December 16, 1980

Mr. James K. McAtee 
Secretary 
Department of Public Safety 
Public Safety Building 
Pierre, South Dakota 57501

Official Opinion No. 80-77

Interstate Reciprocity and Proportional Registration of Fleets

Dear Mr. McAtee:

You have requested an official opinion from this office in regard to the following factual situation:

FACTS: 

The State of South Dakota and the States of Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont, plus the Canadian Province of Manitoba, had previously entered into reciprocity agreements covering vehicle registration and licensing of motor vehicles operated in interstate movements.  The agreements presently on file were approved and signed by the party states during a period of time between January 1960 and March 1964, with the exception of Florida, which was negotiated in July 1972.  (A copy of one agreement is attached which is representative in form to all of the existing agreements.) 

In 1973, resulting from Governor Kneip's reorganization of state government, the old motor vehicle reciprocity commission was abolished and all of its functions were transferred to the Department of Transportation. In 1974, the Legislature passed legislation which transferred these functions to the Department of Public Safety as the administrator of reciprocity and proration. The responsibilities in this area presently remain with the Secretary of Public Safety.

Based upon the above facts you have asked the following questions:

QUESTIONS: 

1.  Due to the abolishment of the old reciprocity commission and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Transportation and then later to the Department of Public Safety, are the present reciprocity agreements between the State of South Dakota and the previously mentioned eleven states and one province still valid, legal agreements? 

2.  Providing a decision is rendered to the effect that said agreements are invalid, what responsibility does the Secretary of Public Safety have to the states and one province affected?

IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:

The answer to question number one is no.

SDCL 32-10-3 reads as follows: 

The department of public safety shall have the authority to execute agreements, arrangements or declarations to carry out the provisions of this chapter.  The department shall specify, by rules passed pursuant to chapter 1-26, the requirements such agreements, arrangements or declarations must conform to, before they will be executed.

It will be noted that all agreements that are in question at this time were  signed before the 1975 legislation, Session Laws of South Dakota 1975, Chapter 203, that required the Department to specify by rule the requirements of any agreements, arrangements or declarations.  Until this legislation the 'agency,' whatever its composition, had the 'authority to execute agreements.'  (For example see SL 1961, Ch. 237, §  3; 1966, Ch. 139; 1972, Ch. 176.)

It would be my opinion, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that starting with the effective date of the legislation, July 1, 1975, and agreements pursuant to that legislation should be in accordance with standards promulgated pursuant to SDCL 1-26.  It would be my opinion that upon receipt of this opinion, the Department of Public Safety should carry out the mandate of SDCL 32-10-3 and set the 'requirements' for any agreements.

IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:

At this time I would advise the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety as follows: 

1.  To advise the member jurisdictions of this opinion and determine whether the other states are still acting under the reciprocity agreements that have been presented to me for my examination. 

2.  Any agreements that member jurisdictions feel are still in effect may be immediately terminated per the notice provisions of the agreement, if any,  as there is no authority for these agreements until the requirements are promulgated by rule. 

3.  New agreements should be based upon standards pursuant to SDCL 32-10-3.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General