BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 647|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 647
Author: Yamada (D)
Amended: 7/9/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SEN. TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 10-0, 7/7/09
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 05/14/09 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicle titling information
SOURCE : Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Motor
Vehicles, by January 1, 2010, to comply fully with the
federal law creating and governing the National Motor
Vehicle Title Information Service.
ANALYSIS : The federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992
provided for the establishment of a national information
system to enable states and others to access vehicle
titling information. In 1996, Congress reauthorized the
act and gave the U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ)
responsibility for implementation and development of the
CONTINUED
AB 647
Page
2
system, which is known as the National Motor Vehicle Title
Information Service (NMVTIS).
The federal government created NMVTIS to:
1.Prevent the introduction and reintroduction of stolen
vehicles into interstate commerce.
2.Protect states, consumers, and others from fraud.
3.Reduce the use of stolen vehicles for illicit purposes,
including fundraising for criminal enterprises.
4.Provide consumer protection from unsafe vehicles.
The federal act allows a third party to operate the titling
system for the federal government. Since 1992, the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA) has acted in this role, operating NMVTIS under the
oversight of the US DOJ, AAMVA is the association of U.S.
and Canadian officials responsible for the administration
and enforcement of motor vehicle laws.
Currently, 28 states participate in NMVTIS, either by
supplying titling information to NMVTIS or by supplying
information and making it available to consumers who are
potential purchasers of vehicles. Fourteen states only
supply title information to NMVTIS, and 14 both supply and
allow consumer access to their information.
For a consumer to access NMVTIS information about a
particular vehicle's title and history, the consumer pays a
small fee ($2.50 in most instances) to one of several
private companies that provide access to NMVTIS records.
The DMV participates in NMVTIS only by supplying
information on its vehicle titling transactions through a
contract with a private entity that does not allow for
consumer access to the information.
This bill:
1.Requires, by January 1, 2010, that DMV be in full
compliance with the federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992
AB 647
Page
3
and the US DOJ rules governing NMVTIS.
2.Requires, by January 1, 2010, that DMV eliminate any
restrictions to consumer access to titling, branding, and
theft information provided by DMV to NMVTIS to ensure
that prospective vehicle purchasers have instant and
reliable access to California's data.
Background on California's Participation . In August 2007,
in response to requests from consumer groups, legislative
staff, AAMVA, and others, DMV agreed to participate in
NMVTIS. DMV's data management capabilities prevented it at
that time from exceeding this task with its own staff, so
DMV entered into the contract with R. L. Polk & Co., which
owns CARFAX, a business through which consumers can
purchase for about $30 per VIN the title, accident,
branding, and other information about a vehicle.
Typically, a consumer uses CARFAX's service when buying a
used car. CARFAX collects its information from various
sources, such as buying it from state motor vehicle
departments, including California's DMV.
DMV's Compliance with the Federal Act . US DOJ published
its final rules defining state requirements for compliance
on January 30, 2009. They require states to maintain at
least the level of participation they had established as of
January 1, 2009, which DMV has done. California titling
information is currently provided to NMVTIS on a weekly
basis. The US DOJ rules require this to be upgraded to a
daily update by January 2010, and DMV reports that it is
working to accomplish this change with existing resources.
DMV's current contract restricts access to California
records in NVVTIS, but DMV entered into this agreement
before US DOJ published the proposed rules to implement
NMVTIS in September of 2008. DMV representatives state
that DMV continues to do everything it can to ensure full
compliance with NMVTIS rules, including allowing direct
consumer access to California records housed in the
database, as quickly as possible.
DMV Current Contract to Submit Title Information . DMV
reports that it is trying to end its contract with R. L.
Polk in order that it may provide consumers with access to
the data it submits to NMVTIS. While the contract expires
AB 647
Page
4
in April of next year, DMV believes that it will be able to
terminate the contract before the end of this year. At
this time, DMV will begin submitting title information to
NMVTIS using its own employees. This bill requires that
DMV complete this task by January 1, 2010. Nonetheless,
the bill will not void or allow DMV to break the contract
with R. L. Polk in the event that DMV's efforts to
terminate the contract are successful.
Full Compliance . While DMV is on track to make its titling
information supplied to NMVTIS accessible to consumers by
January 1, 2010, DMV reports that it will be several years
before it provides and checks titling information in real
time with NMVTIS. DMV states that this is due to the
limitations of NMVTIS to accept the large amount of vehicle
title data California will supply to and demand from the
national system. Therefore, California's DMV will not be
in "full compliance" with the federal act until several
years form now.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/19/09)
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (source)
Consumer Affairs
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Watchdog
LKQ Corporation
North American Export Committee
Public Citizen
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/19/09)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office notes that
before NMVTIS, a thief could steal a car, take it over any
state line, and get a valid title by presenting fraudulent
ownership documentation or a VIN stolen from another car.
This was possible because states did not have an instant,
reliable way of validating the ownership information before
issuing a new title. NMVTIS provides this by tracking the
AB 647
Page
5
VIN, titles, and branding of vehicles across state liens.
This is still possible in states not participating in
NMVTIS.
The author's office asserts that California's DMV is in
violation of the federal Anti-Car Theft Act in that it bars
direct consumer access to NMVTIS. DMV supplies titling
information in weekly batches through an outside
contractor, R. L. Polk & Company. DMV's contract with this
firm precludes it from sharing the information provided to
NMVTIS, so California's titling information is not
available through NMVTIS to consumers. DMV's contract with
R. L. Polk is for two years and ends in April 2010.
Because of DMV's contract, Californians must pay a private
company up to $30 per inquiry to receive vehicle history
information, even though taxpayers have been financing the
development of NMVTIS since 1992. By lifting the consumer
access restriction, this bill will bring DMV into
compliance and allow potential car buyers to retrieve used
car history at a lower price.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance
opposes the bill unless it is amended to remove the
provision that requires DMV to be in full compliance with
NMVTIS by January ,1 2010. While regulations adopted by
the federal Department of Justice currently require this
compliance date, this deadline or compliance guidelines
could be modified. DMV points out that only 13 states
comply with both NMVTIS requirements to provide data to the
system and to query the system prior to issuing
registration documents to vehicles. Notwithstanding the
compliance deadline, the current NMVTIS information
technology system may not have sufficient capacity for all
states to be querying the data base by the current
deadline. Therefore, it may not be desirable to establish
an independent state statutory compliance deadline.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
AB 647
Page
6
Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Fuentes, Gaines, Garrick,
Saldana, Smyth, Bass
JJA:cm 8/19/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****