HOUSE BILL NO. 166 "An Act relating to the issuance of vehicle registration plates." 9:05:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE, BILL SPONSOR, explained that the bill would take Alaska vehicles from a two-plate requirement to a one-plate requirement. He described HB 166 as a budget bill meant to bring savings to the state. He thought the legislature was past the point of making large budget cuts and legislators were looking for places to make "surgical efficiencies." His office had spoken extensively with police departments and the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He detailed the entities had reported five citations in 2020 and one citation in 2019. He explained the citations were fix-it tickets that generated no revenue for the state. He believed the state should save some money in the production and distribution of the plates. He detailed that the bill did not impact any program, service, or jobs. The plates were generated by a company contracted by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He viewed the bill as a surgical change and pointed to the fiscal note showing a cost savings of $332,000. He thought it would be helpful to the state if the legislature could make numerous "small surgical changes." 9:07:29 AM Representative Wool asked if the customer paying for their license plate would be charged less for one plate instead of two. Representative McCabe replied that Alaska was different than most other states on the topic. He explained that in most other states a vehicle owner paid a registration fee and purchased the plates. He clarified that in Alaska, individuals paid the registration fee, and the state bought the plates. He elaborated that according to the Department of Administration (DOA), the bill would mean the state would only have to purchase one plate per vehicle, which would result in savings to the state. He supposed the costs could be passed to citizens, but the registration was not that big, and it would be a wash. Representative Wool clarified that he did not really want to change any other fee structures and did not support changing fee structures for vehicle registration. He asked for verification that because the bill only required one license plate per vehicle, it would be possible for a person to legally put on a plate of their favorite sports team. Representative McCabe agreed. Representative Thompson referenced specialty plates. He asked for verification that vehicle owners would not be disallowed from having a front plate as well. He surmised a person could continue to purchase and pay for specialty plates to install on the front and back of their vehicle. Representative McCabe agreed. Representative Thompson thought it sounded good. Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill forward and appreciated that making small savings in various locations could add up. He asked if there had been any element of added safety for law enforcement to identify vehicles more easily with two plates. Representative McCabe did not know the precise history behind the use of two plates. He stated that traffic had been slower in the past when plates had been put in. He stated that especially with new cars, the front license plate interfered with the radar sensors, cameras, and proximity sensors placed on front bumpers. He explained that most new cars, including hybrid and electric, were not equipped with front plates and it was necessary to drill holes in the bumper or get an after market license plate holder. He believed the bill moved Alaska forward with the technology. His office had checked with the various police departments and DPS. He noted that individuals from the organizations were available online. Representative McCabe identified the Anchorage Police Department (APD) as the only police department that had a problem with the bill. He elaborated that APD had stated the change would take a tool away from the department. He informed the committee that DPS was neutral on the bill and had communicated it would deal with whatever the legislature decided. He added that one of the police departments in the [Mat-Su] valley had communicated it would not be enthusiastic about the change, but it was not that big of a deal. Based on his own personal survey, he observed that about one in ten vehicles did not have a front plate or it was not visible at night due to snow or mud. He wondered why the state should spend the money on the plate if it was not ticketing for its absence. 9:12:57 AM Vice-Chair Ortiz thought it sounded reasonable. He asked if current law required vehicles to have front and back plates. Representative McCabe answered vehicles were currently statutorily required to have front and back plates, but it was not enforced. He noted the penalty was a fix-it ticket. He added he had supporting documents from individuals stating they would rather get a fix-it ticket than drill holes in their Jaguar or expensive truck bumpers. Representative LeBon recognized there was a representative present from DPS. 9:14:09 AM KELLY HOWELL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the department did not have a position on the bill. The department would enforce whatever laws the legislature deemed necessary and prudent. She noted there was a captain with the Alaska State Troopers on the line who could answer questions regarding enforcement. DAVID WILSON, CAPTAIN, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), shared that he had been a state trooper for 20 years and had been assigned to a variety of things including petrol, investigations, and the director's office. He noted that DPS did not have a position on the bill and would do whatever was necessary to modify its current work in order to accommodate any changes. There were a couple of things the department did where front plates were helpful. For example, when a collision occurred and there was a criminal charge, the offender was typically hitting someone with their car instead of getting hit by someone. He explained that front plates often fell off at hit-and-run sites, which helped the department. He noted it did not mean the department would not be able to find the offender in another way, but it was something that effected investigations. Mr. Wilson identified a second example relating to criminal activities involving a suspect absconding from a scene. He explained that as officers approached a scene, vehicles traveling away from the incident were headed towards the officers and the front plate was visible. He explained that without the front plate, there were vehicle descriptions and perhaps other things, but it was a bit more difficult to locate absconders. He stated the issues were not insurmountable, but they impacted the department's ability to investigate sometimes. He noted the department could get around the issue in other ways. He explained that resources were often the issue: the more officers the department had to respond to a scene increased the likelihood of pulling over a vehicle matching the description where the front plate would not be as necessary. He confirmed that the department did not ticket the violation very often. 9:17:15 AM Representative Wool asked if the lack of a front plate was used as a reason to pull someone over to look into further infractions or violations of law. Mr. Wilson confirmed it was the case. He elaborated it was referred to as "probable cause for a traffic stop." He noted that when used for probable cause it often turned into other enforcement action. He elaborated if there were more serious things found during the traffic stop, the other issues would likely get more attention than the front plate as far as ticketing and eventually criminal charges if they occurred. Co-Chair Merrick asked for an explanation of "PC." Mr. Wilson replied that PC stood for probable cause. He explained that DPS was required to have a burden of proof that a violation had occurred in order to seize a vehicle. The department could not merely pull people over without a reason. The front plate provided PC for a traffic stop because it was a violation. Representative Wool asked if DPS kept statistics on the number of times it used the lack of a front license plate as PC but did not issue a ticket as a result of the traffic stop. Mr. Wilson would follow up with an answer. He did not believe DPS had a database storing information for PC for stops that were not ticketed. The department did have records on the actual tickets. Representative Josephson thought a stop required reasonable suspicion not probable cause. Mr. Wilson answered that DPS needed reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop to do things like a dog search on a vehicle for the presence of narcotics. He explained that probable cause was required for the initial traffic stop. He elaborated that the topic often arose during criminal investigations involving DUI [driving under the influence] and other crimes, where the probable cause was often challenged by the defense. He explained that without good probable cause, the entire DUI could be dismissed. 9:20:34 AM Representative Josephson thought that previous questions in the committee seemed to contain an undercurrent of troopers using the absence of a front plate as pretext to find other nefarious misconduct. He asked if Mr. Wilson supported that notion. Mr. Wilson answered that state troopers were very busy and generally the absence of a front plate did not get significant attention from DPS to initiate a traffic stop unless there was something else going on. He expounded that if a vehicle matched a description of a vehicle seen as a dangerous driver along the roadway or speeding through a neighborhood and the troopers did not have a good description of the vehicle, the lack of a front plate would be a pretext for reckless driving or an assault investigation. He stated the department did not really have much time for troopers to pull someone over just because a plate was missing; it usually involved in a more serious offence. Representative Edgmon thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the bill forward. He thought of a bill offered earlier in the current session by Representative James Kaufman about digital publications. He reasoned that often times the benefits and the costs lay in the margin. He considered a scenario where HB 166 passed and became law. He remarked that there would continue to be vehicles with front license plates including motor vehicles like ATVs and snow machines. He asked if the bill sponsor had thought out the implementation and how the situation would work. 9:23:34 AM Representative McCabe asked for clarification. Representative Edgmon clarified he was asking about a scenario where the bill went into effect. Representative McCabe had not thought out the mechanics. He highlighted that he had a conversation the previous evening with a staffer who had shared her back license plate had been destroyed. The individual had communicated that if the bill passed, she would put the front plate on the back of her car and add license decals so she did not have to buy a new plate. He was not clear on Representative Edgmon's question. Representative Edgmon provided a scenario where a person registered their vehicle in 2022. He asked for verification that the car would have a front plate with a 2024 decal. Representative McCabe answered that front plates did not have decals. 9:25:13 AM Representative Wool asked how many other states had a one plate or two plate law. Representative McCabe answered that 20 states currently had a one plate law. He noted that Idaho was currently going through the process. He shared that Ohio was the most recent state to go through the process; his office had spoken with a trooper in Ohio who had reported the rollout there had been seamless and the change had not hindered the ability to make stops for traffic offences. Representative Edgmon believed the bill was a good idea and saving $330,000 was a substantial amount of money. Representative Johnson asked if there were any safety considerations associated with having four holes drilled in the front bumper with no license plate. Representative McCabe believed it depended on the car. He shared that his father-in-law was an old car buff and some of the older front bumpers were small. He imagined a large plate holder on the front of some older cars could impact the structural integrity. He highlighted that newer electric cars did not have a font bumper. He believed it would likely impact the structural integrity of the plastic. Representative Thompson had not heard any resistance to the bill. He requested to report it from committee during the current meeting. 9:27:52 AM AT EASE 9:28:51 AM RECONVENED Representative Carpenter asked what liability Alaska drivers picked up if they moved to another state or drove their vehicle to another state. He surmised the move would require a new license plate in a new state. He asked if drivers would pick up a liability if they drove to another state requiring two license plates. Representative McCabe answered that his office had talked to the Ohio state trooper about the issue. He explained that in the past, a neighboring state had a one-plate law and Ohio troopers would notice vehicles driving through with one plate. One of the reasons Ohio changed its law to one plate was to align with the neighboring state. He explained that typically the law for a vehicle's registration followed the car. For example, an Alaska car driving to Washington would only need one plate [if the bill became law]. He reasoned that a driver could perhaps be stopped, but they would be legal because their registration was in Alaska and they were complying with Alaska law. 9:30:47 AM JULIE MORRIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCABE (via teleconference), reviewed the sectional analysis (copy on file): Section 1: Amends AS 28.10.108(g) to make all references to "plates" and "registration" singular. Section 2: Amends AS 28.10.108(h) to make all references to "plates" singular. Section 3: Amends AS 28.10.155(a) to make all references to "plates" singular. Section 4: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.161(a) to conform with the singular intent of the bill. Section 5: Amends AS 28.10.161(b) adds conforming language for a singular plate. Section 6: Adds a subsection to AS 28.10.161 that provides an individual or organization the option to return a plate should they be issued two plates. Section 7: Grammatically amends AS 28.10.181(b) to conform with the singular intent of the bill. Section 8: Amends AS 28.10.181(j) to make all references to "plates" singular. Section 9: Amends AS 28.10.121(d)(9) to make all references to "plates" singular. Section 10: Amends AS 28.10.441 to make all references to "plates" singular. 9:31:44 AM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony. Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to review the fiscal note. JEFFREY SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), stated the fiscal note reflected a simple analysis of the division's annual cost for purchasing two plates versus one plate. The division estimated a savings of $332,000 per year. 9:33:31 AM AT EASE 9:33:42 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair Merrick set an amendment deadline for noon on March 5. She thanked the bill sponsor for bringing the bill forward. HB 166 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 9:34:11 AM AT EASE 9:34:59 AM RECONVENED