Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
05/12/2022 03:30 PM Senate STATE 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB297 | |
| HB163 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB268 | |
| HB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 163-FORM OF SIGNATURE ON VEHICLE TITLE
3:45:44 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 163 "An Act relating to vehicle
title applications."
He noted that this was the first hearing.
3:46:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CALVIN SCHRAGE, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 163, introduced the bill with a very brief
summary of the sponsor statement that read as follows:
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.
3:47:07 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if there was a problem signing titles in
pencil.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said he didn't believe a pencil signature
would be acceptable.
3:47:37 PM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that HB 163 has one
section that removes the words "in ink" in two places from AS
28.10.211(b), which is for the application for title or transfer
of title of a vehicle. He advised that the fiscal note was
indeterminate because the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
initially was unsure of the intent of the bill. The sponsor
clarified that the intent was to allow DMV to move at its own
pace in transitioning to electronic signatures. With that
information, DMV has been on the record stating that the bill
would have no fiscal impact.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
3:48:48 PM
ED GRAVLEY, Chief Operations Officer (COO), Matanuska Valley
Federal Credit Union, Palmer, Alaska, testified by invitation in
support of HB 163. He said the credit union currently is able to
help credit union members do business regardless of where they
are in the state by using e-signatures. It's easier and a cost
saving measure. The missing link is to be able to use e-
signatures for DMV documents.
CHAIR SHOWER asked for an explanation of the process for the
credit union to use e-signatures.
MR. GRAVLEY said the credit union uses the service called
DocuSign that handles the entire process. It has out of bounds
questions that the members must authenticate and it records,
tracks, and stores the e-signatures. It's the same basic process
that is used for the permanent fund dividend applications.
CHAIR SHOWER commented that it's basically multi-factor
identification.
MR. GRAVLEY agreed and restated that out of bounds questions are
required.
3:51:17 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the industry had any security concerns
about transitioning to e-signatures.
MR. GRAVLEY offered his belief that it was more secure when
there were out of bounds questions.
3:51:59 PM
DANIEL MCCUE, Alaska Credit Union League, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified by invitation in support of HB 163. He said this
change will open the door to technology changes that will
enhance the ability for the credit union to provide more timely
service to its members. This will also address the uncomfortable
situation that lenders faced during the pandemic when there was
a backlog of unprocessed titles because offices weren't open. He
called the bill a smart change that will allow DMV to look at
alternatives that will enhance its service to Alaskans.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he concurred with Mr. Gravley's responses
to his questions.
MR. MCCUE said he covered it well; technology requires all
parties to ensure that security is at the highest level
possible. It's part of the review process.
3:53:47 PM
STEVE ALLWINE, Member, Alaska Auto Dealers Association (AADA),
Juneau, Alaska, testified by invitation in support of HB 163. He
said that striking the word "ink" from the application for title
statute will modernize, streamline, and provide greater
convenience to the motor vehicle purchase process. It also
enhances the ability of automotive retailers and lenders to
provide better service to people living in outlying areas of the
state. Electronic signatures are secure and lenders and
automotive retailers are already using them for the security
agreements and financial contracts, which are more important.
Allowing e-signatures falls in line with the steps that have
already been taken.
3:55:32 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND acknowledged that he was belaboring the point
about losing the permanent mark on a title. He asked Jeffrey
Schmitz with DMV if there were any implications to no longer
having a signature in ink on a vehicle title. He also asked if
there was anything in regulation about signatures in ink.
3:56:09 PM
JEFFREY SCHMITZ, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated
that there are more than 60 places in current Alaska statutes
that refer to certificate of title as an application for title
signed in ink. He said this is an exciting first step and he
understands the enthusiasm that industry has, but it's important
to be clear about what the bill does and does not do. HB 163
only removes the requirement for the title to be signed in ink.
This opens the door to the possibility for DMV to look at other
solutions, but this is not required. DMV's analysis is that a
feasibility study would need to be done before making any
changes. The requirement for a signature in ink serves as a
roadblock that impedes DMV's ability to look at any future
solutions.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if DMV supports HB 163.
MR. SCHMITZ replied that DMV has a neutral stance on the bill.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if DMV had identified any problems it would
have in transitioning to electronic signatures on vehicle
titles.
MR. SCHMITZ replied that's difficult to ascertain in the absence
of a feasibility study. He relayed that multiple states are
conducting pilot programs and Alaska could possibly look at some
of those electronic solutions if the bill were to pass. He
acknowledged that this was a wave of the future and that there
likely was a solution but he didn't know what that might be at
this point.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it was fair to say that a fiscal note from
DMV would include a study and whatever else might need to be
implemented.
MR. SCHMITZ responded that DMV submitted an indeterminate fiscal
note because implementing electronic signatures for vehicle
titles would entail more than the removal of "in ink" from the
statutes. DMV's estimate to build an electronic titling system
is in the neighborhood of $3.5 million. It would require a well
thought out and detailed project.
4:00:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he envisions that an electronic
signature would be required on both the bill of sale and the
title transfer.
MR. SCHMITZ replied that DMV needs the signed title document to
perform the title transfer. He acknowledged that there was a
process if the title was missing.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he didn't know whether DMV needed
direction from the legislature or the administration, but this
was the wave of the future and the state would do well to start
in that direction.
CHAIR SHOWER said he understands why the fiscal note is
indeterminate, but that leads to the question of whether the
legislature would need to provide an allocation to do the study.
He asked the sponsor if that had come up in discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE replied that the understanding from the
start was that there would be a fiscal cost to transitioning to
e-signatures on vehicle transfers. HB 163 is a step in that
direction by simply removing the current requirement for the
signature to be in ink. He said the bill does not mandate DMV to
take this project on, but he would note that 36 other states had
removed the signature in ink requirement and 26 of those states
had looked at how to develop and enact such a process. HB 163
leaves the decision to DMV about when and whether to start the
process to put an electronic system in place.
CHAIR SHOWER said that makes sense.
4:04:22 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked the sponsor if he had any final comments.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE restated that HB 163 removes the term "in
ink" from the statutes.
4:04:34 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 163 in committee for future consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| W.A.12.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| 22-237lme.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| 22-126boo.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| W.A.8.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| W.A.9.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| W.A.10.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| W.A.11.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 234 |
| HB123 B.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| hb297 support Tammie Wilson.pdf |
SSTA 5/12/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 297 |