ROBERT L. BOMBARDIERI & another [Note 1] vs. REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES (and a companion case [Note 2]).

MARSHALL, J. The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases claim that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (registrar) violated G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, in implementing a new program that permits automobile dealers to communicate electronically with the registry for new vehicle registrations and title transactions. A judge in the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor

Page 312

of the registrar. We granted Bombardieri's application for direct appellate review; the appeal of the companion case, consolidated with Bombardieri's appeal in the Appeals Court for briefing and decision only, was transferred to this court on our own motion. We affirm the judgment below.

1. In April, 1995, the registrar initiated a program called distributed registration and information vehicle entry (DRIVE) program. The program's purpose is to reduce delays and inconvenience for persons seeking to register new vehicles. Under the DRIVE program, an automobile dealer may communicate electronically with and obtain certain limited information from the registry in order to process new vehicle registrations. Dealer participation is voluntary and subject to terms and conditions established by the registrar. As of January, 1997, forty-five dealers participated in the program.

To register a new vehicle, an owner must complete a registration application form (RMV-1) providing the owner's name, address, driver's license number, date of birth, principal place of garaging, lessee name (if applicable), varied information about the new vehicle, and identification of the insurer and any lien-holders. This information must be presented to the registry. Except for the DRIVE program, the registry receives the information by direct delivery of the paper form by either the vehicle purchaser or a "runner," a person used by dealers to carry the RMV-1 to the registry. [Note 3] For registration through the DRIVE program, software electronically transmits the RMV-1 information from the dealers' computers to a third-party network provider that converts data to a compatible format and then transmits it electronically to registry computers. In either case, the registry verifies the information and determines whether there is any reason a registration may not issue. After reviewing the information and approving the registration, the registry either issues the registration certificate and registration plate in person to the purchaser or runner, or electronically notifies the DRIVE participating dealer of the approval. In the latter cases, the dealer then prints a registration certificate and, if one is required, gives the vehicle purchaser a registration plate from a

Page 373

controlled inventory that the registry has provided for such transactions.

In instances when the registry cannot complete a registration, the registry notifies the DRIVE participating dealer, but does not disclose the reason why a registration cannot be processed. The dealer then informs the purchaser that a personal trip to the registry is necessary to complete the registration. [Note 4] The electronic communication capability provided to DRIVE participating dealers is restricted. [Note 5] At no time do dealers use any computer terminal under the control of the registry.

The Bombardieri plaintiffs filed their action on December 12, 1996; the Mann plaintiffs filed their action on January 16, 1997. On May 1, 1997, after a hearing, a judge denied the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and allowed the registrar's cross motions holding that the DRIVE program does not violate G. L. c. 90, s. 30A. The plaintiffs filed timely notices of appeal.

2. The central issue before us is whether the DRIVE program violates G. L. c. 90, s. 30A. [Note 6] The plaintiffs contend that this statute prohibits the dealers' access via electronic links to driver information stored in the registry's computerized database. The

Page 374

registrar argues that the statute prohibits persons, not otherwise specifically authorized therein, from using the registry's computer terminals, and, since DRIVE participating dealers use their own terminals and software loaded on to their own computer systems to access the registry's computer, the statute is not violated by the DRIVE program. The dispute focuses on the proper construction of the statutory phrase "direct or indirect use of the computer terminals."

We have never had occasion to construe this statute. "We generally construe statutes to give effect 'to the intent of the Legislature [as] ascertained from all [the statute's] words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers may be effectuated.' " Globe Newspaper Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm'n., 421 Mass. 570, 584 (1996), quoting Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326, 328 (1983). See Meunier's Case, 319 Mass. 421, 423 (1946).

A literal reading of the contested statutory phrase, giving "computer terminal" its ordinary meaning, suggests that the statute restricts use only of the registry's computer hardware. In this case, however, we hesitate to limit our inquiry to a "plain meaning" interpretation of the phrase. When the statute was first enacted, [Note 7] computer technology was less advanced, configurations of equipment and systems quite different, and the contours of terms less well established or understood. We cannot rule out imprecision in the Legislature's use of technical terminology. We note, however, that the statute also refers to "computer data files." The Legislature might have prohibited the use of the registry's computer data files, but chose instead to restrict "use of the computer terminals . . . whether for inquiry into computer data files or otherwise." This phrasing seems to place emphasis on protection of the terminals, prohibiting their unauthorized use for any reason, rather than protection of the registry's data files.

We also take note of some historical background to the act's

Page 375

passage. At that time, motor vehicle registration applications were considered public records. [Note 8] Because the records themselves were public at that time, the statute could not have been intended to protect the information contained in the records, albeit the mere fact that registry records were considered public does not definitively rule out a possibility that the Legislature may have intended to restrict access to computerized forms of records. A more specific background fact sheds additional light on the statute's enactrnent. On August 28, 1970, the Attorney General issued an opinion that registry records of revocations and suspensions of licenses and vehicle registrations were public records and were to be made available, as requested by insurance companies, "in computer processable form." Rep. A.G. Pub. Doc. No. 12, at 43, 46 (1971). The Attorney General further concluded that there was no reason not to allow "members of the insurance industry to use a computer terminal by which they can inquire directly into the Registry's com-

Page 376

puter." [Note 9] Id. We are persuaded that the statute was likely a response to this opinion.

Legislative history on the statute is sparse. Two bills addressing the subject matter had been introduced into the House of Representatives. [Note 10] One of these, 1972 House Doc. No. 4554, concerned specifically with registry records of license suspensions and revocations, confirms our conclusion that the legislation concerning the registry's computers was in response to Rep. A.G., supra at 43. This bill suggests that the main object

Page 377

of the statute and the mischief toward which it was directed was the potential disruption of the registry's daily operations, in light of the Attorney General's granting access to the registry's computer terminals to private parties.

We find the evidence that G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, was intended to protect computer terminals, not computerized records, more persuasive than any of the plaintiffs' arguments. There is no evidence brought to our attention to support the conclusory argument that protecting motor vehicle registrants' privacy was the Legislature's purpose for the statute. [Note 11] The plaintiffs ask us to focus on the word "indirect" in the statute, which, in order to have a meaning independent from the use of computer terminals "direct[ly]," must prohibit, they contend, electronic access to the data files. [Note 12] We see no reason to attribute the meaning the plaintiffs advocate to such a general word, especially in light of statutory language attempting to describe a restriction on what at the time was a novel and not well-understood technology. The plaintiffs' attempt to find support from a superseded advisory opinion of the supervisor of public records, interpreting the statute to prohibit on-line access to registry information, is equally unavailing. [Note 13]

Were the foregoing analysis of the statute all that supported our interpretation, we might not be so confident that our narrow interpretation of G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, was correct. Another more recent statute, G. L. c. 90C, s. 7A, [Note 14] however, confirms how we must give effect to the statute at issue. The second sentence of

Page 378

G. L. c. 90C, s. 7A, unmistakably authorizes the registrar to use electronic means to fulfil one of his main c. 90 duties of registering vehicles. The plaintiffs point out that G. L. c. 90C, s. 8, immediately follows G. L. c. 90C, s. 7A, and states that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to supersede the powers and duties of the registrar as provided in chapter ninety." Were we to accept the plaintiffs' broad interpretation that G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, restricts use of computerized records in addition to computer terminals, and that therefore the clear authorization of G. L. c. 90C, s. 7A, may not operate to supersede G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, then the second sentence in c. 90C, s. 7A, would be a nullity. "A statute should not be construed in such a way as to make it a nullity when a sensible construction is readily available." Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. v. Board of Health of Braintree, 415 Mass. 876, 883 (1993). We also attempt to "construe related statutes harmoniously so as to give rise to a consistent body of law." Marco v. Green, 415 Mass. 732, 736 (1993). The interpretation that we give here to G. L. c. 90, s. 30A, enables us to avoid rendering G. L. c. 90C, s. 7A, a nullity and establishes a harmonious and consistent body of related law.

Judgment affirmed.