National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS), 5740-5779 [E9-1835]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
5740
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FBI 117; AG Order No. 3042–
2009]
RIN 1110–AA30
National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System (NMVTIS)
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
SUMMARY: The National Motor Vehicle
Title Information System (NMVTIS) has
been established pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30502 and has the participation, or
partial participation, of at least 36 states.
The purpose of NMVTIS is to assist in
efforts to prevent the introduction or
reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles
into interstate commerce, protect states
and individual and commercial
consumers from fraud, reduce the use of
stolen vehicles for illicit purposes
including fundraising for criminal
enterprises, and provide consumer
protection from unsafe vehicles. This
rule implements the NMVTIS reporting
requirements imposed on junk yards,
salvage yards, and insurance carriers
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30504(c). This
rule also clarifies the process by which
NMVTIS will be funded and clarifies
the various responsibilities of the
operator of NMVTIS, states, junk yards,
salvage yards, and insurance carriers
regarding NMVTIS.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective March 2, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alissa Huntoon, 810 7th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20531, 202–616–6500,
www.NMVTIS.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992,
Public Law No. 102–519, 106 Stat. 3384,
required the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to establish an
information system intended to enable
states and others to access automobile
titling information. As part of the AntiCar Theft Act of 1992, DOT was
authorized to designate a third party to
operate the system. Since 1992, the
American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) has acted in
the capacity of the operator of the
system. AAMVA is a nonprofit, tax
exempt, educational association
representing U.S. and Canadian officials
who are responsible for the
administration and enforcement of
motor vehicle laws. The requirements of
the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 were
amended by Public Law 103–272 and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of
1996, Public Law No. 104–152, 110 Stat.
1384. The Anti-Car Theft Improvements
Act of 1996 renamed the automobile
titling system the ‘‘National Motor
Vehicle Title Information System’’ and
transferred responsibility for
implementing the system from DOT to
the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Hereinafter, the Anti-Car Theft Act of
1992 and the revisions made by Public
Law 103–272 and the Anti-Car Theft
Improvements Act of 1996, codified at
49 U.S.C. 30501–30505, are collectively
referred to as the ‘‘Anti-Car Theft Act’’or
the ‘‘Act.’’
While the overall purpose of the AntiCar Theft Act is to prevent and deter
auto theft, title II of the Act, which
authorizes NMVTIS, is intended to
address automobile title fraud.
Accordingly, the primary purpose of
NMVTIS is to prevent various types of
theft and fraud by providing an
electronic means for verifying and
exchanging title, brand, theft, and other
data among motor vehicle
administrators, law enforcement
officials, prospective and current
purchasers (individual or commercial),
and insurance carriers.1 Currently, 37
states are actively involved with
NMVTIS, representing nearly 75% of
the U.S. motor vehicle population.
Specifically, 13 states are participating
fully in NMVTIS, 14 states are regularly
providing data to the system, and an
additional 10 states are actively taking
steps to provide data or participate
fully.2 States that participate fully in the
system provide data to the system on a
daily or real-time basis and make
NMVTIS inquiries before issuing a new
title on a vehicle from out of state and
preferably before every title verification,
regardless of its origin or reason.
Participating states also pay user fees to
support the system and the services
provided to the state.
In 2006, the Integrated Justice
Information Systems (IJIS) Institute, a
nonprofit membership organization
made up of technology companies, was
asked by Department of Justice’s Bureau
1 Brands are descriptive labels regarding the
status of a motor vehicle, such as ‘‘junk,’’ ‘‘salvage,’’
and ‘‘flood’’ vehicles.
2 There are currently 13 states participating fully
in NMVTIS: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Nevada,
Ohio, South Dakota, Virgina, Washington, and
Wisconsin. Fourteen states are providing regular
data updates to NMVTIS: Alabama, California,
Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia,
Tennesses, Texas, and Wyoming. Ten states are
actively taking steps to provide data or participate
fully: Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montaina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Vermont, and West Virginia. See www.NMVTIS.gov
for a map of current participation status.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of Justice Assistance (BJA) to conduct a
full review of the NMVTIS system
architecture to identify any
technological barriers to NMVTIS
implementation and to determine if any
potential cost savings was available
through emerging technology. The IJIS
Institute report found that ‘‘the NMVTIS
program provides an invaluable benefit
to state vehicle administrators and the
public community as a whole.
Advantages of the program include
improving the state titling process, as
well as providing key information to
consumers and law enforcement
agencies.’’ In addition to this study, the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) also found NMVTIS to hold
benefit potential for states, and a private
cost-benefit study also determined that
NMVTIS could provide benefits in the
range of $4 to $11 billion dollars
annually if fully implemented. NMVTIS
and its benefits to states, law
enforcement, consumers, and others
have been widely touted by motor
vehicle or auto-industry organizations
including AAMVA and the National
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA), by law enforcement
organizations such as the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the
National Sheriffs Association, by the
North American Export Committee
(NAEC), and by the International
Association of Auto Theft Investigators.
NMVTIS’s benefits have also been
recognized by national consumer
advocacy organizations, and by
industry-affiliated groups including the
National Salvage Vehicle Reporting
Program and many others, as identified
in the public comments.
NMVTIS is a powerful tool for state
titling agencies. Fully participating state
titling agencies are able to use NMVTIS
to prevent fraud by verifying the motor
vehicle and title information,
information on brands applied to a
motor vehicle, and information on
whether the motor vehicle has been
reported stolen—all prior to the titling
jurisdiction issuing a new title. In order
to perform this check, these states run
the vehicle identification number (VIN)
against a national pointer file, which
provides the last jurisdiction that issued
a title on the motor vehicle and requests
details of the motor vehicle from that
jurisdiction. Using a secure connection,
states then receive all required
information or the complete title of
record from the state of record. States
can then use this information to verify
information on the paper title being
presented.
Verification of this data allows fully
participating states to reduce the
issuance of fraudulent titles and reduce
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
odometer fraud. Once the inquiring
jurisdiction receives the information, a
state is able to decide whether to issue
a title. For states fully participating
through integrated, online access, if a
new title is issued, NMVTIS notifies the
last titling jurisdiction that another
jurisdiction has issued a title. The old
jurisdiction then can inactivate its title
record. This action allows fully
participating jurisdictions to identify
and purge inactive titles on a regular
basis and eliminates the need for these
agencies to conduct these processes
manually. This service provides a
measurable benefit to states in terms of
cost savings. In 2007, over 18.4 million
title-update transactions were initiated
and over 45 million messages were
generated via NMVTIS, which allows
states to work and communicate
securely and to perform electronic title
transactions between states.
NMVTIS also allows fully
participating states to ensure that brands
are not lost when a motor vehicle travels
from state to state. As noted above,
brands are descriptive labels regarding
the status of a motor vehicle. Many
brands, such as a flood vehicle brand,
indicate that a motor vehicle may not be
safe for use. Unfortunately, motor
vehicles with brands on their titles can
have their brands ‘‘washed’’ (i.e.,
removed ) from a title if the motor
vehicle is retitled in another state that
does not check with the state that issued
the previous title and with other states
that may have previously issued titles
on the vehicle to determine if it has any
existing brands not shown on the paper
title. Because NMVTIS keeps a history
of brands applied by any state to the
motor vehicle at any time, it protects
individual and corporate consumers by
helping ensure full disclosure so that
purchasers are not defrauded or placed
at risk by purchasing an unsafe motor
vehicle. Currently, there are
approximately 300,000,000 VINs in
NMVTIS with over 40,000,000 brands
included. NMVTIS also prevents ‘‘clean
title’’ vehicles that are actually a total
loss or salvage from being used to
generate a paper title that is later
attached to a stolen vehicle that is
‘‘cloned’’ to the destroyed ‘‘clean title’’
vehicle. Criminal enterprises seek these
‘‘clean title’’ vehicles, which are low
cost to them (because they are destroyed
or salvage), because it increases their
return when they sell a cloned stolen
vehicle. It has been noted that criminal
profits in such a case can more than
quadruple if a ‘‘clean title’’ vehicle is
used for cloning. Even worse, because
these cloned vehicles are able to get into
the titling systems of the non-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
5741
participating states, they often continue
to be sold to new and unsuspecting
owners. There have been cases
involving car dealers who had
purchased stolen cloned vehicles and
resold them to individual consumers.
NMVTIS also provides protections from
other types of related theft and fraud
that ultimately place lives at risk and
cost states, consumers, and the private
sectors billions of dollars each year. The
proceeds from these illicit activities
support additional crime and fraud and
even serious and violent crime. For
more information on the benefits of
NMVTIS, visit www.NMVTIS.gov.
addresses fraud, it is clear that brand
information can be directly linked to
vehicle theft in addition to fraud. Law
enforcement investigations have
repeatedly shown that ‘‘clean title’’ total
loss vehicles are a preferred commodity
among car cloning and car theft rings, as
they bring a higher return on
investment. The Anti-Car Theft Act
exemption, which is in 49 U.S.C. 33111,
provides that junk and salvage yards are
not required to report on an automobile
if they are issued a verification under 49
U.S.C. 33110 stating that the automobile
or parts from the automobile are not
reported as stolen.
Discussion of Comments
On September 22, 2008, the
Department of Justice published a
proposed rule to implement various
requirements concerning NMVTIS. See
National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System (NMVTIS), 73 FR
54544 (Sept. 22, 2008). The rule
proposed the imposition of reporting
requirements on junk yards, salvage
yards, and insurance carriers. In
addition, the rule clarified the funding
process for NMVTIS and the
responsibilities of the operator of
NMVTIS, states, junk yards, salvage
yards, and insurance carriers. The
comments and the Department’s
responses are discussed below:
2. Effectiveness
Comment: Several submissions
questioned the effectiveness of NMVTIS
in eliminating or preventing fraud and
theft. Several of these commenters
suggested the need for quantitative
proof of the system’s effectiveness
before the law should be followed. At
the same time, however, several
submissions recognized the value of
NMVTIS. As one commenter noted,
‘‘NMVTIS would undoubtedly cut down
on the number of rebuilt wreck fraud
cases.’’ And the State of Texas
Department of Transportation noted that
‘‘[t]he system provides numerous
obvious benefits to titling agencies, law
enforcement[,] and vehicle sellers, as
well as consumer protection to the
buying public.’’
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act’s
participation requirements were
established based on analyses presented
at the time of the bill’s introduction and
passing. Further, an extensive costbenefit analysis and a Government
Accountability Office study both have
independently determined that NMVTIS
will produce a significant public benefit
that greatly exceeds the costs of
implementing the program. The costbenefit study found that the system is
only as effective as the number of
vehicles represented in the system. Nonparticipating states create ‘‘loopholes’’
where brands can be washed, allowing
further fraud in any state—participating
or not. Discussions with private-vehiclehistory-report providers and ongoing
law enforcement investigations at the
state, local, and federal levels have
shown that non-participating states are
targeted for exploitation because their
vehicle titling information is not
immediately shared with other states
and because they have no efficient
ability to inquire with all other states
that may have previously titled the
vehicle.
Feedback from participating states
points to other positive outcomes of the
program. One state reports a 17%
1. General Comments
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that NMVTIS will deter
various types of crime and fraud and
suggested that since the passage of the
Anti-Car Theft Act, the types of crime
and fraud, as well as the methods, have
evolved. These commenters noted that
the purpose of NMVTIS remains to
address these types of crime and fraud.
Response: DOJ agrees that since the
passage of the Anti-Car Theft Act,
crimes and crime techniques have
evolved. DOJ, therefore, has updated the
stated purpose of NMVTIS to be more
reflective of the crime and expansive
direct and indirect fraud NMVTIS was
intended to address and is addressing
today.
Comment: The American Salvage Pool
Association (ASPA) commented that
junk and salvage yards have an
exemption for reporting where and
when a non-stolen verification is
obtained under 49 U.S.C. 33110, which
authorizes a system that has never been
implemented. The ASPA commented
that this exemption ‘‘is telling, however,
in linking NMVTIS’[s] statutory purpose
to theft prevention, as opposed to brand
information.’’
Response: In addition to the fact that
title II of the Anti-Car Theft Act
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5742
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
decrease in motor vehicle thefts; another
reports a 99% recovery rate on vehicles
identified as stolen; three states have
identified cloned vehicles by working
together, prior to issuing new titles; and
another state reports cracking a car theft
ring responsible for cloning more than
250 cars worth $8 million. Aside from
these results, it is clear that if all states
comply with the Anti-Car Theft Act
requirements, brand washing in the way
it is most commonly conducted today
will be eliminated because there is no
other way to title a vehicle other than
going through a state titling process. The
same goes for vehicle cloning, which
would be virtually eliminated if every
state participated as required.
Moreover, Experian Automotive
reported that in the first six months of
2008 alone, there have already been
more than 185,000 titles that initially
were branded in one state, and were
then transferred and re-titled in a
second state in a way that resulted in a
purportedly clean title. Given all these
facts, we can be sure that NMVTIS will
be effective in eliminating this type of
fraud, preventing a significant number
of crimes, and potentially saving the
lives of citizens who would otherwise
purchase unsafe vehicles.
In addition to the system’s
documented value in reducing theft and
fraud in protecting consumers, the
system also has been shown to create
greater efficiencies within the titling
process when the inquiry and response
are integrated into the states’ titling
processes.
Comment: NAEC commented that
‘‘the effectiveness [of NMVTIS] can only
be truly measured [when] all
jurisdictions are participating, because
of the holes that are currently in the
system due to lack of full participation.’’
The State of California Department of
Motor Vehicles seemingly agreed with
this comment when it noted that ‘‘these
beneficial outcomes can only be
achieved when all 50 states and the
District of Columbia are participating.’’
The Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles commented that ‘‘the system
provides a great value to participating
states, and that value will exponentially
increase as each jurisdiction begins fully
participating.’’
Response: DOJ agrees in part with
these assessments. As discussed above,
partial participation creates loopholes
that criminal organizations exploit, and,
therefore, measuring the full benefit of
a comprehensive NMVTIS is difficult
without participation by all states.
However, NMVTIS provides significant
benefits to participating states even
when state participation is not at 100%.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Comment: One commenter asked if
the information would have much
‘‘practical utility,’’ or whether it would
only serve as further documentation of
a market that is only broadly related to
secondary criminal enterprises. The
commenter further noted that ‘‘the rule
will only spur increased sophistication
of organized crime. This increased
sophistication must be balanced against
the proposed benefits from the small
contraction in the secondary criminal
market that is assumed to occur under
this rule. One of the benefits of the
proposed rule is the documentation of
salvage pool sales. But this benefit is
limited: it will only require criminals to
go through more steps, steps that require
increased organizational skills. Hence,
although the rule may push some
criminals out of the market overall (the
less sophisticated and organized), it will
also indirectly spur increased
sophistication and organization of the
surviving criminal organizations.
Although one of the primary goals of
NMVTIS is theft deterrence, there is no
data to support the conclusion that this
portion of the criminal market will be
affected by the proposed rule.’’
Response: DOJ disagrees with these
comments. Substantial evidence,
statements, and documentation indicate
that NMVTIS will impact vehicle theft
and fraud.
Comment: Several commenters,
including law enforcement, consumer
advocates, industry associations, and
state motor vehicle administrators,
including California’s, noted that
NMVTIS is needed and will be effective
in addressing the threats of auto theft,
cloning, and fraud, and in providing
protection for consumers against fraud.
Response: DOJ agrees with these
comments and notes that the expected
benefits and positive outcomes of
NMVTIS have been confirmed not only
by government and private research, but
also by multiple representatives of every
stakeholder community affected by the
system, including state titling agencies,
state and local law enforcement,
consumers, insurance carriers, and junkor salvage-yard operators.
Comment: The NAEC commented that
law enforcement successes to date can
validate the benefits and costs
associated with NMVTIS and that ‘‘the
NAEC is solid in its belief that NMVTIS
is a fundamentally sound approach to
‘title washing,’ title fraud, vehicle
theft[,] and public safety related to the
‘branding’ of un-road worthy vehicles in
this Country.’’ The NAEC provided data
from one state that uses NMVTIS and,
as a result, has identified and recovered
hundreds of stolen vehicles. The NAEC
further commented that to suggest that
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the system should be cancelled
‘‘demonstrates a lack of understanding
[of] the magnitude of the vehicle theft
problem in North America and Public
Safety issues surrounding ‘branded’
vehicles.’’
Response: DOJ agrees with the
NAEC’s assessment of NMVTIS.
Comment: The State of Illinois Motor
Vehicle Administration commented that
other services have become available
since the Anti-Car Theft Act was passed
and that NMVTIS should ‘‘be put on
hold’’ while an analysis on the need for
NMVTIS can be conducted. The Maine
Bureau of Motor Vehicles suggested that
NMVTIS was not needed because
‘‘consumers have other options for
checking vehicle title status prior to
purchase.’’
Response: While other fee-based
options for checking vehicle title status
are available for consumers, the ability
of consumers to check NMVTIS for
vehicle title status is required by federal
law and a federal court order. When
fully implemented, NMVTIS will
provide assurances that no other option
can provide—complete and timely
information on all vehicles in the U.S.
The Anti-Car Theft Act provided no
flexibility for states, insurance carriers,
or junk or salvage yards to filter
information shared with NMVTIS; thus
NMVTIS will be the most-reliable
source of information once fully
implemented. Several providers of
vehicle history information have agreed
to make NMVTIS data available as a
way of enhancing their products,
demonstrating that NMVTIS does have
unique value. DOJ is not in a position
to put NMVTIS on hold, as recent
litigation was based on the complaint
that DOJ had waited too long to issue
NMVTIS regulations. A court has
ordered DOJ to publish these regulations
by January 30, 2009. See Public Citizen,
Inc. v. Mukasey, No. 3:08–cv–00833–
MHP, 2008 WL 4532540 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
9, 2008).
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘it is beyond the scope of the NMVTIS
regulations to reform the process by
which insurers assign title designations;
however having the sales reported in a
timely fashion, and by including
appropriate identification of both
international, domestic (out of state) and
domestic (in state) buyers, it will help
the Law Enforcement Community in its
effort to control crime and protect the
public.’’
Response: It is beyond the scope of
NMVTIS and DOJ’s intentions to alter
insurance carrier policies and
procedures in terms of title
designations. While transfers of vehicles
from insurance carriers to others would
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
likely be captured in the NMVTIS
reporting process due to subsequent
reporting by junk and salvage yards, it
is unlikely that the names of buyers will
be reported or captured in the system
because this is not a required data field.
Requiring the name of such buyers is of
significant value to law enforcement for
preventing and investigating automobile
theft and fraud. Additionally, as is
pointed out elsewhere in these
comments, establishing a ‘‘chain of
possession or custody’’ is important for
effective and efficient law enforcement
investigations.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[a]ccording to Experian Automotive,
(PR Newswire August 25, 2008
Experian, Schaumburg, IL), in the first
6 months of 2008 alone, there have
already been more than 185,000 titles
that initially were branded in the first
state, and were then transferred and retitled in a second state in a way that
resulted in a ‘clean’ title. This situation
cannot be addressed without much
stronger controls and full reporting.
There is a great deal of abuse of the title
system and we regularly observe
severely damaged units that have been
given clean title designations to vehicles
that have massive damage. As a result,
criminals regularly buy these vehicles
for the paper, and steal a like vehicle
and engage in cloning or VIN
swapping.’’
Response: Once all states comply with
the law, NMVTIS will protect against
these types of abuses by creating a brand
history (a record of the various brands
associated with a particular VIN) for
every vehicle, which will prevent a
future title-issuing agent from being
unaware of a vehicle’s brand history and
will eliminate the possibility of a
vehicle being titled in more than one
state (a common occurrence today).
Comment: Maine Bureau of Motor
Vehicles commented that Maine
‘‘already has procedures in place to
check for stolen status prior to issuing
a title and for carrying forward out-ofstate brands.’’
Response: NMVTIS is designed to
provide more than a simple stolenvehicle check. Further, neither carrying
forward out-of-state brands based on
paper titles presented, nor checking the
paper documentation against a thirdparty data provider, eliminates brand
washing. Washed brands may not
appear on paper or in third-party
databases. Because states are required to
report title transactions to NMVTIS and
to check NMVTIS prior to issuing a new
title, NMVTIS is the only system that
can eliminate such brand washing when
fully implemented. No state, except
those participating in NMVTIS when
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
fully implemented, has any ability to
fully verify brand histories and carry
forward out-of-state brands without
manually contacting every state and the
District of Columbia prior to issuing a
new title.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘the benefits of NMVTIS are also not
illogical simply because concrete figures
do not exist concerning its limited
implementation.’’ ‘‘Given NMVTIS’[s]
[implementation] status, any figures
outlining the benefits would prove
highly conservative even if found. It is
not difficult to imagine though that
illegal reselling of salvaged vehicles
takes advantage [of] reporting gaps by
moving across state lines. Statistics
concerning such operations are welldocumented even if the benefits of
NMVTIS are not.’’ ‘‘Being able to verify
the success and results of NMVTIS thus
depends critically on the provision of
information from all states.’’
Response: DOJ agrees with this
comment.
Comment: The Missouri Department
of Revenue commented that the system
is only as good as the number of
jurisdictions participating, and in light
of current participation levels, the state
is expending resources for data that may
not be inclusive or accurate.
Response: As of December 2008,
NMVTIS includes nearly 75% of the
U.S. vehicle population. At the same
time, several states are actively working
towards participation in NMVTIS,
which will take NMVTIS closer to 100%
participation. With the inclusion of
insurance and junk- and salvage-yard
information, and given that many states
report to NMVTIS in ‘‘real time,’’
NMVTIS is likely to be as inclusive as
any vehicle title history database
available, even before 100% state
participation. As for accuracy, the
system currently includes only data
from state motor vehicle
administrations, and DOJ is aware of no
errors in NMVTIS. As stated in this rule,
procedures and safeguards will be put
into place to ensure identification and
correction of any errors identified. Nonparticipating states, on the other hand,
are expending their resources based on
fraudulent information when they issue
titles in many situations.
3. Need and Purpose
Comment: One commenter asked ‘‘To
what extent is consumer protection and
the prevention of fraud in the secondary
car market domestically and
internationally a high priority for the
agency?’’
Response: The prevention of fraud
that affects U.S. citizens, whether it be
here or abroad, and consumer protection
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5743
are priorities for DOJ and for NMVTIS.
DOJ’s Strategic Plan includes in its
second goal ‘‘Strategic Objective 2.5:
Combat public and corporate
corruption, fraud, economic crime, and
cybercrime.’’ U.S. Department of Justice
Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2007–2012.
Comment: One commenter noted that
states often sell their vehicle history
records to private, third-party
organizations who then resell the data.
The commenter requested that the final
rule spell out that the states own the
data and that the operator of the system
may not resell the data to other
providers without authorization of the
states.
Response: While NMVTIS may
contain a subset of data on vehicles
titled within the U.S., it does not
include all of the information a state
motor vehicle administration may
possess. DOJ agrees that the statemaintained vehicle history databases are
the province of the states, and that the
intent of the Anti-Car Theft Act was not
to create a database of information for
bulk resale. The operator of the system,
therefore, will not resell the NMVTIS
database in its entirety to anyone. Two
key goals of the Anti-Car Theft Act,
however, are consumer access to the
data and a self-funded system. For these
reasons, the operator will be allowed to
charge consumers for use.
Comment: The State of Illinois motor
vehicle administration questioned how
NMVTIS will interface with law
enforcement data systems within the
state that are used to identify and ‘‘flag’’
stolen vehicles.
Response: NMVTIS is not expected to
‘‘interface’’ with law enforcement
systems within the state. Information in
NMVTIS related to a vehicle’s ‘‘theft
status’’ or history emanates from one of
two places—state brands and the theft
file of the National Insurance Crime
Bureau (NICB), which is derived from
the FBI’s National Crime Information
Center (NCIC). Law enforcement
systems will be able to link or connect
to the NMVTIS law enforcement access
site, however, which will include all
NMVTIS information without
restriction. NCIC will always be the
primary repository of active theft files
for law enforcement. Stolen vehicle
information in NMVTIS is provided
only for state titling purposes for those
states that cannot access NCIC or statebased law enforcement systems.
4. Prospective Purchaser Inquiries
Comment: The Idaho Transportation
Department commented that the
proposed rules included several data
elements in the requirement for
prospective-purchaser inquiry responses
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5744
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
or consumer access reports that would
effectively eliminate the need for an
actual state record to be requested by a
consumer or prospective purchaser,
thereby reducing state revenues realized
from the sale of motor vehicle records.
Response: At a minimum, NMVTIS
will provide the following pieces of
information in response to an inquiry, if
that data is present in NMVTIS: (a) The
current state of title; (b) the brand
history of the vehicle; (c) the latest
reported odometer reading; and (d)
information about the vehicle’s reported
appearance in the inventory of a
covered junk or salvage yard or on any
insurance carrier determination of total
loss related to that vehicle. There are
several reasons, however, why states are
likely to continue to experience demand
for their full title records. First, states
often possess additional information
that is not anticipated to be within
NMVTIS but that is of interest to many
purchasers. This information may
include ownership information, lienholder information, registration
information, safety-inspection data, and
other details that the states may have
but are not required to report to
NMVTIS. Second, by providing
consumers with the current state of title,
NMVTIS actually serves as a nationwide
pointer that will result in an increase in
requests for state records. And DOJ will
direct the operator to ensure that all
consumer access portal providers
provide consumers with a link to the
state’s site or to the state’s designated
vehicle history report access point,
enabling consumers to purchase the full
state record. Third, states are eligible to
become portal providers, thereby
capturing an opportunity to increase
revenues by providing access to
NMVTIS data and to the states’ records
for a state-determined fee.
Comment: The State of Nevada
Department of Motor Vehicles
commented that ‘‘Nevada will not allow
the unauthorized release of the title data
we send to NMVTIS. Nevada statutes
limit what data can be released and to
whom. Will AAMVA have the
capability and assume the responsibility
of prescreening those who want to
access Nevada title data to ensure the
disclosure complies with Nevada
statutes? Will AAMVA have the
capability of collecting and forwarding
the fees currently charged for accessing
and receiving Nevada’s title records
without Nevada becoming a third
party?’’
Response: Neither NMVTIS nor the
operator will be releasing any state’s
vehicle title records. The information
that will be shared via NMVTIS is not
a state’s vehicle title record and is
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
generated from the index maintained by
NMVTIS, with limited information on
the identified vehicle, as authorized and
directed by the Anti-Car Theft Act. This
federal statute provides the necessary
authorization and direction concerning
what information will be shared, how it
will be shared, and to whom it can be
shared. After providing the NMVTIS
information in response to a consumer
inquiry, NMVTIS, through the thirdparty portal providers, will offer
consumers the ability to be directed to
the state of record’s Web site in order to
purchase the state’s full vehicle title
record from the current state of record.
Once that ‘‘handoff’’ occurs, any
decision by consumers to purchase the
state’s title record will be governed by
applicable state statutes, policies, and
processes, and by the state’s vehiclehistory-report provider’s policies and
processes. NMVTIS prospective
purchaser inquiry was designed in this
way in an effort to point consumers to
state Web sites for state vehicle title
histories from that state should they be
desired and available, thus enabling
consumers to purchase the full record
and generating revenues for the states.
Comment: Several motor vehicle
administration agencies and other
organizations commented that if
personal information is released by
NMVTIS to non-government
organizations, it may be in conflict with
the provisions of the Driver’s Privacy
Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA). Several
of these commenters recommended that
this information only be available to law
enforcement or government
organizations, while others indicated
that they would be prohibited from
sharing personal information with
prospective purchasers.
Response: According to the DPPA, 18
U.S.C. 2721(b)(2), permitted uses of
information protected by the DPPA
include ‘‘[f]or use in connection with
matters of motor vehicle or driver safety
and theft; motor vehicle emissions;
motor vehicle product alterations,
recalls, or advisories; performance
monitoring of motor vehicles, motor
vehicle parts and dealers; motor vehicle
market research activities, including
survey research; and removal of nonowner records from the original owner
records of motor vehicle
manufacturers.’’ In addition, 18 U.S.C.
2721(b)(3) provides additional
authorizations ‘‘[f]or use in the normal
course of business by a legitimate
business or its agents, employees, [or]
contractors.’’ These exceptions include
sufficient authorization for states to
provide access to personal identifying
information, and many commenters
agreed. Nonetheless, NMVTIS includes
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
personal information primarily for the
benefit of law enforcement agencies,
including governmental regulatory and
compliance-monitoring agencies that
may not have immediate access to such
data or to state motor vehicle-history
files. NMVTIS will not provide personal
information in the NMVTIS central file
to individual prospective purchasers
and may not provide access to any other
type of user without securing DOJ
approval of such access.
Comment: Several commenters,
notably from the consumer-advocacy
community, encouraged DOJ to
‘‘minimize, to the greatest extent
possible[,] any cost to consumers for
accessing the data base.’’
Response: By statute, the fees
NMVTIS charges will not be more than
the costs of operating the system.
Although NMVTIS does not control
what portal providers will charge for
consumer access to the data, by making
that data available to all potential portal
providers at the same price, it will be
difficult for any provider to charge too
high a premium for access to that data.
Comment: One commenter noted that
NMVTIS will make it possible for users
to understand either what a state-issued
brand (i.e., statement of the condition or
prior use of a vehicle) means or to
which state they need to go to
understand the brand’s meaning. ‘‘Even
if in some circumstances NMVTIS can
say nothing more than ‘branded in
jurisdiction X,’ at least the NMVTIS user
will know which [state] jurisdiction to
consult.’’
Response: Because neither the AntiCar Theft Act nor NMVTIS creates
universal brands, DOJ will direct the
NMVTIS operator to ensure that
consumer-access portal providers
provide a link to brand definitions and
any available related explanations, so
that consumers can be aware of how
brands may be defined. One of
NMVTIS’s benefits is that it will
identify which states have branded a
vehicle, informing consumers of which
jurisdiction to consult for further
information.
Comment: The State of Alaska
commented that neither DOJ nor the
NMVTIS operator should be permitted
to discount transaction fees for volume
purchasers. This commenter stated that
not discounting the price will maximize
revenue collected to offset NMVTIS
operational costs, resulting in reduced
rates charged to the states.
Response: The volume discounts
established by the current operator have
been more effective in securing
consumer-access portal providers than
the non-discounted rates. DOJ will
continue to monitor the fee structure to
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
ensure that it is effective in securing
participating providers without
increasing reliance on state fees. Fees
generated through the portal providers
will offset the financial impact on states.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the NMVTIS prospective-purchaser
inquiry is redundant of similar services
that already exist.
Response: A significant number of
consumer advocacy, law enforcement,
and other organizations submitted
comments arguing that NMVTIS’s
prospective-purchaser inquiry is not
redundant with existing services. For
example, NMVTIS receives certain state
data more frequently than some of the
third-party databases, and the data
NMVTIS receives includes information
that some of the third-party databases
do not have.
Comment: The Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) argued
that the law does not give DOJ the
authority to expand NMVTIS data
collection to further the interests of a
particular group of stakeholders. The
ISRI expressed concern that certain
stakeholders would promise smooth and
easy implementation of the rule if DOJ
were to demand collection of additional
data for NMVTIS.
Response: No individual or entity has
made such claims or promises, and DOJ
has not expanded the scope of data to
be collected beyond that which was
intended or demonstrated to be
necessary to accomplish the program’s
goals as set forth in statute.
5. Privacy
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[t]here are provisions in law in regards
to privacy of individual identity that do
not appear to be satisfactorily addressed
in this document.’’ Another commenter
noted that it will not send any names to
NMVTIS because names do not validate
a title and because of concerns over
compliance with the DPPA. The
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
commented that NMVTIS was intended
as a pointer system, and it is not
necessary for that pointer system to
include all data fields, particularly
private information. AAMVA also
recommended against requiring owner
name in the NMVTIS central file for
privacy and cost reasons.
Response: DOJ takes these concerns
very seriously and agrees that privacy
interests must be protected. While
names may not be needed to validate a
title, names are relevant and necessary
from a law enforcement perspective,
and in certain other situations. To
ensure the protection of privacy,
however, DOJ has amended the rule to
provide that no privacy fields shall be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
available without DOJ approval to any
NMVTIS user, other than state-titling,
law enforcement, or other government
agency. Additionally, the operator shall
ensure that no individual prospective
purchaser has access to any personal
information. DOJ will require that the
operator of NMVTIS have an approved
privacy policy in place that describes
how the operator will ensure adequate
privacy protections, consistent with the
DPPA and other relevant statutes.
Comment: NAEC noted that data
privacy fields should be available for
law enforcement purposes.
Response: DOJ agrees with this
comment.
Comment: The Automotive Recyclers
Association (ARA) and ISRI both
emphasized that confidential business
information, such as the number and
type of automobiles processed by
individual junk and salvage yards in a
given period of time, the sources of
those vehicles, and related information,
should not be released to the public or
other data providers.
Response: The operator will not
disseminate this type of information to
any non-governmental entity or
individual, and this information will
not be available to prospective
purchasers. DOJ will closely monitor
this aspect of the system to ensure that
access to sensitive or personal data only
proceeds with DOJ approval.
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification in the final rule
on any liability or immunity for
providing data to NMVTIS as the AntiCar Theft Act requires.
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
grants certain immunity for those
reporting data to the system. The scope
of this immunity is described in the Act
at 49 U.S.C. 30502(f) and does not
require clarification.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended maintaining provisions
for accessing personal information to
qualified DPPA commercial consumers,
so that entities that currently work with
the states to access this information
could continue to do so, which would
benefit the states and NMVTIS.
Response: Providing continued access
to these entities may facilitate effective
and efficient service to the states, but
such access may only occur with DOJ
approval, and may also require
compliance with state application and
certification processes and procedures.
In most cases, these entities will only
use NMVTIS as a pointer to connect
with and access the state’s data,
including personal information, if the
state provides for that access.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5745
6. Timely Reporting
Comment: Several commenters,
including several national consumeradvocacy organizations, requested that
dispositions by insurance, junk, or
salvage sales to other entities be
reported at the time of the sale and
include the identity of the buyer, which
would support law enforcement
investigations into fraud and theft. The
National Salvage Vehicle Reporting
Program also commented that salvage
pools should be required to report sales
within one business day of the sale in
order to reduce fraud and theft.
Response: The reporting of
dispositional information is critical and
needs to be timely, but the DOJ cannot
require that the reporting be anything
other than monthly in accordance with
the requirements of the Anti-Car Theft
Act. DOJ has added a requirement for
such entities to report the name of the
primary buyer of such vehicles.
Comment: ARA and ISRI commented
that junk- and salvage-yard operators
have an interest in reporting efficiency
and recommended that such entities be
permitted to report the ultimate
intended disposition of the vehicle at
the time of initial reporting. ASPA also
reported that requiring an entity to
continuously report that a vehicle is in
its inventory is inefficient and pointless.
Response: In cases where the ultimate
disposition is known with certainty,
junk- and salvage-yard operators now
will be permitted to report disposition
in their initial report. The reporting
entity is responsible for ensuring that
the vehicle is disposed of in the manner
reported or for filing an updated report
to account for a different disposition. In
response to concerns of reporting
inefficiency, DOJ notes that entities
report once when the vehicle enters the
inventory and are only required to
report again on that vehicle if they need
to update the record. Should the
disposition be known at the time of
initial reporting (e.g., ‘‘sale’’), the entity
would only be reporting once on each
vehicle.
Comment: One state motor vehicle
administration and other commenters
asked that insurance carriers report
more frequently. That state motor
vehicle administration noted that ‘‘if a
vehicle is damaged on the 5th day of the
month and the insurance carrier has
already sent [its] file for the month, the
state will not know of the damage until
the following month’s update.’’ Several
commenters representing nearly every
stakeholder group noted that it was
important for the reporting into
NMVTIS to be timely, ideally in ‘‘real
time.’’ Experian Automotive commented
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5746
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
that a monthly reporting requirement
would be slower than the current
industry practice for insurers.
Response: The 16-year-old language of
the Anti-Car Theft Act is no longer
consistent with business practices in an
electronic age. Nonetheless, the
language of the Anti-Car Theft Act
provides no flexibility with regard to
this reporting requirement. DOJ does
strongly encourage, however, that all
reporters provide data to the system as
quickly as possible, preferably within 24
hours of acquisition, determination, or
other reporting trigger. DOJ expects to
highlight such reporting efficiencies and
stakeholder participation on its official
NMVTIS site, www.NMVTIS.gov.
7. Third-Party Reporting and Reporting
Exceptions
Comment: Two commenters argued
that an exception allowing junk- and
salvage-yard reporting to occur through
a state titling agency was flawed. One of
these commenters suggested that all
junk and salvage yards should be
required to report directly into NMVTIS.
The NADA also commented that
allowing this exemption would only
serve to create a loophole, particularly
in cases of conflicting definitions among
the states and between states and the
Anti-Car Theft Act. Instead, NADA
suggested allowing an exemption in
cases where an insurance carrier reports
to a third party that has no definitional
restrictions, such as the NICB, that can
transmit the information to NMVTIS
without concern for conflicting
definitions.
Response: While DOJ will take steps
to ensure data integrity and quality, it
would be unreasonable to prevent thirdparty reporting. Ultimately, insurance
carriers and junk and salvage yards are
responsible for their compliance with
the Act, including the reporting of
required information. These reporters
must ensure that they are compliant
with the reporting requirements for
every vehicle handled. If such reporters
cannot be certain of a third party’s
ability to provide the required
information into NMVTIS, the reporter
must report through a different thirdparty provider. Additionally, certain
states require this reporting, and
therefore, a duplicate reporting structure
would continue to exist even if DOJ did
not allow junk or salvage yards to report
through states. For purposes of
clarification, however, the Anti-Car
Theft Act does not provide a specific
exemption for insurance carriers to
report through states, as it does for junkand salvage-yard operators. Instead, DOJ
has provided an exemption for
insurance carriers to report to NMVTIS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
through an identified third party that is
approved by the system operator. DOJ
and the operator have attempted to
identify potential third parties that can
report to NMVTIS who already receive
this type of information from insurance
carriers and junk- and salvage-yard
operators.
Comment: ARA commented that
pursuant to the Act, ‘‘junk and salvage
yard operators are not required to report
on a vehicle when they are issued a
verification stating that the automobile
or parts from the automobile are not
reported as stolen.’’ ARA argued against
the exemption’s implement on the
grounds that the exemption is
‘‘completely unworkable’’ without time
limits on the verification and other
controls, and because the exemption
creates a ‘‘significant loophole that
could foster additional illegal activity.’’
Response: Pursuant to the Anti-Car
Theft Act, a junk or salvage yard that is
issued a verification under 49 U.S.C.
33110 stating that an automobile or
parts from that automobile are not
reported as stolen is not required to
report to NMVTIS. Therefore, the
Department has retained this exemption
from NMVTIS reporting in these
regulations.
Comment: The ARA commented that
it appreciates attempts to exempt
reporting by junk and salvage yards that
already report to a third-party
organization that is sharing its
information with NMVTIS. The ARA
further commented, however, that yards
not currently participating with a
cooperating third party will need a
separate reporting mechanism that is
labor efficient and economical in order
to report NMVTIS information.
Response: DOJ agrees. The operator
will designate at least three third-party
organizations that have expressed a
willingness to share with NMVTIS
information that they receive from
insurers and junk and salvage yards. In
addition, DOJ will endeavor to identify
a reporting mechanism that is ‘‘sector’’
and ‘‘stakeholder’’ neutral. Third-party
providers need to be identified who will
provide the information to the
stakeholders or allow such third-party
providers to charge a nominal fee for
collecting and reporting the information
on behalf of junk and salvage yards. DOJ
hopes to identify providers that do not
charge fees, but this is difficult with
sector-or stakeholder-neutral providers.
Comment: Several state motor vehicle
administrations commented on the
third-party exemptions provided in the
proposed rule. One state motor vehicle
administration commented that it
currently has some but not all of the
information required for junk and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
salvage reporting. The state suggested
that it does not have the resources
available to accept and report all of the
information required from junk and
salvage yards. Another state motor
vehicle administration made a similar
point and stated that the requirements
effectively establish an inefficient dualreporting requirement. Another
suggested that the phrase ‘‘or cause to be
provided on its behalf’’ be clarified so
that it is clear that states do not have a
responsibility to report insurance, junk,
or salvage information to NMVTIS on
behalf of these organizations. The State
of New York commented that it receives
reports from junk and salvage yards in
paper, that it does not process all of the
reports received, and that the processing
time may be beyond the reporting
timeframes required of junk and salvage
yards. Another asked that entities
reporting to states as their chosen
method of compliance be required to
certify that they are meeting their
reporting requirements by reporting to a
specific state or states.
Response: A state’s willingness to
make such alterations to accommodate
third-party reporting is strictly
voluntary. Junk and salvage yards in
states that cannot accommodate thirdparty reporting as required by the AntiCar Theft Act and the rules will have
other options for compliance reporting.
While DOJ is committed to avoiding
inefficient processes, DOJ is not able to
eliminate data fields for the sake of
efficiency alone and is not willing to
impose additional requirements on the
states to expand data collection and
reporting on behalf of junk- and salvageyard operators.
Comment: ASPA commented that
while the proposed rule allows states to
share junk and salvage information with
NMVTIS, the inclusion of this data in
state title information systems would be
based on the state’s definition of
‘‘salvage’’ and ‘‘junk’’ vehicles. ASPA
questioned how the state would report
data that it may not have because that
state does not require submission of that
data.
Response: The rule requires that junkand salvage-yard reporting by or
through states must include all of the
data that junk- and salvage-yard
operators are required to report. State
definitions of ‘‘salvage’’ or ‘‘junk’’ do
not alter a junk-or salvage-yard
operator’s responsibility to report
vehicles in its inventory. If junk- and
salvage-yard operators are not reporting
all of the required data to the state, or
the state is not able to report all of the
data to NMVTIS as required of the yard,
the junk or salvage yard must report
independently of the state.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Comment: ASPA contended that the
provisions of the proposed rule with
regard to the direct-reporting
exemptions for junk or salvage yards
that already report inventories to the
states appear to conflict with the
wording of the statute that ASPA
described as ‘‘only requir[ing] the
reporting of acquisition’’ of such
vehicles.
Response: The Act specifically spells
out what information is to be reported
by junk and salvage yards and requires
junk and salvage yards to report more
than the mere acquisition of the vehicle.
8. Total Loss Definition/Fair Salvage
Value
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern at the reference to ‘‘fair salvage
value.’’ Any vehicle with a high salvage
value will be totaled with a lower
damage appraisal, and any vehicle with
a low salvage value will be totaled with
a high damage appraisal. The
commenter noted that without
uniformity as to the assignment of the
salvage declaration, consumer
protection cannot be guaranteed. The
commenter argued for a more uniform
definition of total loss that is not driven
by the salvage value, noting that ‘‘[t]his
proposed market assessment of the
vehicle value can either make or break
the rule.’’ Others commented positively
on the use of a ‘‘value-based’’ definition.
Response: DOJ used this reference
because it was required by the Anti-Car
Theft Act. DOJ understands that there
are different ways or bases for
determining total loss, and that different
stakeholders may argue for different
standards based on their interests.
Comment: Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company commented that
Congress specifically granted the DOJ
authority to collect information from
insurers on vehicles that such insurers
have ‘‘obtained possession of’’ and
determined to be ‘‘junk automobiles or
salvage automobiles.’’ Nationwide
further commented that ‘‘[i]t is not
logical that declaring a vehicle a total
loss should trigger reporting of the total
loss automobiles as salvage and/or junk.
The determination of [a] vehicle as a
total loss can be based upon other
economic considerations not reflective
solely on the actual cost of reporting the
vehicle. Therefore, we assert that the
inclusion of total loss information in the
proposed rule is inconsistent with our
understanding of the intent of the
statute.’’
Response: DOJ disagrees. DOJ is
mandated to require reporting of
‘‘salvage’’ vehicles, which DOJ has
determined to include those vehicles
determined to be a ‘‘total loss.’’ DOJ
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
recognizes that, in certain
circumstances, the decision to declare a
vehicle a ‘‘total loss’’ may be based on
other determinations, such as the fact
that a vehicle has been stolen. To
address this issue, insurance carriers are
strongly encouraged to include with
‘‘total loss’’ reporting the primary reason
for the determination. Doing so not only
would provide a better position for
insurance carriers, but it also would
allow the consumer to be aware of the
specific circumstances for the
determination. DOJ does not agree that
‘‘obtained’’ should be defined in such a
limited way to include only ownership.
Comment: Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company commented that
DOJ should clarify the definitions of
junk and salvage by requiring insurers
to report on those automobiles titled as
‘‘junk’’ or ‘‘salvage’’ under the laws of
the state where the insurer obtains title
to the motor vehicle.
Response: DOJ disagrees and notes
that not even half of the states require
such titles or brands (see Texas’s
comment below). Such a definition,
therefore, would create a significant
loophole that would be counter to the
consumer-protection intentions of the
Anti-Car Theft Act.
Comment: The State of Texas
Department of Transportation
commented that ‘‘ ‘Total loss’ is not a
term used in Texas salvage motor
vehicle law and has no bearing on
whether a vehicle is determined to be a
salvage vehicle. A vehicle can be
considered a ‘total loss’ by an insurance
company, but not be branded as salvage
because the vehicle does not meet the
definition of salvage in the title state.
* * * Use of this term could be
problematic if NMVTIS shows a vehicle
as a total loss and the Texas records
indicate nothing.’’
Response: The requirement for
insurance carriers to report ‘‘total loss’’
information is put in place for exactly
this reason—vehicles that are salvage
may not be branded as salvage by many
states. To resolve this discrepancy,
NMVTIS blends reported information
from multiple sources so that
prospective purchasers are aware of the
vehicle’s true history and can avoid
being defrauded and placed in an unsafe
vehicle. The presence of ‘‘total loss’’
information in the absence of a state
salvage brand will need to be explained
by portal providers, so that prospective
purchasers (and others) are aware of
what the apparent discrepancy means,
and how it occurs. DOJ does not expect
states to take any action based on this
information that is not authorized in
state law and does not believe that it
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5747
was the intention of the Anti-Car Theft
Act to require them to do so.
Comment: Several insurance-related
associations commented that ‘‘[t]he
statute requires that insurers report junk
and salvage automobiles, yet the
regulation would require reporting of
‘total losses,’ a term that would include
some automobiles that are not junk or
salvage. It is axiomatic that a regulation
cannot expand the limits of a statute,
and especially if in doing so, the
regulation imposes added burdens and
costs. Not only is such expansion
inconsistent with the underlying statute
but there is also nothing in the Court’s
order in Public Citizen et al. v. Michael
Mukasey that mandates or authorizes
any such expansion of the statutory
definition of automobiles to be
reported.’’
These commenters further noted ‘‘that
the statutory definitions of ‘junk’ and
‘salvage’ in 49 U.S.C. 30501 are not used
by most state or insurance carriers. To
enable consistency with the existing
state laws and data systems and thereby
to expeditiously implement NMVTIS,
we request that the last sentence of
Section 25.55(a) be amended to read in
the final regulation: ‘An insurance
carrier shall report on any automobile
that it has determined to be a junk or
salvage automobile under the law of the
applicable jurisdiction.’ This approach
makes sense because since the Congress
enacted this statute in 1992, most states
have defined the meaning of ‘junk’ or
‘salvage.’ These state laws represent the
best understanding of these terms today.
Requiring their use by regulation would
implement the spirit of the law in a
practical way. Data reported by insurers
in this manner will also be consistent
with data reported by the states.’’
Opposing this view, consumeradvocate litigators commented that
‘‘[t]he Insurers comment that ‘any
expansion via regulation of the
categories of automobiles for which
reporting is mandated * * * would be
unauthorized. * * *’ However, they do
not suggest that it is outside the scope
of the Department’s authority to provide
construction for such terms in the
statutes. It is obviously the duty and the
province of the Department to use its
broad discretion in construing these
terms.’’ The consumer-advocate
litigators further commented that the
rule’s enabling of electronic reporting
through third parties that may already
have access to the data addresses the
need for reporting in the leastburdensome and least-costly fashion.
These commenters further argued that
‘‘[t]he Insurers take issue with the
Department’s proposal to provide that a
vehicle treated as a total loss is deemed
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5748
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
a salvage vehicle. However, it is
squarely with the Department’s
province to make the determination that
the fact that a vehicle has been treated
as a total loss indeed is evidence that it
is a ‘salvage’ vehicle, and that both
legally and practically the vehicle is a
‘salvage’ vehicle. Similarly, it is
necessary, in carrying out the clear
protective purposes of the statutes, that
this construction be given to these
terms. * * * The Insurers next propose
amending the last line of § 25.55(a) to
state ‘An insurance carrier shall report
on any automobile that it has
determined to be a junk or salvage
automobile under the law of the
applicable jurisdiction.’ Such a change
would incorporate the limitation they
seek of disregarding total loss vehicles.
It also appears to be an attempt to
require that state definitions of ‘junk’ or
‘salvage’ be substituted for the
definitions in the statutes, rather than
additional to and supplementary of
them. That would be entirely improper,
of course, defeating the central purpose
of providing a national definition of
‘salvage’ that sets a floor for reporting,
not a ceiling.’’ These commenters
further noted the ‘‘extraordinary
patchwork of state laws regarding title
‘brands’ and even the terms used for
labeling ‘salvage’ or ‘total loss’ vehicles.
The uniform minimal reporting
standard provided by the NMVTIS
statutes is of critical importance.’’
Response: DOJ agrees that it possesses
authority and responsibility to provide
the definition of these terms.
Additionally, in order to meet the
requirements of the Act with regard to
providing prospective purchasers with
the information needed to make an
informed purchase decision, and in
order to inform state title
administrations and law enforcement of
that vehicle’s history, full disclosure of
total-loss information is needed
regardless of a state’s action or inaction
on that vehicle.
Comment: Several insurance-related
organizations and associations
commented that ‘‘[s]ection 25.55(a)
states that the insurer must report
automobiles that it has obtained
‘possession of and has decided are junk
automobiles or salvage automobiles.’
The term possession is not clear. To be
workable, ‘possession’ should be
construed as ‘the titled owner’ as
represented on the certificate of title,
because insurers would only be able to
report on those automobiles to which
they are titled owners. Otherwise, they
do not record ‘possession’ of
automobiles and could not report
them.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
The insurance-related organizations
further commented that ‘‘[r]eplacing
‘possession’ in the regulation with
‘titled owner’ would also be workable
and consistent with the remainder of the
sentence which requires that insurers
must report automobiles which they
possess and have decided they are junk
or salvage automobiles. Both the
‘possession’ and ‘decision’ are
manifested by re-titling, which is
reportable by insurers in an efficient
manner. Therefore, the language would
read, ‘a report that contains an
inventory of all automobiles of the
current model year or any of the four
prior model years, that the carrier
during the past month is the titled
owner and has decided are junk
automobiles or salvage automobiles.’ ’’
Opposing this view, several
consumer-advocate litigators
commented that while the term is not
clear and needs construction in
furtherance of the protective purposes of
the statute, they disagreed with the
insurers’ proposed substitution of ‘‘is
the titled owner of’’ for ‘‘has obtained
possession of’’ in section 25.55(a). These
commenters further noted that the effect
of the insurers’ comments would be to
‘‘eliminate any reporting requirement of
salvage vehicles by insurance carriers
whatsoever for all but those vehicles
that they do in fact actually title in their
name. There are innumerable reasons
why, and methods by which, they may
legally in many instances not obtain
titles to salvage vehicles in their names
under the existing hole-laden patchwork
of state laws. In addition, if this change
were made, and if they blatantly
violated a state law by failing to get a
salvage title issued in their names, they
would appear not to be in violation of
the federal law by not reporting to
NMVTIS, because they would not have
been the ‘titled owner.’ The opposite
construction of ‘possession’ is crucial.
In fact, the very example they provide
of a salvage vehicle that comes into their
possession but that they do not title
shows how NMVTIS should work to be
effective: They should report such
vehicles. If there are multiple reports on
the same vehicle, there is no harm done;
but if such salvage vehicles are not
reported, there is every harm done.’’
Other consumer advocates commented
that ‘‘possession’’ should be defined to
include both actual and constructive
possession and should include
exercising control over an automobile
directly or indirectly.
Response: Limiting insurance
reporting to those vehicles owned by
insurance companies would create a
large loophole through which total-loss
or salvage vehicles would remain under
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
‘‘clean title.’’ Such a loophole was
clearly not intended to exist under
NMVTIS, and in order to provide
consumer protection against fraud,
insurance carriers must be required to
report on all vehicles that they
determine to be a total loss.
Comment: Several insurance-related
organizations and associations
commented that ‘‘[s]ection 25.55(b) sets
forth the mandatory data elements. We
believe that applying the following
interpretations will allow a reporting
system to be put in place that complies
with all aspects of the statute, including
the ‘least burdensome and costly’
directive and that can reasonably meet
the Court’s deadline in Public Citizen et
al. v. Mukasey.
‘‘a. VIN. This can be reported.
‘‘b. The date on which the automobile
was obtained or designated as a junk or
salvage automobile. Again, interpreting
this requirement to mean the date on
which the automobile was re-titled
‘junk’ or ‘salvage’ comports with legal
and practical considerations and would
be most cost effective.
‘‘c. The name of the individual or
entity from whom the automobile was
obtained or who possessed it when the
automobile was designated as a junk or
salvage automobile. Again, as set forth
above, the only cost effective way for
insurers to meet this obligation is to
construe it to mean the name of the
insurer when the automobile was retitled. Providing the name of the
individual or entity from whom the
automobile was obtained does not
provide useful information to law
enforcement or consumers.
‘‘d. The name of the owner of the
automobile at the time of the filing of
the report. In most instances, this will
be the buyer of the salvage or junk
automobile, or the insurance company
when the insurance company retains
ownership, for instance to crush a junk
vehicle.’’
Opposing this view, several
consumer-advocate litigators
commented that the insurers suggest
‘that the regulations should provide that
they do not have to report the name of
the person from whom a salvage vehicle
was obtained. This is directly contrary
to 49 U.S.C. 30504(b)(3). The ownership
trail of all of these vehicles is critical for
law enforcement and consumer
investigative purposes, and Congress
noted that by writing it into law.’’’
The consumer-advocate litigators
further commented that ‘‘[t]he Insurers
also suggest that the ‘owner of the
automobile at the time of the filing of
the report’ would normally be the buyer
of the salvage vehicle, and would only
be the insurance carrier if it retained
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ownership to crush a vehicle. I submit
that it is important that both the buyer
and the insurance carrier be identified
under the regulations.’’
Response: DOJ agrees with the
comments of the consumer-advocacy
organizations and has retained the totalloss reporting requirements that were
included in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several commenters,
including the NADA, ARA, Experian
Automotive, the National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program, insurance
services organizations, consumer
advocate attorneys, and others,
expressed strong support for DOJ’s
‘‘modernization and clarification of
language found in the Anti-Car Theft
Act related to salvage and junk vehicles,
to include within this the requirement
to report on all total loss vehicles,
including those recognized by the state
and those not recognized by the state
but determined a total loss by an
insurance carrier.’’ Several of these
commenters also pointed out that many
total-loss vehicles do not receive salvage
brands due to varied and unreliable
state definitions and criteria. Relying on
state definitions of ‘‘salvage,’’ therefore,
would be highly inconsistent, would
perpetuate fraud and theft, and would
fail to accomplish the objective.
Comments submitted by Amica Mutual
Insurance Co. underscore the need to
collect ‘‘total loss’’ data. Such data
provides additional consumer
protection, potentially decreases
fraudulent activity, and reduces the
number of unsafe vehicles in the
marketplace.
Response: DOJ agrees with these
comments.
Comment: The NADA, ARA, National
Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program,
several national consumer-advocacy
organizations, and other organizations
commented that the proposed rules fail
to require insurance carriers to report all
vehicles that they declare a total loss,
including those retained by insureds.
Often, individuals who retain
possession of their ‘‘total loss’’ vehicle
can avoid disclosure, or they may not
apply for salvage titles. The NADA
commented that the final rule should be
revised to eliminate the concept of
possession and instead focus on those
insured motor vehicles that the
insurance company declares, or the
applicable jurisdiction defines, to be a
‘‘total loss.’’
Response: DOJ disagrees that the
proposed rule puts such a limitation in
place. DOJ requires that insurance
carriers who declare a vehicle a total
loss and allow the insured to retain the
vehicle must still be required to report
such declarations.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Comment: The NADA commented
that ‘‘total loss’’ should be defined
broadly to capture all total-loss vehicles.
‘‘The final rule should not define ‘total
loss’ in Section 25.52, but rather should
define ‘total loss motor vehicle’ as ‘those
motor vehicles determined to be a total
loss under the laws of the applicable
jurisdictions and those designated as a
total loss by each insurance company
under the terms of its policies.’ ’’
Response: DOJ appreciates this
clarification and agrees that ‘‘total loss’’
includes all total-loss vehicles.
Comment: ASPA commented that
‘‘[w]hen an automobile is classified as a
total loss by an insurance company, it
does not necessarily mean that the
automobile is a ‘salvage automobile.’ On
page 54546 of the Federal Register, in
Section 2 ‘Insurance Carriers,’ the
explanation of the Proposed Rule
expands the definition of ‘salvage
automobiles’ when it states: ‘For
purposes of clarification, the
Department of Justice has determined
that this definition [salvage
automobiles] includes all automobiles
found to be a total loss under the laws
of the applicable jurisdiction or
designated as a total loss by the
insurance carrier under the terms of its
policies.’ ’’
‘‘In common usage, ‘salvage’ is not
synonymous with ‘total loss.’ There are
many circumstances in which an
insurance company may declare a
vehicle a ‘total loss,’ but the vehicle
does not meet the ‘salvage’ definition of
the relevant state. If a stolen vehicle is
not recovered quickly, the insured may
be paid for the missing vehicle. If the
vehicle is later recovered in a largely
undamaged condition, the vehicle,
although a ‘total loss’ due to its late
recovery, may not meet the relevant
‘salvage’ definition and, often, is sold by
the insurer with a ‘clear’ (i.e., not
branded) title. The definition in the
Proposed Rule lumps this undamaged
theft recovery into the ‘salvage’
definition, thus devaluing the vehicle
and, again, creating confusion about the
applicability of the laws of the relevant
state.’’
ASPA further commented that
‘‘[m]ore generally, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30501(7), ‘salvage automobile’ is clearly
defined as ‘an automobile that is
damaged by collision, fire, flood,
accident, trespass, or other event, to the
extent that its fair salvage value plus the
cost of repairing the automobile for legal
operation on public streets, roads, and
highways would be more than the fair
market value of the automobile
immediately before the event that
caused the damage.’ This definition is
both clear and unambiguous on its face
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5749
and, therefore, requires no
‘clarification.’ ’’
‘‘In the Proposed Rule, the DOJ is
attempting to expand the definition of
salvage automobile ‘[f]or purposes of
clarification’ to include automobiles
determined to be a total loss under the
law of the applicable jurisdiction or
designated as a total loss by the insurer
under the terms of its policies. We
contend that this significant expansion
of the definition is not necessary, and
that the proposed definition actually
contradicts accepted custom and usage
within the insurance and salvage
industries.
‘‘The DOJ’s proposed amendment to
the definition of salvage automobile
would subject many clear title
automobiles to the reporting
requirements of NMVTIS. This is
problematic, and is clearly not what
Congress envisioned when it created the
definition for salvage automobile. In
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467
U.S. 837 (1984), the Court implemented
a two-part analysis to determine the
appropriate standard of review towards
a government agency that attempts to
amend statutory language. Here, since
the current definition of salvage
automobile is not ambiguous, the
proposed ‘clarification’ by the DOJ is
not based on a permissible construction
of the statute and should not be
allowed.’’
Response: DOJ disagrees. Total-loss
vehicles are just that—a total loss—at
the time the determination is made.
Total-loss vehicles fall within the
definition of ‘‘salvage’’ and must be
reported. In response to other
comments, DOJ notes that insurance
carriers are strongly encouraged by the
final rule to report to NMVTIS the
primary reason for the determination of
total loss, addressing this commenter’s
concerns specifically and providing
much-improved disclosure for
consumers.
Comment: One submission argues for
‘‘the necessity of all states to adhere to
the Uniform Certificate of Title Act.’’ ‘‘If
the state has a different definition of a
Salvage vehicle the branding now
becomes an arbitrary issue.’’
Response: The Uniform Certificate of
Title Act and the benefits of uniform
titling procedures aside, the Anti-Car
Theft Act does not require States to
adopt standard brand labels or
definitions. NMVTIS has a process in
place to record each state’s unique
brand label and to relate it to one of the
78 brand types used in the NMVTIS
database. The state’s brand labels and
definitions remain unchanged in
NMVTIS.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5750
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
9. Chain of Custody/Names of Those
Who Provided/Those Who Purchased
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[t]he reporting requirement of the junk
and salvage yards may need some
change. There are many different routes
for a vehicle to come into a yard, very
often it is not by the ‘owner of record’
or the titled owner. A more definitive
approach to recording the information
of the entity placing the vehicle into the
salvage yard should be taken, more
identifying information regarding the
entity placing the vehicle into the
salvage yard should be captured. * * *
How does the system handle this in a
manner that will notify the title State of
a cancel record and provide a bona-fide
chain of events leading to the yard?’’
Response: The reporting requirement
for junk and salvage yards applies to
every vehicle regardless of what ‘‘route’’
it took into the yard or who brought in
the vehicle. Further, it is the
responsibility of the junk or salvage
yard to provide, among other data, the
name of the individual or entity from
whom the automobile was obtained.
The NMVITIS reporting requirements
do not affect existing state-level
requirements for junk- and salvage-yard
operators to provide states with a notice
of title or record cancellation and any
data fields required in such
notifications. NMVTIS will not issue
such notifications to states, but states
will be able to view the reported
salvage- or junk-yard status of any
vehicle at any time. With the
cumulative vehicle histories constructed
in NMVTIS, states and law enforcement
can identify the ‘‘chain of events’’ with
reliability once there is full system
participation.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘stolen’’ designations or notifications
sometimes are not made when a vehicle
is first reported stolen. In these
instances, the commenter suggested that
law enforcement may receive a false
negative response on a stolen check due
to this delay. The commenter suggested
that the system provide a notification to
law enforcement officers filing a report
on a stolen vehicle that a prior stop and
‘‘stolen’’ check was made on the
vehicle, providing notification and an
investigative lead to the reporting officer
of where the vehicle was stopped and
who made the stolen inquiry. Another
commenter noted that stolen-vehicle
information is not required to be in
NMVTIS, and nothing in the regulations
requires a state to check NCIC before
issuing a title.
Response: NMVTIS is not intended or
expected to replace the information or
services available to law enforcement
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
through NCIC. NCIC is and will remain
the primary system used and relied
upon by local law enforcement to check
the ‘‘stolen’’ status of a vehicle.
NMVTIS’s capturing of ‘‘stolen’’ status
and history information is to inform
state titling agencies and others who
may not have access to NCIC that a
vehicle was at one time reported as
‘‘stolen.’’ Stolen vehicle information is
included in NMVTIS via NICB so that
states that do not have access to NCIC
can be apprised of a vehicle’s
questionable status before issuing a new
title.
Comment: The National Auto Auction
Association commented that ‘‘NMVTIS
should include lien holder names and
license plate numbers’’ for various
reasons.
Response: While DOJ will authorize
the operator to seek additional
information for NMVTIS as may be
necessary to accomplish program goals,
DOJ will not require these data fields to
be included in NMVTIS.
Comment: The National Auto Auction
Association commented that DOJ should
clarify in the final rule whether data
maintained in the NMVTIS central file
is to be considered the official legal
record of a jurisdiction’s data.
Response: The official record for any
vehicle will be determined by the state.
However, NMVTIS is expected to be a
reliable source of title information that
users can rely on to make decisions.
10. Brand Definitions
Comment: One commenter asked,
‘‘[h]ow is the branding procedure
determined? Is there a preexisting
national standard for what brands exist
and how a vehicle is classified under
such brands or is the determination
made on a state-by-state basis? If the
standard is national (which would make
sense given the national objective),
maybe a list of definitions of the
applicable brands should be placed in
the rule’s definition section.’’ Another
commenter noted that the development
of standardized definitions and brands
for all states would be extremely
beneficial in ensuring that the intent of
NMVTIS is fully recognized. Several
state motor vehicle administrations
pointed out that the definitions of
‘‘salvage’’ and ‘‘total loss’’ in the
proposed rule are different from state
definitions. Another commenter noted
that to add information based on the
definitions in the proposed rule will
conflict with State definitions of brands,
compromise the integrity of the
NMVTIS database, and reduce the value
of the information in the database.
Response: NMVTIS does not affect
state branding procedures, and the Anti-
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Car Theft Act did not require a national
standard for branding. Although
differing definitions may create
complexity in deciphering a vehicle’s
brand history, NMVTIS will accept any
official state brand and will share that
brand with other states, thereby relating
that brand to a brand type or ‘‘NMVTIS
Brand.’’ Users of NMVTIS will notice
state brands as well as a separate
category for insurance, junk, and salvage
information, if any is available. The
differences in these reporting streams
also will be defined so that users will
know if a vehicle has been or is a junk
or salvage automobile by virtue of a
state brand indicating such, or by an
insurer’s determination that the vehicle
was a total loss. Consumers and others
also will be advised if a vehicle has
been in the possession of a junk or
salvage yard. Information is reported by
multiple data sources and is reported in
a segregated fashion with links for
explanations.
Comment: ASPA provided the
following example as evidence of the
problems that would be created by the
proposed rule: ‘‘Michigan’s salvage law
covers current model year passenger
vehicles and those of the preceding five
model years. Therefore, a 2002
passenger motor vehicle does not
become a ‘salvage vehicle’ or a ‘scrap
vehicle’ in Michigan, regardless of the
fact that the vehicle has been damaged
and ‘totaled’ by an insurance carrier. In
this situation, Michigan, when reporting
to NMVTIS, presumably would not
include the car in the state’s branded
title submissions. An insurance carrier
reporting to NMVTIS presumably would
not include the car because it is outside
of the age limitations applicable to
insurance carriers. However, a salvage
yard or junk yard, using the definitions
in the Proposed Rule, presumably
would report the vehicle as a ‘salvage
automobile’ or a ‘junk automobile,’
when reporting to NMVTIS. So, for a
state or other inquirer of NMVTIS,
NMVTIS will show that the vehicle has
a salvage or junk history. This occurs
regardless of the fact that the relevant
state did not deem the vehicle salvage
or scrap.’’
Response: This comment offers an
excellent example of how NMVTIS
reporting will fill the holes that
currently allow salvage or junk vehicles
to remain unbranded, creating
opportunities for theft and consumer
fraud.
11. Brand Washing
Comment: One commenter asked ‘‘if
brand information is already collected
by states, how exactly would brand
‘washing’ occur? If the retitling state
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
checks the title of the previous state
wouldn’t that information be included
with the title?’’ Another commenter
recommended that NMVTIS retain a
prior state’s brand history even when a
state does not accept a previous state’s
brand.
Response: Brand histories or
designations are not always carried
forward by the states. Retitling states do
not necessarily check with the previous
states before issuing a new title. In some
states, the paper title from the previous
state of record is accepted as the basis
for the new title to be issued. Because
of the reliance in some states on paper
titles as evidence of prior titling history,
and because not all states check with
the prior states of record, brand washing
occurs regularly. NMVTIS will create a
nationwide brand history for every
vehicle, requiring that all states check
with NMVTIS rather than simply
relying on paper documentation. Brand
washing will be significantly reduced, if
not eliminated. A state’s decision not to
acknowledge a prior state’s branding
will not affect the NMVTIS brand
history.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
12. Self Insurers Included in the
Definition
Comment: Several commenters
expressed disappointment that self
insurers were left out of the rule. One
commenter noted that the definitions
should encompass a ‘‘self insurer,’’ be it
a municipality, lease company, or large
corporation, and that this is a current
‘‘hole’’ in the system.
Response: DOJ agrees that the AntiCar Theft Act’s definition of ‘‘insurance
carrier’’ includes entities that
underwrite their own insurance, such as
certain rental car companies. The
definition, however, excludes any
organization that does not underwrite
its own insurance.
13. Salvage Automobile Defined
Comment: One commentator noted
that the definition of a ‘‘salvage
automobile’’ should also include any
automobile that an insurance company
has taken ownership of in settlement of
a claim and any vehicle that a state has
issued a title to an insurer for. Another
commenter noted that ‘‘[t]he
responsibilities of the insurance carriers
should include, in the area of the
reporting, if the insurance company
obtained a title from the state in their
name, the state in which they obtained
it and the type of title.’’ Several
consumer-advocacy organizations
commented that every automobile
obtained by a salvage yard or junk yard
that the salvage yard or junk yard
knows, or has reason to know, has come
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
from an insurance carrier, or from any
person or entity in connection with the
resolution of insurance claims, should
be deemed as a salvage automobile or
junk automobile and must be reported
as such. These commenters suggested
that the rules should provide for a
presumption that any automobile
obtained or sold by a salvage or junk
yard, and that has known unrepaired
wreck or flood damage, is either a
salvage automobile or junk automobile,
and that such a vehicle must be reported
as such. Similarly, the rules should
include a presumption that any
automobile obtained or sold by a salvage
yard or junk yard, without knowledge as
to the automobile’s physical condition,
is either a salvage automobile or junk
automobile, and must be reported as
such. This would prevent salvage yards
or junk yards from maintaining an
‘‘empty head’’ to avoid compliance. The
commenters suggested that ‘‘these
presumptions (as to automobiles not
obtained from insurers) can be
overcome if and only if the salvage or
junk yard has qualified appraisal
personnel employees or others acting
solely on its behalf, entirely
independent of any other persons or
entities, perform a good-faith physical
and value appraisal of the automobile
and determine that the automobile does
not meet the definition of ‘salvage’ or
‘junk.’ ’’
Response: Based on the proposed
rule, a ‘‘salvage auto’’ is defined as ’’an
automobile that is damaged by collision,
fire, flood, accident, trespass, or other
event, to the extent that its fair salvage
value plus the cost of repairing the
automobile for legal operation on public
streets, roads, and highways would be
more than the fair market value of the
automobile immediately before the
event that caused the damage.’’ 49
U.S.C. 30501(7).
For purposes of clarification, the
Department of Justice has determined
that this definition includes all
automobiles found to be a total loss
under the laws of the applicable
jurisdiction or designated as a total loss
by the insurance carrier under the terms
of its policies. By definition, this would
mean that every automobile obtained by
a salvage yard or junk yard that the
salvage yard or junk yard knows, or has
reason to know, has come from an
insurance carrier, or from any person or
entity in connection with the resolution
of insurance claims, should be deemed
as a salvage automobile or junk
automobile and must be reported as
such. DOJ does not agree that any
automobile with unknown damage or
any automobile obtained without
knowledge of its physical condition
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5751
should be considered a junk or salvage
automobile. DOJ agrees that a junk or
salvage yard may be excepted from
reporting any vehicle that a qualified
independent appraiser determines does
not meet the definition of a salvage or
junk automobile. This determination by
the appraiser must be in writing and
made after performing a good-faith
physical and value appraisal. Although
not required, the Department
recommends that junk and salvage yards
retain the reports and written appraisals
for a period of ten years from the date
of the report. Additionally, a salvage
auction or salvage pool that does not
handle any vehicles from or on behalf
of insurance carriers is categorically
exempted from this rule until such time
as they may handle a vehicle from an
insurance carrier.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the lack of common terms will
undermine the clarity and usefulness of
the information provided: ‘‘How will
NMVTIS reconcile the differences in
law as to what constitutes a ‘total loss?’
How will this undermine or effect
achievement of NMVTIS’[s] goals? How
will NMVTIS reconcile the differences
amongst insurance company policies as
to what constitutes a ‘total loss?’ How
will this undermine or effect
achievement of NMVTIS’[s] goals?’’ The
West Virginia Department of
Transportation also commented that the
rule should establish a standard for
establishing total loss as opposed to
relying on the rules of insurance carriers
and states.
Response: NMVTIS will not attempt
to ‘‘reconcile’’ differences in definitions.
Rather, NMVTIS recognizes that
different definitions and criteria are in
place within different insurance
companies and states. NMVTIS accepts
these ‘‘native’’ determinations and
notifies users that ‘‘X company’’ or ‘‘X
state’’ has made a determination that the
vehicle is a ‘‘total loss,’’ ‘‘salvage
vehicle,’’ etc. NMVTIS will provide all
users with full disclosure and
explanation on the differences in
definitions and determinations and how
this may or may not affect a vehicle.
NMVTIS’s mandate is to notify users of
the determinations made in a vehicle’s
history, not to make such
determinations uniform or conforming.
14. Junk Yard Definition
Comment: ISRI commented that it
objects to the presumption in the rule
that vehicle recyclers operate only one
of two things, a ‘‘junk yard’’ or a
‘‘salvage yard,’’ and suggests that DOJ
clarify the full scope of entities to be
included under the general heading of
‘‘junk or salvage yards.’’
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5752
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: While DOJ relied upon the
language in the Anti-Car Theft Act to
describe the category of required
entities, DOJ acknowledges that the
terms do not adequately reflect the
professional and varied nature of the
vehicle-recycling industry. In general
terms, any entity that owns, controls,
handles, or acquires salvage vehicles is
included in the reporting requirements
of this rule, which is consistent with
current business practices. Similarly,
scrap-vehicle shredders, scrap-metal
processors, ‘‘pull- or pick-apart yards,’’
salvage pools, salvage auctions, and
other types of auctions handling salvage
vehicles (including vehicles declared a
‘‘total loss’’) are included in the
definition of ‘‘junk or salvage yards.’’
Comment: ISRI also requested that
new definitions of ‘‘scrap vehicle,’’
‘‘scrap-vehicle shredder,’’ and ‘‘scrapmetal processor’’ be added to the rule to
exclude these entities from the reporting
requirement.
Response: DOJ has clarified the rule,
but rather than eliminate the reporting
requirements for these entities, DOJ
revised the regulations to establish an
exemption that would cover prohibitive
reporting circumstances that these
entities face.
Comment: One commenter argued
that the definition of ‘‘junk yard’’ is too
broad and may unnecessarily include
used car dealers and others who may
rebuild vehicles with the intention of
reselling them. The commenter
suggested that having such entities
report these vehicles into NMVTIS
would potentially label these vehicles as
‘‘junk or salvage’’ and preclude the
vehicles from being retitled in some
states.
Response: One of the main purposes
of NMVTIS is to provide prospective
purchasers and others with reliable
histories of a vehicle’s previous and
current condition as it relates to salvage
and loss. Vehicles reported as having
been in the possession of a ‘‘junk’’ or
‘‘salvage yard’’ may not be viewed in the
same way that vehicles with a ‘‘junk’’ or
‘‘salvage’’ brand may be viewed in state
titling processes. Each state will
continue to make its own
determinations regarding vehicle titling
based on state law. Although any
individual or business engaged in the
business of acquiring ‘‘junk’’ or
‘‘salvage’’ automobiles (which includes
motor vehicles determined by an
insurance carrier to be a ‘‘total loss’’)
generally must by law report such
vehicles to NMVTIS, there are two
exceptions to this requirement. First, an
automobile that is determined to not
meet the definition of salvage or junk
after a good-faith physical and value
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
appraisal conducted by a qualified
independent appraiser is not required to
be reported. Second, DOJ has added a
clarification that individuals and
entities that handle less than five
salvage or total-loss vehicles per year
need not report under the salvage-yard
requirements, which is consistent with
existing standards that used car dealers
are familiar with.
Comment: Many commenters,
including Iowa Attorney General
Thomas J. Miller, noted that the
inclusion of salvage pools in the
reporting requirements for junk and
salvage yards ‘‘will help close a
significant loophole’’ and will ‘‘further
deter fraudulent used car sales, vehicle
theft,’’ and other crimes.
Response: Requiring salvage pools or
auto auctions to report on salvage or
insurance claim vehicles will increase
the effectiveness of the program,
ensuring that consumers and others are
not defrauded by sellers who conceal
salvage or ‘‘total loss’’ histories.
Comment: Several commenters,
including the ISRI, the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, and other industry
associations and representatives,
commented that the proposed rules do
not clearly indicate that scrap-metal
processors, shredders, pull-apart yards,
and others who often receive and
demolish many end-of-life vehicles are
included in the reporting requirements.
Response: The regulations have been
revised to clarify that the definition of
junk and salvage yards includes not
only salvage pools, but also scrap-metal
processors, shredders, pull-apart yards,
and others who handle or control totalloss, junk, or salvage automobiles,
otherwise described as end-of-life
vehicles.
Comment: ASPA commented that DOJ
should recognize that VIN inspections
conducted in most states would make a
salvage automobile an unattractive
choice for criminals, and that cloning a
salvage vehicle would result in the
cloned vehicle having a ‘‘salvage’’
branded title.
Response: DOJ recognizes that some
states require vehicle inspections upon
retitling, and some states place a
‘‘brand’’ on salvage vehicles. In these
states, a salvage vehicle may not make
an attractive choice for VIN cloning.
However, not every state has these
requirements, and VIN inspections
typically do not inspect or verify hidden
VINs. As a result, cloned vehicles go
undetected. Even electronic diagnostic
modules that would otherwise display
the VIN can be defeated, allowing the
clone to be virtually undetectable. Most
often, the criminal activity that DOJ
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
referred to in the proposed rule is
related to total-loss or ‘‘end-of-life’’
vehicles that are purchased because
they have a ‘‘clean title’’ that is then
fraudulently connected with a stolen
vehicle, which ‘‘clones’’ the stolen
vehicle to the non-stolen, ‘‘clean title’’
vehicle. Because the non-stolen vehicle
was destroyed and sold to an
individual, it no longer appears on the
road and no notification of its
destruction may be made to the current
state of title.
Comment: Copart, Inc. argued that
because salvage pools do not own the
vehicles sold at salvage pools or auto
auctions, and therefore by definition do
not ‘‘resell’’ them, they do not meet the
definition of salvage yard and are
therefore not required to report. Copart
further contended that salvage pools
should be required to report only those
vehicles that they purchase for resale,
and that any other interpretation goes
beyond the plain language of the statute.
Response: DOJ disagrees with this
interpretation and notes that salvage
pools do in fact handle and cause to be
resold (on behalf of their current owner,
who ‘‘bought’’ the vehicle from another)
salvage and total-loss vehicles.
Comment: Copart, Inc. argued that
salvage pools do not typically have
access to the information needed to
determine whether a vehicle meets the
NMVTIS definition of junk vehicle or
salvage vehicle. Copart further
contended that junk and salvage yards
should only be required to report to
NMVTIS those vehicles sold on a
salvage or junk certificate under
applicable state law.
Response: Allowing junk and salvage
yards to report only on vehicles with
salvage titles would perpetuate the
problems described elsewhere,
including fraud and theft. Nonetheless,
DOJ has addressed this issue in the
definition of a ‘‘salvage auto’’ that now
includes exceptions for vehicles that are
not salvage, including total-loss
vehicles.
Comment: Copart, Inc. argued that
requiring salvage pools to report to
NMVTIS is wasteful and duplicative
because they function as an
intermediary between other entities that
are required to report, such as insurance
carriers, dismantlers, and scrap-metal
processors.
Response: Criminal organizations
exploit salvage-pool services,
purchasing total-loss vehicles with
‘‘clean titles’’ to facilitate the cloning
and resale of stolen vehicles. To address
this issue, law enforcement and other
organizations require information on the
vehicles handled by salvage pools.
Additionally, many if not most vehicles
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sold by salvage pools do not end up in
a junk or salvage yard, and not all
vehicles sold by salvage pools,
including those with significant
damage, are determined to be a total loss
by insurance carriers. For these reasons,
it is essential that salvage pools report
to NMVTIS.
Comment: Copart, Inc. argued that
DOJ should interpret ‘‘junk yard’’ and
‘‘salvage yard’’ to include all vehicle
auction companies so as not to
discriminate against ‘‘salvage pools’’
that sell both clean-titled and salvage
vehicles.
Response: All vehicle auction
companies should not be required to
report on all vehicles handled or in their
inventory. Instead, those organizations
that handle or resell vehicles on behalf
of insurance carriers after a
determination of total loss, regardless of
salvage title, should be required to
report. This should hold true regardless
of whether the entity operates as a
‘‘salvage pool’’ or refers to itself as an
‘‘auto auction,’’ ‘‘salvage auction,’’
‘‘abandoned-vehicle auction,’’ ‘‘tow-lot
auction,’’ ‘‘scratch-and-dent’’ sale or
auction, etc. As the National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program noted, ‘‘the
recommended guideline for determining
that an entity is required to report * * *
should be if the entity owns or acquires,
[or handles] total loss/salvage vehicles
in whole or in part.’’ Under such
circumstances, it should be required to
report all vehicles to NMVTIS. DOJ will
clarify this requirement in the final rule.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
15. Salvage Brand
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[i]f the NMVTIS project is to succeed
it would be a reasonable assumption to
require a uniform approach to the
assignment of the ‘salvage’ brand by any
member state. The system is only as
good as the data in it, if the data is not
applicable to uniform situations there
will always be discrepancies.’’
Response: A uniform approach to
branding would be advantageous in
many respects. The Anti-Car Theft Act,
however, does not provide the authority
for DOJ to develop or mandate uniform
branding, which would be a significant
and potentially costly change for states
to implement. As each state makes its
own determinations, and NMVTIS
relates state brands to an aggregated
brand or brand category within
NMVTIS, the non-uniform approach
does not create an insurmountable
problem. DOJ will ensure that those
who access NMVTIS information have
the opportunity to learn about the
different state brands that exist and the
impact of other reporting on these
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
brands to create greater awareness and
understanding of their meaning.
16. Definition of Automobile
Comment: NAEC argued that the rule
should require the inclusion of ‘‘trucks,
SUVs and other non-automobiles as
prescribed by the Federal Anti-Car Theft
Act for Parts Marking’’ because of their
popularity with vehicle thieves. Other
organizations, including the Idaho
Transportation Department, contended
that ‘‘NMVTIS records should also
include all vehicles that a state may
title, and not be limited to standard
types of vehicles.’’ The Minnesota
Department of Public Safety stated that
if it is required to report on all vehicles
in its database, ‘‘it might well grind to
a halt,’’ and costs would increase
considerably.
Response: Although DOJ cannot
extend the Act’s definition to include all
motor vehicles, it is important to note
that many states currently include such
vehicles in their reporting to NMVTIS.
DOJ strongly encourages this continued
reporting practice in light of supporting
comments, the value to law
enforcement, and the need to protect
citizens against fraud and theft.
Moreover, it may be more costly or
burdensome for states to filter out those
vehicles not meeting the statutory
requirement than to submit all motor
vehicles to NMVTIS.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that DOJ clarify when a
vehicle is no longer a vehicle for
purposes of reporting, especially in junk
or salvage yards that often do not
receive a complete vehicle.
Response: DOJ offers two
clarifications in response to this
comment. First, a vehicle is thought to
be present for reporting purposes when
a vehicle frame is present. Similarly, in
cases where questions as to the ‘‘true
VIN’’ of a vehicle arise, DOJ has
determined that the true VIN for
NMVTIS’s purposes is the VIN on the
frame of the vehicle.
State Responsibilities
17. Start Dates
Comment: In reference to the
proposed June 1, 2009, start date for
state reporting and inquiries into the
system, several states and AAMVA
noted that the states would have
difficulty meeting this date. One state
commented that ‘‘[t]he requirement to
budget, upgrade and work to complete
compliance requirements for NMVTIS
cannot be met by this timeline—it is
simply not doable even with the
political will and funds available. To
arbitrarily select a date that is not
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5753
workable in any manner is unfair and
unrealistic.’’ Other commenters noted
that it would take time to accomplish
the necessary statutory and regulatory
changes that may be required, and that
their states had not budgeted for
NMVTIS and could not pay NMVTIS
fees in light of current economic
circumstances. AAMVA further
commented that DOJ should establish a
process for approving ‘‘temporary
exemptions from the deadline where a
reasonable timeline for compliance is
presented and approved by the
Department.’’ The State of California
proposed a ‘‘phasing in’’ of participants.
The dates proposed by states as
alternative start dates ranged from 2010
to ‘‘1 year from the date funding is
secured’’ by the state.
Response: Although DOJ has worked
closely with the system operator to
reduce the need for state system
modifications, and although the
requirements of the Act have been in
place since 1992, DOJ understands that
it will take time for states to implement
some provisions of the regulation. To
provide relief in this regard, DOJ has
elected to extend the compliance date
for states not yet participating to January
1, 2010. By this date, all states and the
District of Columbia will be required to
provide daily title transaction updates
to NMVTIS, make inquiries into
NMVTIS before issuing a title on a
vehicle coming in from out-of-state, and
paying any user fees that may be billed
by the operator. The Department
believes that the states can comply by
that date. Similarly, DOJ has decided
against a ‘‘phasing in’’ approach to state
participation commencement because
there is no equitable way of selecting
phasing dates and participants in each
phase. DOJ points out that most of the
provisions required to be implemented
by January 1, 2010, are essentially the
same requirements that have been a part
of the Anti-Car Theft Act since either
1992 or 1996, and states, therefore, have
had at least 12 years to implement the
provisions of the Act. Thirteen states
have already done so without
regulations in place.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the proposed start date is just prior to
an AAMVA-announced decision to
continue as the operator of the system
and therefore creates a conflict for states
should AAMVA decide not to continue
as the operator.
Response: AAMVA has assured DOJ
that should a decision be made in
August of 2009 to discontinue its role as
the operator, AAMVA will continue to
provide transition services and
continuity until a new operator is
identified and is able to assist states that
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5754
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rely on NMVTIS in their daily
operations.
Comment: One commenter asked how
the proposed start date had been
determined and has requested
justification for the date. The
commented wrote that in the absence of
this justification, the date appears
arbitrary. The State of Illinois motor
vehicle administration maintained that
‘‘the proposed timeframe for
implementing the NMVTIS program
under these rules is unrealistic to the
point of being absurd.’’ Although that
Illinois agency conceded that the start
date was likely driven by ongoing
litigation and a court order, the
commenter noted ‘‘that [the] order is
either currently under appeal and a stay
of enforcement should be sought
pending appeal, or the Department of
Justice [may have] chose[n] not to seek
an appeal.’’
Response: The proposed start date
was chosen after an analysis of
historical timelines to provide batch
data to the system, the number of states
that currently have implementation
funding from DOJ either directly or
through AAMVA, the number of states
that have indicated previously that they
were working towards implementation
already, and an expected release of
stand-alone access to facilitate title
verifications. As noted previously,
however, the Anti-Car Theft Act has
been in place for over 16 years, and
many states have already implemented
the provisions beyond the minimum
specifications. Finally, the court order
does not affect the state-implementation
date in any way, and in fact is not even
mentioned in that order.
Comment: Several state motor vehicle
administrations asked what penalties
are in place for states that do not
implement prior to the required start
date and what provisions will be made
for jurisdictions that are in process or
intend to implement at a later date.
Response: While DOJ will place its
priority on supporting state
implementation, DOJ would review
state refusals to participate to determine
the proper response. DOJ also will work
with state officials in support of
NMVTIS to encourage state compliance.
This outreach could include contacts
with state legislatures, governors,
consumer-action networks, and law
enforcement associations.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that DOJ publish a map of participating
and non-participating states, so that
citizens can observe the participation
status of every state.
Response: DOJ will make this map
available on www.NMVTIS.gov and also
will notify every consumer that accesses
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
the site which states are not
participating.
Comment: The State of Alaska
commented that ‘‘there should be a
process in place that allows states to
continue to issue titles when NMVTIS is
not operational during states’ normal
business days and hours.’’ Alaska
recommended that states be permitted
to ‘‘issue titles when NMVTIS is not
operational, hold the inquiries in a
queue and submit the queued inquiries
when NMVTIS is operational. If a
problem is detected with a title, it
would be revoked.’’ The State of Illinois
commented that standards of
performance should be established to
address these issues.
Response: While NMVTIS is typically
only down for various reasons between
1 a.m. and 6 a.m. Eastern Time and one
Sunday morning each month, there are
processes in place for unexpected down
time during state business hours. While
specific processes vary by state
according to state business processes,
there are methods of continuing offline,
such as mailing the new title at a later
time, issuing a temporary title, etc. DOJ
cannot alter the Anti-Car Theft Act’s
requirement to make a NMVTIS inquiry
prior to issuing a new title. Therefore,
new titles should not issue when
NMVTIS is unavailable. Current system
response time is less than three seconds
per inquiry, and the number of
unexpected system down times has
been minimal. DOJ notes that the
NMVTIS connection has not been
‘‘down’’ for 30 minutes or more at any
time during the last three years,
demonstrating that it is a reliable
connection and service.
Comment: A state motor vehicle
administration agency suggested that
the requirement for an ‘‘instant title
verification check’’ is problematic for
states that do not issue titles over-thecounter. The commenter suggested that
the word ‘‘instant’’ be removed from the
final rule.
Response: Some states do not issue
titles ‘‘instantly.’’ The ‘‘instant title
verification check,’’ therefore, may take
place after the customer has left the title
administration agency but before a new
title is issued. In these cases, states may
make the NMVTIS inquiry when
appropriate in the titling process, so
long as the inquiry is made and title
verified before a new permanent title
issues.
Comment: One commenter asked if a
title-verification check would need to be
performed on a state title that was being
reassigned after being purchased from
an out-of-state dealer.
Response: It is unclear from the
comment if the commenter was referring
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to a title being transferred out-of-state or
into the state. States are required to
check incoming titles related to vehicles
from out-of-state. States are not required
to check titles being transferred out of
the state. With regard to the need to
verify titles during dealer reassignment
or the transfer of vehicles from one
dealer to another, the Act requires that
states verify the title of any automobile
coming from another state, which DOJ
has determined includes dealer
reassignments when involving dealers
in different states.
Comment: One commenter argued
that the system should provide state
motor vehicle titling agencies with
sufficient information to resolve
discrepancies during the titleverification process.
Response: NMVTIS provides state
motor vehicle-title administrations with
all relevant data in the system and a
seamless and secure electronic
connection to other online state title
records. NMVTIS will make available
any additional information within
NMVTIS that may be needed to resolve
such discrepancies. In the last year
alone, the system generated 45 million
secure messages and notifications and
made 18.4 million update transactions.
Comment: One commenter noted that
information gleaned from a state’s
‘‘instant title verification,’’ such as
reports of prior removal of a vehicle
from the vehicle population by export,
destruction, reported existence in a
salvage or junk yard, or other indication
that the vehicle should not be present,
should result in a physical inspection of
the vehicle to determine the validity of
the title and the vehicle.
Response: While DOJ agrees that such
reports or results will flag for states the
title transactions and vehicles that
should be further reviewed prior to
undertaking a new title transaction, DOJ
cannot require such inspections. It is
each state’s responsibility to institute
policies and procedures for resolving
such concerns. This comment does
illustrate how NMVTIS can ‘‘flag’’ for
states those vehicles and transactions
that should be carefully reviewed to
prevent fraud and theft.
Comment: One state motor vehicle
administration asked how NMVTIS will
obtain data from the insurance
companies and junk and salvage yards.
Response: Insurance carriers, junk
yards, and salvage yards are required to
report the data enumerated in the Act
and regulations. The operator will
identify more than one reporting
mechanism for electronic reporting, in a
format prescribed by the operator.
AAMVA and DOJ will identify the
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
official reporting mechanisms and
processes via www.NMVTIS.gov.
Comment: The Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles complained that
requiring states to provide ‘‘the date the
vehicle was obtained is an expensive
and time consuming process’’ and that
states should be permitted to continue
sending the title-issue date instead.
Response: There is no requirement
proposed for states to submit the date a
vehicle was obtained. This requirement
is in relation to insurance carrier and
junk and salvage reporting.
Comment: The Oregon Department of
Motor Vehicles commented that it
currently only collects odometer
information on those vehicles subject to
federal odometer requirements and
would be burdened to collect such
information on all vehicles. The
National Salvage Vehicle Reporting
Program argued that states and insurers
should be required to include mileage
reporting in their data provided to
NMVTIS.
Response: States are only required to
provide odometer information on those
vehicles subject to federal odometer
requirements, 49 U.S.C. 32705, and not
on all vehicles unless already recorded
by the state. States are required to
provide to NMVTIS the most recent
odometer reading for such vehicles and
any later odometer information
contained within state title records. DOJ
strongly encourages all reporting
entities to include odometer readings
where available.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the final rules spell
out what is actually required from the
states and how (i.e., in which format)
this information is to be provided.
Another commenter, the California State
Motor Vehicle Title Administration,
recommended that the rule be revised to
require information that is consistently
available across all states and that only
information held by state titling
agencies be subject to reporting
requirements.
Response: DOJ will clarify what is
required of each state and will describe
format issues to the extent practical and
appropriate. DOJ cannot simply choose
to use only information that is available
in every state consistently for purposes
of populating the system, as doing so
would limit the included data and
significantly reduce the system’s value.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that DOJ require that the
operator be responsible for developing
at least two approaches for NMVTIS
inquiries and that DOJ should prepare a
cost study relating to the expenses
associated with the fully integrated,
online approach to compliance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Response: There are already at least
two approaches for state compliance
with NMVTIS: (1) A fully integrated,
online approach, whereby a state’s title
information system automatically
queries NMVTIS, and NMVTIS provides
real-time updates to both states involved
in the transaction; and (2) a stand-alone
approach, whereby title clerks send
inquiries to NMVTIS via a web access
point, and their state sends daily
updates through a batch upload. A third
option, serving central site states,
entailing a process whereby
verifications are performed via batch
inquiry, will be explored and may be
implemented soon. However, DOJ
disagrees with the need to prepare a cost
study because an extensive cost-benefit
study of this issue already exists, and
cost data from other state
implementations is already available for
estimation purposes.
Comment: The NADA and at least one
state motor vehicle administration
commented that DOJ should clarify that
states are required to submit all brands
to NMVTIS for all automobiles titled
within the state.
Response: DOJ agrees and has
clarified this requirement under
25.54(a)(2), consistent with statutory
requirements.
Comment: The Minnesota Department
of Public Safety argued that states
should be required to provide title
numbers, ‘‘since it would be nearly
impossible to establish the ‘validity and
status’ of purported titles without
them.’’
Response: Participating states already
have access through NMVTIS to observe
the full title of record, including the title
numbers and other information needed
to establish the validity and status of
titles presented. However, DOJ
encourages the states to voluntarily
submit that information to NMVTIS
with the approval of the operator and
the Department.
Comment: The Minnesota Department
of Public Safety commented that ‘‘the
proposed rule also would require states
to provide [‘t]he name of the state that
issued the most recent certificate of title’
and ‘[t]he name of the individual or
entity to whom [it] was issued’ when
making an inquiry to NMVTIS. This
information is not, and cannot be,
recorded in MnDVS’ current title
information system.’’
Response: This language was taken
from the Anti-Car Theft Act to describe
what information would be needed in
order for states to make an inquiry into
NMVTIS. Since the passage of the AntiCar Theft Act, and with the very recent
development of a standalone access
model that only requires a VIN to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5755
search, these requirements have
changed and this information is no
longer needed. At the present time, only
the VIN is needed to make an inquiry.
This update will be reflected in the final
rule.
Comment: The West Virginia
Department of Transportation argued
that some states exempt vehicles that
reach a certain age from the
requirements of titling, and that these
vehicles should be exempt from
reporting.
Response: The rule requires states to
report on all automobiles included in
the states’ titling systems, regardless of
age. However, if state law exempts
certain vehicles from titling, those
vehicles need not be reported to
NMVTIS. The state should make the
operator aware of these exceptions,
however, so that consumers in the state
and in other states are advised of this
exception, which they may take into
account when checking the history of
vehicles through NMVTIS.
18. Unfunded Mandate
Comment: Commenters argued that
the mandate for NMVTIS has not been
funded, and that the requirement for
compliance has not been applied or
enforced for the 15 years of this process.
On the other hand, one commenter
noted that NMVTIS is not an unfunded
mandate in view of DOJ’s investment of
over $15 million in the system since its
inception and in view of DOJ grants to
states to support system participation.
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
explicitly requires that user fees, rather
than federal funding, sustain NMVTIS.
Although no funds have been
appropriated to DOJ for NMVTIS, DOJ
has invested over $15 million in
NMVTIS, with a substantial portion
going to states to assist them with
compliance. The U.S. Department of
Transportation previously provided
funding during the period it was
responsible for the system, which ended
in 1996.
Comment: One commenter noted that
DOJ’s determination that the rule does
not meet the threshold cost or burden
requirements of the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995 is not sufficient in
and of itself to satisfy the legal
responsibilities. Specifically, the
commenter noted that ‘‘[t]he fact that
the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
decided that it is a small enough
amount of money that the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act of 1995 does not
apply, or that the DOJ has determined
that per Executive Order 13132, the cost
imposed does not provide sufficient
cause for a Federalism issue, is not
sufficient.’’
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5756
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: The Department of Justice,
based on its own analysis, made
appropriate determinations based on
law and regulation. The White House
Office of Management and Budget
reviewed and approved this analysis.
Comment: The City and County of
Honolulu Division of Motor Vehicle,
Licensing and Permits disagreed with
the aggregate amount estimated by DOJ
in the ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995’’ section of the proposed rule
‘‘because their estimate is based on the
less expensive standalone web solution
which operationally degrades customer
service and increases the work of our
over-the-counter staff.’’ The commenter
further noted that the aggregate amount
should ‘‘factor in the development and
deployment of the much more costly
integrated on-line solution option that
will ultimately be the final solution that
states will move towards’’ and should
include the additional costs that will
result ‘‘from the increased load on the
system to each jurisdiction when all
jurisdictions, insurance companies,
salvage yards, consumers, law
enforcement, etc. are given access to the
system.’’ The commenter concluded by
stating that using this methodology, the
aggregate costs will ‘‘easily exceed the
$100 million resulting in the
applicability of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.’’
Response: The methodology
employed to calculate the aggregate
costs of the program uses the minimum
requirements for system participation.
DOJ sees no purpose in using a level of
participation not required by DOJ as the
basis for the cost calculations. While
states ultimately may move towards an
integrated, online solution for
efficiency, and although this method of
participation does benefit NMVTIS, DOJ
does not require it for compliance. It is
DOJ’s responsibility to determine the
least-costly, most-effective way for
implementing the solution, and that is
the methodology used in the proposed
rule. Further, a fully implemented
system, with all jurisdictions, insurance
carriers, junk and salvage yards,
consumers, and law enforcement
personnel accessing and reporting, does
not translate directly into an increase in
costs for states. In fact, it could very
well decrease state costs through offset
fees.
Comment: The City and County of
Honolulu Division of Motor Vehicle,
Licensing and Permits further
maintained that because the combined
city/county government is a ‘‘small’’
government, it is uniquely impacted by
the regulations and is entitled to relief.
Additionally, this commenter
contended that the operator’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirements for extracting and
mapping the required data are
burdensome, and that should the
operator undertake these
responsibilities, batch data submission
would be much easier to achieve.
Response: The Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and 5 U.S.C. 601(5) define
‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
generally as rural jurisdictions, those
with populations under 50,000, and
areas of limited revenues. Based on this
definition, the city/county identified by
the commenter would not appear to
qualify as a ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In terms of the operator’s
requirements and the burden associated
with such requirements, DOJ will
continue to direct the operator to
provide as much flexibility in
requirements as is feasible, and DOJ will
continue to provide technical assistance
upon request to identify alternative
solutions where necessary.
19. Inquiring Into NMVTIS Versus Other
Systems
Comment: More than one state motor
vehicle administration commented that
NMVTIS will not provide a more
substantial benefit than checking thirdparty vehicle history databases which
some states already check. One state
motor vehicle administration suggested
that the law was unclear as to whether
the Anti-Car Theft Act required states to
check NMVTIS or another third-party
database, stating that ‘‘[t]he previous
intent was to provide a system that a
state may utilize to verify title before
titling a vehicle. This left open the use
of other systems, such as Carfax, to
research titles. The requirement to
mandate use of NMVTIS to verify titles
is unrealistic, unworkable and unfair.
The intent of the process is to protect
citizens against fraud. NMVTIS is not
the only system that supports this
intent. Limiting research to this system
could also lead to misinformation and
misapplication of process.’’
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
requires states to verify titles through
NMVTIS. No other system, public or
private, can provide the same level of
assurance as NMVTIS once full
compliance is reached. DOJ also points
to comments submitted by several
organizations that highlighted concerns
with the reliability of third-party
databases. States wishing to provide
increased protections for consumers are
encouraged to continue to check such
private databases in addition to making
the NMVTIS inquiry as required by
federal law.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘the fully implemented system * * *
will also provide consumers with a
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
source of comprehensive information.
Current services such as Carfax have
partially filled the need for information,
but these providers do not offer as
current and complete titling information
as the proposed NMVTIS system.’’
Response: NMVTIS provides a unique
service in terms of the source of its data,
its comprehensiveness, and its
timeliness. Services such as CARFAX
will continue to provide information to
the public that is not intended to be
included in NMVTIS, such as vehicle
repair histories, etc. For this reason,
these private services will continue to
offer unique and beneficial services.
20. Time Lags
Comment: Several commenters noted
that allowing states to upload data (e.g.,
batch uploading) may create a ‘‘time
lag’’ that could impact law enforcement
investigations and impede the ability of
the system to accomplish its goals. One
commenter suggested that it would be
better to wait until states secure the
necessary funding before proceeding
with implementation.
Response: DOJ has examined this
issue closely with the system operator
and with third-party vehicle-history
providers. While many third-party
databases experience lag time of several
weeks or months in getting state
updated data, NMVTIS is designed to
significantly reduce or eliminate the lag
time entirely to provide reliable
information to users. For this reason,
states choosing the stand-alone method
of participation and batch uploads will
be required after initial set-up to
establish batch updates at least every 24
hours. This requirement will greatly
diminish the possibility of exploitation
of lag time and provide a more up-todate vehicle history check than is
currently available. States do have the
option of implementing in fully online
mode where data transmission is in real
time. DOJ does not have the flexibility
to delay implementation until states
have funding to implement the fully
online mode. Pursuant to a federal
district court order, DOJ is required to
have the rules published and system
available by January 30, 2009.
Comment: One state motor vehicle
administration noted that when using
the stand-alone method of making
inquiries before issuing a new title on
out-of-state vehicles, an impact on
customer service is expected.
Specifically, the commenter stated that
an additional ‘‘three to five minutes of
processing time’’ is expected due to the
fact that title clerks in this
administration are using a mainframe
that does not allow simultaneous
internet access, and that to make such
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
a check, the clerk would have to log out,
make the NMVTIS inquiry, and log back
in to the mainframe for each out-of-state
title transfer.
Response: The lower cost stand-alone
method of participation is not as timely
as the fully integrated online method.
DOJ is committed to working with states
and the operator to identify new
alternative methods to reduce or
eliminate such inefficiencies, such as
dedicating one internet-capable PC that
could be available to all clerks with the
NMVTIS page continuously running.
With system response time currently at
three seconds or less, this alternative
may impact customer service less.
Ultimately, however, although the
stand-alone method of making inquiries
is far less costly for states to implement,
it may be less efficient than the fully
integrated, online method.
Comment: One state motor vehicle
administration recommended that ‘‘all
surrendered titles should be verified
when being transferred[,] and the rule
should not limit this requirement only
to ‘purchased’ vehicles. Without
verifying all surrendered titles it is not
known whether the title surrendered is
the latest title issued[,] and there are
many reasons titles are transferred other
than through a sale.’’
Response: DOJ agrees with this
recommendation and notes that the final
rule clarifies that the requirement to
make verifications pertains to any title
or vehicle coming in from another state,
including transfers. States are also
strongly encouraged to perform such
verifications on every title transaction,
which is most effective when
implementing via the online, integrated
approach.
Comment: One state motor vehicle
administrator asked if manufacturers’
certificates of origin (MCOs) must be
verified as well.
Response: Because MCOs are not
vehicle titles per se, states are not
required to verify MCOs in NMVTIS.
However, DOJ strongly recommends
that state motor vehicle administrators
make inquiries on all title transactions,
including initial registration of an MCO,
to identify and eliminate fraud and to
protect consumers.
Insurance Carriers
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
21. Reporting on Recent-Year Vehicles
Comment: One commenter asked
‘‘[w]hat is the reason to require
insurance carriers to report only
vehicles manufactured within the past
five model years that they consider junk
or salvage? If these vehicles will always
go directly to junk or salvage yards,
won’t the vehicle be reported there
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
anyway? Conversely if there is an
opportunity for other disposal of the
vehicles, shouldn’t the insurance
carriers be required to report all vehicles
since the VINs could still be stolen for
swapping?’’ Other commenters noted
that vehicles older than five years are
often involved in consumer fraud and
encouraged provisions for the database
to cover the same ten-year age range as
is used for odometer reporting.
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
only required insurance carriers to
report vehicles in the current and four
prior model years. DOJ is not able to
reverse or alter this limitation by
increasing the reporting parameters.
Junk and salvage yards later may report
some vehicles that insurance carriers are
not required to report. The Department,
however, encourages insurance carriers
to report older vehicles.
Comment: ASPA commented that
section 25.55(b)(3) of the proposed rule
requires insurance carriers to report
‘‘the name of the individual or entity
from whom the automobile was
obtained or who possessed it when the
automobile was designated as a junk or
salvage automobile,’’ which would seem
to be two different individuals or
entities in most cases. Further, ASPA
notes that it is unclear if the insurance
carrier would know the name of the
owner when it files the report.
Response: Although the proposed rule
required reporting of the name of the
individual or entity either from whom
the automobile was obtained or who
possessed it when the automobile was
designated as a junk, salvage, or totalloss automobile, the Anti-Car Theft Act
specifically states that both names are
required. Reporting both names is
necessary to establish a ‘‘chain of
custody’’ and for other law enforcement
and consumer-protection purposes. DOJ
changed this language in the final rule
to require both names pursuant to the
Anti-Car Theft Act. In reference to the
concern that insurers may not know the
name of the owner, most carriers do
possess this information, as this would
be the owner of the automobile at the
time the vehicle was determined a total
loss, salvage, or junk.
Comment: Farmers Insurance
commented that the ‘‘trigger’’ for
insurance-carrier reporting should be
when the insurance carrier sells the
vehicle or when the customer
determines it will retain ownership of
the vehicle, because such dispositions
may not be known for as much as 90
days after the loss occurs.
Response: Because disposition may
not be known at the time of initial
reporting, this rule allows the insurance
carrier to file a supplemental
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5757
disposition or update. Many comments
emphasized the importance of timely
reporting, even when the named owner
in the initial report is the insurance
company.
Comment: Farmers Insurance
suggested that a 12-month grace period
should be granted for insurance
reporting to begin in light of ‘‘proper
system upgrades’’ that may be required.
Response: DOJ is not able to provide
a grace period, as the court has ordered
the reporting to begin by March 31,
2009. Additionally, because DOJ aims to
enable third-party reporting through
organizations that may already receive
such data from insurance carriers, the
burden of any system changes should be
minimal.
22. Non-Required Data
Comment: One commenter argued
that ‘‘[t]he proposed rule overstates the
benefits provided to consumers.
Particularly, the fact that insurance
carriers are only ‘strongly encouraged to
provide * * * other information
relevant to a motor vehicle’s title’
undermines the broad benefits implied
by the rule.’’ ‘‘The type of information
not reported includes the reason why
the insurance carrier may have obtained
possession of the motor vehicle—flood,
water, collision, fire damage, or theft.’’
The NADA further recommended that
the rule should require insurers to
report the reasons they obtained
possession of the vehicle to prevent
brand washing and fraud. Additionally,
this information would assist in cases
where a vehicle is considered a total
loss for purely economic reasons (e.g.,
theft). Several insurance-related
organizations contended that for any
voluntary reporting that may be
contemplated, immunity provisions
must apply to this voluntary reporting
as well.
Response: DOJ disagrees that the rule
overstates the benefits of NMVTIS. DOJ
does agree, however, that the reason for
the total-loss or salvage designation by
insurance carriers may be of importance
to a prospective purchaser and to others.
Not only does this protect the
consumer’s interest, but the additional
reporting criteria also benefit insurance
carriers. Therefore, the Department
strongly encourages insurance carriers
to report this data element.
Comment: AAMVA commented that
unless the rule requires ‘‘junk and
salvage dealers’’ to report the percentage
of damage sustained by each vehicle in
their inventories to the states, the states
would not be able to consider applying
a state junk or salvage brand on these
vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5758
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Response: States will not be in a
position to make such judgments based
on junk- and salvage-yard operator
reporting. Insurance carriers have ready
access to this information, which is the
typical basis for a state’s designation.
Although the reporting of junk- and
salvage-yard inventories was likely not
intended to support state-branding
decisions, reporting of junk- and
salvage-yard inventories may be helpful
to states in making brand decisions, but
likely not conclusive. Although such
vehicles may not end up branded by the
states, consumers and other states have
the benefit of knowing that the vehicle
was in the possession of a junk or
salvage yard and therefore may wish to
inspect the vehicle or to require an
inspection before making purchase or
titling decisions. DOJ is not in a position
to require reporting of the percentage of
damage. However, insurance carriers
and others are encouraged to report this
information.
Comment: One commenter asked
‘‘[h]ow will DOJ know which states,
junk, salvage, and insurance companies
are reporting information and reporting
all the information that is required? Will
someone audit their reports? I
recommend that the system operator
and the DOJ both make a list of who is
reporting and publish that list * * *
and audit reporting compliance.’’ The
commenter also suggested that DOJ
require entities to report the company
name, address, and phone number for
any reports submitted. Another
commenter asked who would inform
insurance carriers and junk and salvage
yards of the requirement to report
information to NMVTIS, and who
would identify those organizations
required to report.
Response: DOJ will instruct the
operator to publish and maintain a list
of the entities reporting information to
NMVTIS. The list will include the name
of the reporting entity, city and state of
the reporting entity, the date that data
was last submitted by the entity, and
any contact information for the
reporting entity. With regard to who
would inform reporting entities of the
requirements, DOJ will work with the
operator, state-licensing authorities, and
affected associations and advocacy
organizations to ensure proper outreach
and education.
Comment: Several state motor vehicle
administrations argued that DOJ should
limit what non-required data the
operator could ask for and receive (e.g.,
address of the vehicle owner). Another
believed that the value of encouraging
non-required data is unknown, and that
reporting may only increase the number
of discrepancies or errors. ISRI
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
contended that DOJ should limit the
ability of the operator to request
additional, non-required data, because
the current operator would be
encouraged to request additional
information that would generate
revenues to the benefit of the
association and its members, creating a
conflict of interest. The Minnesota
Department of Vehicle Services
(MnDVS) argued that the provisions of
section 25.53(c), which allow the
providers of non-required data to query
the system if beneficial in addressing
motor vehicle theft, ‘‘exceeds the
authority conferred by Congress, is
overly broad, and as such represents an
arbitrary and capricious exercise of
rulemaking power.’’ Other commenters,
however, reported that other data may
be needed for specific purposes and
argued in support of this flexibility.
Response: It would be difficult to
describe what data the operator is
restricted from asking for or accepting,
other than social security number, dates
of birth, and addresses. DOJ points out
that states need not provide data that is
not specifically required in these
regulations or the Act, and DOJ will
need to approve the acceptance of nonrequired data. Moreover, the nonrequired data that is readily available
would add great value to some
consumers, to law enforcement, and to
others (e.g., NICB flood vehicle
database, vehicle export data, other
North American vehicle history records,
NICB theft file, etc.). While more data
always increases the chances of
discrepancies, DOJ does not want to
discourage this voluntary reporting.
While the current operator does have
the best interests of its membership in
mind, however, it also has expressed
concern for others affected by the rule
and will represent the concerns of all
stakeholders, not as a trade association,
but as the operator of a DOJ system. In
response to MnDVS’s comment, DOJ is
of the opinion that if not in violation of
the Anti-Car Theft Act or other federal
privacy statutes, such cooperation is
necessary and not arbitrary or
capricious.
Comment: Several commenters,
including at least one from the state
motor vehicle administration
community, encouraged the inclusion of
lien-holder information in the data
provided to NMVTIS in light of the
difficulty of obtaining this information
on out-of-state titles and the associated
budget impact on states. Other
commenters, including insurancerelated organizations, Assurant
Solutions, and the NADA, suggested
that additional data (including lienholder information) will provide a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
crosscheck of information, close up
loopholes, and improve NMVTIS.
Response: This comment
demonstrates the importance of
allowing the operator of the system to
request and accept additional
information beyond the NMVTIS
requirements. While states and others
are not required to comply, there may be
good reason to do so that would result
in cost savings among the stakeholders.
In terms of lien-holder information,
while DOJ is not in a position to require
that lien-holder information be included
in the central file, DOJ notes that the
existing secure network could be used
in conjunction with the NMVTIS
central-file information to query the
current state of record and to access
lien-holder information in that state’s
title record through the secure network
provided by the current operator.
Queries of and access to the actual state
records should only be permitted when
a state has agreed to provide such
access, when any state application or
certification procedures are completed,
and when such access is in conformance
with the Anti-Car Theft Act, the DPPA,
etc.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that DOJ include registration
information in the list of required data
as a means to ensure accurate tracking
of vehicle ownership.
Response: Including registration
information is beyond the scope of
NMVTIS. Although it may be useful,
DOJ cannot require such information.
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that insurance-carrier reporting should
commence on or before March 31, 2009,
as required by the federal district court,
and that initial reporting by all covered
entities should include historical data to
the extent available, so that NMVTIS is
complete beginning on March 31.
Several insurance-related organizations
or associations reported that ‘‘[t]he start
date for insurers should be clarified. We
believe the best approach is to provide
that the system applies to automobiles
declared junk or salvage on or after
April 1, 2009, [and that] the system
must be established by March 31, 2009.
However, we prefer that more time is
provided for insurers to comply.’’
Response: DOJ will require that all
vehicles declared junk or salvage
(including ‘‘total loss’’) on or after April
1, 2009, be reported to NMVTIS.
However, DOJ strongly encourages
insurance carriers and junk- and
salvage-yard operators to provide data
on vehicles that were declared junk,
salvage, or total loss before that date and
as far back as 1992, if such data is
available.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that ‘‘NSVRP strongly endorses the
inclusion in the rules of 3rd party
enhanced standards that allow for data
generators to report to NMVTIS more
completely and more frequently than
minimally specified in the rules.’’
Response: While DOJ is not in a
position to articulate data-reporting
requirements or standards regarding
data that is not statutorily or otherwise
required, DOJ notes that the National
Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program has
worked with nearly every stakeholder
group affected by NMVTIS to develop
standards for voluntary reporting to
NMVTIS that would benefit states, law
enforcement, consumers, and others.
DOJ applauds the National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program and strongly
encourages the operator to adopt these
standards as suggested voluntary
compliance standards. While the
standards cannot be mandated on any
reporting entity, those entities that
adopt the standards and report
voluntarily in a manner that is
consistent with the standards will be
providing a significant public benefit.
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that NMVTIS must support the
electronic MCO process and should
serve as a catalyst for implementation of
the electronic MCO system nationwide.
Response: DOJ is in favor of
supporting an electronic MCO process
as a way of eliminating and preventing
fraud and reducing theft. In addition to
NMVTIS, the use of the secure
AAMVAnet communications network
for states would likely be necessary, and
it would be AAMVA’s responsibility to
authorize its use for this purpose.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Junk Yards and Salvage Yards
23. Salvage Pools
Comment: Several law enforcement
and related commenters strongly agreed
with the assessment that Salvage Pools
are one of the most significant sources
used by criminal groups as a source of
paperwork and as a way to fund their
operations. These commenters agree
that Salvage Pools must report vehicles
to NMVTIS both when they receive
vehicles for sale, and when they sell
those vehicles. These commenters
further noted that such salvage pools
have sophisticated technological
capabilities and should not have any
problem meeting the reporting
requirements. Several of these
commenters noted that in some cases,
individuals purchase severely damaged
units at or via these pools and then steal
a similar make and model for cloning
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
purposes. For this reason, these
commenters also recommended
reporting the buyer’s name for these
vehicles. Several national consumeradvocacy organizations also supported
the constructive definition including
salvage pools and the requirement to
add buyer name in the reporting
requirements.
Response: DOJ reaffirms its
determination to include ‘‘salvage
pools’’ and ‘‘salvage auctions’’ in the
definition of junk or salvage yards,
thereby requiring them to comply with
the corresponding reporting
requirements. The name of the buyer is
not reported elsewhere despite being
very valuable for law enforcement and
other purposes. DOJ, therefore, added
the name of the buyer as required data
to report. Because many of the
purchasers are reportedly international
buyers, some of whom have been linked
to fraud and theft rings that purchase
such vehicles for clean paper to use on
stolen vehicles in the U.S., DOJ also will
add to the requirements an indication
whether the vehicle is intended for
export.
Comment: The Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles commented that by
statute, Nevada requires wreckers and
salvage pools to apply and transfer their
salvage titles, junk certificates, and nonrepairable certificates within 10 to 30
days. Nevada suggested that these
organizations should be exempt from
reporting because the DMV already
sends this data to NMVTIS.
Response: Junk and salvage yards,
including salvage pools, are not
required to report data to NMVTIS if the
state already reports the required junkand salvage-yard information to
NMVTIS pursuant to this regulation.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether ‘‘the definitions of junk yard
and salvage yard, which include even a
single individual, [are] a substantial
overstep?’’ Several consumer-protection
organizations also suggested that, with
respect to the definition of ‘‘in the
business of,’’ junk and salvage yards
should be defined as any entity or
individual meeting the description in
the definition that acquires or owns five
or more salvage or junk automobiles
within the preceding 12 months, which
is analogous to other similar reporting
standards.
Response: DOJ modified the final rule
consistent with the comment from the
consumer-protection organizations. The
qualifier of five or more vehicles is
taken from federal odometer law, and its
definition of ‘‘car dealers’’ from 49
U.S.C. 32702(2).
Comment: One commenter (CARS of
Wisconsin) argued that ‘‘information
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5759
about who owned the vehicle prior to it
being junked is unnecessary.’’ The
Wisconsin Department of
Transportation contended that requiring
junk and salvage yards to report the
name of the vehicle supplier is
unnecessary, as is the disposition of
such vehicles. Wisconsin DOT
commented that because these vehicles
are scrapped or destroyed by these
entities and cannot be returned to road
use, it is unnecessary to report this
information.
Response: Comments from law
enforcement entities on the proposed
rule demonstrates that this information
is of significant value. Additionally,
even when a vehicle cannot return to
the road, the VIN can be used to clone
a stolen vehicle. In states that do not
have the same junk-branding
requirements as Wisconsin, a junked
vehicle can ‘‘live on’’ through a cloned
stolen vehicle, which will only cease
once NMVTIS is fully implemented.
Comment: The Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles expressed concern that
the proposed rule seemed to encourage
junk- and salvage-yard operators to
submit data via FTP or facsimile that
potentially would include personal
identifying information.
Response: DOJ encourages all
reporters to report electronically
whenever possible. In cases where
electronic reporting is not an option,
DOJ will direct the operator to identify
a reporting procedure to accommodate
the situation. Regardless of the reporting
method, DOJ and the operator will
ensure that all possible safeguard
measures are taken, including secure
FTP wherever possible.
Comment: One commenter requested
that DOJ require the operator to accept
junk- and salvage-yard data from any
junk or salvage yard directly or through
a third party on their behalf to minimize
administrative burden.
Response: DOJ has provided the
operator with flexibility in identifying
the specific methods of reporting to
NMVTIS. It is not in the system’s best
interest for all required reporters to
report directly into the system, due to
technical and business reasons. The
operator is expected to identify three or
more different methods of transmitting
information to NMVTIS and will make
this information available via its Web
site, as will DOJ via www.NMVTIS.gov.
Comment: Several commenters have
noted that, similar to insurance-carrier
reporting, junk and salvage reporting of
vehicle presence in inventory on a 30day basis leaves a significant amount of
time for fraud and theft to occur. These
commenters recommended that DOJ
require reporting of not only presence in
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5760
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
inventory, but also disposition of the
vehicle. The recommendations for the
revised reporting timeline varied in the
recommendations from immediately to
several business days.
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
defines the reporting timeline, and,
therefore, DOJ can only require
reporting on a monthly basis. DOJ does
strongly encourage all reporters to
report data as soon as possible or on a
daily basis.
Comment: ASPA commented that
‘‘while ‘salvage pools’ were not
included by Congress in the ‘Anti-Car
Theft Act of 1992’ as an entity with
reporting requirements, the DOJ sweeps
our industry into the group which has
these reporting requirements. * * * The
salvage pool industry wants to be
helpful in combating vehicle theft, but
we want to insure that any reporting
requirements imposed on our industry
are reasonable, in light of the fact that
Congress did not specifically place
reporting requirements on salvage
pools.’’
Response: DOJ appreciates ASPA’s
declaration and will work to ensure that
reporting requirements on every
industry are reasonable. The reporting
requirements proposed for salvage pools
are the same requirements placed on
salvage yards, which also handle
salvage vehicles. Because a salvage pool
is in the business of acquiring
(constructively defined to include
handling or controlling on behalf of)
salvage automobiles for resale, it fits
well within the statutory definition of
salvage yards.
Comment: ASPA commented that
because salvage pools generally serve as
‘‘agents’’ for insurance carriers, salvage
pools should only be subject to the
reporting requirements of insurance
carriers as they relate to the age of
automobile to be reported.
Response: DOJ disagrees with this
recommendation because salvage pools
are included in the definition of salvage
yards, as opposed to insurance carriers.
Comment: ISRI and the National
Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program both
suggested an exemption from reporting
for vehicles acquired from an entity that
is obligated to meet the reporting
requirements of the Act and rule. They
argued that this exemption is necessary,
not because of the burden of double
reporting, but because, in the case of the
scrap-metal-recycling industry, many
vehicles are acquired after being
flattened or crushed to an extent that a
VIN cannot be reasonably obtained.
Response: Many scrap-metal
processors and shredders do receive
flattened and bundled vehicles and
vehicle parts. In those cases, recording
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
a VIN for every vehicle is nearly
impossible. Both ISRI and the National
Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program
assert that such entities are at the ‘‘end
of the line’’ in handling end-of-life
vehicles, and almost always receive
vehicles from those who are required to
report on the vehicle before it is crushed
or bundled. Additionally, with scrapmetal processors and shredders, there is
no possibility that the vehicle will be
subsequently purchased for operation
on public roads by an unsuspecting
consumer. However, cloning and
destruction of stolen vehicles remain a
threat. For these reasons, DOJ created an
exception for reporting to NMVTIS in
cases where a scrap-metal processor or
shredder confirms that the vehicle
supplier reported the required data to
NMVTIS. Scrap-metal processors and
shredders that receive automobiles for
recycling in a condition that prevents
identification of the VINs need not
report the vehicles to the operator if the
source of each vehicle has already
reported the vehicle to NMVTIS. In
cases where a supplier’s compliance
with NMVTIS cannot be ascertained,
however, scrap-metal processors and
shredders must report these vehicles to
the operator based on a visual
inspection, if possible. If the VIN cannot
be determined based on this inspection,
scrap-metal processors and shredders
may rely on primary documentation
(i.e., title documents) provided by the
vehicle supplier.
Lenders and Automobile Dealers
Comment: Iowa Attorney General
Thomas J. Miller supported the DOJ
proposal that lenders and auto dealers
have access to NMVTIS in order to
further NMVTIS’s goals of reducing
crime, especially fraud.
Response: Commercial consumers
will have access to NMVTIS.
Comment: Assurant Solutions argued
that lenders and dealers need not only
the ability to query NMVTIS for
information, but also need the ability to
communicate and electronically
exchange motor vehicle information to
achieve greater efficiencies in title
processing, and to limit the number and
type of paper-based transactions as a
strategy to significantly decrease fraud.
Specifically, the commenter suggested
that lenders and dealers communicate
errors or changes to NMVTIS.
Response: Communication to and
from NMVTIS is currently facilitated
through the use of the current operator’s
secure and proprietary network,
AAMVANet. This network is not a
component of NMVTIS per se, and
therefore the operator governs use of
this network for communication
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
between NMVTIS and its users. In terms
of providing lenders and dealers with
the ability to make corrections and
changes, DOJ notes that it has concerns
with authorizing any user other than a
state motor vehicle administration or its
agents (where applicable) to make
corrections directly or changes to
NMVTIS data. However, DOJ directed
the operator to develop a process for
reporting possible errors and requesting
changes that may also be used by
lenders and dealers.
Responsibilities of the Operator of
NMVTIS
24. Consumer Access Methods
Comment: One commenter argued
that ‘‘[t]he Web-based access should be
open to private individuals who wish to
check the status of a prospective
purchase.’’ And the NADA supported
the provisions in the proposed rule
allowing dealers to access NMVTIS as
prospective purchasers, which is likely
to help thwart motor vehicle-title fraud.
A consumer-advocate attorney
commented that if this information
becomes widely and readily available,
the vehicle-fraud industry will be
significantly reduced.
Response: Prospective purchasers
(including dealers who purchase
vehicles for resale) are required to have
access to information necessary to make
an informed purchase decision, and DOJ
will require that consumer access be
available by January 30, 2009.
Comment: Experian Automotive
argued that DOJ should not overlook the
significant costs involved in marketing
and distributing vehicle-history
information, and suggested that these
costs are beyond what the operator can
provide.
Response: These costs are significant.
Under the model of third-party portal
providers (as opposed to a single,
operator-provided consumer access
model), the third parties, not the
operator or DOJ, will bear the most
significant marketing and distribution
costs. It is partly because of these costs
that the third-party model was selected.
Comment: Experian Automotive
argued that NMVTIS is not chartered to
provide the level of information and
support that Experian or other private
vehicle-history report companies
provide.
Response: DOJ has no intention of
competing with private vehicle-historyreport companies. Those private
services possess data that NMVTIS does
not intend to provide (e.g., vehicle
repair and service histories). NMVTIS is
simply intended as a governmentsponsored service to verify the title and
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
brand history of a vehicle reliably,
thereby preventing fraud and theft.
Comment: Several motor vehicle
administrations and one services
organization argued that the operator
should not be permitted to sell bulk
vehicle data from any state, which
would effectively allow private
information resellers to bypass
contractual agreements and seek the
state’s database from the NMVTIS
operator. Additionally, at least one state
motor vehicle administration suggested
that the operator should conduct regular
program and security audits and should
screen potential access providers.
Response: The operator will not sell
the NMVTIS central file or any
particular state’s dataset (i.e., all VINs
from a particular state). All information
provided will be in response to VIN
queries, except in cases of law
enforcement queries, which could
include searches of NMVTIS by
reporting entity name, names associated
with reports, location, etc. Data
provided to NMVTIS will remain in the
possession of the operator and any
contractors supporting the operator (i.e.,
data center hosting or backup).
Consumer-access providers are
restricted from downloading and storing
bulk NMVTIS data for resale or reuse
and must use data in accordance with
the Anti-Car Theft Act. Any entity using
NMVTIS data in a manner inconsistent
with these regulations may not be
covered under the Act’s immunity
provisions. The operator shall conduct
regular reviews and audits of security
arrangements and program compliance
and shall work with DOJ to establish
access-provider standards to ensure that
the access providers are professional
and reputable, and that information and
access are provided according to the
Act.
Comment: One commenter argued
that ‘‘[t]he responsibilities of the
operator of the NMVTIS system are
confusing in subsection (b)(3) and (b)(5),
[as] they appear to have the same
meaning and impact.’’
Response: These subsections describe
what the operator of NMVTIS is
statutorily required to provide to users
of the system, including information
regarding a vehicle’s current or past
status as a junk or salvage vehicle. In
other words, NMVTIS will make
information about vehicle history
available to consumers, state titling
agencies, law enforcement, and others
through an electronic (e.g., Web-based)
inquiry. Although subsections (b)(3) and
(b)(5) overlap somewhat, it is possible
that the operator may have information
indicating that a vehicle has been
branded a junk or salvage that did not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
arise from a report submitted by a junk
or salvage yard or insurance carrier.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[w]ith the expected low
implementation costs for this consumer
system, there are major benefits to
centralizing the system within a
government Web site in order to reduce
further consumer misinformation. In the
alternative, a detailed scheme
prohibiting third-parties from charging
certain fees for accessing the system’’
would be desirable. The commenter
further emphasized the importance of
regulating third-party involvement.
Response: Third-party involvement
will be regulated and monitored by the
operator and DOJ. DOJ believes that this
is the most sensible manner of
implementing consumer access. DOJ has
established www.NMVTIS.gov as a
central source of reliable information
concerning NMVTIS, providers,
requirements, etc.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the operator be required to establish
a data-quality plan that may rely on
technological tools to scan for and flag
errors in VINs that may be reported to
the system.
Response: DOJ agrees with this
comment and will direct the operator to
adopt all reasonable strategies and
techniques for ensuring data quality.
Comment: In response to DOJ’s
request for comments on methods of
NMVTIS access, several commenters
agreed that third-party providers may be
better suited for handling information
access than a single provider. The
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
argued, however, that private third
parties should not be permitted to have
access to NMVTIS data in the manner
proposed, with little oversight, or to
generate profit from the data contributed
by the states. Additionally, the
commenter stated that this would
violate the provisions of the Anti-Car
Theft Act that restrict the operator from
taking a profit from its role as the
NMVTIS operator.
Response: The third-party providers
are not given open access to NMVTIS
data. Rather, they are only provided
access to that data that the Anti-Car
Theft Act requires to be available to
prospective purchasers. Additionally,
the operator will maintain much more
than ‘‘little’’ oversight over these
contractors. Last, while the Anti-Car
Theft Act restricts the operator from
making a profit, the Anti-Car Theft Act
provides no restrictions on third-party
contractors, including states that wish to
be a portal provider. DOJ will move
forward with a third-party provider
approach to consumer access.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5761
Comment: The NADA commented on
the importance of providing access to
NMVTIS information for the wholesale
vehicle market: ‘‘If wholesale auctions
have access to NMVTIS data,
fraudulently titled vehicles could be
easily flagged and reported to law
enforcement officials expeditiously and
efficiently. * * * Transparency at the
wholesale level will only help to deter
motor vehicle title fraud and enhance
the NMVTIS system.’’
Response: DOJ agrees and notes that
enabling this type of access also will
assist in generating revenues to sustain
the system and possibly offset or
eliminate state fees. So long as this
access is on an inquiry basis, and
NMVTIS data is not sold in bulk as
previously described, DOJ will
authorize and direct the operator to
provide such access to dealers and other
commercial consumers, consistent with
the Anti-Car Theft Act.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the operator
must provide robust security protections
for the information to be included in
NMVTIS.
Response: DOJ will ensure that the
operator relies on industry-standard
security and related protections,
including any relevant policy
recommendations of the Global Justice
Information Sharing Initiative that relate
to security and privacy protections of
information systems used in the
criminal-justice environment.
Comment: ISRI argued that DOJ’s
authorization for the operator to identify
third-party organizations to receive and
provide data to NMVTIS in lieu of
allowing all required entities to report
directly to NMVTIS is problematic. ISRI
believes that allowing third-party
organizations to handle the information
creates a security risk, provides an
opportunity for market participants to
access confidential business
information, and could create a cost
burden for reporting entities. ISRI
recommended additional security
protections and restrictions that would
prevent these potential problems.
Response: The current operator’s
information architecture is not designed
to allow hundreds, and possibly
thousands, of reporting entities to report
directly to NMVTIS. In light of this, and
because many of the covered reporting
entities are already reporting to thirdparty entities, such as the Insurance
Services Office (ISO), allowing a third
party to receive and provide the
required information is effective and
reduces burden on reporting entities by
allowing their current reporting to be
used in NMVTIS compliance. DOJ will
require the operator to designate at least
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5762
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
three third-party organizations for
reporting purposes, so that covered
entities can choose which third party
they are most comfortable with.
Additionally, any third-party
organization that develops a reporting
application at the operator’s request will
agree to terms and conditions restricting
the sale or use of the data, consistent
with the Anti-Car Theft Act.
Comment: Auto Data Direct, Inc.
suggested creating a policy to prevent
free dissemination of prospectivepurchaser-inquiry data by any entity
and suggested charging all consumeraccess providers the same fees in order
to maintain a level playing field.
Response: DOJ agrees and will direct
the operator to ensure that all consumeraccess portal providers are charged the
same fees for NMVTIS information,
notwithstanding volume discounts.
Consumer-access providers, however,
are currently not restricted in what they
can charge the end user (prospective
purchaser) for an inquiry, as DOJ has
determined that the ‘‘market’’ can
determine this better than any artificial
caps or minimums.
Comment: The Minnesota Department
of Public Safety commented that section
30504 of the Act requires DOJ to
prescribe by regulation the procedures
and practices to facilitate reporting to
NMVTIS. The commenter suggests that
DOJ is merely placing this burden on
the operator to circumvent the DOJ’s
own responsibilities.
Response: DOJ strongly disagrees with
this assessment. Requiring that these
procedures, which are subject to change
and modification as technology
advances, be published in federal
regulations is unwise and inefficient
and would only serve to restrict the
states and other covered participants
from working with the operator to
improve reporting practices. It is in
everyone’s best interest that such
detailed procedures are not codified in
regulation beyond the procedures and
practices that are described herein (i.e.,
third-party reporting, reporting via
batch upload or realtime, etc.).
Comment: AAMVA asserted that it
cannot support the development and
implementation of a third-party
reporting mechanism to support
insurance, junk, and salvage reporting.
AAMVA reports that to establish this
connection with the required two or
three third-party organizations would
require $1 million to $1.5 million in
development costs and up to $400,000
in annual operating costs from federal
funds to implement this provision.
Response: DOJ is under court order to
establish this mechanism by March 31,
2009. DOJ has recently provided
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
AAMVA with federal funds of nearly
$300,000, and AAMVA expects to
receive approximately $1,500,000 in
user fees by end of year 2008. Much of
these funds are spent on other activities,
including and especially support for
currently participating states. DOJ
expects to work with AAMVA on cost
controls and to intervene to ensure that
the basic connection is established as
required by the court. The Anti-Car
Theft Act specifies that NMVTIS will
not depend on federal funds and is to
be supported by user fees.
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that commercial consumers such as auto
dealers would desire the ability to
inquire on multiple VINs at the same
time in a ‘‘batch’’ format at an
appropriate cost. Consumer-advocate
attorney Bernard Brown commented
that ‘‘such broad access to NMVTIS data
should be provided for all of these
businesses and entities to level the
playing field’’ in the competitive market
place. Other consumer-advocacy
organizations commented that such
commercial consumers should not be
permitted to provide the NMVTIS
vehicle history to other consumers
without also notifying such consumers
of the NMVTIS disclaimers and
warnings.
Response: Similar to the need for
central-issue states to inquire against
multiple VINs at the same time,
commercial consumers should have the
same service available at a cost
commensurate with the service. Because
DOJ is directing the operator to make
such a batch-inquiry process available
for central-issue states, this same service
should be available to dealers and other
commercial consumers. DOJ points out,
however, that these searches will
require a VIN for each vehicle to be
searched. That is, no bulk data will be
made available to any consumers. DOJ
will require the operator to require all
third-party portal providers to make a
NMVTIS Notice and Disclaimer
available to all consumers accessing the
system. Additionally, DOJ has
collaborated with the Federal Trade
Commission on its Used Car Buyers
Guide regulations to ensure that the FTC
is aware of NMVTIS and the
accompanying notice and disclaimer.
Comment: Several commenters,
including the National Salvage Vehicle
Reporting Program, stated that the
inclusion of specific disclaimers for
limitations to the data reported by the
system is essential for consumer
protection purposes.
Response: DOJ agrees and will work
collaboratively with the operator and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
others to ensure that appropriate notices
and disclaimers are in place.
Comment: One commenter noted the
need for proactive efforts by DOJ and
the operator in the areas of public
awareness and education on NMVTIS
and the issues it addresses.
Response: DOJ will work with the
operator and the various stakeholder
communities to develop and distribute
information through www.NMVTIS.gov
and other means.
Comment: Several consumeradvocacy organizations argued that
consumers should be provided access
either at no cost or nominal cost without
onerous access requirements and
allowed to make multiple inquiries for
a fixed price. Similarly, these
organizations contended that consumers
who have completed vehicle purchases
should be able to verify their vehicles’
history, and that the Department should
take into account consumers’ lack of
access to credit and the ‘‘digital divide.’’
Response: DOJ agrees that consumers
should be able to access NMVTIS at
nominal cost, that there should be no
onerous access requirements, and that
any consumer—including those who
recently purchased a vehicle and those
who may be considering purchasing a
vehicle in the future—should be
permitted access. DOJ will take into
account the comments on pricing
structures and the issues of credit access
and ‘‘digital divide’’ while working with
the operator to establish the consumeraccess provisions.
25. Operator Accountability
Comment: Several state departments
of Motor Vehicle Administration argued
that the operator must provide a
reasonable and timely process for
correction and amendment of records
that contain errors, and that the operator
must take responsibility for notifying
users of the erroneous information.
Another asked who would be
responsible for working with insurance
carriers and junk and salvage yards
when their data is questionable or
incorrect. The commenter also asked
how the data would be corrected.
Response: DOJ agrees that an errorverification and correction process is
vital to the success of the program.
However, in some circumstances, it may
be impossible to fully verify the facts of
some situations (e.g., vehicles disposed
of). The operator will be required to
work with data reporters to identify and
resolve potential data errors, to note
within the central file any discrepancies
reported or the findings of any
investigations of errors, and to notify
those who accessed the information of
any confirmed erroneous information.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
No entity, including the operator, may
remove any data reported by another
organization, and only state motor
vehicle-title administrations can
unilaterally change their data, which
will update in NMVTIS. Insurance
carriers and junk- and salvage-yard
operators do not have access to modify
data in the system, but are required to
notify the operator immediately of
erroneous information that they
previously reported and to immediately
report corrected information, which will
be flagged or noted in the system as an
update. Although the erroneous
information may be retained in the file,
it will be noted as corrected via update,
and the updated, correct information
will be available. In releasing insurance,
junk, or salvage information, the
operator may include the name of the
reporting organization and its contact
information, so that anyone questioning
the validity of the report can go directly
to the source of the information. It is
important to point out that while
NMVTIS is authorized to serve as a data
repository and data provider, NMVTIS
was not expected to serve as an
arbitrator of questionable or even
conflicting information. It is the
responsibility of the data reporters
(including states and insurance, junk,
and salvage organizations) to provide
correct information, and to provide
updates and corrections as soon as they
are identified. Although the operator
should not remove previously reported
information, the operator can add a
‘‘note’’ to the record regarding the
corrected information, along with the
corrected information. Additionally,
DOJ added a section to the regulation
(section 25.57) that provides for error
correction in exceptional circumstances.
Comment: One commenter stated that
‘‘[t]he GAO report stated that there have
been problems with funding NMVTIS
through AAMVA, including: excessive
consultant fees; lack of documentation
for payments; failing to maintain
records supporting financial reports;
and failing to adequately administer
contractual arrangements with the
states. GAO report at 10. How has the
track record for management of NMVTIS
improved since then? What type of
financial oversight is expected for the
system? And what type of compensation
structure does NMVTIS propose for its
labor costs?’’
Response: Because the current
operator (AAMVA) has received grant
funding from DOJ, the operator is
responsible for complying with all grant
requirements, including financial and
programmatic requirements relating to
contracting, documentation, and
performance. Also, DOJ will play an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
active role in overseeing the
administration of the system. DOJ also
has added requirements for the operator
to publish an annual report to include
revenues and expenses by category. DOJ
leaves operator labor cost structures up
to the operator to determine what is
most advantageous and cost-effective
while complying with DOJ financial
requirements. DOJ also has added a
requirement (should DOJ not be the
operator) for an annual independent
audit of NMVTIS revenues and
expenses, the results of which will be
publicly available. DOJ also may
terminate the operator status of any
organization (if not the Department of
Justice) for cause, should that be
necessary. DOJ also has coordinated
with another federal agency, the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG), which
recently completed audits of the
operator’s financial recordkeeping and
practices and will continue to monitor
these issues. DOJ also notes that the
GAO study was completed many years
ago, and that AAMVA has undergone
many changes since that time.
Comment: One commenter asked ‘‘to
what extent is the potential for
corruption of those who manage the
system a concern? What internal
controls will be implemented? Is this
why access provided by the operator to
users of NMVTIS must be approved by
the Department of Justice? § 25.53(d).’’
Response: DOJ has no basis for any
concerns of corruption. The internal
controls in place to protect the integrity
of the system are many and varied,
including technological controls,
transparency, and oversight from a
variety of stakeholders.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[t]he estimates in the regulations give
the impression that the operator doesn’t
know exactly how much the system
costs to operate[.] The estimates
provided all seem pretty high. Why does
it cost so much to operate the system?
Is DOJ sure that the operator has the
experience and ability to run the system
well?’’
Response: DOJ is very concerned
about current system costs. DOJ will
continue to monitor and encourage costsaving options and will look to the
annual independent audits to inform the
operator and DOJ of additional costsaving strategies. DOJ notes that the
current operator, AAMVA, already
administers other federal-state systems
successfully. DOJ will continue to
encourage AAMVA to seek cost savings
by outsourcing technological solutions
as appropriate and by adopting current
and less-costly technological solutions.
Comment: One commenter asked
‘‘[h]ow will DOJ oversee the program
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5763
and the operator? Because these
questions are obvious and because
others have already asked questions
about the same issues, I recommend that
DOJ create some kind of governance
model to oversee the project. The
current operator has close ties to the
states, but other groups required to
participate don’t have a seat at the table.
A board of governors that has people
from the groups that use the system or
need the system is definitely needed.’’
Similarly, one state motor vehicle
administration noted that ‘‘the proposed
rules and the options AAMVA is willing
to provide do not match. The lack of
flexibility on the part of AAMVA results
in many options set forth in the
proposed rule not actually being
available to the states.’’ The California
motor vehicle administration
commented that a board or commission
made up of state representatives, DOJ,
and the operator should be engaged to
discuss and agree upon the
requirements relating to consumer
access. Other commenters also
recommended the establishment of a
steering committee to govern operation
of NMVTIS outside of the rules.
Response: It is DOJ’s responsibility to
oversee the program and make or
approve all policy decisions regarding
the implementation of NMVTIS. To
ensure input from all stakeholders, the
Department may establish a NMVTIS
Advisory Board to make
recommendations to DOJ regarding the
system and its operation.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that DOJ publish the
NMVTIS system budget on an annual
basis for review as a part of an annual
report, and another commented that the
operator should be required to provide
quarterly reports on the number of
vehicles reported on during each
quarter, along with dispositional
information, in order to give better
insight into the effectiveness and
compliance rates within the system.
Another state motor vehicle-title
administration recommended that the
operator be required to have procured
an independent audit of the fees
generated and expenses incurred on an
annual basis.
Response: DOJ will require the
operator (if not the Department of
Justice) to prepare and publish
electronically a detailed annual report
that includes many of these items, and
DOJ also will require an annual
independent audit of NMVTIS revenues,
costs, expenditures, and financial
controls and practices, which shall also
be available.
Comment: The California motor
vehicle administration suggested that
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5764
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DOJ should identify its responsibility
for oversight of the system and operator
performance, and that specific
performance measures should be
established along with a minimumperformance period such as a year. The
commenter further suggested that the
review of operator performance should
include solicited comments from the
various system stakeholders.
Response: As previously stated in
these comments, the Anti-Car Theft Act
provides that NMVTIS is a DOJ system
over which DOJ has sole responsibility
and control. As necessary, DOJ will
enter into an Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the operator
that addresses these issues in greater
detail.
Comment: Several commenters noted
the need to require the operator to
provide information to reporters and
others on its compliance and the
compliance of others in the program.
Response: DOJ will work with the
operator to establish the specific
compliance monitoring, managementcontrol functions, and administrativedashboard features that will be required.
In its annual report, the operator will
provide compliance data and
information on which states, insurance
carriers, and junk- and salvage-yard
entities are reporting to the system and
participating, if available.
User Fees
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
26. Per Transaction
Comment: Several commenters noted
that the user fees should be based on a
‘‘per transaction’’ basis: ‘‘The fee
structure based on a pro-rata share to
states based on the number of registered
vehicles is not an equitable structure.
States put information into the system
and all the states involved in the system
benefit from this. Under a pro-rata
system, states that have a low number
of title transfers but a high number of
vehicles ha[ve] to pay in more for the
system for marginal benefit. Other
states, for example states that act as
dealer hubs and have a large number of
title transfers but a small number of
registered vehicles[,] would be
benefitting disproportionately. For those
reasons, the fees should be applied on
a per transaction basis.’’
Response: Several commenters,
including state motor vehicle-title
administrations, noted that fees based
on a ‘‘transaction’’ basis could serve as
a disincentive for states to participate
and to make NMVTIS inquiries, which
would leave consumers and others
vulnerable. Additionally, several
commenters noted that fees based on a
pro rata basis provided the ability to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
know fees in advance, which would
assist in budget planning and requests.
Finally, a transaction-based fee structure
would require the operator of NMVTIS
to revise its billing process and would
likely be more costly to implement. For
these reasons primarily, DOJ has
determined that state user fees will be
based on the number of motor vehicles
titled or registered as reported by the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Highway Administration
through its Highway Statistics Program
and reports. With full state participation
mandated beginning January 1, 2010,
the operator will invoice all states
regardless of their level of participation.
State fees shall be reviewed biennially
and announced to the states as soon as
possible, preferably more than one year
in advance of becoming effective.
Comment: Experian Automotive
commented that some aspects of the
proposed rule could be read to allow the
establishment of a fee beyond what
would be reasonable for the records,
which would be essentially the same as
prohibiting the disclosure of
information outright.
Response: The current inquiry fee
used in consumer-access pricing is
based on market assessments, and with
volume discounts included, has been
effective in securing consumer-access
provider-organization agreements.
However, DOJ will carefully monitor
consumer access pricing to ensure that
the average consumer is not ‘‘priced
out.’’
Comment: AAMVA and the States of
California, New York, and Alaska
commented that user fees based on the
number of vehicles registered in the
state are the preferred basis, as this will
enable states to determine the fees in
advance, which will support budget
planning. At the same time, states such
as Texas, Oregon, South Carolina, and
Hawaii have recommended a fee
structure other than the number of
registered vehicles because of the high
number of registered vehicles in some
states. The State of California
recommended that the fees be the
subject of a separate, future rulemaking,
that the operator be required to make its
expenses publicly available, and that a
stakeholder group comprising the
operator, DOJ, and states provide input
into the fees.
Response: DOJ agrees with AAMVA
and several states in making the basis
for state fees the number of vehicles
registered or titled. DOJ cannot defer
rulemaking on fees because the operator
has indicated extensively that funding
for NMVTIS is critical. In fact, in the
operator’s public comments on this rule,
it acknowledges that it cannot
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
implement key aspects of NMVTIS in
accordance with a federal court’s order
without critical funding. For these
reasons, DOJ must resolve this issue
now. DOJ agrees that all expenses and
revenues for NMVTIS be made publicly
available annually.
Comment: More than one commenter
argued that ‘‘[c]harging a ‘user fee’ to a
state for the information they are
required to upload to the system is
simply unfair. If anything, the states are
providing this information as a courtesy
to enable the NMVTIS process to
function. As such, a state should not be
charged a fee for providing data. Rather,
anyone, including a state, which uses
the system to process requests, should
pay fees for system use.’’
Response: The user fee is not charged
to a state solely for sharing its data with
the system and other states. The user
fees are assessed in light of the states’
use of the system overall as is required
by law, including making inquiries into
the system, relying on the system to
maintain a national brand history, and
facilitating the secure exchange of title
information and updates between states
to protect the states’ consumers.
Additionally, all states receive a level of
added protection from fraud via
participation by other states.
Comment: The State of South Carolina
Department of Motor Vehicles suggested
that ‘‘states could be charged for
inquiries prior to the issuance of a new
jurisdictional title based on an out-ofstate title; however, states should be
reimbursed for these charges based on
the number of third-party inquiries that
the system receives. If such a model is
not developed, then states will take a
double hit: the cost of full participation
in the program, as well as the loss of
revenue resulting from third parties
being able to obtain current
jurisdictional data through alternative
means.’’
Response: Regardless of the fee
model, DOJ has taken steps with the
operator of the system to ensure that
impact on states is minimized. In fact,
the model that South Carolina proposes
is very similar to the model being
considered by DOJ and the operator.
The model DOJ is proposing for
generating revenue includes a
component designed to ‘‘point’’
consumers to the full title history in the
state of record, thereby potentially
generating additional revenues for the
state, and the model includes a strategy
of using revenue to cover system
operational costs as well as offsetting
state user fees. Once system operational
costs are covered, DOJ anticipates
offsetting or eliminating state fees
entirely with revenues generated by the
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
system. Should NMVTIS ever reach the
point where an unexpected surplus of
user fee revenue exists, DOJ could direct
the operator to reduce user fees the
following year or could use the funds to
support state upgrades to motor vehicle
title information systems. This latter use
of funds would be directed by DOJ
exclusively.
Comment: The State of Illinois motor
vehicle administration commented that
in order for NMVTIS to be effective,
NMVTIS should purchase vehiclehistory data from the state, ‘‘mark up’’
the price of the data, and sell the data
to third parties. Illinois suggested that
‘‘with this model, everyone wins,’’ and
that ‘‘consumers win because they can
rely on the complete, consistent, and
efficient flow of information about
motor vehicles.’’
Response: While this concept may be
appealing to some, the concept has
several major flaws. First, the Anti-Car
Theft Act does not authorize or even
suggest that DOJ should purchase state
data. Had this been contemplated by
Congress, funds would have to have
been appropriated or at least authorized
to make the purchases. Additionally,
government agencies are not in a
position to engage in speculative
purchases. Consumers would not win
under this scenario because they would
be left to pay high prices for vehiclehistory information, which many cannot
afford and should not have to do to be
protected. Last, this is not what is
required under the Anti-Car Theft Act.
Comment: The State of California
recommended that the states be charged
a flat fee for participation that would
cover NMVTIS operating expenses, and
that all revenues generated from
consumer access be returned to the
states.
Response: DOJ believes that, based on
the arguments presented by the states in
response to the proposed rule, there is
no equitable way to charge a flat fee due
to variances in the number of vehicles
in the states, number of title
transactions, number of out-of-state
transfers into the states, etc. DOJ
believes that the fees must be based on
a factor that is correlated to a state’s
required use of the system. In terms of
returning revenues generated from
consumer access to the states, this is not
too dissimilar to what DOJ has
proposed—offsetting state fees
(potentially entirely) with revenues
from consumer access once system
operating costs are covered.
Comment: One commenter stated that
‘‘states should not be charged simply for
submitting their title data to NMVTIS.
States that choose to use NMVTIS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
should not be charged for assisting the
DOJ.’’
Response: States are not charged for
simply submitting data to NMVTIS.
States are required to use NMVTIS for
inquiries prior to issuing new titles for
out-of-state vehicles, and NMVTIS can
provide real-time updates and
corrections as well as a secure method
of sharing title information between
states. In fact, for the 13 states currently
online, 45 million messages or
exchanges have been processed by
NMVTIS, and the State of California has
commented that NMVTIS is an ‘‘integral
part of state operational activities,’’
demonstrating that NMVTIS does
provide services to the states. The
purpose of NMVTIS is not to assist DOJ,
and DOJ has limited use for the data in
NMVTIS. NMVTIS is a service to states
that provides greater consumer
protection, reduces crime, and can
improve titling process efficiencies, all
three of which ultimately reduce costs
to the states overall as well as to
consumers.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘the Department of Justice does possess
a legitimate interest in incentivizing full
state participation in NMVTIS.’’ All
states receive a benefit from NMVTIS.
‘‘Title washing and rebranding of
vehicles remain a national problem, not
somehow confined merely within state
borders. Providing information to
NMVTIS allows law enforcement
agencies to confront crimes that may
have originated or affected states
outside of their jurisdiction.’’
Response: DOJ agrees with this
comment.
Commenter: One commenter
expressed disappointment regarding
state concerns over user fees and system
costs and recommended that DOJ
pursue enforcement against nonparticipating states.
Response: DOJ appreciates the
concern and will monitor state
compliance with the Anti-Car Theft Act
and the NMVTIS rules.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the fee structure should be based on the
activities generating the most costs,
such as storing vehicle data, performing
verifications, etc.
Response: DOJ agrees that the fees
should match the costs of the system. In
asking for comments on the fee
structure, however, DOJ was attempting
to solicit input from the field regarding
the most equitable manner of
developing the fees and applying them
to all states. As for costs, the majority of
current expenses are for supporting
online states and states in the process of
implementation and data storage.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5765
Comment: The State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
commented that a transaction-based fee
could serve as a disincentive to states to
query the system often. The state further
commented that a flat fee may be more
effective.
Response: DOJ appreciates this input
and assumes that the commenters’
reference to a ‘‘flat fee’’ could include a
tiered fee structure, such as what is in
place today, as this results in a flat fee
for the states in each tier.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[w]e remain convinced that if this is a
program that is as effective as it is
pronounced to be, if it will truly
accomplish all of the goals it is said to
have, then it should be fully funded and
supported by the Department of Justice.
Otherwise, it should be funded by fees
charged for those states, individuals and
organizations who request data from the
system, based on a transaction fee as
determined by AAMVA to sustain the
system. If that is not possible and the
DOJ will not fund it, it should be
cancelled.’’
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
explicitly states that NMVTIS should
not be dependent on federal funds for
operation. DOJ has awarded over $15
million to NMVTIS and participating
states, in addition to the funds awarded
by the Department of Transportation
prior to 1996. Since 1992, no more than
$2 million has been collected in user
fees by the operator. DOJ will comply
with the Anti-Car Theft Act in requiring
a system of user fees to support system
development, operation, and
maintenance. Because the Anti-Car
Theft Act requires that DOJ implement
the system so that it is sustained by user
fees, DOJ has no ability to ‘‘cancel’’ the
program.
27. Tier Structure
Comment: Several commenters,
including AAMVA, noted that a tiered
structure is the most workable structure
from a budgeting perspective, given that
this type of basis or structure will lessen
the need for annual changes to fees,
which are unworkable for states with
biennial budgets. However, some states,
such as Oregon, Virginia, Alaska,
Minnesota, and others, noted that a nontiered structure is preferred.
Response: DOJ appreciates this input
and has elected to keep the tier structure
in place. While there is still disparity
between small and large states, and
between those states that have
significant differences in the number of
titled vehicles, the tiered structure does
help in reducing disparities between
states of similar size. Additionally, the
tier structure allows the per-vehicle
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5766
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
basis fee structure to remain relatively
stable, rather than fluctuating
constantly, and because it acts as a
stabilizer, it results in a stable fee that
states can budget for appropriately. Last,
the tier structure is the structure that the
AAMVA Board has adopted as a
workable method for establishing fees.
Comment: AAMVA commented that
in addition to retaining the tiered fee
structure, DOJ should modify the final
rule to allow changes to the fee structure
to be determined through a mutual
agreement between DOJ and the
operator.
Response: DOJ firmly believes that
issues such as the structure of
mandatory fee systems should be
addressed in a public manner, as
opposed to handled informally and
without input from stakeholders.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
28. Per Vehicle
Comment: More than one commenter
noted that user fees should be based on
the number of ‘‘automobiles’’ titled
versus the number of ‘‘motor vehicles’’
titled in a particular state.
Response: While DOJ understands the
comment and agrees in principle, the
‘‘basis’’ for calculating such fees has no
impact when fees are adjusted to cover
system costs. In other words, charging a
user fee of $0.02 based on the number
of ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ versus $0.04 based
on number of ‘‘automobiles,’’ is
academic. Because NMVTIS already
includes and services titles on all motor
vehicles that a state may provide data
on, many stakeholders and DOJ
encourage states to make verifications
on all motor vehicle transactions. States
have been paying fees based on number
of motor vehicles, and because the
number of motor vehicles (a more
comprehensive figure) is easier to
calculate for states and the operator,
DOJ authorizes the operator to continue
the practice of charging user fees based
on the number of motor vehicles titled
in the states.
29. Charging Non-Participants
Comment: Several commenters,
including the current operator,
expressed concern with charging fees to
all states regardless of participation. The
North Dakota Department of
Transportation noted that the proposal
to allow the operator to charge the user
fee to all states, even if a state is not a
current participant in NMVTIS, is
‘‘unfair’’ and that there has been no
evidence provided that demonstrates
the enhanced effectiveness of NMVTIS
when all states participate. That
commenter also argued that there is no
evidence that criminals have targeted
non-participating states. The commenter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
noted that ‘‘paying for the privilege of
participating * * * is patently unfair
and simply ludicrous.’’ Another
commenter stating the same conclusion
described the system as ‘‘an unfunded
mandate where the particular costs to
states are vague, and the total costs illdefined.’’ The State of Texas
commented that this would not
represent a true ‘‘user fee,’’ and the State
raised the possibility of ‘‘constitutional
problems’’ in paying such a fee.
Response: DOJ disagrees with each of
these comments. Because all states are
required to participate fully in NMVTIS
and all states receive benefits from the
system, all states must pay the user fees.
There is no option for states to not
participate in NMVTIS, which includes
paying user fees to support the system
as required by the Anti-Car Theft Act.
Existing research demonstrates
NMVTIS’s effectiveness. Moreover, state
and local law enforcement
organizations, as well as automotive
insurance experts, agree that nonparticipating states are being targeted for
exploitation. It is important to note that
the operator of the system has no
discretion with regard to charging user
fees, as this is the economic model
established by the Anti-Car Theft Act.
The operator has been steadfast in
ensuring that DOJ understands and
appreciates the perspective of its
members and has worked closely with
DOJ to identify ways of lessening the
burden of implementation on state
agencies. Additionally, states have
multiple options for implementation in
order to best manage the costs of
participation, and certain cost-saving
and potential state-revenue-enhancing
features have been established or
planned.
Comment: The State of California
commented that ‘‘we agree with the
recommendation to charge all states. If
the fee is charged to all states regardless
of participation, there will likely be
greater participation by all states. This
could increase the value of the database,
generating additional consumer
transactions, which can then be used to
offset the user fees charged to states.’’
Response: DOJ agrees that by charging
all states a user fee in light of the
requirement for all states to participate
and the benefits all receive, any
disincentive to make title verifications
or use the system in the manner
required is eliminated.
Comment: One commenter noted that
his or her state ‘‘will not voluntarily pay
user fees.’’
Response: User fees will not be
voluntary. Because the Anti-Car Theft
Act requires that NMVTIS be selfsustaining through user fees, the final
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule requires the operator to issue
invoices and charge users of the system
a user fee based on system operating
costs and other factors that affect the
costs, such as necessary upgrades or
enhancements. Payment of the user fee
is required for compliance with Federal
law.
Comment: One commenter noted that
all users of the system should be
charged user fees, including entities
reporting data.
Response: At this time, DOJ is not in
favor of this recommendation because of
the increased financial burden it would
place on junk and salvage yards and
insurance carriers, and the disincentive
it would impose on their reporting of
data.
30. Enforcement
Comment: Several commenters from
various stakeholder groups asked who
would be responsible for enforcement of
the provisions of the rule and how
enforcement responsibilities will be
conducted.
Response: Responsibility for
enforcement of this rule resides with the
Department of Justice overall. Within
DOJ, several component organizations
(including the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Civil Division’s
Federal Programs Branch) will
collaborate with each other, with the
operator, and with state and local law
enforcement to ensure compliance and
to respond to allegations of noncompliance.
Comment: ARA commented that an
‘‘amnesty period’’ should be provided
because most automotive recyclers will
depend on inventory-management
vendors to provide a reporting
mechanism.
Response: While an ‘‘amnesty period’’
per se is not established, DOJ will work
closely with the ARA and other
organizations including the operator (if
not the Department of Justice) to ensure
that the commencement of reporting is
not impeded. During the initial period
of reporting, DOJ will be focused on
implementation as opposed to purely
enforcement.
Comment: Several insurance carriers
suggested language for clarifying the
enforcement aspects of the rule,
recommending that a ‘‘violation’’ be
defined as ‘‘an act in flagrantly and in
conscious disregard of this chapter’’ and
that the rule include a statement
limiting liability of insurance carriers
for what is reported and not reported.
Response: DOJ will not define
‘‘violation’’ in this regulation because
such a definition is unnecessary. The
Anti-Car Theft Act provides DOJ with
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sufficient discretion to seek and assess
penalties, including a requirement that
DOJ consider the size of the business of
the person charged and the gravity of
the violation.
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that any penalties levied against a
required reporter should be determined
in a way that will result in a material
fine that could force a modification in
behavior. This comment was supported
by comments from consumer-advocate
attorneys who noted that ‘‘[t]he
Department should construe the
enforcement provisions of the statutes to
make them as strong as possible with
respect to any potential deliberate
violations by insurance carriers or
salvage yards.’’
Response: DOJ will carefully consider
any penalties applied as required by the
Anti-Car Theft Act.
Comment: The National Salvage
Vehicle Reporting Program commented
that ‘‘the establishment of regular
document procedures by an entity to
provide compliance should be
considered a mitigating factor to
demonstrate good intent.’’
Response: The Department did not
propose any regulations governing its
enforcement efforts in the proposed
rule. At this time, the Department
believes that enforcement concerns are
adequately addressed by the Anti-Car
Theft Act and other applicable statutes
and regulations.
Comment: Several insurance-related
organizations or associations
commented that ‘‘49 U.S.C. 40505 sets
forth a $1000 civil penalty for ‘each
violation of the chapter.’ With millions
of data points reported from and to
many sources, there needs to be an
interpretation of this provision that
makes clear that good faith efforts to
comply would be enough to avoid the
penalty. For example, we request that
the Department include language along
these lines in the final regulation: ‘A
violation for purposes of 49 U.S.C.
30505 means an act that is committed
flagrantly and in conscious disregard of
this chapter.’ ’’
Opposing this view, several national
consumer organizations commented that
‘‘the Department should flatly reject the
American Insurance Association’s
proposal that its enforcement authority
be limited by a ‘flagrant disregard’
standard. Nothing in the Anti-Car Theft
Act authorizes or contemplates such a
standard, and the AIA does not
adequately explain why such a standard
is necessary, or how it would be
satisfied. Consistent with congressional
intent, the Department should preserve
its full enforcement authority with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
respect to the reporting requirements of
the Anti-Car Theft Act and its
implementing regulations.’’
Response: As a matter of policy, DOJ
will preserve its full enforcement
authority and discretion, including the
ability to determine what constitutes a
violation of the Act. As noted above, the
Department believes that enforcement
concerns are adequately addressed by
the Anti-Car Theft Act and other
applicable statutes and regulations.
31. Liability
Comment: Several commenters
requested that DOJ clarify liability and
immunity protections for all users of the
system—those using the data to make
decisions and those providing the data
to the NMVTIS. At least one of these
commenters indicated that without such
clarification, some data reporters may be
hesitant to comply. Some commenters
requested that DOJ clarify protections
from both criminal and civil liability.
Response: DOJ does not believe that
the applicable immunity provisions
require clarification. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30502(f): ‘‘Any person
performing any activity under this
section or sections 30503 or 30504 in
good faith and with the reasonable
belief that such activity was in
accordance with this section or section
30503 or 30504, as the case may be,
shall be immune from any civil action
respecting such activity which is
seeking money damages or equitable
relief in any court of the United States
or a State.’’
32. System Operating Costs
Comment: One commenter noted that
the operator should examine its
financial records and projections more
closely in order to narrow the estimated
system operating cost projections of
$3,000,000 to $5,000,000 annually. Such
examination would create greater
reliability and equity in determining
user fees. The commenter further
suggested that ‘‘an outside bidding
process should be enacted to shift the
entire program onto a contractor.’’
Response: Because the system has not
yet been fully implemented, and
because costs are driven in part by
system usage, the annual operating costs
vary annually and therefore are
estimates at this time. DOJ agrees,
however, that it is imperative that more
robust and tighter financial procedures
and controls be put in place, and that
transparency be encouraged through an
annual publication of an operator report
of progress and costs, as well as budget
projections for the coming years. DOJ
will ensure that these goals are reflected
in the requirements of the system
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5767
operator. While the operator is free to
consider outsourcing opportunities for
operational components (e.g.,
technology, financial oversight, etc.), the
Anti-Car Theft Act requires that the
operator of the system, if it is not the
DOJ, be an organization that represents
the interests of the states. The Act also
restricts the ability of the operator to
make any profit from the operation of
the system. Based on the current
operator’s statements regarding
continued participation as the operator,
DOJ is currently exploring outside
bidding processes that could result in
moving the program to another operator
or to DOJ.
33. Concerns With Cost-Benefit Study
Comment: Several commenters noted
concerns with the cost-benefit study
cited in the proposed rule and
completed by Logistics Management
Institute (LMI). Concerns include
overstatement of the benefits of
NMVTIS, lack of details regarding the
study’s methodology, vague
presentation of findings and issues, and
a noted possibility that underreported
costs were not well addressed. One
commenter argued that ‘‘the LMI study
is thoroughly unconvincing, and its
methodology is not sufficiently revealed
as to permit rebuttal.’’
Response: The LMI study was
commissioned in 1999 by the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ). The reports
cited are the only reports available to
DOJ at this time. Although more details
may be desirable, the LMI study’s
findings clearly indicate that NMVTIS’s
benefits outweigh the costs. Comparing
an individual state’s cost estimates for
implementation with the financial
benefits of eliminating even a modest
number of thefts and brand washings
demonstrates the same thing. Moreover,
the LMI study likely overestimated the
costs of participation because the only
method of participation known at the
time of the study was the fully
integrated method, which required a
state to reconfigure title information
systems to integrate NMVTIS inquiries
and updates into their automated title
processes. With a new ‘‘stand alone’’
method of participation available, the
most costly aspect of known
participation at that time (i.e., major
modifications to title information
systems) has been eliminated as a
requirement.
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘many improvements will remain
theoretical without full participation.
The expected benefits however are not
illogical; states will only fully gain from
NMVTIS once most states are full
participants.’’ ‘‘The best interests of
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5768
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
states, through their consumers, lies
with full participation in NMVTIS.’’ In
agreement with this, the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles
commented that ‘‘the system provides a
great value to participating states and
that value will exponentially increase as
each jurisdiction begins fully
participating.’’
Response: NMVTIS will not achieve
its full value until there is 100% state
participation. However, some states,
such as California, have commented
very favorably on the benefits of the
system, even though all states do not yet
participate.
34. Cost Calculations
Comment: One commenter noted that
‘‘[t]here are specific examples of laxity
in the cost-accounting figures for this
rule. For instance, although the
proposed rule states that average fees
charged to states by the operator should
be less than 3 cents per vehicle, it goes
on to say that ‘states that choose to
integrate the NMVTIS processes of data
provision and inquiry into their titling
process generally incur one-time
upgrade costs to establish these
connections.’ It would seem that * * *
a ballpark figure for this ‘onetime
upgrade’ is needed. Further, the cost of
this ‘one-time upgrade’ may not be
insignificant, as suggested by the fact
that ‘states can lower their upgrade costs
by choosing to integrate the NMVTIS
reporting and inquiry requirements into
their business rules but not into their
electronic titling processes.’ This would
bring with it, however, a definite loss in
efficiency.’’
Response: It is important to note that
there is no requirement in this rule or
otherwise that states integrate NMVTIS
processes into their title-information
systems. Because doing so would be
strictly and totally voluntary on the part
of the states, DOJ does not see the need
to attempt to estimate the costs for this
type of implementation. Requests from
states for DOJ grant funds have ranged
from $17,000 to nearly $500,000 to
implement various aspects of NMVTIS,
e.g., data provision only, full
implementation, etc. While
implementing NMVTIS through the
stand-alone method eliminates the need
for nearly all system modifications, DOJ
agrees that this approach may still affect
business processes and could therefore
impact overall operating costs.
However, given that NMVTIS inquiries
are only required on out-of-state
vehicles coming into the state, and
given that system response time is less
than three seconds on average, we can
reasonably estimate that the cost is
minimal for a title clerk to enter the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
VIN, wait approximately 3 seconds for
the response, and review the response (a
process estimated to take as little as 60
seconds or as much as 3 minutes). DOJ
has included this estimation in the costs
described in the proposed rule. Clearly,
if discrepancies are found, the time
required to process the transaction
could increase substantially. However,
DOJ notes that this is not a new cost, but
a cost that states already have today.
Comment: One commenter asked ‘‘has
the agency considered the day-to-day
cost of requiring a title clerk to ‘switch
to an internet enabled PC to perform a
Web search of NMVTIS via a secure
virtual private network’ for every single
title check of every single day? (Section
25.54(c) requires that each state shall
perform an instant title verification
check through NMVTIS before issuing a
certificate of title.) Is this additional cost
something an underfunded state is
supposed to bear simply because it is
underfunded? What is the actual cost of
having a clerk provide such a search
based on the total number of title checks
that a state will do in a year?’’ A state
motor vehicle administration
commented on the need to provide a
‘‘batch’’ verification method via standalone access, so that many title
verifications can be conducted as part of
a ‘‘back room’’ operation.
Response: The estimated costs for this
function have been included in the
overall cost calculations for the system
as described in the response above. It is
important to point out, however, that a
state is only required to check NMVTIS
when an out-of-state title is presented.
Although states are encouraged to make
NMVTIS inquiries before all
transactions, it is only required in these
limited instances. Additionally, states
that determine that this process is
unworkable may make a one-time
system modification to automate the
NMVTIS inquiry function. While most
states may opt to use the individual
title-verification method for over-thecounter operations, DOJ will encourage
the operator to make available a ‘‘batch’’
verification method as quickly as
possible to make compliance more
flexible for central-issue states.
Comment: One commenter asked
‘‘what are the anticipated costs of
causing an insurance carrier to provide
the requested information ‘in a format
acceptable to the operator?’ § 25.55(a).
Where is the study indicating this cost?
How was this cost determined? And was
this cost balanced against the benefit of
consumer protection? This rule will
increase insurance costs.’’ The
commenter also asked why insurance
carriers should have to provide the
information at its own cost. If the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information was being collected under
the ‘‘guise’’ of consumer protection,
when it will provide ‘‘any real benefit?’’
Response: DOJ estimated the costs to
insurance companies and presented
these costs and a description of how
they were determined in the proposed
rule. These costs were not balanced
against the benefit of consumer
protection. For insurance carriers
already reporting to a third party that
provides the required information to
NMVTIS, no additional costs will be
incurred. Amica Mutual Insurance and
other insurance organizations that have
begun reporting this information on
their own have publicly stated the
benefits of such reporting. The benefits
of NMVTIS in terms of consumer
protection are well founded and
common sense.
Comment: The State of Illinois motor
vehicle administration commented that
compliance in the first year of the
program would cost the state an
estimate $3,700,000, including start-up
costs, user fees, and the loss of
approximately $2,600,000 in annual
sales of vehicle information. Illinois
commented that these costs and the
model being implemented by the
operator is ‘‘nonsensical.’’ Other states
estimated their costs at approximately
$200,000. The NADA added that ‘‘[a]ny
state claims of excessive reporting costs
should be weighed against the huge
costs associated with vehicles with
hidden histories entering the stream of
used vehicle commerce.’’
Response: DOJ disagrees with
Illinois’s assessment of start-up costs.
Because the proposed rule did not
prescribe a specific user-fee model,
Illinois’s estimate of $700,000 in user
fees is not reliable. Additionally,
organizations that typically purchase
state motor vehicle records have
signaled that they will continue to
purchase state data, as they are unable
to purchase the bulk state data from or
through NMVTIS. For this reason,
Illinois’s assertion that it will loose
$2,600,000 in revenues likely is
unfounded. The only place these
organizations can purchase bulk vehicle
data from Illinois is from Illinois—
NMVTIS will not sell data in this
manner. While DOJ is not in a position
to address Illinois’s estimate of start-up
costs, DOJ issued a solicitation in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 to provide funds to
states to support NMVTIS start-up costs
and encouraged states to apply under
other unrestricted, eligible funding
programs as well. For many years
between FY 1997 and FY 2004, AAMVA
also offered funding support to states
based on DOJ grant awards to the
operator.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: AAMVA contended that
although the Anti-Car Theft Act states
that NMVTIS should be self sustaining,
NMVTIS represents an unfunded
mandate that has serious impact on
states. AAMVA went on to assert that to
achieve full implementation and longterm success, federal funding of the
remaining development work and
support for system operation is needed.
Response: The Anti-Car Theft Act
requires NMVTIS to be self-sustaining
and ‘‘not dependent on federal funds’’
for its operation. To date, DOJ has
invested more than $15 million in
NMVTIS development, combined with
investments from the U.S. Department
of Transportation, as well as a reported
$30 million investment from AAMVA.
Since 1992, less than $2 million has
been collected from user fees. DOJ is
concerned that additional investments
of federal funds will be used to support
the required ‘‘services to states’’ and
will not lead to additional development
of the system. Additionally, DOJ notes
that much of the federal funds provided
to states through AAMVA remains
unexpended even years after being
provided to facilitate participation.
From 2003 to date, AAMVA and the
states have strongly encouraged DOJ to
implement the rules for NMVTIS as a
necessary step to system
implementation. With rules now
published, system operation and user
fees established, and third-party
providers generating additional user
fees, it is DOJ’s hope that additional
federal funding may not be needed, and
that the system can begin to be self
sustaining as originally envisioned.
Comment: AAMVA commented that
its Board of Directors recently
concluded that AAMVA will not be able
to continue as the system operator if it
must subsidize the ongoing
development and operation costs of
NMVTIS. As a result, AAMVA expects
a decision by August 2009 from its
Board of Directors as to its continued
participation as the operator of the
system.
Response: DOJ acknowledges
AAMVA’s position and, in response,
developed a Request for Information
(RFI) that was published to identify
prospective new operators and
organizations that could support DOJ
should DOJ become the operator. DOJ
expects that any new operator, if not
DOJ, will comply with the same
provisions of this rule and will work
with DOJ, AAMVA, and the NMVTIS
stakeholders to perform a seamless
transition. The results from the RFI are
being used to identify new ideas and
capabilities to accomplish the program
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
objectives while minimizing the burden
on states.
Provisions of This Rule
The continued implementation of
NMVTIS and its effectiveness depend
on the participation and cooperation of
a number of parties. According to the
cost-benefit study conducted by the
Logistics Management Institute: ‘‘The
way NMVTIS is implemented—
piecemeal, regionally, or nationally—
will affect how criminals respond.
Criminals are highly mobile and may
avoid NMVTIS states until most of the
country is covered by the system.
Criminals use technology to their
advantage, both to identify potential
theft targets and to camouflage stolen
vehicles.’’ As a result, any states not
fully participating in NMVTIS and their
citizens may be disproportionately
targeted by criminals committing
vehicle crimes. This finding has been
repeatedly confirmed by law
enforcement at the local, state, and
federal levels, and by national anti-theft
organizations based on experience and
active investigations. Even private
vehicle-history providers have agreed
that criminals exploit these and similar
weaknesses in the vehicle-titling system
in the U.S., particularly the lack of
communication between state motor
vehicle title and registration agencies.
The Anti-Car Theft Act also referred to
the ‘‘weakest link’’ in referring to this
problem as it relates to brand washing.
See Public Law No. 102–519, section
140(a)(1).
Participation in NMVTIS must be
expanded to all states. In addition,
insurance carriers, junk yards, and
salvage yards also need to provide
certain information relevant to the lifecycle of an automobile in order for
NMVTIS to function properly and
achieve the intended benefits. The AntiCar Theft Act requires junk yards,
salvage yards, and insurance carriers to
report at least monthly to NMVTIS on
all junk and salvage automobiles they
obtain. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30504(c),
the Attorney General is authorized to
issue regulations establishing
procedures and practices to facilitate
reporting the required information in
the least-burdensome and costly
fashion.
Accordingly, this rule implements the
reporting requirements imposed on junk
yards, salvage yards, and insurance
carriers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30504(c).
In addition, this rule clarifies, consistent
with section 202(a)(1) of the Act, the
title and related information to be
included in the system to determine its
adequacy, timeliness, reliability, and
capability of aiding in efforts to prevent
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5769
theft and fraud. The rule also clarifies
the various responsibilities of the
operator of NMVTIS, states, junk yards,
salvage yards, and insurance carriers
under the Anti-Car Theft Act to help
ensure its effectiveness. Finally, this
rule provides a means by which user
fees will be imposed to fund NMVTIS,
consistent with the requirements of the
Anti-Car Theft Act and its requirement
that NMVTIS be self sustaining and ‘‘not
dependent on Federal funds.’’
1. State Responsibilities
The effectiveness of NMVTIS
increases as more states fully
participate. NMVTIS will only be as
good as the quality and quantity of
information it contains. Consequently,
all non-participating states are strongly
urged to comply with their obligations
under the Anti-Car Theft Act and to
begin title verifications and reporting
title information to NMVTIS as soon as
possible. While the immediate
requirement of this rule is to, at a
minimum, have all states make
verifications on incoming, out-of-state
titles and provide regular (at least daily)
data updates to NMVTIS, the ultimate
goal is for all states to participate in the
system via an integrated, online method
that provides real-time data updates,
making inquiries into NMVTIS prior to
issuing new titles on vehicles coming
from out-of-state, and sharing other
information and data electronically, via
NMVTIS. All states must be fully
participating as required by the Act and
this rule by January 1, 2010. However,
for purposes of continuity and to ensure
that there is no degradation of services
currently provided by NMVTIS, the
final rule requires all states to maintain
at least the level of participation (data
provision, title verifications, remitting
fees) that they had established as of
January 1, 2009 for the remainder of that
year and until the full compliance date
for all states arrives on January 1, 2010.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30502,
NMVTIS must provide a means of
determining whether a title is valid,
where the automobile previously was
titled, the automobile’s reported
mileage, if the automobile is titled as a
junk or salvage automobile in another
state, and whether the automobile has
been reported as a junk or salvage
automobile under 49 U.S.C. 30504. Each
state is required to make its titling
information available to NMVTIS. 49
U.S.C. 30503(a). Each state also is
required ‘‘to establish a practice of
performing an ‘instant’ title verification
check before issuing a certificate of
title.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30503(b). This rule
clarifies the procedures for verifying
title information and the information
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5770
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
states must report to NMVTIS pursuant
to the Anti-Car Theft Act, and the
procedures and practices that states
must follow to provide this needed
information. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30503(a), states are required to perform
an ‘‘instant’’ title verification check
before issuing a certificate of title to an
individual or entity bringing a vehicle
into the state. Because several states are
‘‘central issue’’ states where titles are
produced at a central location after an
application for title has been made,
‘‘instant’’ is considered to mean at any
point before a permanent title is issued.
The primary purpose of the verification
is to determine the validity and status
of a document purporting to be a
certification of title, to determine
whether the automobile has been a junk
or salvage vehicle or has been reported
as such, to compare and verify the
odometer information presented with
that reported in the system, and to
determine the validity of other
information presented (e.g., lien-holder
status, etc.). While the laws and
regulations of the receiving state will
prevail in determining the status of the
vehicle (e.g., branding, title type, or
status), the information in NMVTIS
should be used by the state to identify
inconsistencies, errors, or other issues,
and to follow state procedures and
policies for their resolution. Because
NMVTIS can prevent many types of
fraud in addition to simple brand
washing, states are encouraged to use
NMVTIS for verifications on all
transactions whenever possible. This
verification includes in-state title
transactions, dealer reassignments,
lender and dealer verifications, updates,
corrections, and other types of title
transactions. This business process is
made possible through the integrated,
online method of state participation and
is strongly encouraged by law
enforcement, consumer protection
groups, and private sector entities.
States are also required under 49
U.S.C. 30503(a) to make selected titling
information they maintain available for
use in NMVTIS. Specifically, states are
required to report: (1) An automobile’s
VIN; (2) any description of the
automobile included on the certificate
of title, including all brand information;
(3) the name of the individual or entity
to whom the title certificate was issued;
and (4) information from junk or salvage
yard operators or insurance carriers
regarding their acquisition of junk
automobiles or salvage automobiles, if
this information is being collected by
the state. The Anti-Car Theft Act also
requires that the operator of NMVTIS
make available the odometer mileage
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
that is disclosed pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
32705 on the date the certificate of title
was issued and any later mileage
information, if in the state’s title record
for that vehicle. Accordingly, the rule
requires states to provide such mileage
information to NMVTIS. States shall
provide new title information and any
updated title information to NMVTIS at
least once every 24 hours.
In addition, with the approval of DOJ,
the operator, and the state, the rule will
allow the state to provide any other
information that is included on a
certificate of title or that is maintained
by the state in relation to the certificate
of title.
The Anti-Car Theft Act specifically
covers ‘‘automobiles’’ as defined in 49
U.S.C. 32901(a). That definition, which
is part of the fuel economy laws, was
most recently amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law No. 110–140, and generally
covers four-wheel vehicles that are rated
at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight, but excludes vehicles that
operate on rails, certain vehicles
manufactured in different stages by two
or more manufacturers, and certain
work trucks. Participating states,
however, have been providing
information to NMVTIS on other types
of motor vehicles 3 possessing VINs,
such as motorcycles and various work
trucks. Information on these other types
of motor vehicles is very useful to the
users of NMVTIS, and law enforcement
organizations including DOJ have
strongly encouraged states to continue
to provide information on such vehicles
in order to reduce the theft of such
vehicles. Therefore, while states only
are required to report on automobiles,
they are strongly encouraged to
continue reporting to NMVTIS
information on all motor vehicles
possessing VINs in their state titling
systems.
2. Insurance Carriers
The Anti-Car Theft Act authorized the
Attorney General to issue regulations
establishing procedures by which
insurance companies must report
monthly to NMVTIS on the junk and
salvage automobiles they obtain. 49
U.S.C. 30504(c). Accordingly, this rule
clarifies the reporting requirements
imposed on insurance carriers regarding
junk and salvage automobiles. The AntiCar Theft Act defines a salvage
automobile to mean ‘‘an automobile that
is damaged by collision, fire, flood,
3 Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6), a ‘‘motor
vehicle’’ means a vehicle driven or drawn by
mechanical power and manufactured primarily for
use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does
not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accident, trespass, or other event, to the
extent that its fair salvage value plus the
cost of repairing the automobile for legal
operation on public streets, roads, and
highways would be more than the fair
market value of the automobile
immediately before the event that
caused the damage.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30501(7).
For purposes of clarification, the
Department of Justice has determined
that this definition includes all
automobiles found to be a total loss
under the laws of the applicable state,
or designated as a total loss by the
insurance carrier under the terms of its
policies, regardless of whether an
insurance carrier retitles the vehicle into
its name or allows the owner to retain
the vehicle.
As a practical matter, the
determination that an automobile is a
total loss (i.e., that the automobile has
been ‘‘totaled’’) is the logical event that
shall trigger reporting to NMVTIS by an
insurance carrier. Insurance carriers are
required under this rule to provide
NMVTIS with: (1) The VIN of such
automobiles; (2) the date on which the
automobile was obtained or designated
as a junk or salvage automobile; (3) the
name of the individual or entity from
whom the automobile was obtained
(owner name or lien-holder name) and
who possessed the automobile when it
was designated a junk or salvage
automobile; and (4) the name of the
owner of the automobile at the time of
the filing of the report with NMVTIS
(either the insurance company or the
owner, if owner-retained). DOJ strongly
encourages insurers to include the
primary reason for the insurance
carrier’s designation of salvage or total
loss in this reporting as well. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30504(b), the
report must provide such information
on ‘‘all automobiles of the current
model year or any of the 4 prior model
years that the carrier, during the prior
month, has obtained possession of and
has decided are junk automobiles or
salvage automobiles.’’
In addition, although not specifically
required by the Anti-Car Theft Act or
this rule, this rule will permit insurance
carriers to provide the NMVTIS operator
with information on other motor
vehicles, including older model
automobiles, and other information
relevant to a motor vehicle’s title,
including the disposition of such
automobiles, and the name of the
individual or entity that takes
possession of the vehicle. The reporting
of this information by insurance carriers
will help reduce instances in which
thieves use the VINs of junk or salvage
motor vehicles on stolen motor vehicles
and will assist in preventing and
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
eliminating fraud. Accordingly, the
Department of Justice strongly
encourages insurance carriers to report
such additional information to the
operator.
3. Junk and Salvage Yards and Auto
Recyclers
Under this rule, junk yards and
salvage yards are required to provide
NMVTIS with the VIN, the date the
automobile was obtained, the name of
the individual or entity from whom the
automobile was obtained, and a
statement of whether the automobile
was crushed or disposed of, for sale or
other purposes. Such entities must also
report whether the vehicle is intended
for export out of the United States,
which will assist law enforcement in
investigations related to the export and
cloning of exported vehicles. The
reporting of this information will be
limited to junk yards and salvage yards
located within the United States.
Pursuant to the Anti-Car Theft Act, junk
and salvage yards are defined as
individuals or entities engaged in the
business of acquiring or owning junk or
salvage automobiles for resale in their
entirety or as spare parts or for
rebuilding, restoration, or crushing. See
49 U.S.C. 30501(5), (8). ‘‘Rebuilding,
restoration, and crushing’’ is reflective
of the varied nature of entities that meet
this definition. Included in this
definition are scrap-vehicle shredders
and scrap-metal processors, as well as
‘‘pull- or pick-apart yards,’’ salvage
pools, salvage auctions, and other types
of auctions, businesses, and individuals
that handle salvage vehicles (including
vehicles declared a ‘‘total loss’’). A
salvage pool is an entity that acquires
junk and salvage automobiles from a
variety of parties and consolidates them
for resale at a common point of sale. The
pooling of junk and salvage automobiles
attracts a large number of buyers. It is
the belief of the Department of Justice
and the state and local law enforcement
community that a significant number of
these buyers purchase junk and salvage
automobiles at salvage pools in order to
acquire VINs or titles that can be used
on stolen motor vehicles or to create
cloned motor vehicles for other illicit
purposes.
Such entities must report all salvage
or junk vehicles they obtain, including
vehicles from or on behalf of insurance
carriers, that can reasonably be assumed
to be total-loss vehicles. Such entities
are not required to report any vehicle
that is determined not to meet the
definition of salvage or junk after a
good-faith physical and value appraisal
conducted by qualified appraisal
personnel entirely independent of any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
other persons or entities. Second, DOJ
has added a clarification that
individuals and entities of this type that
handle fewer than five vehicles per year
that are determined to be salvage or total
loss are not required to report under the
salvage yard requirements, consistent
with requirements for automobile
dealers, see 49 U.S.C. 32702(2).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30504(a)(2),
junk yards and salvage yards will not be
required to submit reports to NMVTIS if
they already report the required
information to the state in which they
are located and that state makes
available to the operator the information
required by this rule of junk and salvage
entities. Because some junk or salvage
yards may hold vehicles for several
months or years before a final
disposition (e.g., crushed, sold, rebuilt,
etc.) is known, some junk and salvage
yards may need to provide a
supplemental or additional report at the
time of disposition or within 30 days of
the date of disposition. Nothing in this
rule shall preclude a junk or salvage
yard from reporting the disposition of a
vehicle at the time of first reporting, if
such a disposition is known with
certainty. Junk and salvage yards are
responsible for ensuring the accuracy
and completeness of their reporting and
for providing corrected information to
the system should the disposition be
changed from what was initially
reported.
4. Lenders and Automobile Dealers
The Anti-Car Theft Act requires that
the operator make NMVTIS information
available to prospective purchasers,
including auction companies and
entities engaged in the business of
purchasing new or used automobiles.
The Department believes that the scope
of prospective purchasers also includes
lenders who are financing the purchase
of automobiles and automobile dealers.
Lenders and dealers are integral
components of the automobile
purchasing and titling process who also
can be the victims of fraud. This rule
allows the operator to permit public and
private entities involved in the
purchasing and titling of automobiles to
access NMVTIS if such access will assist
in efforts to prevent the introduction or
reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles
and parts into interstate commerce and
to prevent fraud. For purposes of
clarification, this rule permits
commercial consumers to access and
verify NMVTIS information at the time
of purchases, as well as at any time
during the ownership of or involvement
with such vehicles (i.e., lender
verifications). States are strongly
encouraged to work with lenders and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5771
others in using NMVTIS as an electronic
means of performing title transactions
and verifications. Conducting such
efforts in an electronic fashion will
eliminate a major source of fraud—
paper-based title exchanges, updates,
lien releases, etc.
5. Responsibilities of the Operator of
NMVTIS
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30502,
NMVTIS must provide a means of
determining whether a title is valid,
where the automobile is currently titled,
the automobile’s reported mileage, if the
automobile is titled as a junk or salvage
automobile in another state, and
whether the automobile has been
reported as a junk or salvage automobile
under 49 U.S.C. 30504. Further, the
operator of NMVTIS must make relevant
information available to states, law
enforcement officials, prospective and
current purchasers (individual and
commercial), and prospective and
current insurers. This rule clarifies that
the operator of NMVTIS will be
responsible for collecting the required
information and providing the necessary
access to all permitted users.
The Department will instruct the
operator that if it is not receiving
reporting entity data directly, then it
must identify at least three third-party
organizations willing to receive reports
from reporting entities (junk, salvage,
insurance) and to share such data with
NMVTIS. The operator also will take
steps to ensure data quality to the extent
possible and take steps as described in
this rule to correct reported data, if not
reported by a state, which has the
authority to make changes via updates.
The operator will be using the
National Information Exchange Model
or any successor information-sharing
model for all new information
exchanges established, and DOJ may
require the operator to use Web services
for all new connections to NMVTIS.
Services to State Motor Vehicle Title
Administrations
The operator will:
• Make available to state motor
vehicle title administrations at least two
methods of interacting with NMVTIS.
States will have the option of
participating via ‘‘stand alone’’ access,
which is a basic Internet site that allows
a state to enter a VIN and receive the
results of the search. States currently
have the option of fully integrating the
NMVTIS search function into their titleinformation systems. This method of
access allows state systems to perform
the search seamlessly and without
specific effort of the titling staff. This
method allows updates made after the
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5772
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
title transaction to be shared with the
prior state of title and allows real-time
updates to NMVTIS as well. The
operator also will make available a
modified stand-alone access process
(that allows for batch inquiries) to
central-issue states to support their
efficient title administration needs.
• Share with states any and all
information in NMVTIS, including any
intended export criteria, junk and
salvage history, and any other
information obtained by the operator
(e.g., title history information from other
North American title administrations,
etc.).
• Provide the states with the greatest
amount of flexibility in such things as
data standards, mapping, and
connection methodology.
vehicle registrations by linking state and
local authorities with real-time
verification of information. This system
also will provide an additional tool to
identify and investigate international
organized criminal and terrorist activity.
NMVTIS will assist investigations of
vehicles involved in violent crimes,
smuggling (narcotics, weapons,
undocumented aliens, and currency),
and fraud. In addition to providing
access to NMVTIS based on a VIN
inquiry, the operator also will allow law
enforcement agencies to make inquiries
based on other search criteria in the
system, including the organizations
reporting data to the system, individuals
owning, supplying, purchasing, or
receiving such vehicles (if available),
and export criteria.
Services to Law Enforcement
In particular, the operator of NMVTIS
will be responsible for ensuring that
state and local law enforcement
agencies have access to all title
information in or available through
NMVTIS, including personal
information collected by NMVTIS for
law enforcement purposes. A thief can
take a stolen, cloned vehicle to a nonparticipating state and get a valid title
by presenting the clone and matching
fraudulent ownership documentation to
the new state. Thieves often switch the
VIN plate (and sometime other VIN
stickers) of a stolen motor vehicle with
one from a junked car in order to get a
valid title for the stolen car. These
activities were possible because the
states had no instantly updated, reliable
way of validating the information on the
ownership documentation prior to
issuing the new title. Investigations
have shown that sophisticated criminal
organizations typically employ fraud
schemes involving multiple state-title
processes and either target nonparticipating states as the new titleissuing agent or use fraudulent or
counterfeit title documents from a nonparticipating state in order to effect
brand washing or cloning. Exported
vehicles also have become a key source
for cloning activities. NMVTIS will
provide law enforcement agencies with
access to make inquiries to further their
investigations of motor vehicle theft and
fraud—including fraud committed
against consumers, businesses, and
states. This access will allow law
enforcement agencies to better identify
stolen motor vehicles, enhance their
ability to identify vehicle theft rings,
identify cases of public corruption, and
identify other criminal enterprises
involving vehicles. NMVTIS will reduce
the ability of organized criminal
organizations to obtain fraudulent
Services in Support of Consumer
Access
The operator of NMVTIS is
responsible for ensuring that a means
exists for allowing insurers and
purchasers to access information,
including information regarding brands,
junk and salvage history, and odometer
readings. Such access shall be provided
to individual consumers in a single-VIN
search arrangement and to commercial
consumers in a single-, multiple-, or
batch-VIN search arrangement. As noted
above, motor vehicles that incur
significant damage are considered
‘‘junk’’ or ‘‘salvage.’’ Fraud occurs when
junk or salvage motor vehicles are
presented for sale to purchasers without
disclosure of their real condition or
history. Not only are unsuspecting
purchasers paying more than the motor
vehicle is worth, but they do not know
if the damaged vehicles have been
adequately repaired and are safe to
drive. For example, during Hurricane
Katrina, thousands of motor vehicles
were completely flooded, and many
remained under water for weeks before
flood waters subsided. Many of these
flooded motor vehicles were taken to
other states where they were cleaned
and sold as purportedly undamaged
used cars, despite the damage caused by
the flood, which jeopardizes the motor
vehicles’ electrical and safety systems.
In several reported cases, consumers
purchased vehicles that had previously
been involved in a collision, and airbags
were not reinstalled. These consumers
were later killed in a collision where the
airbags could not deploy because they
were no longer present. This fraud has
serious consequences, not only for
commerce and law enforcement, but
also for highway and citizen safety.
The cost for Web-based prospectivepurchaser inquiries for individuals shall
be nominal and take into consideration
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the potential that consumers may lack
credit cards or Internet access.
Consumer-access fees charged by the
operator may be in addition to fees that
may be charged by other public or
private entities participating in
providing the service. While this rule
does not establish minimum or
maximum fees for such consumer access
in order to allow it to remain ‘‘marketdriven’’ and flexible, the Department
requires that all consumer-access fees
and methods be approved by the
Department prior to enactment.
The Department anticipates that the
operator will implement a Web-based
method of permitting prospective
purchasers to access NMVTIS
information as required by the Act.
Consumer access shall be available to
individual and commercial consumers
who are considering purchasing a
vehicle or who have recently purchased
a vehicle. Consumers accessing
NMVTIS shall receive an indication of
and link to the current state of title, the
brand history (name of brand/brand
category), the most recent odometer
information in the system, and any
reports on the subject vehicle from junk
or salvage yards.
Privacy and Security Protections for
NMVTIS
The operator may not release any
personal information to individual
prospective purchasers. The operator
also will develop a privacy policy that
will address the release of this
information as well. The operator also
will ensure that NMVTIS and associated
access services (i.e., secure networks
used to facilitate access to personal
information included in NMVTIS) meet
or exceed technology industry security
standards, most notably any relevant
Global Justice Information Sharing
Initiative standards and
recommendations.
Accountability and Transparency
The operator shall publish an annual
report describing the performance of the
system during the preceding year and
shall include a detailed report of
NMVTIS expenses and all revenues
received as a result of NMVTIS
operation. Additionally, the operator (if
not the Department of Justice) shall be
required to procure an independent
financial audit of NMVTIS expenses and
revenues during the preceding year.
Both the annual performance and
budget report and the independent audit
report shall be publicly available via
www.NMVTIS.gov.
Although DOJ has primary
enforcement responsibility for the
provisions of this rule, the operator
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
shall conduct regular reviews of
reporting compliance by all reporters to
assess the extent to which reporting
entities are reporting appropriately,
documentation is in place, and other
requirements of reporting are being met.
The operator shall provide the results of
such information to DOJ. The operator
shall also maintain a publicly available,
regularly updated listing of all entities
reporting to NMVTIS. Such listing shall
include the name of the reporting entity,
city/state, contact information, and lastdata-reported date.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
6. User Fees
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30502(c),
NMVTIS is to be ‘‘paid for by user fees
and should be self-sufficient and not be
dependent on amounts from the United
States Government. The amount of fees
the operator collects and keeps * * *
subject to annual appropriations laws,
excluding fees the operator collects and
pays to an entity providing information
to the operator, may be not more than
the costs of operating the System.’’
Rather than charge states user fees based
on the number of transactions they
place with NMVTIS, AAMVA (the
operator of NMVTIS) currently employs
a ten-tiered fee structure. The fee a
particular state is charged depends on
the tier in which that state is placed
based on the number of currently titled
motor vehicles in that state. As a result
of the great disparity between the states
in their total number of titled motor
vehicles, the per-vehicle fee currently
charged by the operator of NMVTIS
ranges from less than 1 cent per vehicle
in the states with the most titled motor
vehicles to nearly 7 cents per vehicle in
the state with the lowest number of
titled motor vehicles. This fee structure
was developed by AAMVA and
approved by its Board of Directors,
comprising state motor vehicle
administrators. As noted above,
AAMVA is a nonprofit, tax-exempt,
educational association representing
U.S. and Canadian officials who are
responsible for the administration and
enforcement of motor vehicle laws.
This rule requires the operator (if not
the Department of Justice) to continue to
charge user fees to all states based on
the total number of motor vehicles titled
in the state and to continue the tiered
structure. Such a pro rata fee structure
simplifies billing for both the states and
the operator of NMVTIS. In addition, a
state would not be subject to a
significant change in user fees if it
moves from one tier to another. Last, a
pro rata fee structure eliminates any
disincentive for states to make title
verifications and encourages all states to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
participate in order to receive the
benefits of the system they are funding.
In addition, the Department of Justice
requires that the operator charge user
fees to all states, even if a state is not
a current participant in NMVTIS. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30503(a) and
(b), each state is required to participate
in the system, which includes making
titling information available to NMVTIS,
conducting title-verification checks
before issuing a title, and paying any
user fees. Because all states are required
to participate in NMVTIS, this rule
requires that the operator charge user
fees to all states, regardless of their
current level of participation. Further,
this rule requires that the operator
notify states at least one year in advance
of user fees and invoice every state at
least once per year. This schedule shall
remain in place until modified by
agreement with DOJ.
Under this rule, and consistent with
the Anti-Car Theft Act, users, such as
purchasers, insurers, consumers, and
other non-governmental entities, may be
charged a fee for inquiries they make to
NMVTIS. Because of the varying levels
of participation by the states, the
Department has decided to eliminate the
proposed provision prohibiting the
operator from charging transaction fees
for consumer transactions performed by
fully participating states. However, the
Department retains the authority to
allow the operator to discount such fees
for fully participating states. The
operator shall not charge any user fees
or transaction fees for inquiries made by
law enforcement agencies. The operator
shall ensure that all third-party
providers of NMVTIS information are
eligible for the same prices and
discounts, based on the product
implemented or provided (e.g., single
VIN lookup, batch lookup, etc.). The
operator shall require that all providers
and methods of consumer access
include a visible notice and disclaimer,
or a link to such a notice or disclaimer,
that provides consumers with accurate
information on what NMVTIS includes
and any limitations in the database. The
names of all noncompliant states shall
be disclosed to each consumer for
purposes of awareness. Providers and
methods of consumer access also will
include a link to operator-provided
information that explains to consumers
how NMVTIS works, such as how
different reporting streams may explain
variances or seemingly conflicting
information. Those providers and
methods of consumer access also will
provide a link to a state’s brand
definitions if those brands are displayed
and the information is available.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5773
The expenses to be recouped by the
operator of NMVTIS through its fees
will consist of labor costs, data center
operations costs, the cost of providing
access to authorized users, annual
functional-enhancement costs
(including labor and hardware), the cost
of technical upgrades, costs to comply
with the provisions of this rule, and
other costs as approved by the
Department of Justice in advance of the
expense. The operator is authorized to
develop a system-enhancement reserve
that does not exceed 50% of the annual
cost of operating the system for use in
ensuring that critical upgrades can be
implemented on an emergency basis as
necessary. AAMVA currently estimates
that the annual cost of operating
NMVTIS is approximately $5,650,000.
According to DOT’s 2005 Highway
Statistics, 241,193,974 vehicles were
titled in the United States in 2005.
Therefore, the cost to fund NMVTIS will
average less than 3 cents per motor
vehicle title, although states in different
tiers may pay slightly different rates.
The operator of NMVTIS will inform the
states of the applicable fees either
through publication in the Federal
Register or by direct notice or invoicing
to the states.
The operator will be required to
recalculate its fees on at least a biennial
(every two years) basis at least one year
in advance of their effective date. Any
fees charged to the states would be
offset by transaction fees received by the
operator. In addition, the total fees
charged to the states would be reduced
by future funds awarded by the U.S.
Government to the operator to assist in
implementing the system. Any fees
imposed by the operator in connection
to NMVTIS must be approved by the
Department of Justice.
Notwithstanding individual and batch
lookups or inquiries, the operator shall
not, under any circumstances, sell a
state’s entire data set in bulk or sell the
entire NMVTIS data set in bulk.
Since Fiscal Year 1997, the
Department of Justice, through BJA, has
provided over $15 million to AAMVA
for NMVTIS implementation. In Fiscal
Years 2007–2009, BJA invited states to
apply for direct funding from DOJ to
support initial NMVTIS
implementation. In fiscal years 2007
and 2008, less than six states applied for
funds each year. BJA awarded funds to
five states in fiscal year 2007 and one
state in 2008 to support system
implementation. BJA also invited
AAMVA, the system operator, to apply
for direct funding from BJA in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008, to supplement
state participation fees received by
AAMVA, as authorized under the Anti-
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5774
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Car Theft Act, and encouraged states to
apply through its other funding
programs to enhance NMVTIS
participation. As a result of these
solicitations, funding was awarded to
AAMVA to assist with NMVTIS
implementation in fiscal years 2007 and
2008. As noted above, funds awarded to
the operator of NMVTIS will reduce the
amount of user fees that must be
imposed to implement NMVTIS once all
states are participating.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
7. Governance
The Department of Justice may
establish a NMVTIS Advisory Board to
provide input and recommendations
from stakeholders on NMVTIS
operations and administration. If
created, the Advisory Board’s costs
would be supported by the operator
after approval of the Department of
Justice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this
regulation and by approving it certifies
that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Although the reporting requirements
imposed by the Anti-Car Theft Act will
apply to all small insurance companies
and small junk and salvage yard
operators that handle junk or salvage
automobiles, the Department believes
that the incremental cost for these
entities to collect VINs and the other
required information will be minimal
and that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on them.
Many insurance companies and junk
and salvage yards already capture VINs
as a means of positively identifying
automobiles and tracking inventory. The
additional cost to insurance companies,
junk yard operators, and salvage yard
operators to report the collected
information electronically to NMVTIS is
not expected to exceed 1 cent per motor
vehicle for most entities after the first
year. In the first year only, start-up
investments increase this per-vehicle
cost to approximately 4 cents per
vehicle. For the estimated small number
of non-automated reporting entities, a
manual reporting process may be
required, in which case the additional
cost is estimated at 96 cents per vehicle
annually. In the first year only, the cost
for these entities is estimated at $1.86
per vehicle due to initial investment or
start-up needs. Indeed, these costs may
be significantly lower or possibly even
eliminated altogether if insurance,
salvage, and junk data is provided
through a third party that may already
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
have access to the data and may be in
a position to establish a data-sharing
arrangement with NMVTIS in order to
reduce the reporting burden on these
entities.
Moreover, insurance companies will
not be required to provide data on
automobiles older than the four
previous model years. In addition, junk
and salvage yards will not be required
to report if they already report the
required information to the state and the
state makes that information available to
the operator. The Department has
attempted to minimize the impact of the
rule on small businesses by allowing
them to use third parties to report the
statutorily required information to
NMVTIS. In addition, the monthly
reporting requirements of this rule only
apply to automobiles obtained by the
business within the prior month or in
cases where an update or correction to
previously reported data is needed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This information collection has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review in
accordance with the procedures of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law No. 104–13, 109 Stat. 163.
If additional information is required
contact: Lynn Bryant, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building,
Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This
rule will not result in a major increase
in costs or prices or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies in domestic
and export markets.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Executive Order 12866
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of
Regulation. The Department of Justice
has determined that this rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f).
Accordingly, this rule has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Regulatory Impact Assessment
In 1999, the GAO conducted a review
of NMVTIS. The GAO report found that
a life-cycle cost and benefits analysis
should be performed to determine if
further federal funding of NMVTIS was
warranted. Accordingly, at the request
of the Department of Justice, the
Logistics Management Institute
conducted such an analysis. The 2001
LMI report found that NMVTIS would
achieve significant net benefits if it is
fully implemented in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia. In addition, the
2006 IJIS Institute report found that:
‘‘the NMVTIS program provides an
invaluable benefit to state vehicle
administrators and the public
community as a whole. Advantages of
the program include improving the state
titling process, as well as providing key
information to consumers and law
enforcement agencies.’’ Based on these
reviews of NMVTIS and the
Department’s experience with
automobile theft and fraud, the
Department believes that the full
implementation of NMVTIS should
reduce the market for stolen motor
vehicles, enhance public safety, and
reduce fraud. This rule will serve to
enhance the efficacy of NMVTIS by
implementing the statutory reporting
requirements imposed on junk and
salvage yards and insurance carriers and
clarifying the obligations of the states
and the operator of NMVTIS.
The operator of the NMVTIS is
entitled to receive revenues from user
fees to support the system. Currently,
these fees generate approximately $1.5
million annually. AAMVA, however,
estimates the annual operating cost of
the system to be approximately
$5,650,000—depending on necessary
system upgrades that may be required
and user volume. Therefore, the current
AAMVA fee structure under-funds
NMVTIS by $4,150,000 according to its
estimates. According to the Department
of Transportation’s 2005 Highway
Statistics, 241,193,974 vehicles were
titled in the United States in 2005.
Therefore, the total cost to the operator
to fund NMVTIS ranges from 1 cent to
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5775
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2.3 cents per motor vehicle title titled in
the U.S.
Consequently, the average fees
charged to the states by the operator
under this proposed rule should be less
than 3 cents per vehicle. In most cases,
states that choose to integrate the
NMVTIS processes of data provision
and inquiry into their titling process
generally incur one-time upgrade costs
to establish these connections. In nearly
every case, once a connection to the
system is established, data transmission
for uploads and inquiries is automated
and occurs without recurring costs.
With these one-time costs and state fees
considered, the costs to states are
estimated at 6 cents per vehicle. This
scenario includes making the data
available to NMVTIS via real-time
updates and making inquiries into the
system prior to issuing new titles. While
the frequency of reporting does not
impact costs under this scenario, states
can lower their upgrade costs by
choosing to integrate the NMVTIS
reporting and inquiry requirements into
their business rules but not into their
electronic titling processes. In these
cases, states would see lower costs by
establishing a regular reporting/data
upload process but not re-engineering
their own title-information systems for
real-time updates. Under this scenario,
instead of a state’s title-information
system automatically making the
NMVTIS inquiry, the title clerk would
switch to an internet-enabled PC to
perform a web search of NMVTIS via a
secure virtual private network (VPN). In
addition, the cost is minimized because
a state is only required to check out-ofstate titles. Moreover, because this type
of search is internet-based versus statetitle-information system-based, no
changes to the state’s title-information
system is required and therefore there is
no cost for this aspect of compliance.
For the reporting aspect however (i.e.,
programming an automated batch
upload process via file transfer protocol
(FTP)), it is anticipated that states
would incur reporting costs of less than
1 cent per vehicle. Assuming the
reporting costs for states are 0.005 cents
per vehicle and that 241,193,974
vehicles are titled in the United States,
the Department estimates that the
reporting costs for states is
approximately $1,205,970.
The incremental cost to insurance
companies and junk- and salvage-yard
operators that handle junk or salvage
automobiles also is expected to be low.
Many insurance companies and junk
and salvage yards already capture VINs
as a means of positively identifying
automobiles and tracking inventory.
Additionally, for both the insurance
sector and the junk/salvage industry,
many companies are already reporting
much of the required data to
independent third parties who have
indicated a willingness to pass this data
on to DOJ for NMVTIS use.
According to the NICB, it is estimated
that there are approximately 321
insurance groups representing
approximately 3,000 insurers that report
an estimated 2.4 million salvage and
total-loss records annually (based on the
most recent three-year average).
Furthermore, based on 2007 insurance
data, over 60% of these motor vehicles
will originate from the ten largest
insurance groups. These 3,000 insurers
would then be responsible for reporting
this total-loss information to NMVTIS if
not already reported to a third party that
agrees to provide the data to NMVTIS.
Initial
investment
costs
Annual ongoing labor
costs
Yard size
Reporting method
Small (non-automated)
Fax ..............................
$90
Small (automated) ........
FTP .............................
0
Medium .........................
FTP .............................
0
Large ............................
FTP .............................
250
12 hours per year/
$96.00.
24 minutes per year/
$3.12.
24 minutes per year/
$3.12.
24 minutes per year/
$3.12.
In those cases where the data is already
reported to a state or to a cooperating
third party, there is no additional cost
to insurance carriers. In cases where this
data is not currently reported to a
cooperating third party, the carrier
would be required to report the data to
NMVTIS. With the assumption that the
data is already collected in an
exportable format, and assuming that
NMVTIS would establish a reporting
mechanism involving a simple FTPbased solution, the cost to insurance
carriers is similar to the state reporting
costs of less than 1 cent per vehicle. The
FBI previously has estimated that
approximately 10.5 million junk and
salvage vehicles are handled each year.
Assuming that it costs insurance carriers
approximately 0.005 cents per vehicle to
report and that the insurance carriers
are required to report on all 10.5 million
junk and salvage vehicles, then the
reporting costs to insurance carriers will
be approximately $52,500 annually.
Similarly, junk and salvage yard
operators that already are reporting to
cooperating third parties would not be
required to report separately. Thus,
NMVTIS would impose no additional
burden. For those entities not
voluntarily reporting to a cooperating
third party, a separate reporting
mechanism would be established.
Depending on the type of mechanism
established (e.g., FTP-based solution,
form-fax solution, etc.), the costs will
vary. It is assumed that all junk and
salvage yard operators already collect
much of the information required under
the rule, and therefore, it is only the
transmission of this data to NMVTIS
that will result in costs. The table below
summarizes these cost estimates.
Total first year
costs (includes
initial investment costs
and annual
labor costs)
Annual vehicle
volume *
Total annual
average labor
costs per
vehicle (cents)
1–200
96
1–200
3
3 cents.
201–500
<1
<1 cent.
501–7,800
<1
6 cents.
$1.86.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
(* Note: Per-vehicle costs based on an average annual vehicle volumes.)
While it is difficult to estimate how
many junk and salvage yards are not
automated, the National Salvage Vehicle
Reporting Program and other industry
representatives estimate that nearly all
have some form of data collection even
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
if they do not have automation in place.
The National Salvage Vehicle Reporting
Program has discussed with many of the
inventory-management vendors the
assistance that can be made available to
establish reliable reporting protocols
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
through its voluntary and independent
efforts within the industry. If such
assistance is available from these
vendors, nearly all junk and salvage
yards will have some form of
automation and be capable of exporting
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
5776
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and sending monthly reports
electronically.
In cases in which small junk and
salvage yards have no form of
automation or computerized files, the
Department assumes that a fax or other
data-transmittal process would be
needed. This paper-based process
would likely incur additional labor
costs that would bring the estimated
per-vehicle costs for this small number
of businesses to approximately 0.96
cents per vehicle (annual labor costs).
However, according to industry
representatives, the number of junk and
salvage yards of this size is relatively
small (estimated at 20% of licensed junk
and salvage yards) and the number of
businesses without any automation is
even lower (expected to be less than
1,700 licensed businesses in the U.S.).
These businesses would not incur these
costs if already reporting this data to a
state or another cooperating third party.
Assuming that small junk and salvage
yards handle approximately 170,000
vehicles annually (at $0.96 per vehicle
annual labor costs) and that the
remaining junk and salvage yards
handle 10,330,000 vehicles annually (at
an average labor cost of 1 cent per
vehicle), then the Department estimates
that their annual reporting costs will be
approximately $266,500.
The Department anticipates that the
cost for web-based prospectivepurchaser inquiries will be nominal.
Similarly, the cost to law enforcement to
access NMVTIS also is expected to be
minimal because law enforcement will
not be charged any direct transaction
costs. Law enforcement will access
NMVTIS through their existing
infrastructure. The only cost will be to
the operator of the system based on the
number of inquiries received from law
enforcement. The expected cost to the
operator is less than 12 cents per
inquiry.
The Department of Justice also
considered possible alternatives to those
proposed in the rule. Indeed, pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30504(c), the Attorney
General was required to establish
‘‘procedures and practices to facilitate
reporting in the least burdensome and
costly fashion’’ on insurance carriers
and junk and salvage yards. Because of
the statutory requirements imposed by
the Anti-Car Theft Act, however, the
Department of Justice did not have
many options regarding the information
that must be provided and the scope of
the entities that must report the required
information. In particular, the
information required to be reported by
the proposed rule is mandated by the
Anti-Car Theft Act. The Department also
considered various alternatives for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
funding NMVTIS, such as a tiered-based
fee structure and a transaction-based fee
structure. Based on the comments to the
proposed rule, the Department believes
that a tiered fee structure based on the
total number of motor vehicles titled in
a state is preferable to these alternatives
because it complies with the Anti-Car
Theft Act and minimizes any burden
imposed on reporting entities.
With regard to all sector reporting
requirements, in most cases reducing
the reporting timelines from monthly to
semi-annually or less will not
significantly reduce costs due to the
benefits of automated processes.
Additionally, the costs that this reduced
reporting would incur by enabling theft
and fraud to continue far outweighs the
benefits. Consumers, states, law
enforcement, and others need to know
as soon as possible when a vehicle is
reported as totaled or salvage to prevent
the vehicle from being turned over to
another state or consumer with a clean
title. Moreover, a monthly reporting
cycle is expressly required by statute.
Executive Order 13132
In accordance with section 6 of
Executive Order 13132, the Department
of Justice has determined that this rule
does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant a federalism
summary impact statement. The rule
does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
governments and does not preempt state
law. In formulating this rule, the
Department has worked closely with
AAMVA regarding the implementation
of NMVTIS.
Executive Order 12988
This rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform.
List of Subjects
28 CFR Part 25
Crime, Law enforcement, Motor
vehicles safety, Motor vehicles,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
■ Accordingly, by virtue of the authority
vested in me as Attorney General,
including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C.
509 and 510 and, for the reasons set
forth in the preamble, part 25 of chapter
I of title 28 of the Code of Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 25—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
1. The Authority citation for part 25
is revised to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Authority: Public Law 103–159, 107 Stat.
1536, 49 U.S.C. 30501–30505; Public Law
101–410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Public
Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321.
2. Add a new subpart B to read as
follows:
■
Subpart B—National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System (NMVTIS)
Sec.
25.51 Purpose and authority.
25.52 Definitions.
25.53 Responsibilities of the operator of
NMVTIS.
25.54 Responsibilities of the States.
25.55 Responsibilities of insurance carriers.
25.56 Responsibilities of junk yards and
salvage yards and auto recyclers.
25.57 Erroneous junk or salvage reporting.
Subpart B—National Motor Vehicle
Title Information System (NMVTIS)
§ 25.51
Purpose and authority.
The purpose of this subpart is to
establish policies and procedures
implementing the National Motor
Vehicle Title Information System
(NMVTIS) in accordance with title 49
U.S.C. 30502. The purpose of NMVTIS
is to assist in efforts to prevent the
introduction or reintroduction of stolen
motor vehicles into interstate
commerce, protect states and individual
and commercial consumers from fraud,
reduce the use of stolen vehicles for
illicit purposes including fundraising
for criminal enterprises, and provide
consumer protection from unsafe
vehicles.
§ 25.52
Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart B:
Acquiring means owning, possessing,
handling, directing, or controlling.
Automobile has the same meaning
given that term in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a).
Certificate of title means a document
issued by a state showing ownership of
an automobile.
Insurance carrier means an individual
or entity engaged in the business of
underwriting automobile insurance.
Junk automobile means an automobile
that—
(1) Is incapable of operating on public
streets, roads, and highways; and
(2) Has no value except as a source of
parts or scrap.
Junk yard means an individual or
entity engaged in the business of
acquiring or owning junk automobiles
for—
(1) Resale in their entirety or as spare
parts; or
(2) Rebuilding, restoration, or
crushing.
Motor vehicle has the same meaning
given that term in 49 U.S.C. 3102(6).
NMVTIS means the National Motor
Vehicle Title Information System.
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Operator means the individual or
entity authorized or designated as the
operator of NMVTIS under 49 U.S.C.
30502(b), or the office designated by the
Attorney General, if there is no
authorized or designated individual or
entity.
Purchaser means the individual or
entity buying an automobile or
financing the purchase of an
automobile. For purposes of this
subpart, purchasers include dealers,
auction companies or entities engaged
in the business of purchasing used
automobiles, lenders financing the
purchase of new or used automobiles,
and automobile dealers.
Salvage automobile means an
automobile that is damaged by collision,
fire, flood, accident, trespass, or other
event, to the extent that its fair salvage
value plus the cost of repairing the
automobile for legal operation on public
streets, roads, and highways would be
more than the fair market value of the
automobile immediately before the
event that caused the damage. Salvage
automobiles include automobiles
determined to be a total loss under the
law of the applicable jurisdiction or
designated as a total loss by an insurer
under the terms of its policies,
regardless of whether or not the
ownership of the vehicle is transferred
to the insurance carrier.
Salvage yard means an individual or
entity engaged in the business of
acquiring or owning salvage
automobiles for—
(1) Resale in their entirety or as spare
parts; or
(2) Rebuilding, restoration, or
crushing.
Note to definition of ‘‘Salvage yard’’:
For purposes of this subpart, vehicle
remarketers and vehicle recyclers,
including scrap vehicle shredders and
scrap metal processors as well as ‘‘pullor pick-apart yards,’’ salvage pools,
salvage auctions, and other types of
auctions handling salvage or junk
vehicles (including vehicles declared a
‘‘total loss’’), are included in the
definition of ‘‘junk or salvage yards.’’
State means a state of the United
States or the District of Columbia.
Total loss means that the cost of
repairing such vehicles plus projected
supplements plus projected diminished
resale value plus rental reimbursement
expense exceeds the cost of buying the
damaged motor vehicle at its preaccident value, minus the proceeds of
selling the damaged motor vehicle for
salvage.
VIN means the vehicle identification
number;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
§ 25.53 Responsibilities of the operator of
NMVTIS.
(a) By no later than March 31, 2009,
the operator shall make available:
(1) To a participating state on request
of that state, information in NMVTIS
about any automobile;
(2) To a Government, state, or local
law enforcement official on request of
that official, information in NMVTIS
about a particular automobile, junk
yard, or salvage yard;
(3) To a prospective purchaser of an
automobile on request of that purchaser,
information in NMVTIS about that
automobile; and
(4) To a prospective or current insurer
of an automobile on request of that
insurer, information in NMVTIS about
the automobile.
(b) NMVTIS shall permit a user of the
system to establish instantly and
reliably:
(1) The validity and status of a
document purporting to be a certificate
of title;
(2) Whether an automobile bearing a
known VIN is titled in a particular state;
(3) Whether an automobile known to
be titled in a particular state is or has
been a junk automobile or a salvage
automobile;
(4) For an automobile known to be
titled in a particular state, the odometer
mileage disclosure required under 49
U.S.C. 32705 for that automobile on the
date the certificate of title for that
automobile was issued and any later
mileage information, if noted by the
state; and
(5) Whether an automobile bearing a
known VIN has been reported as a junk
automobile or a salvage automobile
under 49 U.S.C. 30504.
(c) The operator is authorized to seek
and accept, with the concurrence of the
Department of Justice, additional
information from states and public and
private entities that is relevant to the
titling of automobiles and to assist in
efforts to prevent the introduction or
reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles
and parts into interstate commerce. The
operator, however, may not collect any
social security account numbers as part
of any of the information provided by
any state or public or private entity. The
operator may not make personally
identifying information contained
within NMVTIS, such as the name or
address of the owner of an automobile,
available to an individual prospective
purchaser. With the approval of the
Department of Justice, the operator may
allow public and private entities that
provide information to NMVTIS to
query the system if such access will
assist in efforts to prevent the
introduction or reintroduction of stolen
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5777
motor vehicles and parts into interstate
commerce.
(d) The operator shall develop and
maintain a privacy policy that addresses
the information in the system and how
personal information shall be protected.
DOJ shall review and approve this
privacy policy.
(e) The means by which access is
provided by the operator to users of
NMVTIS must be approved by the
Department of Justice.
(f) The operator shall biennially
establish and at least annually collect
user fees from the states and users of
NMVTIS to pay for its operation, but the
operator may not collect fees in excess
of the costs of operating the system. The
operator is required to recalculate the
user fees on a biennial basis. After the
operator establishes its initial user fees
for the states under this section,
subsequent state user fees must be
established at least one year in advance
of their effective date. Any user fees
established by the operator must be
established with the approval of the
Department of Justice. The operator of
NMVTIS will inform the states of the
applicable user fees either through
publication in the Federal Register or
by direct notice or invoice to the states.
(1) The expenses to be recouped by
the operator of NMVTIS will consist of
labor costs, data center operations costs,
the cost of providing access to
authorized users, annual functional
enhancement costs (including labor and
hardware), costs necessary for
implementing the provisions of this
rule, the cost of technical upgrades, and
other costs approved in advance by the
Department of Justice.
(2) User fees collected from states
should be based on the states’ pro rata
share of the total number of titled motor
vehicles based on the Highway Statistics
Program of the Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, except in cases where
states did not report to that program, in
which case the states shall make
available the most recent statistics for
motor vehicle title registrations.
(3) All states, regardless of their level
of participation, shall be charged user
fees by the operator.
(4) No fees shall be charged for
inquiries from law enforcement
agencies.
(g) The operator will establish
procedures and practices to facilitate
reporting to NMVTIS in the least
burdensome and costly fashion. If the
operator is not the Department of
Justice, the operator must provide an
annual report to the Department of
Justice detailing the fees it collected and
how it expended such fees and other
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
5778
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
funds to operate NMVTIS. This report
must also include a status report on the
implementation of the system,
compliance with reporting and other
requirements, and sufficient detail and
scope regarding financial information so
that reasonable determinations can be
made regarding budgeting and
performance. The operator shall procure
an independent financial audit of
NMVTIS revenues and expenses on an
annual basis. The Department of Justice
will make these reports available for
public inspection.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
§ 25.54
Responsibilities of the States.
(a) Each state must maintain at least
the level of participation in NMVTIS
that it had achieved as of January 1,
2009. By no later than January 1, 2010,
each state must have completed
implementation of all requirements of
participation and provide, or cause to be
provided by an agent or third party, to
the designated operator and in an
electronic format acceptable to the
operator, at a frequency of once every 24
hours, titling information for all
automobiles maintained by the state.
The titling information provided to
NMVTIS must include the following:
(1) VIN;
(2) Any description of the automobile
included on the certificate of title
(including any and all brands associated
with such vehicle);
(3) The name of the individual or
entity to whom the certificate was
issued;
(4) Information from junk or salvage
yard operators or insurance carriers
regarding the acquisition of junk
automobiles or salvage automobiles, if
this information is being collected by
the state; and
(5) For an automobile known to be
titled in a particular state, the odometer
mileage disclosure required under 49
U.S.C. 32705 for that automobile on the
date the certificate of title for that
automobile was issued and any later
mileage information, if noted by the
state.
(b) With the approval of the operator
and the state, the titling information
provided to NMVTIS may include any
other information included on the
certificates of title and any other
information the state maintains in
relation to these titles.
(c) By no later than January 1, 2010,
each state shall establish a practice of
performing a title verification check
through NMVTIS before issuing a
certificate of title to an individual or
entity claiming to have purchased an
automobile from an individual or entity
in another state or in cases of title
transfers. The check will consist of—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
(1) Communicating to the operator the
VIN of the automobile for which the
certificate of title is sought;
(2) Giving the operator an opportunity
to communicate to the participating
state the results of a search of the
information and using the results to
determine the validity and status of a
document purporting to be a
certification of title, to determine
whether the automobile has been a junk
or salvage vehicle or has been reported
as such, to compare and verify the
odometer information presented with
that reported in the system, and to
determine the validity of other
information presented (e.g., lien-holder
status, etc.).
(d) By January 1, 2010, those states
not currently paying user fees will be
responsible for paying user fees as
established by the operator to support
NMVTIS.
§ 25.55 Responsibilities of insurance
carriers.
(a) By no later than March 31, 2009,
and on a monthly basis as designated by
the operator, any individual or entity
acting as an insurance carrier
conducting business within the United
States shall provide, or cause to be
provided on its behalf, to the operator
and in a format acceptable to the
operator, a report that contains an
inventory of all automobiles of the
current model year or any of the four
prior model years that the carrier,
during the past month, has obtained
possession of and has decided are junk
automobiles or salvage automobiles. An
insurance carrier shall report on any
automobiles that it has determined to be
a total loss under the law of the
applicable jurisdiction (i.e. , state) or
designated as a total loss by the
insurance company under the terms of
its policies.
(b) The inventory must contain the
following information:
(1) The name, address, and contact
information for the reporting entity
(insurance carrier);
(2) VIN;
(3) The date on which the automobile
was obtained or designated as a junk or
salvage automobile;
(4) The name of the individual or
entity from whom the automobile was
obtained and who possessed it when the
automobile was designated as a junk or
salvage automobile; and
(5) The name of the owner of the
automobile at the time of the filing of
the report.
(c) Insurance carriers are strongly
encouraged to provide the operator with
information on other motor vehicles or
other information relevant to a motor
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vehicle’s title, including the reason why
the insurance carrier obtained
possession of the motor vehicle. For
example, the insurance carrier may have
obtained possession of a motor vehicle
because it had been subject to flood,
water, collision, or fire damage, or as a
result of theft and recovery. The
provision of information provided by an
insurance carrier under this paragraph
must be pursuant to a means approved
by the operator.
(d) Insurance carriers whose required
data is provided to the operator through
an operator-authorized third party in a
manner acceptable to the operator are
not required to duplicate such reporting.
For example, if the operator and a
private third-party organization reach
agreement on the provision of insurance
data already reported by insurance to
the third party, insurance companies are
not required to subsequently report the
information directly into NMVTIS.
§ 25.56 Responsibilities of junk yards and
salvage yards and auto recyclers.
(a) By no later than March 31, 2009,
and continuing on a monthly basis as
designated by the operator, any
individual or entity engaged in the
business of operating a junk yard or
salvage yard within the United States
shall provide, or cause to be provided
on its behalf, to the operator and in a
format acceptable to the operator, an
inventory of all junk automobiles or
salvage automobiles obtained in whole
or in part by that entity in the prior
month.
(b) The inventory shall include the
following information:
(1) The name, address, and contact
information for the reporting entity
(junk, salvage yard, recycler);
(2) VIN;
(3) The date the automobile was
obtained;
(4) The name of the individual or
entity from whom the automobile was
obtained;
(5) A statement of whether the
automobile was crushed or disposed of,
for sale or other purposes, to whom it
was provided or transferred, and if the
vehicle is intended for export out of the
United States.
(c) Junk and salvage yards, however,
are not required to report this
information if they already report the
information to the state and the state
makes the information required in this
rule available to the operator.
(d) Junk and salvage yards may be
required to file an update or
supplemental report of final disposition
of any automobile where final
disposition information was not
available at the time of the initial report
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES3
filing, or if their actual disposition of
the automobile differs from what was
initially reported.
(e) Junk and salvage yards are
encouraged to provide the operator with
similar information on motor vehicles
other than automobiles that they obtain
that possess VINs.
(f) Junk- and salvage-yard operators
whose required data is provided to the
operator through an operator-authorized
third party (e.g., state or other public or
private organization) in a manner
acceptable to the operator are not
required to duplicate such reporting. In
addition, junk and salvage yards are not
required to report on an automobile if
they are issued a verification under 49
U.S.C. 33110 stating that the automobile
or parts from the automobile are not
reported as stolen.
(g) Such entities must report all
salvage or junk vehicles they obtain,
including vehicles from or on behalf of
insurance carriers, which can be
reasonably assumed are total loss
vehicles. Such entities, however, are not
required to report any vehicle that is
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jan 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
determined not to meet the definition of
salvage or junk after a good-faith
physical and value appraisal conducted
by qualified appraisal personnel, so long
as such appraisals are conducted
entirely independent of any other
interests, persons or entities.
Individuals and entities that handle less
than five vehicles per year that are
determined to be salvage, junk, or total
loss are not required to report under the
salvage-yard requirements.
(h) Scrap metal processors and
shredders that receive automobiles for
recycling where the condition of such
vehicles generally prevent VINs from
being identified are not required to
report to the operator if the source of
each vehicle has already reported the
vehicle to NMVTIS. In cases where a
supplier’s compliance with NMVTIS
cannot be ascertained, however, scrap
metal processors and shredders must
report these vehicles to the operator
based on a visual inspection if possible.
If the VIN cannot be determined based
on this inspection, scrap metal
processors and shredders may rely on
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5779
primary documentation (i.e., title
documents) provided by the vehicle
supplier.
§ 25.57 Erroneous junk or salvage
reporting.
(a) In cases where a vehicle is
erroneously reported to have been
salvage or junk and subsequently
destroyed (i.e., crushed), owners of the
legitimate vehicles are encouraged to
seek a vehicle inspection in the current
state of title whereby inspection officials
can verify via hidden VINs the vehicle’s
true identity. Owners are encouraged to
file such inspection reports with the
current state of title and to retain such
reports so that the vehicle’s true history
can be documented.
(b) To avoid the possibility of fraud,
the operator may not allow any entity to
delete a prior report of junk or salvage
status.
Dated: January 23, 2009.
Mark Filip,
Acting Attorney General.
[FR Doc. E9–1835 Filed 1–26–09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
E:\FR\FM\30JAR3.SGM
30JAR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 19 (Friday, January 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5740-5779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1835]
[[Page 5731]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Reader Aids
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative List of Public Laws
110th Congress, Second Session
[[Page 5732]]
CUMULATIVE LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS
This is the cumulative list of public laws for the 110th Congress,
Second Session. Other cumulative lists (1993-2008) are available online
at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/past/.
Comments may be addressed to the Director, Office of the Federal
Register, Washington, DC 20408 or send e-mail to info@nara.fedreg.gov.
The text of laws may be ordered in individual pamphlet form
(referred to as ``slip laws'') from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (phone, 202-512-
2470). The text will also be made available on the Internet from GPO
Access at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/. Some laws may not
yet be available online or for purchase.
Public Law Title Approved 122 Stat.
110-181......... National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.... Jan. 28, 2008........ 3
110-182......... To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days...... Jan. 31, 2008........ 605
110-183......... Commission on the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave Feb. 5, 2008......... 606
Trade Act.
110-184......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Feb. 6, 2008......... 612
Service located at 427 North Street in Taft, California,
as the ``Larry S. Pierce Post Office''.
110-185......... Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.............................. Feb. 13, 2008........ 613
110-186......... Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Feb. 14, 2008........ 623
Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008.
110-187......... Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007........................ Feb. 15, 2008........ 633
110-188......... Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007............. Feb. 15, 2008........ 635
110-189......... Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007.. Feb. 28, 2008........ 639
110-190......... Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008................... Feb. 28, 2008........ 643
110-191......... Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008.............. Feb. 29, 2008........ 646
110-192......... To provide for the continued minting and issuance of Feb. 29, 2008........ 648
certain $1 coins in 2008.
110-193......... To make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Mar. 6, 2008......... 649
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
110-194......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Mar. 11, 2008........ 651
Service located at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, New
Hampshire, as the ``Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post
Office''.
110-195......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Mar. 12, 2008........ 652
Service known as the Southpark Station in Alexandria,
Louisiana, as the John ``Marty'' Thiels Southpark Station,
in honor and memory of Thiels, a Louisiana postal worker
who was killed in the line of duty on October 4, 2007.
110-196......... To extend agricultural programs beyond March 15, 2008, to Mar. 14, 2008........ 653
suspend permanent price support authorities beyond that
date, and for other purposes.
110-197......... Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a Mar. 14, 2008........ 655
citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian
Institution.
110-198......... Higher Education Extension Act of 2008..................... Mar. 24, 2008........ 656
110-199......... Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Apr. 9, 2008......... 657
Recidivism Prevention.
110-200......... To amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary Apr. 18, 2008........ 695
extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond April 18, 2008.
110-201......... To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of Apr. 18, 2008........ 696
the District of Columbia.
110-202......... Safety of Seniors Act of 2007.............................. Apr. 23, 2008........ 697
110-203......... Congratulating the Army Reserve on its centennial, which Apr. 23, 2008........ 701
will be formally celebrated on April 23, 2008, and
commemorating the historic contributions of its veterans
and continuing contributions of its soldiers to the vital
national security interests and homeland defense missions
of the United States.
110-204......... Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.................. Apr. 24, 2008........ 705
110-205......... To amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary Apr. 25, 2008........ 713
extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond April 25, 2008.
110-206......... Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2008......................... Apr. 28, 2008........ 714
110-207......... Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 2007..................... Apr. 30, 2008........ 719
110-208......... To amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary May 2, 2008.......... 720
extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May 2, 2008.
110-209......... To award a congressional gold medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi May 6, 2008.......... 721
in recognition of her courageous and unwavering commitment
to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and democracy in
Burma.
110-210......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 723
Service located at 20 Sussex Street in Port Jervis, New
York, as the ``E. Arthur Gray Post Office Building''.
110-211......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 724
Service located at 1704 Weeksville Road in Elizabeth City,
North Carolina, as the ``Dr. Clifford Bell Jones, Sr. Post
Office''.
110-212......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 725
Service located at 5815 McLeod Street in Lula, Georgia, as
the ``Private Johnathon Millican Lula Post Office''.
110-213......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 726
Service located at 424 Clay Avenue in Waco, Texas, as the
``Army PFC Juan Alonso Covarrubias Post Office Building''.
110-214......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 727
Service located at 3100 Cashwell Drive in Goldsboro, North
Carolina, as the ``John Henry Wooten, Sr. Post Office
Building''.
110-215......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 728
Service located at 116 Helen Highway in Cleveland,
Georgia, as the ``Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office
Building''.
110-216......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 729
Service located at 3701 Altamesa Boulevard in Fort Worth,
Texas, as the ``Master Sergeant Kenneth N. Mack Post
Office Building''.
110-217......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 730
Service located at 701 East Copeland Drive in Lebanon,
Missouri, as the ``Steve W. Allee Carrier Annex''.
110-218......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 731
Service located at 3035 Stone Mountain Street in Lithonia,
Georgia, as the ``Specialist Jamaal RaShard Addison Post
Office Building''.
110-219......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 732
Service located at 725 Roanoke Avenue in Roanoke Rapids,
North Carolina, as the ``Judge Richard B. Allsbrook Post
Office''.
110-220......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 733
Service located at 10799 West Alameda Avenue in Lakewood,
Colorado, as the ``Felix Sparks Post Office Building''.
110-221......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 734
Service located at 3050 Hunsinger Lane in Louisville,
Kentucky, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Fallen Military
Heroes of Louisville Memorial Post Office Building'', in
honor of the servicemen and women from Louisville,
Kentucky, who died in service during Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
[[Page 5733]]
110-222......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 735
Service located at 201 West Greenway Street in Derby,
Kansas, as the ``Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans Post Office
Building''.
110-223......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 736
Service located at 3800 SW. 185th Avenue in Beaverton,
Oregon, as the ``Major Arthur Chin Post Office Building''.
110-224......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 737
Service located at 160 East Washington Street in Chagrin
Falls, Ohio, as the ``Sgt. Michael M. Kashkoush Post
Office Building''.
110-225......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 738
Service located at 2650 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Julia M. Carson Post
Office Building''.
110-226......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal May 7, 2008.......... 739
Service located at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester,
Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post
Office''.
110-227......... Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008..... May 7, 2008.......... 740
110-228......... To provide for extensions of leases of certain land by May 8, 2008.......... 753
Mashantucket Pequot (Western) Tribe.
110-229......... Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008................. May 8, 2008.......... 754
110-230......... To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher May 13, 2008......... 877
Education Act of 1965.
110-231......... To amend Public Law 110-196 to provide for a temporary May 18, 2008......... 878
extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 beyond May 16, 2008.
110-232......... Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer May 19, 2008......... 879
Protection Act of 2008.
110-233......... Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.......... May 21, 2008......... 881
110-234......... Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008................. May 22, 2008......... 923
110-235......... To provide for an additional temporary extension of May 23, 2008......... 1552
programs under the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.
110-236......... To ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla Apache May 27, 2008......... 1553
Reservation to Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico,
pursuant to the settlement of litigation between the
Jicarilla Apache Nation and Rio Arriba County, State of
New Mexico, to authorize issuance of a patent for said
lands, and to change the exterior boundary of the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation accordingly, and for other
purposes.
110-237......... To make technical corrections regarding the Newborn May 27, 2008......... 1556
Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.
110-238......... To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher May 30, 2008......... 1558
Education Act of 1965.
110-239......... To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the June 3, 2008......... 1559
display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day.
110-240......... Protecting Our Children Comes First Act of 2007............ June 3, 2008......... 1560
110-241......... Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007.... June 3, 2008......... 1565
110-242......... To make technical corrections to section 1244 of the June 3, 2008......... 1567
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,
which provides special immigrant status for certain
Iraqis, and for other purposes.
110-243......... Directing the United States to initiate international June 3, 2008......... 1569
discussions and take necessary steps with other Nations to
negotiate an agreement for managing migratory and
transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean.
110-244......... SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008............... June 6, 2008......... 1572
110-245......... Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008...... June 17, 2008........ 1624
110-246......... Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008................. June 18, 2008........ 1651
110-247......... Federal Food Donation Act of 2008.......................... June 20, 2008........ 2314
110-248......... Local Preparedness Acquisition Act......................... June 26, 2008........ 2316
110-249......... To amend the International Center Act to authorize the June 26, 2008........ 2317
lease or sublease of certain property described in such
Act to an entity other than a foreign government or
international organization if certain conditions are met.
110-250......... To reform mutual aid agreements for the National Capital June 26, 2008........ 2318
Region.
110-251......... Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act............... June 26, 2008........ 2319
110-252......... Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008...................... June 30, 2008........ 2323
110-253......... Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2008...... June 30, 2008........ 2417
110-254......... To grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans June 30, 2008........ 2419
Association, Incorporated.
110-255......... To authorize the Administrator of the Environmental June 30, 2008........ 2423
Protection Agency to accept, as part of a settlement,
diesel emission reduction Supplemental Environmental
Projects, and for other purposes.
110-256......... To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher June 30, 2008........ 2425
Education Act of 1965.
110-257......... To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a July 1, 2008......... 2426
terrorist organization for certain acts or events, provide
relief for certain members of the African National
Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes.
110-258......... To revise the short title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa July 1, 2008......... 2428
Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
110-259......... To award posthumously a Congressional gold medal to July 1, 2008......... 2430
Constantino Brumidi.
110-260......... Edward William Brooke III Congressional Gold Medal Act..... July 1, 2008......... 2433
110-261......... Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments July 10, 2008........ 2436
Act of 2008.
110-262......... To designate the United States bankruptcy courthouse July 15, 2008........ 2479
located at 271 Cadman Plaza East in Brooklyn, New York, as
the ``Conrad B. Duberstein United States Bankruptcy
Courthouse''.
110-263......... To redesignate Lock and Dam No. 5 of the McClellan-Kerr July 15, 2008........ 2480
Arkansas River Navigation System near Redfield, Arkansas,
authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act approved July 24,
1946, as the ``Colonel Charles D. Maynard Lock and Dam''.
110-264......... To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol July 15, 2008........ 2482
located at 25762 Madison Avenue in Murrieta, California,
as the ``Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and George F. Azrak
Border Patrol Station''.
110-265......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2483
Service located at 1190 Lorena Road in Lorena, Texas, as
the ``Marine Gunnery Sgt. John D. Fry Post Office
Building''.
110-266......... To designate the Port Angeles Federal Building in Port July 15, 2008........ 2484
Angeles, Washington, as the ``Richard B. Anderson Federal
Building''.
110-267......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2485
Service located at 11151 Valley Boulevard in El Monte,
California, as the ``Marisol Heredia Post Office
Building''.
110-268......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2486
Service located at 19101 Cortez Boulevard in Brooksville,
Florida, as the ``Cody Grater Post Office Building''.
110-269......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2487
Service located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St. Louis,
Missouri, as the ``William `Bill' Clay Post Office
Building''.
[[Page 5734]]
110-270......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2488
Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in Ionia,
Michigan, as the ``Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building ''.
110-271......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2489
Service located at 7231 FM 1960 in Humble, Texas, as the
``Texas Military Veterans Post Office''.
110-272......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal July 15, 2008........ 2490
Service located at 120 Commercial Street in Brockton,
Massachusetts, as the ``Rocky Marciano Post Office
Building''.
110-273......... District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority Independence July 15, 2008........ 2491
Preservation Act.
110-274......... To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to July 15, 2008........ 2493
clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Army to
provide reimbursement for travel expenses incurred by
members of the Committee on Levee Safety.
110-275......... Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of July 15, 2008........ 2494
2008.
110-276......... To designate the United States customhouse building located July 15, 2008........ 2598
at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico,
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse
Building''.
110-277......... American Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act. July 17, 2008........ 2599
110-278......... Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act.................... July 17, 2008........ 2602
110-279......... To provide for certain Federal employee benefits to be July 17, 2008........ 2604
continued for certain employees of the Senate Restaurants
after operations of the Senate Restaurants are contracted
to be performed by a private business concern, and for
other purposes.
110-280......... Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008.................. July 21, 2008........ 2611
110-281......... National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act July 21, 2008........ 2617
Amendment of 2008.
110-282......... To designate a portion of United States Route 20A, located July 23, 2008........ 2618
in Orchard Park, New York, as the ``Timothy J. Russert
Highway''.
110-283......... New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008.. July 23, 2008........ 2620
110-284......... To designate the United States courthouse located at 1716 July 23, 2008........ 2627
Spielbusch Avenue in Toledo, Ohio, as the ``James M.
Ashley and Thomas W.L. Ashley United States Courthouse''.
110-285......... Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2008. July 29, 2008........ 2628
110-286......... Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic July 29, 2008........ 2632
Efforts) Act of 2008.
110-287......... Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in July 29, 2008........ 2649
the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
110-288......... Clean Boating Act of 2008.................................. July 29, 2008........ 2650
110-289......... Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.................. July 30, 2008........ 2654
110-290......... Regulatory Improvement Act of 2007......................... July 30, 2008........ 2914
110-291......... Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007. July 30, 2008........ 2915
110-292......... To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient July 30, 2008........ 2917
clinic in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Euripides Rubio
Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
110-293......... Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global July 30, 2008........ 2918
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
110-294......... To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance July 30, 2008........ 2971
Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012.
110-295......... DTV Transition Assistance Act.............................. July 30, 2008........ 2972
110-296......... Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of July 30, 2008........ 2974
2008.
110-297......... Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Settlement Act.............. July 31, 2008........ 2975
110-298......... Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008. July 31, 2008........ 2985
110-299......... To clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator July 31, 2008........ 2995
of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable
States may require permits for discharges from certain
vessels, and to require the Administrator to conduct a
study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of
vessels.
110-300......... To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher July 31, 2008........ 2998
Education Act of 1965.
110-301......... Libyan Claims Resolution Act............................... Aug. 4, 2008......... 2999
110-302......... To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient Aug. 12, 2008........ 3003
clinic in Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ``Bud''
Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.
110-303......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3004
Service located at 401 Washington Avenue in Weldon, North
Carolina, as the ``Dock M. Brown Post Office Building''.
110-304......... To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center Aug. 12, 2008........ 3005
in Miami, Florida, as the ``Bruce W. Carter Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.
110-305......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3006
Service located at 120 South Del Mar Avenue in San
Gabriel, California, as the ``Chi Mui Post Office
Building''.
110-306......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3007
Service located at 10449 White Granite Drive in Oakton,
Virginia, as the ``Private First Class David H. Sharrett
II Post Office Building''.
110-307......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3008
Service located at 1155 Seminole Trail in Charlottesville,
Virginia, as the ``Corporal Bradley T. Arms Post Office
Building''.
110-308......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3009
Service located at 219 East Main Street in West Frankfort,
Illinois, as the ``Kenneth James Gray Post Office
Building''.
110-309......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3010
Service located at 42222 Rancho Las Palmas Drive in Rancho
Mirage, California, as the ``Gerald R. Ford Post Office
Building''.
110-310......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Aug. 12, 2008........ 3011
Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio,
as the ``John P. Gallagher Post Office Building''.
110-311......... To designate the Federal building and United States Aug. 12, 2008........ 3012
courthouse located at 300 Quarropas Street in White
Plains, New York, as the ``Charles L. Brieant, Jr.,
Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
110-312......... United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2008...... Aug. 12, 2008........ 3013
110-313......... To amend title 35, United States Code, and the Trademark Aug. 12, 2008........ 3014
Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the Director of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, shall appoint administrative patent
judges and administrative trademark judges, and for other
purposes.
110-314......... Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008............ Aug. 14, 2008........ 3016
110-315......... Higher Education Opportunity Act........................... Aug. 14, 2008........ 3078
[[Page 5735]]
110-316......... To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise Aug. 14, 2008........ 3509
and extend the animal drug user fee program, to establish
a program of fees relating to generic new animal drugs, to
make certain technical corrections to the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007, and for other
purposes.
110-317......... Hubbard Act................................................ Aug. 29, 2008........ 3526
110-318......... To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the Sept. 15, 2008....... 3532
Highway Trust Fund balance.
110-319......... To designate the United States courthouse located at 225 Sept. 17, 2008....... 3533
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Theodore
Roosevelt United States Courthouse''.
110-320......... To designate the United States courthouse located in the Sept. 18, 2008....... 3534
700 block of East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, as the
``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr.,
United States Courthouse''.
110-321......... To provide for extensions of certain authorities of the Sept. 19, 2008....... 3535
Department of State, and for other purposes.
110-322......... To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the Sept. 19, 2008....... 3537
waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work
product doctrine.
110-323......... Government Accountability Office Act of 2008............... Sept. 22, 2008....... 3539
110-324......... Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of Sept. 24, 2008....... 3549
2008.
110-325......... ADA Amendments Act of 2008................................. Sept. 25, 2008....... 3553
110-326......... To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide secret Sept. 26, 2008....... 3560
service protection to former Vice Presidents, and for
other purposes.
110-327......... Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2008..................... Sept. 30, 2008....... 3566
110-328......... SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act........ Sept. 30, 2008....... 3567
110-329......... Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Sept. 30, 2008....... 3574
Appropriations Act, 2009.
110-330......... Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2008, Part Sept. 30, 2008....... 3717
II.
110-331......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Sept. 30, 2008....... 3720
Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce,
Oklahoma, as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office Building''.
110-332......... To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Sept. 30, 2008....... 3721
Alpena, Michigan, as the ``Lieutenant Colonel Clement C.
Van Wagoner Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic''.
110-333......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Sept. 30, 2008....... 3722
Service located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce,
Florida, as the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building''.
110-334......... To designate the Federal Bureau of Investigation building Oct. 1, 2008......... 3723
under construction in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``J. James
Exon Federal Bureau of Investigation Building''.
110-335......... To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to Oct. 2, 2008......... 3724
implement the increase provided under the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount of funds
made available for the compensation of attorneys
representing indigent defendants in the District of
Columbia courts, and for other purposes.
110-336......... Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation Oct. 2, 2008......... 3726
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2008.
110-337......... To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand passenger Oct. 2, 2008......... 3729
facility fee eligibility for certain noise compatibility
projects.
110-338......... John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2008......... Oct. 3, 2008......... 3731
110-339......... Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007.................. Oct. 3, 2008......... 3733
110-340......... Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008.................. Oct. 3, 2008......... 3735
110-341......... To amend Public Law 108-331 to provide for the construction Oct. 3, 2008......... 3738
and related activities in support of the Very Energetic
Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) project
in Arizona.
110-342......... Expressing the consent and approval of Congress to an Oct. 3, 2008......... 3739
interstate compact regarding water resources in the Great
Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin.
110-343......... To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase Oct. 3, 2008......... 3765
and insure certain types of troubled assets for the
purposes of providing stability to and preventing
disruption in the economy and financial system and
protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and
conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to
provide individual income tax relief, and for other
purposes.
110-344......... Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007........ Oct. 7, 2008......... 3934
110-345......... Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007....................... Oct. 7, 2008......... 3938
110-346......... North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2008...... Oct. 7, 2008......... 3939
110-347......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 7, 2008......... 3944
Service located at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New
York, as the ``Cpl. John P. Sigsbee Post Office''.
110-348......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 7, 2008......... 3945
Service located at 101 Tallapoosa Street in Bremen,
Georgia, as the ``Sergeant Paul Saylor Post Office
Building''.
110-349......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 7, 2008......... 3946
Service located at 200 North Texas Avenue in Odessa,
Texas, as the ``Corporal Alfred Mac Wilson Post Office''.
110-350......... To extend the authority of the Secretary of Education to Oct. 7, 2008......... 3947
purchase guaranteed student loans for an additional year,
and for other purposes.
110-351......... Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Oct. 7, 2008......... 3949
Act of 2008.
110-352......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 7, 2008......... 3982
Service located at 18 S. G Street, Lakeview, Oregon, as
the ``Dr. Bernard Daly Post Office Building''.
110-353......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 7, 2008......... 3983
Service located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City,
Missouri, as the ``Reverend Earl Abel Post Office
Building''.
110-354......... Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2008....... Oct. 8, 2008......... 3984
110-355......... Health Care Safety Net Act of 2008......................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 3988
110-356......... Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of Oct. 8, 2008......... 3996
2008.
110-357......... National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative Oct. 8, 2008......... 3998
Coin Act.
110-358......... To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for more Oct. 8, 2008......... 4001
effective prosecution of cases involving child
pornography, and for other purposes.
110-359......... Old Post Office Building Redevelopment Act of 2008......... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4005
110-360......... Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4008
110-361......... Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Oct. 8, 2008......... 4010
Research, and Education Amendments of 2008.
110-362......... To extend for 5 years the program relating to waiver of the Oct. 8, 2008......... 4013
foreign country residence requirement with respect to
international medical graduates, and for other purposes.
110-363......... Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act.... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4015
[[Page 5736]]
110-364......... Oregon Surplus Federal Land Act of 2008.................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4018
110-365......... Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008............. Oct. 8, 2008......... 4021
110-366......... To extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of Oct. 8, 2008......... 4025
Education under section 105 of subtitle A of title IV of
division B of Public Law 109-148, relating to elementary
and secondary education hurricane recovery relief, and for
other purposes.
110-367......... Defense Production Act Extension and Reauthorization of Oct. 8, 2008......... 4026
2008.
110-368......... To make a technical correction in the NET 911 Improvement Oct. 8, 2008......... 4027
Act of 2008.
110-369......... United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Oct. 8, 2008......... 4028
Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.
110-370......... Native American Heritage Day Act of 2008................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4035
110-371......... Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008.... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4037
110-372......... Senior Professional Performance Act of 2008................ Oct. 8, 2008......... 4043
110-373......... ALS Registry Act........................................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4047
110-374......... Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Oct. 8, 2008......... 4051
Act.
110-375......... To repeal the provision of title 46, United States Code, Oct. 8, 2008......... 4055
requiring a license for employment in the business of
salvaging on the coast of Florida.
110-376......... To reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, and Oct. 8, 2008......... 4056
for other purposes.
110-377......... Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act of Oct. 8, 2008......... 4063
2008.
110-378......... Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008.................... Oct. 8, 2008......... 4068
110-379......... QI Program Supplemental Funding Act of 2008................ Oct. 8, 2008......... 4075
110-380......... To provide that funds allocated for community food projects Oct. 8, 2008......... 4080
for fiscal year 2008 shall remain available until
September 30, 2009.
110-381......... Michelle's Law............................................. Oct. 9, 2008......... 4081
110-382......... Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act.............. Oct. 9, 2008......... 4087
110-383......... Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Land Transfer Act Oct. 10, 2008........ 4090
of 2007.
110-384......... Let Our Veterans Rest in Peace Act of 2008................. Oct. 10, 2008........ 4094
110-385......... To improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding Oct. 10, 2008........ 4096
the availability and quality of broadband services and to
promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to
all parts of the Nation.
110-386......... Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2008... Oct. 10, 2008........ 4106
110-387......... Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of Oct. 10, 2008........ 4110
2008.
110-388......... To provide for the appointment of the Chief Human Capital Oct. 10, 2008........ 4144
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security by the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
110-389......... Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008................. Oct. 10, 2008........ 4145
110-390......... White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Oct. 10, 2008........ 4191
Authorization Act.
110-391......... Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program Act. Oct. 10, 2008........ 4193
110-392......... Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act of 2008......... Oct. 13, 2008........ 4195
110-393......... To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to sell or exchange Oct. 13, 2008........ 4203
certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
property located in Norfolk, Virginia, and for other
purposes.
110-394......... National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008.. Oct. 13, 2008........ 4205
110-395......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 13, 2008........ 4210
Service located at 245 North Main Street in New City, New
York, as the ``Kenneth Peter Zebrowski Post Office
Building''.
110-396......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 13, 2008........ 4211
Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint
Paul, Minnesota, as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg
Post Office Building''.
110-397......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 13, 2008........ 4212
Service located at 4233 West Hillsboro Boulevard in
Coconut Creek, Florida, as the ``Army SPC Daniel Agami
Post Office Building''.
110-398......... To amend the commodity provisions of the Food, Oct. 13, 2008........ 4213
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to permit producers
to aggregate base acres and reconstitute farms to avoid
the prohibition on receiving direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments, or average crop revenue election
payments when the sum of the base acres of a farm is 10
acres or less, and for other purposes.
110-399......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 13, 2008........ 4223
Service located at 156 Taunton Avenue in Seekonk,
Massachusetts, as the ``Lance Corporal Eric Paul
Valdepenas Post Office Building''.
110-400......... Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008 Oct. 13, 2008........ 4224
110-401......... Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology To Eradicate Oct. 13, 2008........ 4229
Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2008.
110-402......... To extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Oct. 13, 2008........ 4254
Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court
Grounds and change the title of the Administrative
Assistant to the Chief Justice.
110-403......... Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Oct. 13, 2008........ 4256
Property Act of 2008.
110-404......... Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008... Oct. 13, 2008........ 4281
110-405......... Air Carriage of International Mail Act..................... Oct. 13, 2008........ 4287
110-406......... Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of Oct. 13, 2008........ 4291
2008.
110-407......... Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008........... Oct. 13, 2008........ 4296
110-408......... Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of Oct. 13, 2008........ 4301
2008.
110-409......... Inspector General Reform Act of 2008....................... Oct. 14, 2008........ 4302
110-410......... To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Oct. 14, 2008........ 4318
Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, as the Michael A.
Marzano Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.
110-411......... Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Oct. 14, 2008........ 4319
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
110-412......... Personnel Reimbursement for Intelligence Cooperation and Oct. 14, 2008........ 4336
Enhancement of Homeland Security Act of 2008.
110-413......... Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008....... Oct. 14, 2008........ 4338
110-414......... Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008............................. Oct. 14, 2008........ 4341
110-415......... Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008.......... Oct. 14, 2008........ 4349
110-416......... Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Oct. 14, 2008........ 4352
Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008.
110-417......... Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Oct. 14, 2008........ 4356
Year 2009.
110-418......... To designate a portion of the Rappahannock River in the Oct. 14, 2008........ 4772
Commonwealth of Virginia as the ``John W. Warner Rapids''.
110-419......... To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources Oct. 15, 2008........ 4773
System Clam Pass Unit FL-64P.
110-420......... Code Talkers Recognition Act of 2008....................... Oct. 15, 2008........ 4774
110-421......... Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008............. Oct. 15, 2008........ 4778
110-422......... National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Oct. 15, 2008........ 4779
Act of 2008.
[[Page 5737]]
110-423......... To provide that Federal employees receiving their pay by Oct. 15, 2008........ 4818
electronic funds transfer shall be given the option of
receiving their pay stubs electronically.
110-424......... To authorize funding to conduct a national training program Oct. 15, 2008........ 4819
for State and local prosecutors.
110-425......... Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 Oct. 15, 2008........ 4820
110-426......... Stephanie Tubbs Jones Organ Transplant Authorization Act of Oct. 15, 2008........ 4835
2008.
110-427......... To authorize the Administrator of General Services to take Oct. 15, 2008........ 4837
certain actions with respect to parcels of real property
located in Eastlake, Ohio, and Koochiching County,
Minnesota, and for other purposes.
110-428......... Inmate Tax Fraud Prevention Act of 2008.................... Oct. 15, 2008........ 4839
110-429......... To authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain Oct. 15, 2008........ 4842
foreign recipients, and for other purposes.
110-430......... Appointing the day for the convening of the first session Oct. 15, 2008........ 4846
of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress and establishing the
date for the counting of the electoral votes for President
and Vice President cast by the electors in December 2008.
110-431......... To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Oct. 15, 2008........ 4847
Institute to provide support for victims of crime under
Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
110-432......... To amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad Oct. 16, 2008........ 4848
fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to
authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and
for other purposes.
110-433......... To extend through 2013 the authority of the Federal Oct. 16, 2008........ 4971
Election Commission to impose civil money penalties on the
basis of a schedule of penalties established and published
by the Commission.
110-434......... Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2008........... Oct. 16, 2008........ 4972
110-435......... Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008........................... Oct. 16, 2008........ 4974
110-436......... To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other Oct. 16, 2008........ 4976
purposes.
110-437......... Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008......................... Oct. 20, 2008........ 4983
110-438......... National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008...... Oct. 20, 2008........ 5000
110-439......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5003
Service located at 2150 East Hardtner Drive in Urania,
Louisiana, as the ``Murphy A. Tannehill Post Office
Building''.
110-440......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5004
Service located at 100 West Percy Street in Indianola,
Mississippi, as the ``Minnie Cox Post Office Building''.
110-441......... To designate a portion of California State Route 91 located Oct. 21, 2008........ 5005
in Los Angeles County, California, as the ``Juanita
Millender-McDonald Highway''.
110-442......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5007
Service located at 1750 Lundy Avenue in San Jose,
California, as the ``Gordon N. Chan Post Office Building''.
110-443......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5008
Service located at 300 Vine Street in New Lenox, Illinois,
as the ``Jacob M. Lowell Post Office Building''.
110-444......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5009
Service located at 4 South Main Street in Wallingford,
Connecticut, as the ``CWO Richard R. Lee Post Office
Building''.
110-445......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5010
Service located at 801 Industrial Boulevard in Ellijay,
Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Noah Harris Ellijay
Post Office Building''.
110-446......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5011
Service located at 513 6th Avenue in Dayton, Kentucky, as
the ``Staff Sergeant Nicholas Ray Carnes Post Office''.
110-447......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 21, 2008........ 5012
Service located at 210 South Ellsworth Avenue in San
Mateo, California, as the ``Leo J. Ryan Post Office
Building''.
110-448......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Oct. 22, 2008........ 5013
Service located at 7095 Highway 57 in Counce, Tennessee,
as the ``Pickwick Post Office Building''.
110-449......... Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008............ Nov. 21, 2008........ 5014
110-450......... United States Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008.......... Dec. 1, 2008......... 5017
110-451......... Civil Rights Act of 1964 Commemorative Coin Act............ Dec. 2, 2008......... 5021
110-452......... Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007............................. Dec. 2, 2008......... 5025
110-453......... To direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust Dec. 2, 2008......... 5027
2 parcels of Federal land for the benefit of certain
Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and for other
purposes.
110-454......... To designate the facility of the United States Postal Dec. 19, 2008........ 5035
Service located at 1501 South Slappey Boulevard in Albany,
Georgia, as the ``Dr. Walter Carl Gordon, Jr. Post Office
Building''.
110-455......... Ensuring that the compensation and other emoluments Dec. 19, 2008........ 5036
attached to the office of Secretary of State are those
which were in effect on January 1, 2007.
110-456......... America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act Dec. 23, 2008........ 5038
of 2008.
110-457......... William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Dec. 23, 2008........ 5044
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
110-458......... Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008......... Dec. 23, 2008........ 5092
110-459......... Short-term Analog Flash and Emergency Readiness Act........ Dec. 23, 2008........ 5121
110-460......... To make a technical correction in the Paul Wellstone and Dec. 23, 2008........ 5123
Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act of 2008.
[[Page 5739]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
28 CFR Part 25
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 19 / Friday, January 30, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5740]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FBI 117; AG Order No. 3042-2009]
RIN 1110-AA30
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)
has been established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30502 and has the
participation, or partial participation, of at least 36 states. The
purpose of NMVTIS is to assist in efforts to prevent the introduction
or reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles into interstate commerce,
protect states and individual and commercial consumers from fraud,
reduce the use of stolen vehicles for illicit purposes including
fundraising for criminal enterprises, and provide consumer protection
from unsafe vehicles. This rule implements the NMVTIS reporting
requirements imposed on junk yards, salvage yards, and insurance
carriers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30504(c). This rule also clarifies the
process by which NMVTIS will be funded and clarifies the various
responsibilities of the operator of NMVTIS, states, junk yards, salvage
yards, and insurance carriers regarding NMVTIS.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective March 2, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alissa Huntoon, 810 7th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20531, 202-616-6500, www.NMVTIS.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-519, 106 Stat.
3384, required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish an
information system intended to enable states and others to access
automobile titling information. As part of the Anti-Car Theft Act of
1992, DOT was authorized to designate a third party to operate the
system. Since 1992, the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) has acted in the capacity of the operator of the
system. AAMVA is a nonprofit, tax exempt, educational association
representing U.S. and Canadian officials who are responsible for the
administration and enforcement of motor vehicle laws. The requirements
of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 were amended by Public Law 103-272
and the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-
152, 110 Stat. 1384. The Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996
renamed the automobile titling system the ``National Motor Vehicle
Title Information System'' and transferred responsibility for
implementing the system from DOT to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Hereinafter, the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 and the revisions made by
Public Law 103-272 and the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996,
codified at 49 U.S.C. 30501-30505, are collectively referred to as the
``Anti-Car Theft Act''or the ``Act.''
While the overall purpose of the Anti-Car Theft Act is to prevent
and deter auto theft, title II of the Act, which authorizes NMVTIS, is
intended to address automobile title fraud. Accordingly, the primary
purpose of NMVTIS is to prevent various types of theft and fraud by
providing an electronic means for verifying and exchanging title,
brand, theft, and other data among motor vehicle administrators, law
enforcement officials, prospective and current purchasers (individual
or commercial), and insurance carriers.\1\ Currently, 37 states are
actively involved with NMVTIS, representing nearly 75% of the U.S.
motor vehicle population. Specifically, 13 states are participating
fully in NMVTIS, 14 states are regularly providing data to the system,
and an additional 10 states are actively taking steps to provide data
or participate fully.\2\ States that participate fully in the system
provide data to the system on a daily or real-time basis and make
NMVTIS inquiries before issuing a new title on a vehicle from out of
state and preferably before every title verification, regardless of its
origin or reason. Participating states also pay user fees to support
the system and the services provided to the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brands are descriptive labels regarding the status of a
motor vehicle, such as ``junk,'' ``salvage,'' and ``flood''
vehicles.
\2\ There are currently 13 states participating fully in NMVTIS:
Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Virgina, Washington, and
Wisconsin. Fourteen states are providing regular data updates to
NMVTIS: Alabama, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvnia,
Tennesses, Texas, and Wyoming. Ten states are actively taking steps
to provide data or participate fully: Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montaina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont,
and West Virginia. See www.NMVTIS.gov for a map of current
participation status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the Integrated Justice Information Systems (IJIS)
Institute, a nonprofit membership organization made up of technology
companies, was asked by Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) to conduct a full review of the NMVTIS system
architecture to identify any technological barriers to NMVTIS
implementation and to determine if any potential cost savings was
available through emerging technology. The IJIS Institute report found
that ``the NMVTIS program provides an invaluable benefit to state
vehicle administrators and the public community as a whole. Advantages
of the program include improving the state titling process, as well as
providing key information to consumers and law enforcement agencies.''
In addition to this study, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
also found NMVTIS to hold benefit potential for states, and a private
cost-benefit study also determined that NMVTIS could provide benefits
in the range of $4 to $11 billion dollars annually if fully
implemented. NMVTIS and its benefits to states, law enforcement,
consumers, and others have been widely touted by motor vehicle or auto-
industry organizations including AAMVA and the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA), by law enforcement organizations such as
the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National
Sheriffs Association, by the North American Export Committee (NAEC),
and by the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators.
NMVTIS's benefits have also been recognized by national consumer
advocacy organizations, and by industry-affiliated groups including the
National Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program and many others, as
identified in the public comments.
NMVTIS is a powerful tool for state titling agencies. Fully
participating state titling agencies are able to use NMVTIS to prevent
fraud by verifying the motor vehicle and title information, information
on brands applied to a motor vehicle, and information on whether the
motor vehicle has been reported stolen--all prior to the titling
jurisdiction issuing a new title. In order to perform this check, these
states run the vehicle identification number (VIN) against a national
pointer file, which provides the last jurisdiction that issued a title
on the motor vehicle and requests details of the motor vehicle from
that jurisdiction. Using a secure connection, states then receive all
required information or the complete title of record from the state of
record. States can then use this information to verify information on
the paper title being presented.
Verification of this data allows fully participating states to
reduce the issuance of fraudulent titles and reduce
[[Page 5741]]
odometer fraud. Once the inquiring jurisdiction receives the
information, a state is able to decide whether to issue a title. For
states fully participating through integrated, online access, if a new
title is issued, NMVTIS notifies the last titling jurisdiction that
another jurisdiction has issued a title. The old jurisdiction then can
inactivate its title record. This action allows fully participating
jurisdictions to identify and purge inactive titles on a regular basis
and eliminates the need for these agencies to conduct these processes
manually. This service provides a measurable benefit to states in terms
of cost savings. In 2007, over 18.4 million title-update transactions
were initiated and over 45 million messages were generated via NMVTIS,
which allows states to work and communicate securely and to perform
electronic titl
