Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/13/2021 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB163 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 163-FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE
8:03:08 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to vehicle title
applications."
8:03:40 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE, as prime sponsor, offered the sponsor
statement for HB 163, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 163 eliminates the current requirement for
ink signatures on applications for titles and title
transfers within the Department of Motor Vehicles. HB
163 gives flexibility to the DMV to begin using
electronic signatures. HB 163 does not force the use
of electronic signatures. AS 28.10.211(b) states that
"applications for title or transfer of title must
contain the signature in ink of the owner, or if there
is more than one owner, the signature in ink of at
least one of the owners and the name of each owner
stated in the conjunctive or in the disjunctive." HB
163 deletes the words "in ink" in both places. Under
the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 2004 (AS
09.80.010-09.80.195) electronic signatures satisfy the
general definition of a signature unless otherwise
prohibited. Since the current statute explicitly
requires "ink" signatures for title applications, the
DMV cannot accept electronic signatures. HB 163 will
give the Department the latitude to determine for
itself if it wants to accept electronic signatures in
the cases of title transfers and title applications.
Covid has taught us that electronic signatures can
provide extra convenience to Alaskans in remote or
rural parts of the state and can provide long-term
efficiencies for the DMV.
8:06:25 AM
LAUREN MACVAY, President/CEO, True North Federal Credit Union,
stated that True North Federal Credit Union tries to make doing
business easier for its members, and [requiring a signature in
ink rather than electronically] is problematic. Electronic
capabilities have been a boon, especially during the pandemic.
The impediment to online transactions has been in title work.
She predicted the change proposed under HB 163 would result in
more efficient services with far fewer delays for the credit
union's members.
8:09:57 AM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that HB 163 would
remove an impediment faced by the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) by no longer requiring signatures in ink on titles. He
said the proposed bill would allow the DMV to begin
conversations with banks, car dealerships, and other entities
that deal with titles to change the way the division addresses
titles. He noted there are other states in the Union that have
implemented electronic titling and signatures. All the states
have "caveats to how it currently works," he remarked. For
example, [the use of electronic titles] is only for new
vehicles. In Arizona, the [paperless] transaction can be done
person to person. Texas has a good model, he said. Mr. Schmitz
stated that HB 163 would allow Alaskans to "throw their hat in
the ring, to see how this would work and vet this." He
indicated there would be work needed to define all the places in
statute that describe [signature certification]. He expressed
excitement about this being the beginning of a change and the
opportunity to assess what this will cost and how long it would
take to implement.
8:13:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted there are other instances when
people must go in person to the DMV, and he questioned what
would happen if all transactions were changed to electronic
processes.
MR. SCHMITZ responded that that is possible, but cautioned not
to make safety too much of a convenience for patrons. He said
there are certain reasons for requiring drivers to come in, for
example to get take their driver's test. Nevertheless, he
acknowledged that many of the systems within the DMV are moving
toward electronic measures, and he said there is no reason not
to look for additional efficiencies while making safety a
priority. In response to a follow-up question, he said he could
provide the committee with a list of other transactions that
could be electronic [if statute relating to them were changed].
He relayed that earlier in the year, the DMV was involved with
its "law officers" to determine where in statute changes were
needed, and he remarked that mostly it is wherever the word
"certificate" appears. He said "minor word-crafting" would be
necessary to allow patrons to interact with the DMV
electronically.
8:17:24 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE characterized HB 163 as a step in the right
direction toward providing flexibility to the DMV, businesses,
and consumers. He said he would look for opportunities to
[expand opportunities for online transactions] and would like to
see the list [of transactions with DMV that require patrons to
appear in person].
8:17:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked Mr. Schmitz if he knew why some other
states allowing limited electronic transactions were "hesitant
to just let everything happen on line with an electronic
signature."
MR. SCHMITZ answered that he does not know the specific
restrictions of platforms being built in other states. He
talked about having interoperability between all states. He
suggested budgets may be limited in other states or they may be
trying a pilot program to ensure the system works properly. He
said the idea of going electronic has been discussed since the
1990s, but it is not until the last few years that states have
been able to implement the standards involved. He mentioned
there is a national working group, with which Alaska is
involved, that is establishing standards for electronic title
("e-title") solutions.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that the concerns are
administrative rather than concern for the security of titles.
MR. SCHMITZ responded yes. He added that he believes these are
first steps in "a phased approach."
8:21:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what the DMV would do to ensure
that the person signing electronically is who he/she claims to
be.
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE pointed out that currently a person can sign
electronically for a loan but not for the title. He pointed out
that even a signature written by someone in person could be
forged. He said HB 163 would bring the signature from physical
to digital.
MR. SCHMITZ indicated those questions are yet to be answered,
but said the perception is that a consumer to consumer portal
would be built. He mentioned Venmo, where money is exchanged
electronically, and he said there are many models available by
which transparency can be ensured during electronic
transactions. He said there would certainly be a vetting
process.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared that he is selling property and is
required to provide a notarized signature in ink. He again
expressed concern that Alaskans are protected from those who
would attempt fraud.
8:26:42 AM
MS. MACVAY, in response to a request from the bill sponsor,
talked about the means by which True North Federal Credit Union
keeps its members' accounts secure when utilizing digital
transaction methods. She mentioned identity verification
questions and comparison of driver's license photos with
optically captured images. She said artificial intelligence
(AI) technology is involving rapidly. She imparted that the law
that would allow an electronic notary went into effect January
1, 2021, and the infrastructure to support that law is being
worked on to "catch up."
8:28:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked Mr. Schmitz, "How many 'PCNs' do you
think it'll save in the future?"
MR. SCHMITZ answered that is difficult to say, since the
division is just beginning to determine how this will work and
how it will save the department money. He said not having a
clerk at the front counter processing paperwork will "save
time." He mentioned backroom auditing to ensure the system is
working. He said the division would know more after looking at
the business flow and process and receiving feedback from all of
its stakeholders. He indicated that there could be cost-savings
long term for the state because there will be fewer hardcopies
of documents made.
8:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said, "Be careful what you wish for."
She talked about the Municipality of Anchorage spending about a
year to prepare for vote by mail ballots and said there were
about 62,000 ballots submitted by mail. She emphasized the work
involved and offered her understand that the amount of fraud was
miniscule. She shared that she is refinancing her mortgage and
has been told most all of the transactions will be done
electronically. She said she is glad to see the state moving
forward in increasing convenience to Alaska consumers.
8:32:42 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN asked whether the registration of vehicles must
be done in person.
MR. SCHMITZ answered no, it can be done electronically.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN mused that she had never financed a car; her
purchases have all been title transfers in parking lot, handing
over "a stack of twenties." She mentioned getting registration
and insurance can be done on line and said the title "is a
limiting gate." She reflected that there would be a solution
"not too far off."
8:34:02 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN opened public testimony on HB 163. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, she
closed public testimony.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 163 was held over.