[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