This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

54544 

Vol. 73, No. 184 

Monday, September 22, 2008 

1Brands are descriptive labels regarding the 

status of a motor vehicle, such as ‘‘junk,’’ ‘‘salvage,’’ 

and ‘‘flood’’ vehicles. 

2There are currently 13 states participating fully 

in NMVTIS: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Nevada, 

Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. Twelve states are providing regular data 

updates to NMVTIS: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, 

Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Wyoming. Eight states are actively taking steps to 

provide data or participate fully: Arkansas, 

Delaware, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FBI 117; AG Order No. 3000– 

2008] 

RIN 1110–AA30 

National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System (NMVTIS) 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Motor Vehicle 

Title Information System (NMVTIS) has 

been established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30502 and is in operation, or partial 

operation, in at least 25 states. NMVTIS 

is intended to provide authorized 

recipients with instant and reliable 

access to motor vehicle titling 

information maintained by the states. 

The goal of NMVTIS is to assist in 

efforts to prevent the introduction or 

reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles 

into interstate commerce. NMVTIS 

helps state titling agencies by verifying 

motor vehicle and title information, 

information on brands applied to motor 

vehicles, and information regarding 

whether motor vehicles have been 

reported stolen. 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: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 21, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

to: James Landon, 935 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20535. To 

ensure proper handling, please 

reference FBI Docket No. 117 on your 

correspondence. You may submit 

comments electronically or view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David P. Lewis, 810 7th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20531, 202–616–6500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information and 

confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. If you 

wish to inspect the agency’s public 

docket file in person by appointment, 

please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph. 

Background 

The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (Pub. 

L. 102–519) 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 

the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–152). The Anti-Car 

Theft Improvements Act of 1996 

renamed the automobile titling system 

the ‘‘National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System’’ (NMVTIS) and 

transferred responsibility for 

implementing the system from DOT to 

the Department of Justice (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’’). 

The purpose of NMVTIS is to provide 

an electronic means for verifying and 

exchanging title, brand, and theft data 

among motor vehicle administrators, 

law enforcement officials, prospective 

purchasers, and insurance carriers.1 To 

date, the implementation of NMVTIS 

has focused on establishing access by 

the states and not on providing access 

to other authorized users. Currently, 33 

states are actively involved with 

NMVTIS, representing more than 60 

percent of the U.S. motor vehicle 

population. Specifically, 13 states are 

participating fully in NMVTIS, 12 states 

are regularly providing data to the 

system, and an additional 8 states are 

actively taking steps to provide data or 

participate fully.2 States that participate 

fully in the system provide data 

regularly and have the ability to make 

NMVTIS inquiries before issuing a new 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54545 

title. These states also send updates to 

the system when necessary. States that 

regularly provide data to the system 

provide data to NMVTIS through a 

batch upload process. 

In 2006, the Integrated Justice 

Information Systems (IJIS) Institute, a 

nonprofit 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.’’ 

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, including the motor 

vehicle’s last reported odometer 

reading. 

Verification of this data allows fully 

participating states to reduce the 

issuance of fraudulent titles and reduce 

odometer fraud. Once the inquiring 

jurisdiction receives the information, a 

state is able to decide whether to issue 

a title. For fully participating states, 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. 

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 to determine if it has 

any existing brands. Because NMVTIS 

keeps a history of brands applied by any 

state to the motor vehicle, it protects 

consumers by helping ensure that 

unsuspecting purchasers are not 

defrauded or placed at risk by 

purchasing an unsafe motor vehicle. 

Provisions of This Proposed Rule 

The continued implementation of 

NMVTIS and its effectiveness depends 

on the participation and cooperation of 

a number of parties. According to a costbenefit study conducted by the National 

Institute of Justice: ‘‘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. 

Participation in NMVTIS needs to be 

expanded to all states. In addition, 

insurance carriers, junk yards, and 

salvage yards also need to provide 

certain information to NMVTIS relevant 

to the life-cycle of an automobile’s title 

in order for NMVTIS to function as 

intended. The Anti-Car Theft Act 

requires junk yards, salvage yards, and 

insurance carriers to report 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 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 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 also 

proposes a means by which user fees 

will be imposed to fund NMVTIS. 

1. State Responsibilities 

The effectiveness of NMVTIS 

increases as more states begin to 

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 begin 

reporting titling information to NMVTIS 

as soon as possible. While the 

immediate goal of this proposed rule is 

to, at a minimum, have all statesa 

providing regular data updates to 

NMVTIS, the ultimate goal is for all 

states to participate fully in the system 

by providing real time data updates and 

by making inquiries into NMVTIS prior 

to issuing new titles. 

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 their titling 

information available to NMVTIS. 49 

U.S.C. 30503(a). Further, each state 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 proposed 

rule clarifies what information must be 

reported by states to NMVTIS pursuant 

to the Anti-Car Theft Act and sets out 

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 make the 

titling information they maintain 

available for use in NMVTIS. 

Specifically, states will be required to 

report an automobile’s VIN, any 

description of the automobile included 

on the certificate of title, the name of the 

individual or entity to whom the 

certificate was issued, and 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. 

The Anti-Car Theft Act specifically 

covers ‘‘automobiles’’ as defined at 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, 

Pub. L. 110–140, and generally covers 

vehicles with 4-wheels 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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
54546 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

3Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30102(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. 

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. Therefore, states are 

strongly encouraged to continue 

reporting information on all motor 

vehicles possessing VINs in their state 

titling systems to NMVTIS. 

The Anti-Car Theft Act also requires 

that the operator of NMVTIS make 

available the odometer mileage that is 

disclosed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32705 

on the date the certificate of title for the 

automobile was issued and any later 

mileage information, if noted by the 

state. Accordingly, the rule proposes to 

require states to provide such mileage 

information. In addition, the rule will 

permit, with the approval of the 

operator and the state, 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. 

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 

proposed rule clarifies the reporting 

requirements imposed on insurance 

carriers regarding junk and salvage 

automobiles. Salvage automobiles are 

defined by the Anti-Car Theft Act to 

mean ‘‘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. 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 

should trigger reporting by an insurance 

carrier. Insurance carriers will be 

required under this proposed rule to 

provide NMVTIS with the VIN of such 

automobiles, the date on which the 

automobile was obtained or designated 

as a junk or salvage automobile, 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, and the name of the owner 

of the automobile at the time of the 

filing of the report. 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 proposed 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 reason why 

the insurance carrier obtained 

possession of the motor vehicle. For 

example, the insurance carrier may have 

obtained possession of the motor 

vehicle because it had been subject to 

flood, water, collision, or fire damage, or 

as a result of theft and recovery. The 

reporting of this information by 

insurance carriers will help reduce 

instances when thieves use the VINs of 

junk or salvage motor vehicles on stolen 

motor vehicles. Also, this information 

will be useful in making it more 

difficult for criminals to wash brands in 

order to defraud purchasers. 

Accordingly, the Department of Justice 

strongly encourages insurance carriers 

to report such additional information to 

the operator. 

3. Junk Yards and Salvage Yards 

Under this proposed rule, junk yards 

and salvage yards will be 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. The reporting of this 

information will be limited to junk 

yards and salvage yards located within 

the United States. Pursuant to the AntiCar 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) and 

(8). For purposes of the reporting 

requirement imposed by this rule, the 

Department of Justice has determined 

that so-called ‘‘salvage pools’’ that 

acquire junk and salvage automobiles 

for resale are included within the scope 

of the definitions of junk and salvage 

yards. 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 

Department of Justice’s belief that some 

of these buyers purchase junk and 

salvage automobiles at salvage pools in 

order to acquire VINs that can be used 

on stolen motor vehicles or to create 

cloned motor vehicles for other illicit 

purposes. 

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 that 

information available to the operator; or 

if they are issued a verification stating 

that the automobile or parts from the 

automobile are not reported as stolen. 

4. Lenders and Automobile Dealers 

The Anti-Car Theft Act requires the 

operator to make NMVTIS information 

available to prospective purchasers, 

including auction companies and 

entities engaged in the business of 

purchasing 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. The 

Department also proposes to allow 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. 

Allowing such entities to query 

NMVTIS information not only will 

provide a means of identifying stolen 

motor vehicles, but also will help to 

prevent fraud and improve public 

safety. 

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 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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54547 

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 purchasers, 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. 

In particular, the operator of NMVTIS 

will be responsible for ensuring that law 

enforcement agencies have access to 

titling information through NMVTIS. 

NMVTIS is a powerful tool to combat 

automobile theft. Before NMVTIS, a 

thief could steal a car, take it over the 

state line, and then get a valid title by 

presenting fraudulent ownership 

documentation to the new state. Thieves 

often would switch the VIN plate 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 

instant, reliable way of validating the 

information on the ownership 

documentation prior to issuing the new 

title. NMVTIS will provide law 

enforcement agencies with access to 

make inquiries to further their 

investigations of motor vehicle theft and 

fraud. This access will allow law 

enforcement agencies to better identify 

stolen motor vehicles and enhance their 

ability to identify vehicle theft rings. 

NMVTIS will reduce the ability of 

organized criminal organizations to 

obtain fraudulent vehicle registrations 

by linking state and international 

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. 

The operator of NMVTIS also will be 

responsible for ensuring that a means 

exists for allowing insurers and 

purchasers to access information prior 

to purchasing a motor vehicle, including 

information regarding brands and 

odometer readings. 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. Not only are 

unsuspecting purchasers paying more 

than the motor vehicle is worth, 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. 

This fraud has serious consequences for 

not only commerce and law 

enforcement, but highway and citizen 

safety. 

The Department anticipates that the 

operator will implement a Web-based 

method of permitting prospective 

purchasers to access NMVTIS 

information. The Department welcomes 

comments on whether access should be 

provided solely by the operator or the 

Department of Justice, or if Web-based 

access should be permitted through 

other public or private entities, 

including consumer groups and forprofit organizations. The cost for Webbased prospective purchaser inquiries 

likely will be nominal and may be 

combined with fees that may be charged 

by other public or private entities 

should that option be exercised. 

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, the operator of 

NMVTIS currently employs a 10-tiered 

fee structure. The fee a particular state 

is charged depends on which tier that 

state is placed based on the number of 

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 their Board of 

Directors. 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 proposes to continue to 

allow the operator of NMVTIS to charge 

user fees to the states based on the total 

number of motor vehicles titled in the 

state, but without employing tiers. Such 

a pro rata fee structure would simplify 

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. Moreover, by eliminating 

tiers, a state at the low end of a tier with 

fewer titled motor vehicles would no 

longer have to pay the same fee as a 

state at the high end of a tier with more 

titled motor vehicles. 

The Department of Justice also 

proposes to continue the practice of 

basing the state fees on the number of 

motor vehicles, as opposed to the 

number of automobiles, titled in a state. 

Participating states currently are 

providing information on motor 

vehicles other than automobiles and the 

total fees paid by a given state would 

likely be comparable even if the fees 

were based on the total number of titled 

automobiles. 

In addition, the Department of Justice 

proposes to allow the operator to charge 

the user fee 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 make 

titling information available to NMVTIS 

and conduct title verification checks 

before issuing a title. Because all states 

are required to participate in NMVTIS, 

this rule proposes to allow the operator 

to charge the user fee to all states, 

regardless of their current level of 

participation. 

Under this proposed rule and 

consistent with the Anti-Car Theft Act, 

users, such as purchasers, insurers, 

consumers, and other non-governmental 

entities, may be charged a transaction 

fee for inquiries they make to NMVTIS. 

The operator would not be permitted to 

charge fees for transactions performed 

by fully participating states or inquiries 

made by law enforcement agencies 

under this proposed rule. 

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), and the 

cost of technical upgrades. 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 be less than 3 cents per 

motor vehicle title. The operator of 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
54548 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

NMVTIS will inform the states of the 

applicable fees either through 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by direct notice to the states. AAMVA 

currently has contracts with the states 

by which fees to fund NMVTIS are 

imposed or adjusted. 

The operator will be required to 

recalculate its fees on at least an annual 

basis. Any fees charged to the states 

would be offset by transaction fees 

charged to non-governmental entities. 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 fee structure imposed by 

the operator must be approved by the 

Department of Justice. 

As alternatives to a non-tiered fee 

structure based on the total number of 

motor vehicles titled in a state, the 

Department welcomes comments on: (i) 

Whether the state fee should be limited 

solely to participating states; (ii) 

whether the state fee should be based on 

the total number of titled motor 

vehicles, the total number of titled 

automobiles, or some other subset of 

motor vehicles; (iii) whether the fee 

structure should be tiered or non-tiered; 

and (iv) whether all or a portion of the 

state fee should be based on the number 

of transactions conducted by a 

particular state. 

Although a transaction-based fee 

structure would be a more traditional 

basis for a user fee, such a fee structure 

would require the operator of NMVTIS 

to revise its billing process and would 

likely be more costly to implement. 

AAMVA estimates that it currently 

processes approximately 46,213,983 

transactions per year. Therefore, the cost 

to fund NMVTIS would be 

approximately 13 cents per transaction 

under a transaction-based fee structure. 

Since Fiscal Year 1997, the 

Department of Justice, through BJA, has 

provided over $12 million to AAMVA 

for NMVTIS implementation. In Fiscal 

Year 2007, BJA invited states to apply 

for funding to support initial NMVTIS 

implementation. This competitive 

funding solicitation closed on July 19, 

2007, with 5 states applying. BJA also 

invited AAMVA, the system operator, to 

apply for direct funding from BJA in 

Fiscal Year 2007, to supplement state 

participation fees received by AAMVA, 

as authorized under the Anti-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, and funds 

were awarded to the states of Delaware, 

New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont, 

and Wisconsin to begin initial 

implementation or to enhance their 

participation. As noted above, funds 

awarded to the operator of NMVTIS will 

reduce the amount of user fees that must 

be imposed to implement NMVTIS. 

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 economical 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 state or third party that may 

already 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 

information to the state and the state 

makes that information available to the 

operator; or 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. 

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. 

The Department seeks comments on 

the assumptions used in this analysis 

and is interested in any data that 

commenters can provide on the time 

and cost to collect the required 

information and to submit the 

information to the operator of NMVTIS. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Department has submitted the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the procedures of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law No. 104–13, 109 Stat. 163. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. 

Public comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted until November 21, 

2008. We request comments and 

suggestions from the public and affected 

agencies concerning the proposed 

collection of information. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the item(s) contained in this 

notice, especially regarding the 

estimated public burden and associated 

response time, should be directed to: 

James Landon, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20535. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54549 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of information collection: 

New collection. 

(2) Title of the form/collection: 

NMVTIS. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: No form. FBI, Department of 

Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Business or other for-profit 

(states, motor vehicle insurers, junk 

yards, and salvage yards. 

Brief Abstract: The Department of 

Justice is implementing the NMVTIS, 49 

U.S.C. 30501, et seq., by issuing 

regulations to establish a national 

system for verifying the titles of motor 

vehicles marked with a VIN. Under 

specific conditions detailed in the 

regulations, the following entities or 

persons must provide information: a 

state, insurance carrier, or a person or 

entity operating a junk yard or salvage 

yard. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: Fifty states and the District of 

Columbia, 3,000 insurance companies 

and 10,000 junk and salvage yard 

operators. The states and insurance 

companies already are capturing most of 

the data needed to be reported, and the 

reporting will be electronic, so the time 

to respond will be minimal. For junk 

and salvage yard operators it is 

estimated that it will take respondents 

an average of 30 minutes per month to 

respond. 

(6) An estimate of the annual total 

public burden (in hours) associated with 

the collection: 60,000 total burden 

hours. 

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 significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

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 then General Accounting 

Office (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 (LMI) 

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 

$3,500,000 to $5,650,000—depending 

on necessary system upgrades that may 

be required and user volume. Therefore, 

the current AMMVA fee structure 

underfunds NMVTIS by $2,000,000 to 

$4,150,000 according to their 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 

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). 

Because this type of search is internetbased versus state title 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. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
54550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 National Insurance 

Crime Bureau (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 state or to a 

third party that agrees to provide the 

data to NMVTIS. 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 or 

state, the carrier would be required to 

report the data to NMVTIS. With the 

assumption that the data is already 

collected and in a format that is 

exportable, and assuming that NMVTIS 

would establish a reporting mechanism 

involving a simple FTP-based 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. 

Yard size Reporting method 

Initial 

investment 

costs 

Annual ongoing 

labor costs 

Annual 

vehicle 

volume* 

Total annual 

average labor costs 

per vehicle 

Total first year costs 

(includes initial investment costs and 

annual labor costs) 

Small (non-automated).Fax .......................... 90 12 hours per year/ 

$96.00.

1–200 96 cents .................. $1.86. 

Small (automated) ..... FTP ......................... 0 24 minutes per year/ 

$3.12.

1–200 3 cents .................... 3 cents. 

Medium ..................... FTP ......................... 0 24 minutes per year/ 

$3.12.

201–500 <1 cent .................... <1 cent. 

Large ......................... FTP ......................... 250 24 minutes per year/ 

$3.12.

501–7,800 <1 cent .................... 6 cents. 

(* Note: Per vehicle costs based on an average annual vehicle volumes.) 

While it is difficult to estimate how 

many junk/salvage yards are not 

automated, the National Salvage Vehicle 

Reporting Program (NSVRP) and other 

industry representatives estimate that 

nearly all have some form of data 

collection even if they do not have 

automation in place. The NSVRP has 

discussed with many of the inventory 

management vendors the assistance that 

can be made available to establish 

reliable reporting protocols through its 

voluntary and independent efforts 

within the industry. If such assistance is 

available from these vendors, nearly all 

junk/salvage yards will have some form 

of automation and be capable of 

exporting and sending monthly reports 

electronically. 

In cases in which small junk and 

salvage yards have no form of 

automation or computerized files, the 

Departments assumed that a fax 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/salvage yards of this 

size are relatively few (estimated at 20 

percent of licensed junk and salvage 

yards) and the number of these few 

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 prospective 

purchaser inquiries will be nominal. 

Similarly, the cost to law enforcement to 

access NMVTIS also is expected to be 

minimal assuming law enforcement is 

not 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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54551 

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 

funding NMVTIS, such as a tiered-based 

fee structure and a transaction-based fee 

structure. The Department believes that 

the proposed non-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. 

The Department welcomes input from 

the public regarding the costs and 

benefits of the proposed provisions in 

this rule. 

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 in 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 proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 25—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

1. The Authority citation for part 25 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, 

49 U.S.C. 30501–30505; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 

Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104–134, 

110 Stat. 1321. 

2. Part 25 is amended by adding 

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. 

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. 

§ 25.52 Definitions. 

For purposes of this subpart B: 

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. 

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 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. 

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. 

State means a state of the United 

States or the District of Columbia. 

Total loss means that the cost of 

repair plus projected supplements plus 

projected diminished resale value plus 

rental reimbursement expense exceeds 

the cost of buying the damaged 

automobile at its pre-accident value, 

minus the proceeds of selling the 

damaged automobile for salvage. 

VIN means the vehicle identification 

number; 

§ 25.53 Responsibilities of the Operator of 

NMVTIS. 

(a) 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, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
54552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 additional information from 

state and public and private entities 

which 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 also 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 motor vehicles and parts into 

interstate commerce. 

(d) The means by which access is 

provided by the operator to users of 

NMVTIS must be approved by the 

Department of Justice. 

(e) The operator may establish and 

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 the 

operating the system. 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), and the 

cost of technical upgrades. User fees 

collected from states should be based on 

the states’ pro rata share of the total 

number of titled motor vehicles. All 

states, regardless of their level of 

participation, may be charged this user 

fee. Transaction fees, other than fees 

based on the number of motor vehicles 

titled by a state, may not be collected 

from a fully participating state, but 

transaction fees may be collected from 

other users of NMVTIS. No fees should 

be charged for inquiries from law 

enforcement agencies. The operator will 

be required to recalculate the user fees 

on at least an annual basis. Any user fee 

structure 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 to the states. 

(f) 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 

funds appropriated to operate NMVTIS. 

§ 25.54 Responsibilities of the States. 

(a) By no later than June 1, 2009, each 

state shall provide, or cause to be 

provided by an agent or third party, to 

the designated operator and in a format 

acceptable to the operator, 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; 

(3) The name of the individual or 

entity to whom the certificate was 

issued; and 

(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. 

(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) Each state shall perform an instant 

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. 

The check will consist of— 

(1) Communicating to the operator— 

(i) The VIN of the automobile for 

which the certificate of title is sought; 

(ii) The name of the state that issued 

the most recent certificate of title for the 

automobile; and 

(iii) The name of the individual or 

entity to whom the certificate of title 

was issued; and 

(2) Giving the operator an opportunity 

to communicate to the participating 

state the results of a search of the 

information. 

§ 25.55 Responsibilities of Insurance 

Carriers. 

(a) By no later than June 1, 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 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) VIN; 

(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 or who possessed it when the 

automobile was designated as a junk or 

salvage automobile; and 

(4) 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 

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 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54553 

must be pursuant to a means approved 

by the operator. 

§ 25.56 Responsibilities of Junk yards and 

Salvage yards. 

(a) By no later than June 1, 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 by that 

entity in the prior month. 

(b) The inventory shall include the 

following information: 

(1) VIN; 

(2) The date the automobile was 

obtained; 

(3) The name of the individual or 

entity from whom the automobile was 

obtained; 

(4) A statement of whether the 

automobile was crushed or disposed of, 

for sale or other purposes. 

(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 that information available to the 

operator; 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. 

(d) 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. 

Dated: September 16, 2008. 

Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E8–22070 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS