28080 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Proposed Rules

full text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239)

1919 M Street, NW. Washington, DC.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

2100 M Street, NW., Washington, DC

20037, telephone (202) 857–3800.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. The Commission initiated the

instant proceeding to explore alternative

uses of the 216–217 MHz band.

Presently, this one megahertz of

spectrum is allocated on a primary basis

to the AMTS. In 1992, however, the

Commission reallocated one megahertz

of radio spectrum from the AMTS to the

Interactive Video and Data Service

(IVDS), effectively ‘‘orphaning’’ the

216–217 MHz band. Thus, in PR Docket

92–257, the Commission sought

alternative uses for the spectrum that

would not cause harmful interference to

adjacent Television Channel 13

operations 9210–216 MHz).

2. The Commission proposes to

permit a new Low Power Radio Service

and AMTS coast station to share this

one megahertz of spectrum on a

secondary basis. Low Power Radio

Services would include law

enforcement tracking system, auditory

assistance devices for the hearing

impaired, and health care assistance

devices for disabled and ill persons. A

law enforcement tracking system

includes extremely small radio

transmitters attached to money and

goods that are likely to be stolen. When

activated, the small transmitters emit a

low power signal that can be tracked by

direction finding equipment, allowing

authorities to quickly recover the stolen

money or goods. An auditory assistance

system consists of a short range

transmitter and special receivers that

allow persons with hearing disabilities

to enjoy educational or entertaining

audio presentations. Similarly, low

power health care aids could be used for

short range, one-way medical telemetry.

Finally, AMTS coast stations could

utilize highly directional antennas to

transmit network control

communications, thereby increasing

system efficiencies.

3. There are forty, 25 kHz channels

available in the 216–217 MHz band. The

Commission proposes to allocate thirty

channels (216.0125–216.7375 MHz) to

the Low Power Radio Service and ten

channels (216.7625–216.9875 MHz) for

AMTS point-to-point communications.

The twenty channels closest to TV

Channel 13 would be limited to 100

milliwatts transmitter output power,

and the other twenty channels would be

limited to 1 watt. The Low Power Radio

Service (excluding two channels set

aside exclusively for law enforcement

tracking systems) would be

administered under Part 95 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR part 95.

The exclusive tracking system channels

would be administered under the Police

Radio Service in Part 90. Further, the

AMTS channels would be administered

under the maritime service rules in Part

80.

4. Under the proposed rules,

authorizations in the Low Power Radio

Service would be granted based on

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

and Rural Statistical Areas (RSAs). The

Commission did not propose to place a

limit on the number of licensees per

MSA and RSA or the total number of

licenses a single entity could obtain.

AMTS coast stations would simply add

the new channels to their current station

authorization. The Commission seeks

specific comments concerning the

proposed rule amendments.

5. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis

Reason for Action

The Commission proposes to allow

low power devices to share Automated

Maritime Traffic System frequencies in

the 216–217 MHz band.

Objectives

We seek to make better use of

currently unused portions of the

spectrum while taking advantage of

alternative low power technologies.

Legal Basis

The proposed action is authorized

under Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r).

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

Our proposed addition of 47 CFR

95.1031 would require the low power

transmitters to be type accepted by the

Commission.

Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate

or Conflict with These Rules

None.

Description, Potential Impact, and

Small Entities Involved

Allowing low power devices to be

licensed in the 216–217 MHz band

would use the radio spectrum more

efficiently, assist law enforcement

organizations, and facilitate

implementation of the provisions of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing

the Impact on Small Entities Consistent

With the Stated Objectives

None.

Lists of Subjects

47 CFR Part 80

Communications equipment, Radio,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 90

Communications equipment, Radio,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 95

Communications equipment, Radio,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13115 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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.
28082 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 handprint the name of the person from whom

it purchased the vehicle rather than

sending it back to that person to handprint 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 625

[Docket No. 950522140–5140–01; I.D.

050595E]

RIN 0648–XX22

Summer Flounder Fishery; 1995

Recreational Fishery Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to amend the regulations

implementing the Fishery Management

Plan for the Summer Flounder Fishery

(FMP). This rule proposes season dates,

a possession limit, and a minimum fish

size for the 1995 recreational fishery.

The recreational season would be open

from January 1 through December 31,

with a possession limit of 6 fish per

person and a minimum fish size of 14

inches (35.6 cm). The proposed 1995

season, possession limit, and minimum

fish size are specified to achieve the

1995 coastwide recreational harvest

limit, which is 7.8 million lbs (3.5

million kg).

DATES: Public comments are invited

through June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to, and copies of the environmental

assessment (EA) prepared for the 1995

summer flounder specifications are

available from the Regional Director,

NMFS, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hannah Goodale, 508-281-9101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 625.20 of the regulations

implementing the FMP outlines the

process for determining annual

commercial and recreational catch

quotas and other restrictions for the

summer flounder fishery. The Summer

Flounder Monitoring Committee

(Committee), made up of representatives

from the Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission, the Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council (Council),

the New England Fishery Management

Council, and NMFS, is required to

review, on an annual basis, scientific

and other relevant information and to

recommend a quota and other

restrictions necessary to achieve a

fishing mortality rate of 0.53 in 1993

through 1995, and 0.23 in 1996 and

thereafter. This schedule of fishing

mortality rates is mandated by the FMP

to prevent overfishing and to rebuild the

summer flounder resource. The

Committee reviews the following

information annually: (1) Commercial

and recreational catch data; (2) current

estimates of fishing mortality; (3) stock

status; (4) recent estimates of

recruitment; (5) virtual population

analysis, a method for analyzing fish

stock abundance; (6) levels of regulatory

noncompliance by fishermen or

individual states; (7) impact of fish size

and net mesh regulations; (8) impact of

gear, other than otter trawls, on the

mortality of summer flounder; and (9)

other relevant information. Pursuant to

§ 625.20, after this review the

Committee recommends management

measures to ensure achievement of the

appropriate fishing mortality rate. These

measures include: (1) Commercial

quota, (2) commercial minimum fish

size, (3) minimum mesh size, (4)

recreational possession limit within the

range of 0 to 15 fish per person per day,

(5) recreational minimum fish size, (6)

recreational season, and (7) restrictions

on gear other than otter trawls.

Measures (1), (2), (3), and (7) above

were implemented on February 10, 1995

(60 FR 8958, February 16, 1995). The

management measures contained in the

final specifications were: (1) A

coastwide commercial quota of 14.7

million lbs (6.7 million kg), (2) a

coastwide recreational harvest limit of

7.8 million lbs (3.5 million kg), (3) no

change from the present minimum

commercial fish size of 13 inches (33

cm), and (4) no change in the present

minimum mesh-size restriction of 51⁄2-

inch diamond (14.0 cm) or 6-inch

square (15.2 cm).

The recreational season, possession

limit, and minimum size were not

established as part of the final

specifications because recreational catch

data for 1994 was not available for the

Committee’s use in evaluating the

effectiveness of the 1994 season and

possession limit. Shortly after this data

became available, the Committee met to

review the 1994 data and to recommend

measures for 1995. The Committee

recommended elimination of the closed

season, an individual possession limit

of 6 fish per person, and a minimum

fish size of 14 inches (35.6 cm).

These recommendations were

adopted by the Council’s Demersal

Species Committee on March 14, 1995,

but the possession limit was revised by

the ‘‘full’’ Council at its meeting of

March 15–16, 1995. The Council’s

recommendation to the Director,

Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional

Director) was for elimination of the

closed season in 1995, an individual

possession limit of 8 fish per person,

and a minimum fish size of 14 inches

(35.6 cm).

On April 12, 1995, the Regional

Director disapproved the Council’s

recommendation, citing inconsistency

with the Council’s earlier

recommendation to the Regional

Director to take all appropriate actions

to ensure that the target fishing

mortality rate is not exceeded in 1995.

The Regional Director informed the

Council that their recommendation,

being less restrictive than measures

imposed in 1994, was inconsistent with

their earlier expressed concern. The

Regional Director invited the Council to

reconsider and develop a proposal that

would address the inconsistency

without compromising conservation.