention this year was the effort to reduce the alcohol level constituting intoxication per se. Armed with the promise of federal incentive funds of approximately $2.5 million a year for five years if the State enacts the 0.08 standard, proponents again set out to reduce from 0.10 to 0.08 the alcohol concentration standard for the offense of driving while intoxicated per se. This approach differed from previous years' attempts. Last year, proponents had also sought to lower the State's driving under the influence (DUI) standard from the current 0.07 level to 0.06. Senate Bill 127/House Bill 699, Senate Bill 255, and House Bill 1010, (all failed) would have lowered through various means the intoxicated per se level to 0.08 without lowering the presumed driving under the influence level to 0.06. Proponents are likely to bring this issue back to the General Assembly next year.
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES
Special License Plates and Parking Placards for Individuals with Disabilities
Senate Bill 505/House Bill 132 (both passed) modify provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law pertaining to special registration tags and parking placards available to individuals with qualifying disabilities or individuals who are responsible for providing transportation for individuals with qualifying disabilities. The bills attempt to address the shortfalls and abuses of the disability parking registration and parking placard program by specifying in greater detail the qualifying disabilities and other requirements necessary to obtain and maintain a disability parking registration plate or a disability parking placard. In addition, by July 1, 2001, the bills require sufficient automation to allow the MVA to monitor certification of disabilities and objectives of the placard program.
Senate Bill 505/House Bill 132 extend a right to a placard to a person with a dependent who has a qualifying disability or to a person on whom a person with a qualifying disability relies for transportation, a change that is consistent with current law governing special registration plates. The bills establish nine criteria under which an individual may qualify for special plates or a parking placard based on a permanent disability. Under the bills, a licensed physician may certify any qualifying disability. A licensed chiropractor, podiatrist, or optometrist may certify select qualifying disabilities in their areas of expertise. However, the bills allow an individual to self-certify the loss, or the loss of use of, a foot, leg, arm, or hand by appearing in person at a full-service MVA office. The bills prohibit an individual from committing fraud or making any misrepresentation in certifying that an individual has a qualifying disability. A violation constitutes a misdemeanor, subject to a fine up to $500.
Senate Bill 505/House Bill 132 require an individual with special registration plates or a parking placard to pay parking meter fees unless the parking meters do not meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This change is intended to eliminate a major incentive for abuse of the programs. The bills require an individual using parking privileges pursuant to special registration plates or a parking placard to have identification issued by the MVA available as proof that privileges are being used by a person with a qualifying disability. The individual must make the identification available upon the request of a person authorized by a political subdivision to enforce the statute as well as at the request of a police officer.
Senate Bill 505/House Bill 132 also require that, by July 1, 2001, the respective licensing boards for physicians, chiropractors, optometrists, and podiatrists develop a database with which the MVA can interface to verify licensure. By July 1, 2001, the MVA is to establish an automated system for recording the issuance, renewal, and expiration of placards to ensure that the objectives of the placard program are achieved in an efficient and orderly manner.
The bills also limit the number of placards that may be issued to any person. An individual receiving a temporary parking placard must return the placard to the MVA within five days of the placard's expiration. Finally, the bills repeal the authority of the MVA to charge a separate fee for disability placards, a provision that was inconsistent with the ADA.
Special Plate Program for Honorably Discharged Veterans
Senate Bill 90 (passed) requires the MVA to issue a special license plate to recognize honorably discharged veterans of the United States Armed Forces. To qualify for the special plates, an applicant will need to provide proof satisfactory to the MVA that the applicant is an honorably discharged veteran. In addition to the normal registration fee, a veteran requesting the new plates will be required to pay a fee to be set by the MVA at a level intended to offset the costs of the program. The plates will include an emblem or words recognizing the holder of the plate as an honorably discharged veteran.
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND TITLING
Random Verification of Vehicle Insurance
Under current law, the MVA is required to verify, on a random sample basis, at least 10% of vehicle registrations for proof of required insurance. Instead of being another avenue to discover vehicles with insufficient insurance, this program yielded very few results and was seen by many as an annoyance to people who maintained proper insurance coverage for their vehicles. House Bill 1089 (passed) reduces the minimum percentage of registered vehicles that the MVA must randomly check for sufficient insurance coverage from 10% to 5% effective June 1,1999, and repeals the random check requirement effective January 1, 2000. The program has been rendered less effective over time in light of alternative efforts to verify insurance coverage. Of the approximately 300,000 vehicles randomly checked during Fiscal Year 1998, 0.5% (1,400 vehicles) were actually uninsured. The MVA's interest in phasing out the program is based on its low detection rate combined with a high level of customer dissatisfaction, resulting from insured motorists having to prove current insurance coverage. As a result of legislation enacted during the 1998 Session, effective July 1, 2000, the MVA will be able to electronically match new policies and cancellations.
Vehicle Excise Tax
Senate Bill 512/House Bill 488 (both passed) alter the definition of "fair market value" for purposes of determining the titling tax on used vehicles not sold by a licensed dealer. For vehicles seven years old or older, the fair market value is either $640 or the total purchase price, whichever is greater. For other used vehicles, fair market value is the total purchase price, as long as that price is less than $500 below the retail value of the vehicle as shown in a national publication of used car values adopted for use by the Department of Transportation ("book value"). If the purchase price for the vehicle is $500 or more below the book value, the individual must provide the MVA with a notarized bill of sale on a form designed by the MVA, verifying the purchase price, and including a statement explaining why it was sold at the stated price. (The excise tax, however, may not be less than $32.) Otherwise, the MVA will use the book value to determine the titling tax due.
Senate Bill 512/House Bill 488 also allow licensed dealers to retain 1.2% of the 5% State titling tax to offset their administrative costs, regardless of the type of vehicle. However, the bills limit the maximum amount that the dealer may retain to $24 per vehicle.
Senate Bill 70 (passed) requires the MVA to change the names on a certificate of title when the excise tax is imposed without issuing multiple certificates of title or charging additional fees in cases where the vehicle was previously titled in another state and the owner transfers the vehicle to a qualifying relative.
House Bill 497 (failed) would have exempted individuals from the Maryland's 5% titling excise tax if the individual leases, for at least 180 days, a vehicle with an option to purchase and then purchases the vehicle at the end of the lease. This bill was intended to avoid imposing the excise tax "twice" on consumers - first, when the titling tax is built into the lease payment and, second, when the consumer exercises the option to purchase the same vehicle and pays the titling tax to register the title under the consumer's name.
Registration Fee Exemption
Senate Bill 367 (passed) establishes an exemption from motor vehicle registration fees for surviving spouses of deceased disabled veterans. To qualify for the exemption, a surviving spouse will need to be at least 65 years of age, have not remarried, and own and personally use the vehicle.
RULES OF THE ROAD
Aggressive Driving
With more traffic on the highways and increased concern about aggressive driving, or "road rage", numerous bills were considered that attempted to address the threats to safety posed by drivers exhibiting behavior commonly known as "road rage".
One bill would have established a new offense known as "aggressive driving". Senate Bill 710 (failed) would have created the crime of aggressive driving and defined aggressive driving as the combination of exceeding the speed limit and violating two or more other specified moving violations (passing on right, following too closely, overtaking and passing vehicles, failure to yield right-of-way, or failure to stop at red light) at the same time or during a single and continuous period of driving. A conviction under the bill would have resulted in a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding two months, or both. Following a conviction, the MVA would have assessed five points on the individual's driving record.
Failing to Stop at a Red Light
It has been estimated that drivers running red lights result in approximately 4,500 injuries each year in the State and approximately 24 fatalities. Under current law, the MVA assesses one point against a driver who is convicted for failing to stop at a red light. However, if the violation contributes to an accident, three points are assessed. House Bill 227 (passed) increases the number of points a driver is assessed following a conviction to two points. The bill does not alter the three point provision.
Highway Construction Zones
Senate Bill 197/House Bill 351(both passed)allow a county, Baltimore City, or a municipal government to designate an area on a local highway, or on a highway on which the local government is authorized to do work pursuant to a maintenance agreement, as a "highway work zone" with reduced speed limits. This authority is similar to the authority the State Highway Administration currently exercises on State highways. The speed limit in the highway work zone may be reduced as necessary to ensure the public safety.
Wireless Phones
The growing use of wireless phones by individuals while driving has generated considerable discussion. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that using a wireless phone while driving quadruples the risk of a collision. The study showed no substantial difference in risk when using hand held phones or phones that allowed the hands to be free. Brazil, Israel, and various places in Australia, according to the study, have laws against using a wireless phone while driving. House Bill 37 (failed) would have prohibited a driver from using a cellular phone while operating a motor vehicle. A violation would have been a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not exceeding $500.
SANCTIONS
Failure to Comply With a Notice to Appear
According to the MVA, in recent years an average of 27% of offenders failed to comply with a notice to appear contained in a traffic citation. This causes delays and burdens on the court system and allows individuals to delay or escape sanctions for their offenses. Senate Bill 393 (failed) would have provided that if a person fails to comply with a notice to appear for a nonincarcerable vehicle offense, points would be assessed on the person's driving record by the MVA.
Probation Before Judgment Dispositions
Currently, the MVA keeps a record of the probation before judgment disposition of cases involving offenses for which a period of incarceration may be imposed. However, few moving vehicle offenses (other than drunk driving offenses) are punishable by incarceration. House Bill 600 (passed) requires the MVA to keep a record of every probation before judgment disposition of any violation under the Maryland Vehicle Law. The bill attempts to provide judges with a more complete history of an individual's driving record in subsequent judicial proceedings. Probation before judgment dispositions are stored on a segregated record, available only to the courts, criminal justice agencies, the MVA, or the person affected, or that person's attorney. The probation before judgment records will be expunged from a person's driving record in the same manner that points are expunged.
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION AND SCHOOL ZONES
Doubled Fines for Speeding in School Zones
During the 1998 Session, the General Assembly enacted legislation that allowed doubled fines for speeding in a school zone if the school zone was marked by signs with flashing lights and the signs indicated that double fines were in effect while the lights are activated. Since enactment of the 1998 legislation, some school districts have expressed concern regarding the costs of flashing lights. Senate Bill 609 (passed) provides that the increased fines apply as long as there is a sign designating a school zone and indicating that fines for speeding are doubled during school hours. While school districts may choose to put flashing lights up to indicate fines are doubled during school hours, the flashing lights will no longer be required.
School Buses: Pick Up and Discharge of Passengers
Senate Bill 123/House Bill 81 (both passed) require school buses to stop on the roadway when picking up or discharging school children, unless there is an off-road loading zone available that has been approved by the superintendent of schools or by a law enforcement agency, in cooperation with the appropriate highway department. The intent of the bills is to prohibit bus drivers from arbitrarily electing to stop off of the roadway, where passengers would not have the protection that school bus lights are intended to provide.
School Bus Passenger Safety Act
House Bill 140 (failed) was intended to address the problem of drivers passing a school bus that has stopped, with its flashing red lights activated, to pick up or discharge school children. The bill would have increased from two to three points the number of points assessed by MVA against a driver following a criminal conviction. In addition, the bill would have provided an alternative civil enforcement procedure whereby drivers could be cited for illegally passing a school bus based on a report of the bus driver.
VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM
Repeal of Termination
Currently, Maryland's Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program (VEIP) is scheduled to terminate December 31, 2001. House Bill 788 (passed) repeals the December 31, 2001 termination date for VEIP and alters the VEIP repair waiver amount over the next three years to comply with federal standards. Currently, an owner who makes $150 worth of repairs to a vehicle within 60 days of the initial emissions test and who fails to retest may be granted a waiver from additional tests. Under current law, the repair waiver would increase to $450 in 2002 and would be adjusted to reflect changes in the consumer price index. House Bill 788 retains the current $150 VEIP repair waiver for 1999. To qualify for the waiver during the years 2000 and 2001, the bill requires an expenditure of:
On or after January 1, 2002, the VEIP repair waiver is set at $450, with no adjustment for the Consumer Price Index.
Currently, motor vehicle owners over the age of 70 who drive less than 5,000 miles a year are eligible for a waiver from VEIP requirements, if such a waiver is permitted by federal law. While House Bill 788 prohibits the MVA from implementing, by regulation, the current senior citizen VEIP waiver, House Bill 1038 (passed) reinstates the waiver by statute, as explained below.
Exemptions
House Bill 1038 provides that a motor vehicle for which registration plates for individuals with disabilities have been issued, or a motor vehicle owned by an individual who is at least 70 years of age, is exempt from the mandatory inspection and testing requirements under VEIP if:
(1) each owner of the vehicle meets specified disability or age requirements;
(2) the vehicle is driven less than 5,000 miles annually; and
(3) the exemption is not otherwise prohibited by federal law.
To qualify for this exemption, all owners of the vehicle must certify:
(1) that each owner of the vehicle meets specified disability or age requirements;
(2) that the motor vehicle has been issued special registration plates, if applicable;
(3) that the motor vehicle is driven less than 5,000 miles annually; and
(4) the odometer reading on the vehicle at the time of certification.
Senate Bill 696 (failed) would have extended the period through 2002 during which an expenditure of $150 towards emissions related vehicle repairs would have qualified the vehicle owner for a VEIP waiver. The bill also would have delayed until January 1, 2003, the date on which federal guidelines would determine the level of repair expenses that would be required to qualify for a VEIP waiver. Notwithstanding the federally mandated waiver amount, House Bill 1099 (failed) would have made permanent the current $150 limit for repair expenditures required to qualify for a waiver under VEIP regulations.
Diesel Vehicle Emissions Control Program
Under current law, diesel vehicles are exempt from VEIP testing requirements because the emissions from diesel vehicles are generally not the type regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. However, Senate Bill 509/House Bill 590 (both passed) require the Maryland Department of the Environment, the Department of State Police, and the Maryland Department of Transportation to jointly create a separate diesel vehicle emissions control program effective July 1, 2000 in an effort to reduce the particulate matter emitted by diesel powered vehicles. The program will apply to diesel vehicles with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating over 10,000 pounds. Testing procedures include conducting an emissions test when a diesel vehicle is required to submit to weighing and measuring or to a motor carrier safety inspection under existing law, and at any roadside location or time when a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that an individual diesel vehicle is violating emission standards.
Senate Bill 509/House Bill 590 provide that if a Maryland-registered diesel vehicle fails an emissions test, the owner will be issued a safety equipment repair order, directing the owner to repair the vehicle to comply with emissions standards. The owner is required to repair and retest the vehicle. If the owner fails to comply with the repair order within 30 days, the MVA may suspend the registration of the vehicle and the owner may be subject to a maximum $1,000 fine. The bills provide that if a foreign-registered diesel vehicle fails a test, the driver is to be provided notice of noncompliance with Maryland emissions standards. The owner of the vehicle must repair the vehicle and provide evidence of compliance with emissions standards within 30 days of receipt of the notice. If the owner fails to comply, the Department of State Police will notify the Federal Highway Administration that the owner has violated State laws in violation of federal regulations and is subject to a maximum $1,000 fine.