The state Division of Motor Vehicles wants to do away with a new rule it says could tip off criminal suspects to pending police investigations.

During the last regular legislative session, lawmakers amended a DMV records rule to require the state to notify drivers any time it discloses personal information attached to driver’s licenses or vehicle titles.

Private and police investigators looking into fraud or other crimes have been particularly concerned with the provision.

They say notifying the subjects of inquiries could jeopardize the integrity of cases and could put people in danger, said Steve Dale, deputy DMV commissioner.

“We met with several private investigators in several meetings and they were very concerned with the provisions of that regulation,” Dale said.

Dale said it also would be very expensive and time consuming for the DMV to comply with the notification rule.

This month, DMV officials filed an emergency rule with the Secretary of State’s office repealing the provision. A proposed rule is out for public comment until Oct. 22. Lawmakers will have to approve the rule next year.

In the past, driver’s records were open to the public by request and could be retrieved through a computerized public access system, Dale said.

But in 2001, the state Legislature passed a driver’s confidentiality law. It was in response to a similar move by Congress, which in 1994 passed the Drivers Privacy Protection Act after a high profile murder case in California.

Rebecca Schaeffer, star of the 1980s sitcom “My Sister Sam,” was gunned down in 1989 by a deranged fan who had paid a private investigator money to track down the actress’ private home address through the California DMV.

The West Virginia DMV drafted rules to help its employees comply with the state law just last year, restricting public access to the information it stores.

Obtaining records is now complicated through forms and fees. Information requests can only be granted if the one requesting it has a legitimate purpose.

State employees can disclose information over the telephone about driver’s license and title status. But personal information about each driver is restricted.

The Legislature had a chance to go over those rules before they took effect this spring, and lawmakers added the controversial provision.

Under the amendment, if someone requests a driver’s information, the DMV has to notify the driver by letter, detailing who is asking and for what reason.

“That is something that was completely alien to us when that process was added to our rule,” Dale said.

After a year of complying with this, the DMV estimated it could spend $92,830 on the effort, according to a fiscal note attached to the emergency rule.

The DMV estimates that one inquiry on a vehicle title could result in up to 20 letters sent out to previous owners, insurers and lien holders.

Dale said he suspected the reason lawmakers amended the rule was to give at least some protection to drivers.

Under the rules, drivers do not have to be notified if information is obtained through sources other than the DMV, such as insurance companies, court subpoenas, court orders and law enforcement databases.

Dale said the DMV has consulted with several other states on how they handle notification. Dale said the majority do not notify drivers when people request information.