[House Report 104-618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                                       
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-618
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                ANTI-CAR THEFT IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1995

                                _______


 June 12, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. McCollum, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2803]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2803) to amend the anti-car theft provisions of 
title 49, United States Code, to increase the utility of motor 
vehicle title information to State and Federal law enforcement 
officials, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 
the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     4
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     4
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    12
Exchanges of Committee Correspondence............................     5
Agency Views.....................................................    13
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    14

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2803 amends the anti-car theft provisions of title 49, 
United States Code, to increase the utility of motor vehicle 
title information to State and Federal law enforcement 
officials.
    Under current law, established in the Anti-Car Theft Act of 
1992 (Public Law 102-519), the Department of Transportation was 
required to establish, by January 31, 1996, the National 
Automobile Titling Information System which would provide 
access for States to automobile titling information maintained 
by other States. The system would allow a State motor vehicle 
titling authority to check instantly whether a vehicle had been 
stolen before it issues a new title for that vehicle. The Act 
also established a federal grant program to help States modify 
computer software for this purpose. The Act gave the Secretary 
of Transportation authority to make grants of no more than 
$300,000 per State or 25 percent of that State's cost of 
setting up the system, whichever is less. To date, no grants 
have been awarded.
    H.R. 2803 makes several changes to federal law. The bill 
transfers responsibility for establishing the title information 
system from the Secretary of Transportation to the Attorney 
General and extends the deadlines for the system's 
implementation date and related reports from January 31, 1996 
to October 1, 1997. The bill also grants limited immunity from 
civil action to entities operating the information systems. In 
addition, the bill expands the titling system to include non-
commercial trucks and light vans and authorizes appropriations 
for the grant program to enable States to make necessary 
software changes.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

     Last year over 1.5 million vehicles were reported stolen 
in the United States. Because there is no automated way to 
verify the validity of records from other States, almost 
140,000 new titles for stolen vehicles are issued each year. 
The costs imposed on society by car-jackings and other auto 
thefts remain unacceptably high, due in part to the failure to 
implement one of the major components of the ``Anti-Car Theft 
Act of 1992,'' (Public Law 102-519) the National Motor Vehicle 
Titling Information System. H.R. 2803, the ``Anti-Car Theft 
Improvements Act of 1995,'' fills gaps in existing law to 
expedite implementation of the motor vehicle titling 
information system.
     The ``Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992'' directed the Secretary 
of Transportation to establish, by January 31, 1996, an 
electronic information system that would allow a State motor 
vehicle titling authority to check instantly whether a vehicle 
had been stolen before it issues a new title for that vehicle. 
The 1992 Act also established a federal grant program to help 
States modify computer software for this purpose. Once 
established, the title information system would enable state 
motor vehicle departments, law enforcement officials, 
prospective auto purchasers, and insurance carriers to check 
the validity of purported ownership documents, thereby 
preventing thieves from using ostensibly valid titles for 
stolen cars.
     Responsibility for implementing the Act has been delegated 
between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). To date, DOJ has set up a designated 
system for stolen parts information, but DOT has failed to meet 
its statutory deadline for establishing the related stolen 
vehicle information system.
     H.R. 2803 transfers primary responsibility for the 
operation of the National Motor Vehicle Titling Information 
System from the Secretary of Transportation to the Attorney 
General. Both the stolen parts system and the title information 
system would be operated by or under the auspices of the 
Department of Justice.
     With the enactment of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, 
Congress identified motor vehicle theft as a major public 
concern and provided law enforcement officials and motor 
vehicle administrators with useful tools with which to address 
this problem. H.R. 2803 would provide for the implementation of 
the much needed national titling information system which would 
prevent thieves from obtaining legitimate vehicle ownership 
documentation and deter other serious consumer fraud related to 
the transfer of motor vehicle ownership.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime a hearing on H.R. 
2803 on March 7, 1996. Testimony was received from one witness, 
Kevin V. DiGregory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the 
Criminal Division, representing the Department of Justice. 
Additional material was Submitted by Fred Dickenson, Executive 
Director of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 
for the State of Florida on behalf of the American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators and Judith M. Fitzgerald, 
Director of Government Affairs, National Insurance Crime 
Bureau.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 2, 1996, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 2803, without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On April 24, 
1996, the full Judiciary Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported the bill H.R. 2803 without amendment by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

     There were no recorded votes.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

     No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2803, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 2803, the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 
1995, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on April 24, 1996. CBO estimates that enacting this 
legislation could result in costs to the federal government of 
as much as $50 million over the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting 
H.R. 2803 would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill 
contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as 
defined in Public Law 104-4.
    The Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-519) 
directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 
National Automobile Title Information System by January 31, 
1996. This system, which is not yet operational, would provide 
access to automobile titling information maintained by the 
states. Public Law 102-519 gave the Secretary of Transportation 
authority to make grants of no more than $300,000 per state or 
25 percent of their cost, whichever is less, for use in setting 
up the system. No grants have been made thus far.
    H.R. 2803 would make several changes to current law. The 
bill would transfer federal authority over the title 
information system from the Secretary of Transportation to the 
Attorney General and would extend deadlines for the system's 
completion (to October 1, 1997) and for related reports to the 
Congress. In addition, it would expand the titling system to 
include non-commercial light trucks and vans. Finally, H.R. 
2803 would remove the limits on federal grants to states.
    According to a survey commissioned by the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) in 1993, 37 states collectively estimated 
costs of roughly $50 million to implement the title system. 
Based on the median cost reported by survey respondents, this 
projects to about $60 million for all 50 states. With the 
$300,000 and 25 percent limits in place, however, the federal 
government would pay only about $10 million to states. Thus, 
relative to current law, enacting H.R. 2803 could result in 
additional costs to the federal government--and benefits to the 
states--of as much as $50 million, if the necessary funds are 
appropriated.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for federal costs), Karen McVey (for the state and 
local government impact), and Matthew Eyles (for the private 
sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 
2803 will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                 Exchanges of Committee Correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                    Washington, DC, April 29, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Henry: Thank you for your efforts in addressing our 
concerns regarding H.R. 2803, the Anti-Car Theft Improvements 
Act of 1995. As you know, our committees share jurisdiction 
over the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-519, codified in 
scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.), particularly those provisions 
that would be amended by H.R. 2803 creating a National Motor 
Vehicle Titling Information System (``NMVTIS''). I appreciate 
your willingness to work with the Commerce Committee to improve 
this legislation so that this important tool is available to 
our nation's law enforcement officers.
    Our respective committees have a long history of working 
together on this issue. The predecessor to the modern Commerce 
Committee, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
began its efforts to address national concerns in the area of 
motor vehicle safety and information as early as 1956 when it 
began hearings on the subject. After enactment of several bills 
dealing specifically with the issue of automobile safety, the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (P.L. 92-513, 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 32101 et seq.) was reported by this 
Committee in 1972.
    In 1984, the Energy and Commerce Committee directly 
addressed the growing problem of vehicle theft. The Committee 
reported an amended version of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law 
Enforcement Act (P.L. 98-547) in H.Rpt. 98-1087. Among other 
things, the bill amended the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 
Savings Act by: (1) requiring identification numbers for 
certain motor vehicle parts; (2) instituting civil penalties 
for violations of the Act by manufacturers; and (3) prescribing 
penalties for dealing in stolen vehicles, including the import 
or export of such vehicles. Although the legislation was 
referred to the Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Energy and 
Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee was the only committee to act.
    More recently, as so-called ``carjackings'' became more 
prevalent, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary 
Committee worked closely together to address this and other 
vehicle theft problems in the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992. In 
addition to establishing a fifteen year federal penalty for 
carjacking, the bill amended portions of the 1984 Act. Through 
our substantial work together, we were able to bring our 
Committees' respective expertise to bear on addressing the 
difficult issue of motor vehicle theft.
    I am pleased to see that the amendments offered by the 
Committee will address the substantive concerns we identified 
shortly after the introduction of H.R. 2803. As you know, 
Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena identified similar 
concerns in his March 19, 1995, correspondence responding to my 
questions on H.R. 2803. I have attached a copy of this letter 
and would appreciate its inclusion in the Committee Report. In 
that letter, he raised concerns regarding possible delays in 
implementation caused by a shift in authority to the Department 
of Justice and some possible impediments to the implementation 
of the NMVTIS due to a lack of national uniform titling 
definitions. While I believe that the questions regarding the 
feasibility of the system without uniform titling can be 
answered through the ongoing pilot program, the Commerce 
Committee had concerns regarding the possible confusion created 
by a new definition of the term ``motor vehicle'' contained in 
H.R. 2803 and the scope of the immunity provisions.
    The amendments that will be offered by the Judiciary 
Committee address these concerns and with these changes, I have 
no objection to the consideration of this legislation by the 
House. In view of your Committee's acceptance of amendments 
addressing the concerns described above, I would agree not to 
seek a sequential referral of H.R. 2803 with the further 
understanding that this waiver would be without prejudice to 
this Committee's jurisdictional claims over this bill and 
similar bills that may be offered in the future. Furthermore, I 
would request that this Committee's jurisdiction be protected 
through the appointment of conferees should H.R. 2803 go to 
conference.
    Thank you for your attention to our concerns. I would 
appreciate it if you would include a copy of this letter in 
your Committee's report on H.R. 2803.
    I remain,
            Sincerely,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
    Attachment.
                           The Secretary of Transportation,
                                    Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your request for our 
answers to a number of questions on issues raised by H.R. 2803, 
the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1995. I am enclosing 
answers to each of your questions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
legislation. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, 
from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is 
no objection to providing these views for the consideration of 
Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Federico Pena.
    Enclosure.
    Question 1: The proponents of H.R. 2803 blame DOT for 
failing to implement the system by the statutory deadline of 
January 31, 1996. They argue that it is a lack of commitment on 
the part of DOT and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (``NHTSA'') which has prevented the system from 
coming on line in time to meet the deadline. Why has DOT failed 
to implement the system within the statutory period?
    Answer: It has not been possible to establish a national 
title information system because many issues have not been 
resolved: the key issues are state uniformity, states' ability 
to participate, and funding. In 1992, when Congress passed the 
Anti Car Theft Act, it set January 1996 as the date for the 
establishment of the National Automobile Title Information 
System. The purpose of the time period provided was to allow 
Congress sufficient time to consider and act on recommendations 
pertaining to titling uniformity among the states, among other 
issues. To obtain this information, Congress established the 
Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration and Salvage Task Force 
(section 140 of the Act), and mandated that the Task Force 
submit recommendations by April 1994 on Federal and state 
actions needed to address uniformity in state laws or motor 
vehicle titling, registration, and salvage. It was anticipated 
that Congress would review these recommendations and pass 
implementing legislation so that DOT would be able to establish 
the title information system by January 1996. Congress 
recognized that achieving titling uniformity among the states 
is a prerequisite to the establishment of an effective titling 
information system. Without consistent or uniform definitions 
of terms such as ``salvage vehicle,'' a multistate titling 
system simply cannot work. However, Congress has yet to resolve 
these issues.
    The Task Force submitted its report by the April 1994 
deadline. Shortly thereafter, the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) announced plans to conduct a 
pilot test of a title information system, using only state and 
private sector funds and resources. In the belief that this 
pilot test would provide information vital to the development 
of the national system, DOT submitted a legislative proposal to 
Congress in May 1994 to defer the January 1996 date for 
establishment of the national system. DOT urged enactment of 
this change at a September 1994 hearing, before the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness.
    A 1994 survey by AAMVA found that fewer than half the 
states believed they would be able to participate in a national 
title information system by January 1996. Section 203(b) of the 
1992 Theft Act required that DOT review, in cooperation with 
the states, the motor vehicle titling systems used by the 
states, to determine each state's costs of providing its 
titling information to a national motor vehicle title 
information system. AAMVA, under contract with DOT, surveyed 
the 50 states and the District of Columbia to obtain their 
estimated costs for providing this information. On January 31, 
1994, AAMVA reported that 38 states had responded to this 
survey, with estimated costs (on that date) ranging as high as 
$12.2 million per state. Only 17 of the 38 states (45%) 
responding to AAMVA's survey indicated that they could 
participate in a national title information system by January 
1996. The Congress has not addressed how the cost to the states 
of implementing this system would be funded.
    In November 1995, the DOT Appropriations Act for FY 1996 
(P.L. 104-50, Nov. 15, 1995) (``Act'') directed NHTSA to 
conduct a pilot study in conjunction with an organization 
representing the states to advance the development of a titling 
system. The Act provided $890,000 for the study. DOT views such 
a pilot study as a necessary first step in the development of a 
national system. For example, the technology required for such 
an interactive computer network, which must provide 
instantaneous responses to inquiries from state offices and the 
general public across the country, has never before been 
attempted.
    Question 2: It is the Committee's understanding that the 
Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration, and Salvage Advisory 
Committee, convened by NHTSA pursuant to the Act, reported 
concerns with the feasibility of a nationwide automobile title 
information system in its report and recommendations.
    a. What were those concerns?
    Answer: Contrary to the premise of the question, the 
advisory committee assumed that a title information system 
would be implemented and did not consider whether or not such a 
system would be feasible.The committee's mandate was to study 
problems related to multistate uniformity with respect to motor 
vehicle titling, registration, and motor vehicle salvage, not 
the feasibility of a title information system.
    b. If those concerns were not addressed, would the system 
be able to meet all of the minimum requirements of the system 
as described at 49 U.S.C. 30502(b)?
    Answer: The information requirements are in fact enumerated 
in subsection (d) of 49 U.S.C. 30502. DOT believes that the 
uniform definitions and motor vehicle titling procedures 
outlined in the advisory committee's recommendations would need 
to be implemented in all states before the minimum requirements 
of the title information system described in section 30502(d) 
could be met effectively.
    Question 3: The Committee understands that NHTSA received 
an appropriation in their fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill 
for a pilot program to begin implementation of the system.
    a. Please describe this pilot program, including the number 
of states involved, scope of the program, and its anticipated 
costs.
    Answer: NHTSA's FY 96 appropriation provides $890,000 for 
the development of a pilot test of a titling information 
system. We are in the preliminary stages of the pilot test 
development and have not yet determined the details. The number 
of pilot states needed has not been determined and the total 
anticipated costs are not yet projected. We envision that the 
scope of the pilot will test information exchanges among 
participating states by the use of several central site 
operators, housing various files such as the central pointer 
file, a title brand file, and a stolen vehicle file.
    b. How were the states chosen to participate in the 
program? Were they chosen at random or were there specific 
criteria used?
    Answer: We have not yet made these decisions.
    c. What does NHTSA expect to learn from this pilot program?
    Answer: Many factors need to be considered before a 
national system can be designed, developed, and implemented. 
Some factors include the characteristics and extent of 
uniformity in title definitions among states; costs associated 
to all parties; development time for a national system; system 
design and development issues; and the feasibility of a 
national system.
    The pilot program should assist in determining the 
feasibility of a national system. It will also assist in 
determining, from an operational perspective, what uniform 
titling requirements are needed for an efficient and cost-
effective system. We also expect the pilot test to help us 
determine the estimated costs for full implementation, assess 
the current status of titling information exchange among 
states, and identify what barriers might impede states in 
participating in a national system. The evaluations of the 
pilot test should also provide information on an estimated time 
frame for implementation of a titling system on a nationwide 
basis. The pilot system should be able to test the minimum 
functional capabilities required by section 202(b) of the Theft 
Act (49 U.S.C. 30502(d)).
    d. Why is a pilot program necessary? Why did NHTSA not 
simply proceed with the complete implementation of this system?
    Answer: The pilot program is necessary because the system 
called for by the Act would be extraordinarily complex. The 
technology required for an interactive computer network of the 
scope needed to implement the large-scale, instantaneous 
responses to inquiries of the system, as the Act requires, 
appears never before to have been attempted. This complexity 
may very well take additional time or call for additional 
resources above those currently estimated NHTSA believes it 
would be impractical to attempt the complete implementation of 
a system of this magnitude without first testing and evaluating 
the conceptual framework in ways designed to determine optimal 
designs for such a system.
    Finally, as we explained in our answer to Question 1, NHTSA 
could not proceed with the complete implementation of the 
system because of the absence of titling uniformity among the 
states.
    Question 4: Section 2 of H.R. 2803 changes the definition 
used in implementing the system from ``automobile'' as defined 
at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a) to ``motor vehicle,'' which is given the 
same meaning as ``passenger motor vehicle'' as defined at 49 
U.S.C. 32101(10). In DOT's opinion.
    a. What are the differences between the two definitions?
    Answer: The differences between the definitions cited here 
for ``automobile'' and ``motor vehicle'' are, practically 
speaking, very minor. Both definitions include passenger motor 
vehicles and light trucks, the former by using gross vehicle 
weight as the defining factor, and the latter by using design 
for a maximum number of passengers as the defining factor.
    ``Automobile,'' as defined by section 32901(a), means: ``a 
4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative 
fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, 
and highways (except a vehicle operated only on a rail line), 
and rated at--
          ``(A) not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle 
        weight; or
          ``(B) more than 6,000, but less than 10,000, pounds 
        gross vehicle weight, if the Secretary decides by 
        regulation that--
          ``(i) an average fuel economy standard under this 
        chapter for the vehicle is feasible; and
          ``(ii) an average fuel economy standard under this 
        chapter for the vehicle will result in significant 
        energy conservation or the vehicle is substantially 
        used for the same purposes as a vehicle rated at nor 
        more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.''
    ``Motor vehicle,'' which has the same meaning as 
``passenger motor vehicle'' as defined by section 32101(10) 
means: ``a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry 
not more than 12 individuals, but does not include--
          ``(A) a motorcycle, or
          ``(B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its 
        operator or passengers.''
    b. What are the possible effects on the system should this 
change be adopted?
    Answer: If this change were adopted, there would be no 
effect on the system.
    c. Is this definitional change necessary to meet any real 
or perceived need in implementing the provisions of the Act?
    Answer: No.
    Question 5: Section 4 of H.R. 2803 moves authority for 
implementing the system from DOT to the Department of Justice 
(``DOJ'').
    a. Do you believe that DOJ is better qualified to implement 
a system designed to track automobile title information than 
DOT?
    Answer: We do not believe either Department is necessarily 
better qualified to implement a title information system. 
Section 4 of H.R. 2803 would put the responsibility for both 
the stolen passenger motor vehicle information system and the 
title information system under the management of one agency. 
Current law gives responsibility for the former system to the 
Department of Justice and the latter system to Department of 
Transportation. We do not object to the concept of a transfer 
of primary responsibility for operating the title information 
system from the Department of Transportation to the Department 
of Justice.
    b. What expertise and resources has DOT developed that 
might be lost if authority for implementing the system were 
moved to DOJ?
    Answer: Very little, if any, expertise and resources that 
DOT has developed in furtherance of the establishment of a 
national motor vehicle title information system would be lost. 
Any information NHTSA receives from the pilot test, discussed 
in our answer to Question 3, could be transferred to another 
agency, although such a transfer could cause delays in 
implementation of the title system.
    Question 6: Sections 5 and 6 of H.R. 2803 provide a broad 
immunity to civil liability for ``any person'' involved in the 
implementation of the system.
    a. What is DOT's opinion of the effect of this provision?
    Answer: Sections 5 and 56 of bill provide for immunity from 
civil liability for any person performing any activity in good 
faith and with the reasonable belief that such activity was in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sections 30502-30504 and 33109-33111. 
We do not object to these immunity provisions.
    b. Are you aware of similar immunity provisions in other 
statutes? Under what circumstances are they used?
    Answer: We are not aware of any similar immunity provisions 
with respect to information systems managed by DOT. The 
National Driver Register (NDR) statute (chapter 303 of title 
49, U.S.C.), however, does protect the Secretary against any 
action related to the transmission of inaccurate information, 
in relaying the NDR's problem driver information to an 
inquiring state. Section 30302(b), ``Accuracy of Information,'' 
states:

          The Secretary is not responsible for the accuracy of 
        information relayed to the chief driver licensing 
        official of a participating State. However, the 
        Secretary shall maintain the Register in a way that 
        ensures against inadvertent alteration of information 
        during a relay.

    c. Does DOT believe that an immunity provision is necessary 
to proceed with implementation of the system?
    Answer: We believe it would be appropriate to include a 
provision protecting the operator of the system against any 
action related to the transmission of inaccurate information. 
That language would be similar to the provision of the National 
Driver Register statute, cited above in answer to Question 6b.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                     Washington, DC, June 12, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Tom: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 29, 
1996, regarding amendments to H.R. 2803, the Anti-Car Theft 
Improvements Act of 1996, which was ordered by the Committee on 
the Judiciary on April 24, 1996.
    Our committees have had a history of working together on 
automobile titling issues, such as those included in H.R. 2803, 
and I appreciate your cooperation in expediting the 
consideration of H.R. 2803 by the full House. Your letter, and 
this response, will be included as part of the Committee's 
report on H.R. 2803.
    Thank you for your assistance in bringing forward this 
important legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                           Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                         Section 1. Short Title

    This section states that the short title of the bill is the 
``Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1995.''

                         Section 2. Definitions

    This section amends section 30501(1) of title 49, United 
States Code, to change the term ``motor vehicle'' to have the 
same meaning as the term ``passenger motor vehicle'' as defined 
in section 32101(10). This definition would apply only to the 
system name and the general description of its purpose in 49 
U.S.C. 30502(a)(1). The definition clarifies that the system 
would not be required to include heavy trucks, but would 
include light trucks and vans.

             Section 3. System Name and Implementation Date

    This section postpones the new system implementation date 
from January 31, 1996 to October 1, 1997. The section also 
strikes the term ``Automobile'' as it appears in Section 
30502(a)(1) and replaces it with the term ``Motor Vehicle.'' 
This change restores the name that Congress gave the system in 
the 1992 Anti-Car Theft Act. It changes the name from the 
``National Automobile Title Information System'' (which was a 
non-substantive change made in the 1994 recodification of Title 
49, Public Law 103-272) back to the ``National Motor Vehicle 
Title Information System'' (the name provided in Public Law 
102-519). This definition would apply only to the system name 
and the general description of its purpose in section 
30502(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code.

                   Section 4. Delegation of Authority

    This section transfers federal authority to implement the 
vehicle titling system from the Secretary of Transportation to 
the Attorney General. The Attorney General is to consult with 
the Secretary of Transportation in promulgating regulations and 
implementing the system.

                  Section 5. Title Information System

    This section grants limited immunity from civil action to 
persons responsible for operating the National Motor Vehicle 
Titling Information System.

              Section 6. Stolen Vehicle Information System

    This section grants limited immunity from civil action 
persons responsible for operating the Stolen Vehicle 
Information System.

                      Section 7. Grants to States

    This section removes limits established in the 1992 Act on 
federal grants to States to enable States to make necessary 
software changes. This section also authorizes appropriations 
for the grant program.

                              Agency Views

     The Committee received a letter from the U.S. Department 
of Justice providing Administration views on H.R. 2803, the 
``Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1995,'' and other bills. 
This letter addressed the pertinent issues presented as 
follows:

                             Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                     Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
Hon. Bill McCollum,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
        Representatives Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to respond to your request 
for the Department of Justice's views on a number of bills the 
Subcommittee will soon consider. Our views are provided below.

               H.R. 2803--Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act

    This bill would amend 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 30501-30505 so as 
to transfer primary responsibility for the operation of the 
National Automobile Title Information System (NATIS) from the 
Secretary of Transportation to the Attorney General. The bill 
also would expand the scope of the system to include 
``passenger motor vehicles'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 32101(10), as well as ``automobiles'' as defined in 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 32901(a). Accordingly, the bill would change the 
name of the system to the National Motor Vehicle Title 
Information System.
    In our view, an effective motor vehicle titling information 
system would deter auto theft by reducing the opportunity for 
car thieves to buy the ``junk,'' ``salvage,'' ``rebuilt'' or 
other branded titles to wrecked automobiles, switch the VIN 
plates from the wrecks to similar make/model stolen 
automobiles, and then obtain apparently clean or ``washed'' 
titles to the stolen vehicles in other jurisdictions. The 
system also would deter consumer fraud by preventing 
unscrupulous auto-rebuilders from obtaining clean or ``washed'' 
titles to rebuilt wrecks.
    The Department of Justice does not object to the concept of 
a transfer of primary responsibility for operating NATIS from 
the Secretary of Transportation to the Attorney General. 
However, we understand that the Department of Transportation, 
in cooperation with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, is conducting a pilot study of the system. In 
view of the ongoing pilot study, a transfer of primary 
responsibility for operating the system at this time may be 
counterproductive and could cause delays in implementation. We 
further understand that implementation of the system has been 
impeded by lack of funding. We assume that a transfer of 
primary responsibility for the operation of NATIS to the 
Attorney General will include funding adequate to establish an 
effective system.
    Sections 5 and 6 of the bill provide for immunity from 
civil liability for any person performing any activity in good 
faith and with the reasonable belief that such activity was in 
accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 30502-30504 and 33109-
33111. We support these immunity provisions.
            Sincerely yours,
                                               Andrew Fois,
                                        Assistant Attorney General.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                            PART A--GENERAL

          * * * * * * *

       CHAPTER 305--NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE TITLE INFORMATION SYSTEM

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 30501. Definitions

  In this chapter--
          (1) ``automobile'' has the same meaning given that 
        term in section 32901(a) of this title and ``motor 
        vehicle'' has the same meaning as the term ``passenger 
        motor vehicle'' has in section 32101(10).
          (2) ``certificate of title'' means a document issued 
        by a State showing ownership of an automobile.
          (3) ``insurance carrier'' means an individual or 
        entity engaged in the business of underwriting 
        automobile insurance.
          (4) ``junk automobile'' means an automobile that--
                  (A) is incapable of operating on public 
                streets, roads, and highways; and
                  (B) has no value except as a source of parts 
                or scrap.
          (5) ``junk yard'' means an individual or entity 
        engaged in the business of acquiring or owning junk 
        automobiles for--
                  (A) resale in their entirety or as spare 
                parts; or
                  (B) rebuilding, restoration, or crushing.
          (6) ``operator'' means the individual or entity 
        authorized or designated as the operator of the 
        National Automobile Title Information System under 
        section 30502(b) of this title, or the [Secretary of 
        Transportation] Attorney General, if there is no 
        authorized or designated individual or entity.
          (7) ``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.
          (8) ``salvage yard'' means an individual or entity 
        engaged in the business of acquiring or owning salvage 
        automobiles for--
                  (A) resale in their entirety or as spare 
                parts; or
                  (B) rebuilding, restoration, or crushing.
          (9) ``State'' means a State of the United States or 
        the District of Columbia.

Sec. 30502. National Automobile Title Information System

  (a) Establishment or Designation.--(1) In cooperation with 
the States and not later than [January 31, 1996] October 1, 
1997, the [Secretary of Transportation] Attorney General shall 
establish a National [Automobile] Motor Vehicle Title 
Information System that will provide individuals and entities 
referred to in subsection (e) of this section with instant and 
reliable access to information maintained by the States related 
to automobile titling described in subsection (d) of this 
section. However, if the [Secretary] Attorney General decides 
that the existing information system meets the requirements of 
subsections (d) and (e) of this section and will permit the 
[Secretary] Attorney General to carry out this chapter as early 
as possible, the [Secretary] Attorney General, in consultation 
with the [Attorney General] Secretary of Transportation, may 
designate an existing information system as the National 
[Automobile] Motor Vehicle Title Information System.
  (2) In cooperation with the [Attorney General] Secretary of 
Transportation and the States, the [Secretary] Attorney General 
shall ascertain the extent to which title and related 
information to be included in the system established under 
paragraph (1) of this subsection will be adequate, timely, 
reliable, uniform, and capable of assisting in efforts to 
prevent the introduction or reintroduction of stolen vehicles 
and parts into interstate commerce.
  (b) Operation.--The [Secretary] Attorney General may 
authorize the operation of the System established or designated 
under subsection (a)(1) of this section by agreement with one 
or more States, or by designating, after consulting with the 
States, a third party that represents the interests of the 
States.
  (c) User Fees.--Operation of the System established or 
designated under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall 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 under this 
subsection subject to annual appropriation 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.
  (d) Information Requirements.--The System established or 
designated under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall permit 
a user of the System at least 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 vehicle 
        identification number 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 section 32705 of this title 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 vehicle 
        identification number has been reported as a junk 
        automobile or a salvage automobile under section 30504 
        of this title.
  (e) Availability of Information.--(1) The operator shall make 
available--
          (A) to a participating State on request of that 
        State, information in the System about any automobile;
          (B) to a Government, State, or local law enforcement 
        official on request of that official, information in 
        the System about a particular automobile, junk yard, or 
        salvage yard;
          (C) to a prospective purchaser of an automobile on 
        request of that purchaser, including an auction company 
        or entity engaged in the business of purchasing used 
        automobiles, information in the System about that 
        automobile; and
          (D) to a prospective or current insurer of an 
        automobile on request of that insurer, information in 
        the System about that automobile.
    (2) The operator may release only the information 
reasonably necessary to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 
(1) of this subsection. The operator may not collect an 
individual's social security account number or permit users of 
the System to obtain an individual's address or social security 
account number.
  (f) Immunity.--Any person performing any activity under this 
section or sections 30503 or 30504 in good faith and with the 
reasonable belief that such activity was in accordance with 
this section or section 30503 or 30504, as the case may be, 
shall be immune from any civil action seeking money damages or 
equitable relief in any court of the United States or a State.

Sec. 30503. State participation

  (a) State Information.--Each State shall make titling 
information maintained by that State available for use in 
operating the National Automobile Title Information System 
established or designated under section 30502 of this title.
  (b) Verification Checks.--Each State shall establish a 
practice of performing an instant title verification check 
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 shall consist 
of--
          (1) communicating to the operator--
                  (A) the vehicle identification number of the 
                automobile for which the certificate of title 
                is sought;
                  (B) the name of the State that issued the 
                most recent certificate of title for the 
                automobile; and
                  (C) 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.
    (c) Grants to States.--(1) In cooperation with the States 
and not later than January 1, 1994, the [Secretary of 
Transportation] Attorney General shall--
          (A) conduct a review of systems used by the States to 
        compile and maintain information about the titling of 
        automobiles; and
          (B) determine for each State the cost of making 
        titling information maintained by that State available 
        to the operator to meet the requirements of section 
        30502(d) of this title.
    [(2) The Secretary may make grants to participating States 
to be used in making titling information maintained by those 
States available to the operator if--
          [(A) the grant to a State is not more than the lesser 
        of--
                  [(i) 25 percent of the cost of making titling 
                information maintained by that State available 
                to the operator as determined by the Secretary 
                under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection; or
                  [(ii) $300,000; and
          [(B) the Secretary decides that the grants are 
        reasonable and necessary to establish the System.]
    (2) The Attorney General may make reasonable and necessary 
grants to participating States to be used in making titling 
information maintained by those States available to the 
operator.
  (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than [January 1, 1997] 
October 1, 1998, the [Secretary] Attorney General shall report 
to Congress on which States have met the requirements of this 
section. If a State has not met the requirements, the 
[Secretary] Attorney General shall describe the impediments 
that have resulted in the State's failure to meet the 
requirements.

Sec. 30504. Reporting requirements

    (a) Junk Yard and Salvage Yard Operators.--(1) Beginning at 
a time established by the [Secretary of Transportation] 
Attorney General that is not sooner than the 3d month before 
the establishment or designation of the National Automobile 
Title Information System under section 30502 of this title, an 
individual or entity engaged in the business of operating a 
junk yard or salvage yard shall file a monthly report with the 
operator of the System. The report shall contain an inventory 
of all junk automobiles or salvage automobiles obtained by the 
junk yard or salvage yard during the prior month. The inventory 
shall contain--
          (A) the vehicle identification number of each 
        automobile obtained;
          (B) the date on which the automobile was obtained;
          (C) the name of the individual or entity from whom 
        the automobile was obtained; and
          (D) a statement of whether the automobile was crushed 
        or disposed of for sale or other purposes.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to an 
individual or entity--
          (A) required by State law to report the acquisition 
        of junk automobiles or salvage automobiles to State or 
        local authorities if those authorities make that 
        information available to the operator; or
          (B) issued a verification under section 33110 of this 
        title stating that the automobile or parts from the 
        automobile are not reported as stolen.
    (b) Insurance Carriers.--Beginning at a time established by 
the [Secretary] Attorney General that is not sooner than the 3d 
month before the establishment or designation of the System, an 
individual or entity engaged in business as an insurance 
carrier shall file a monthly report with the operator. The 
report may be filed directly or through a designated agent. The 
report shall contain an inventory of 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. The 
inventory shall contain--
          (1) the vehicle identification number of each 
        automobile obtained;
          (2) the date on which the automobile was obtained;
          (3) the name of the individual or entity from whom 
        the automobile was obtained; and
          (4) the name of the owner of the automobile at the 
        time of the filing of the report.
    (c) Procedures and Practices.--The [Secretary] Attorney 
General shall establish by regulation procedures and practices 
to facilitate reporting in the least burdensome and costly 
fashion.

Sec. 30505. Penalties and enforcement

    (a) Penalty.--An individual or entity violating this 
chapter is liable to the United States Government for a civil 
penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation.
    (b) Collection and Compromise.--(1) The [Secretary of 
Transportation] Attorney General shall impose a civil penalty 
under this section. The Attorney General shall bring a civil 
action to collect the penalty. The [Secretary] Attorney General 
may compromise the amount of the penalty. In determining the 
amount of the penalty or compromise, the [Secretary] Attorney 
General shall consider the appropriateness of the penalty to 
the size of the business of the individual or entity charged 
and the gravity of the violation.
    (2) The Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty 
imposed or compromised under this section from amounts it owes 
the individual or entity liable for the penalty.

                           PART B--COMMERCIAL

          * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 331--THEFT PREVENTION

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 33109.  National Stolen Passenger Motor Vehicle Information System

      (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Immunity.--Any person performing any activity under 
this section or section 33110 or 33111 in good faith and with 
the reasonable belief that such activity was in accordance with 
such section shall be immune from any civil action seeking 
money damages or equitable relief in any court of the United 
States or a State.
          * * * * * * *

                                
