[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28080-28082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13167]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 580


Petition for Rulemaking; Iowa Automobile Dealers Association

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition by the Iowa Automobile Dealers 
Association to amend the provision of the agency's Odometer Disclosure 
regulations (49 CFR part 580) requiring both the buyer and seller of a 
vehicle to print their names, along with their written signatures on 
the odometer statements made on the vehicle title in connection with 
the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. 49 CFR 580.5(c). The petition 
is denied because the agency finds that the hand-printing requirement 
serves a law enforcement need and because the petitioner cited no 
particular burden arising from the requirement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eileen T. Leahy, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-5263. 
[[Page 28081]] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Chapter 327 of Title 49 of the United States Code (formerly Title 
IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 
1981-1991) (``the Act'') sets forth certain requirements concerning 
odometers in motor vehicles. Among other things, the Act prohibits 
disconnecting, resetting, or altering motor vehicle odometers and 
requires the execution of an odometer disclosure statement incident to 
the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. The Act also subjects 
violators to civil and criminal penalties, and provides for enforcement 
through civil action by the United States in Federal courts (for 
injunctive relief), by State attorneys general (for damages and 
injunctive relief), and by private individuals (for damages). The 
provisions requiring odometer disclosure statements to be included on 
vehicle titles were added by the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 
99-579) (``TIMA''), and reflect Congress' intent to address the growing 
national problem of odometer tampering in motor vehicles.
    Section 32705 of the title 49 directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to promulgate rules governing the making of odometer 
disclosure statements. In accordance with that mandate, NHTSA published 
a regulation (49 CFR part 580) which requires, in connection with the 
transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, that each transferor must 
discloses the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title (or in 
some cases on the document being used to reassign the title). The 
regulation details the minimum contents of the disclosure, requires the 
disclosure to be signed by both the transferor and the transferee, and 
provides that no person shall sign the disclosure statement as both the 
transferor and transferee in the same transaction, except in limit 
circumstances.
    The regulation requires that the handwritten signatures of both the 
transferor and transferee be accompanied by their respective printed 
names. 49 CFR 580.5(c), (f). In both the preamble to the rule 
promulgating 580.5 and subsequent written interpretations, the agency 
has stated that the printed name requirement means that the name must 
be entered by hand by the same person who signed the form. 53 FR 29470 
(Aug. 5, 1988).

The Petition

    By letter of October 4, 1994, petitioner Iowa Automobile Dealers 
Association (hereinafter petitioner) asked NHTSA to change the 
requirement that the transferee and transferor hand print their names 
on the odometer disclosure. Because this requirement is contained in 
the regulation, and therefore could only be amended by rulemaking, the 
agency decided to treat petitoner's letter as a request for rulemaking. 
The petition does not cite any burden that requirement imposes on 
petitioner or its members as a basis for the change it requests. The 
only concern expressed by petitioner is that when a state that enforces 
the requirement sends back to an out-of-state dealer a title on which 
the transferor's name that has not been hand-printed, the dealer will 
print the transferor's name rather than sending it back to the seller 
to have the name hand-printed. This practice, as petitioner notes, 
violates NHTSA's regulation.

Discussion
    When it adopted the printed name requirement, the agency stated 
that it is needed because ``it is helpful in the course of an 
investigation (of odometer fraud) to identify the person signing the 
statement where signatures are difficult to read.'' 53 FR 29470. In 
subsequent interpretations, the agency has further explained the 
necessity of having the names printed by hand rather than by electronic 
or mechanical means.
    The hand-printing requirement enables investigators to perform 
handwriting analysis to identify the signers of the disclosure in those 
instances in which the written signature is not sufficiently legible to 
provide a sample adequate for analysis. It is known to the agency that 
it is a common practice for individuals involved in odometer fraud 
schemes to transfer motor vehicle titles to automobile dealers and 
individuals without their knowledge, to make it appear that the other 
person or dealer was responsible for rolling back the odometer. In many 
cases, the other dealer or individual does not exist. In these 
instances, the perpetrators forge the signatures on the odometer 
disclosure statement, taking care that the signatures on the odometer 
disclosure and title transfer documents contain few or no 
characteristics or individualities for a handwriting analyst to use to 
identify the perpetrator as the actual signer. Commonly, the cursive 
``signature'' in such cases will consist of nothing more than a curve 
or straight line.
    In such situations, the cursive ``signature'' alone is obviously 
useless to the handwriting analyst. But analysts are able to use the 
printed name, either alone or in combination with the cursive 
signature, to establish proof of the identity of the signer. This is 
because it is impossible to hand-print letters without distinguishing 
characteristics or individualities, which are the essential elements 
used by handwriting analysts to prove the true identity of a writer.
    From its long experience in the investigation of odometer fraud, 
the agency is aware of how common it is for the perpetrators to sign 
disclosure and title documents illegibly to avoid detection. Therefore, 
the ability to identify signers by handwriting analysis is critical to 
the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute cases of odometer 
fraud. This essential tool would be lost if the agency were to drop the 
requirement for hand-printed names and permit use of mechanical or 
electronic printing.
    The importance of having the proper tools available for successful 
prosecution of those responsible for odometer fraud cannot be 
overstated. There were an estimated 12 million used cars sold in 1993. 
Thus, at least 24 million persons were required to sign and hand-print 
their names as either buyer or seller in these transactions. During 
1993, 48 individuals were convicted of odometer fraud in the Federal 
courts alone. These cases were prosecuted by the United States 
Department of Justice (USDOJ). The USDOJ concentrates its criminal 
prosecution efforts on large-scale, interstate odometer tampering 
schemes. NHTSA estimates that the 48 individuals convicted of odometer 
fraud in Federal court in 1993 were responsible for the odometers being 
rolled back on more than 40 thousand vehicles, accounting for 
approximately $160 million in consumer fraud.
    In almost all cases that go to a grand jury, the Federal 
prosecutors obtain handwriting and handprinting exemplars. For cases 
that go to trial, this type of evidence is nearly always available if 
needed. There was no trial in most of the 48 Federal cases resulting in 
convictions in 1992 because the defendants entered guilty pleas. It is 
not possible to measure precisely the role of handwriting analysis 
based on handprinting in either the decisions to plead guilty or the 
fact-finder's decisions to find the defendant guilty. Nevertheless, the 
frequency with which perpetrators of odometer fraud attempt to hide 
their identity by using a cursive signature with no identifying 
characteristics strongly suggests that the availability of handwriting 
analysis often would play a decisive role in a defendant's decision 
whether or not to go to trial, and in a judge's or jury's decision to 
convict. [[Page 28082]] 
    In addition to the cases prosecuted by the USDOJ in Federal court, 
there were numerous criminal and civil convictions in odometer fraud 
cases in State and local courts. For instance, the Iowa Attorney 
General's office referred 30 odometer fraud cases to County Attorneys 
for prosecution, and the California Department of Motor Vehicles 
reported 660 convictions for odometer fraud in 1993. These figures 
represent only a fraction of the total number of odometer fraud cases 
prosecuted nationwide.
    Petitioner has cited no burden that the hand-printing requirement 
imposes on itself or its members. The only concern it expresses is that 
a dealer that receives a title from state authorities who have rejected 
it because of failure to meet the hand-printing requirement will hand-
print the name of the person from whom it purchased the vehicle rather 
than sending it back to that person to hand-print their name. This 
practice is of concern to NHTSA because it is a violation of its 
regulations. However, the better solution to the problem seems to be to 
educate dealers on the importance of obtaining hand-printed names in 
the first instance, rather than dispensing with the requirement 
altogether. Dealer organizations such as that represented by petitioner 
can play an important role in ensuring that dealers are fully informed 
of the requirements of the Federal odometer disclosure law.
    For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied.

    Issued on: May 24, 1995.
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-13167 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M