HB 324-PERSONAL INFO IN MOTOR VEH. RECORDS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced that the next order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 324, "An Act requiring written consent by the person who is the subject of the information before releasing personal information contained in motor vehicle records, to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2721; and providing for an effective date." Number 1840 MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She informed the committee that the purpose of HB 324 is to bring state laws into compliance with the new federal legislation, which passed last fall regarding the confidentiality of vehicle records. The federal legislation nor HB 324 affect driver records, which is confidential information under state law and continues to be so. Current state law mirrors federal legislation and allows the release of vehicle record information for about 11 permitted uses. MS. MARSHBURN said most of those uses were related to government, law enforcement or employment. However, one permitted use did allow vehicle record information to be released for marketing and solicitation purposes; that is the use at which the federal legislation was directed, while other permitted uses relating to law enforcement and government remain. Ms. Marshburn specified that HB 324 and the new federal legislation prohibit the release of vehicle record information, personal information, for marketing and solicitation purposes unless the vehicle owner has given consent to release the records. She informed the committee that federal legislation takes effect for "us" June 1, 2000, and there is a $5,000 per day fine for noncompliance. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if, in effect, the federal legislation and now HB 324 change [the state] to an "opt in" rather than an "opt out." MS. MARSHBURN replied yes. MS. MARSHBURN reiterated, in response to Representative Murkowski, that if the state is found in noncompliance with the federal legislation, the state will be subject to a $5,000 per day fine. She added that this would also be the case for any individual who releases information prohibited by the new [federal] legislation. In response to Chairman Kott, Ms. Marshburn specified that the fine is levied by the attorney general's office and thus she assumed that the fine is paid to the U.S. Department of Justice. Number 1987 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there is a $200,000 loss of revenues. He asked if DMV has been selling the lists to certain people before. MS. MARSHBURN answered that DMV does sell restricted motor vehicle information, which is allowed under the old law and the division does receive revenue for it. She informed the committee that there are two basic sources of revenue. One source is from the individual who requests a copy of a vehicle record. Perhaps, the individual want to purchase the vehicle and wants to determine if there is a lien holder on the vehicle. She noted that insurance companies also purchase vehicle records. Under the former federal law, that information could be sold to business firms [for the] purpose of reselling the information. Under the new federal legislation, those firms will still be able to purchase the list for resale for the permitted uses, not for marketing and solicitation. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this would effect the commerce of the state and the ability of people to find out about liens on a vehicle. MS. MARSHBURN responded that individually it may have a minimal effect. However, practically it would not have an effect. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how [the division] would construct the "opt-in" form. MS. MARSHBURN explained that at the time a person purchases a vehicle and enters DMV to register the vehicle, one of the questions asked is whether the individual wants that information disclosed for marketing and solicitation purposes. Basically, the same would continue with a slight variation in the wording. She doubted that many people would agree to [allow their information to be] disclosed. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that this may eliminate some of the catalogs that he receives. MS. MARSHBURN stated that the intent of the federal legislation was the marketing and the solicitation effort. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if anyone else wished to testify. There being no one, public testimony was closed. Number 2183 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved to report HB 324 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered and HB 324 was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.