[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20925-20930]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-11]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 580

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0174; Notice 2]

Petition for Approval of Alternate Odometer Disclosure
Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The State of Texas has petitioned for approval of alternate
requirements to certain requirements under Federal odometer law. NHTSA
is issuing this final determination granting Texas's petition.

DATES: Effective Date: May 24, 2010. Request for reconsideration due no
later than June 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Requests for reconsideration must be submitted in writing to
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Requests should refer to the docket and notice number above.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew DiMarsico, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Federal odometer law, which is largely based on the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) \1\ and the Truth
in Mileage Act of 1986,\2\ as amended (TIMA), contains a number of
provisions to limit odometer fraud and assure that the purchaser of a
motor vehicle knows the true mileage of the vehicle. The Cost Savings
Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations
requiring the transferor (seller) of a motor vehicle to provide a
written statement of the vehicle's mileage registered on the odometer
to the transferee (buyer) in connection with the transfer of ownership.
This written statement is generally referred to as the odometer
disclosure statement. Further, under TIMA, vehicle titles themselves
must have a space for the odometer disclosure statement and States are
prohibited from licensing vehicles unless a valid odometer disclosure
statement on the title is signed and dated by the transferor. Titles
must also be printed by a secure printing process or other secure
process. TIMA also contains specific disclosure provisions on transfers
of leased vehicles. Federal law also contains document retention
requirements for motor vehicle dealers and lessors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat 947, 961 (1972).
    \2\ Pub. L. 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TIMA's motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements apply in a
State unless the State has alternative requirements approved by the
Secretary. The Secretary has delegated administration of the odometer
program to NHTSA. A State may petition NHTSA for approval of such
alternate odometer disclosure requirements.

    The State of Texas has petitioned NHTSA for approval of alternate
odometer disclosure requirements under TIMA. The Texas Department of
Transportation proposes a paperless electronic title transfer scheme,
described more fully in section IV, similar to the Commonwealth of
Virginia's alternate odometer disclosure program, approved by NHTSA on
January 2, 2009. 74 FR 643, 650 (January 7, 2009). Texas's proposal
would not apply to, or in lieu of the provisions of Federal odometer
law related to, leased vehicles, disclosures by power of attorney where
the title is held by a lien holder, or transactions involving at least
one out-of-State party.
    NHTSA initially determined that Texas's proposal satisfied Federal
odometer law with limited exceptions, and preliminarily decided to
grant Texas' petition on the condition that it amend its program or
demonstrate that it meets the requirements of Federal law. See 74 FR
59503 (November 18, 2009). To gain approval, Texas had to demonstrate
that its program provides transferees a means for obtaining a paper
title complying with TIMA's requirements,\3\ incorporates the ``brand''
requirement in its electronic titling process (the brand states whether
the odometer reflects the actual mileage, reflects the mileage in
excess of the designated odometer limit or differs from the actual
mileage and should not be relied upon) \4\ and permits dealers to
satisfy their obligation under Federal law to retain copies of odometer
disclosure statements that they issue or receive.\5\ After careful
consideration of comments, and the entire record, NHTSA has determined
to grant Texas's petition. NHTSA's final determination analysis is set
forth below in Section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Cost Savings Act, as
added by TIMA, recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b)(3)(A)(i) and 49 CFR
580.4.
    \4\ See Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act, recodified at 49
U.S.C. 32705, and 49 CFR 580.5(e).
    \5\ See Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act, recodified at 49
U.S.C. 32705, and 49 CFR 580.8(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Background

    NHTSA reviewed the statutory background of Federal odometer law in
its consideration and approval of Virginia's petition for alternate
odometer disclosure requirements. See 73 FR 35617 (June 24, 2008) and
74 FR 643 (January 7, 2009). The statutory background of the Cost
Savings Act and TIMA, and the purposes behind TIMA, are discussed at
length in NHTSA's Final Determination granting Virginia's petition. 74
FR 643, 647-48. A brief summary of the statutory background of Federal
odometer law and the purposes of TIMA follows.
    In 1972, Congress enacted the Cost Savings Act, among other things,
to prohibit tampering of odometers on motor vehicles and to establish
certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the
sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers. See Public
Law 92-513, Sec.  401, 86 Stat. 947, 961-63 (1972). The Cost Savings
Act required that, under regulations to be published by the Secretary,
the transferor of a motor vehicle provide a written vehicle mileage
disclosure to the transferee, prohibited odometer tampering and
provided for enforcement. See Id. at Sec.  408, 86 Stat. at 947.\6\ In
general, the purpose for the disclosure was to assist purchasers to
know the true mileage of a motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In general, section 408 states that the Secretary shall
prescribe rules requiring any transferor of a motor vehicle to
provide a written disclosure to the transferee that includes the
cumulative mileage on the odometer and if the odometer reading is
known to be different than the miles the vehicle has actually
traveled, a statement that the actual mileage is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major shortcoming of the odometer provisions of the Cost Savings
Act was that they did not require that the odometer disclosure
statement be on the title. In a number of States, they were on separate
documents that could be altered easily or discarded and did not travel
with the title. See 74 FR 644. Consequently, the disclosure statements
did not necessarily deter odometer fraud employing altered documents,
discarded titles, and title washing. Id.
    Congress enacted TIMA in 1986 to address the Cost Savings Act's
shortcomings. It amended the Cost Savings Act to prohibit States from
licensing vehicles after transfers of ownership unless the new owner
(transferee) submitted a title from the seller (transferor) containing
the seller's signed and dated statement of the vehicle's mileage, as
previously required by the Cost Savings Act. See Public Law 99-579, 100
Stat. 3309 (1986); 74 FR 644 (Jan. 7, 2009). TIMA also prohibits the
licensing of vehicles, for use in any State, unless the title issued to
the transferee is printed using a secure printing process or other
secure process, indicates the vehicle mileage at the time of transfer
and contains additional space for a subsequent mileage disclosure by
the transferee when it is sold again. Id. Other provisions created
similar safeguards for leased vehicles.
    TIMA added a provision to the Cost Savings Act, allowing States to
have alternate requirements to those required under TIMA respecting the
disclosure of mileage, with the approval of the Secretary of
Transportation. It amended Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act to add a
new subsection (f) which provided that the requirements of subsections
(d) and (e)(1) respecting the disclosure of motor vehicle mileage when
motor vehicles are transferred or leased shall apply in a State unless
the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure
requirements approved by the Secretary. Subsection (f) further provided
that the Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage
disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary
determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose
of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may
be.
    In 1988, Congress amended section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act to
permit the use of a secure power of attorney in circumstances where the
title was held by a lienholder. The Secretary was required to publish a
rule to implement the provision. See Public Law 100-561 Sec.  40, 102
Stat. 2805, 2817 (1988), which added Section 408(d)(2)(C). In 1990,
Congress amended section 408(d)(2)(C) of the Cost Savings Act. The
amendment addressed retention of powers of attorneys by States and
provided that the rule adopted by the Secretary not require that a
vehicle be titled in the State in which the power of attorney was
issued. See Public Law 101-641 Sec.  7(a), 104 Stat. 4654, 4657 (1990).
    In 1994, in the course of the recodification of various laws
pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act,
as amended, was repealed, reenacted and recodified without substantive
change. See Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, 1048-1056, 1379, 1387
(1994). The odometer statute is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32701 et seq.
In particular, Section 408(a) of the Cost Savings Act was recodified at
49 U.S.C. 32705(a). Sections 408(d) and (e), which were added by TIMA
(and later amended), were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c). The
provisions pertaining to approval of State alternate motor vehicle
mileage disclosure requirements were recodified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(d).

III. Statutory Purposes

    As discussed above, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in
1986, contains a specific provision on approval of State alternate
odometer disclosure programs. Subsection 408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings
Act (recodified in 1994 to 49 U.S.C. 32705(d)) provides that NHTSA
``shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage

disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless [NHTSA] determines
that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the
disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be.''
(Subsections 408(d), (e) of the Cost Savings Act were recodified to 49
U.S.C. 32705(b) and (c)). In light of this provision, we now turn to
our interpretation of the purposes of these subsections, as germane to
Texas's petition.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Texas's petition does not address disclosures in leases or
disclosures by power of attorney. In view of the scope of Texas's
petition, Texas will continue to be subject to current Federal
requirements as to leases and disclosures by power of attorney, and
we do not address the purposes of the related provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our Final Determination granting Virginia's petition for alternate
odometer disclosure requirements, after notice and comment, identified
the purposes of TIMA germane to petitions for approval of certain
alternate odometer disclosure requirements.\8\ 74 FR 643, 647-48
(January 7, 2009). We restated these purposes in the notice of initial
determination on the Texas petition, and provided an opportunity for
comment. See 74 FR at 59503, 59505. We did not receive any comment on
them. We ratify our previous adoption of the TIMA statutory purposes,
which are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Since Virginia's program did not cover disclosures in leases
or disclosures by power of attorney, the purposes of Sections
408(d)(2)(C) and 408(e) of the Cost Savings Act, as amended, were
not germane and were not addressed in the notice approving the
Virginia program. See 74 FR 647 n. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One purpose of TIMA was to assure that the form of the odometer
disclosure precluded odometer fraud. To prevent odometer fraud
facilitated by disclosure statements that were separate from titles,
TIMA required mileage disclosures to be on a secure vehicle title
instead of a separate document. These titles also had to contain space
for the seller's attested mileage disclosure and a new disclosure by
the purchaser when the vehicle was sold again. This discouraged mileage
alterations on titles and limited opportunities for obtaining new
titles with lower mileage than the actual mileage.
    A second purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes
and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the
title a condition of the application for a title, and a requirement for
the title issued by the State. This provision was intended to eliminate
or significantly reduce abuses associated with lack of control of the
titling process.
    Third, TIMA sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles
and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. In
furtherance of these purposes, in the context of paper titles, under
TIMA, the title must be set forth by means of a secure printing process
or protected by ``other secure process.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Congress intended to encourage new technologies by including
the language ``other secure process.'' The House Report accompanying
TIMA noted that ```other secure process' is intended to describe
means other than printing which could securely provide for the
storage and transmittal of title and mileage information.'' H.R.
Rep. No. 99-833, at 33 (1986). ``In adopting this language, the
Committee intends to encourage new technologies which will provide
increased levels of security for titles.'' Id. See also Cost Savings
Act, as amended by TIMA, Sec.  408(d), recodified at 49 U.S.C.
32705(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another purpose was to create a record of vehicle mileage and a
paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record and paper trail
were to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism
for tracing odometer tampering and prosecuting violators. TIMA's
requirement that new applications for titles include the prior owner's
signed mileage disclosure statement on the title creates a permanent
record that is easily checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement
officials. This record provides critical snapshots of the vehicle's
mileage at every transfer, which are the fundamental links of this
paper trail.
    Finally, the general purpose of TIMA was to protect consumers by
assuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's
actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures.

IV. The Texas Program

    As explained in NHTSA's initial determination, Texas proposes an
electronic title transfer system and to maintain electronic records of
titles in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Division of
Vehicle Title and Registration (VTR) computer system. 74 FR 59503.
According to Texas's petition, the ``title'' will exist as an
electronic record with the TxDOT, but ``hard'' copies of the title can
be generated if needed. The scope of its program is limited; Texas does
not have alternate disclosure requirements for leased vehicles,
disclosures of odometer statements by power of attorney for vehicles
subject to a lien holder, or transactions involving at least one out-
of-State party. Accordingly, this final determination does not address
odometer disclosure requirements germane to those transactions.
    The petition also states that the proposed system would require
sellers to accurately disclose vehicle mileage and allow buyers to
record, view and acknowledge receipt of the disclosure through a secure
on-line transaction with TxDOT using the TexasOnline Authentication
Service (TOAS). TOAS is described as a secure identity verification
service that establishes electronic signatures \10\ by authenticating
individuals against a database. TOAS allows TexasOnline to collect user
data, which is then matched against four personal data elements and two
forms of identification in the TexasOnline Authentication Database
(TOAD) \11\ to authenticate and verify the identity of the user. TOAD
data elements include: A Texas driver license or identification card
number, current driver license or identification card audit number,
date of birth, and the last four digits of the individual's social
security number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``electronic signature'' means an electronic
sound, symbol or process, attached to or logically associated with a
contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with
the intent to sign the record. 15 U.S.C. 7006(5) (2004).
    \11\ Currently, TexasOnline permits users to perform several
services online, such as renewal of driver licenses, voter
registration address changes, and ordering driving records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A purchaser or seller cannot access the proposed electronic title
system unless the purchaser's or seller's identity, and status as a
Texas resident, holding a valid Texas driver's license or
identification card, is authenticated by TOAS. Therefore, the Texas
petition asserts that out-of-state parties would be unable to initiate
an electronic title transfer in an on-line transaction with TxDOT.
    Under Texas's proposal, completing a motor vehicle sale would
require that the seller (transferor) and the purchaser (transferee)
perform several steps. First, the seller's identity must be
authenticated using TOAS. Once authenticated, the seller can access the
TxDOT VTR Registration and Titles System (VTR system). The seller then
selects a ``transfer of ownership'' transaction and enters the Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN). The vehicle's information is automatically
populated on the screen. The transferor is prompted to enter the
vehicle sales price and odometer reading.\12\ After these data are
entered, the VTR system will provide the transferor with a unique
transaction number. The transferor must provide the unique transaction
number to the transferee to complete the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Texas's initial petition did not address the brand
requirement. See 49 CFR 590.5(e). In response to NHTSA's initial
determination, Texas submitted comments stating that it will
continue to indicate/show the odometer reading and brand on paper
titles and maintain an electronic record of the odometer reading and
the brand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction would remain in ``pending'' status until the
transferee logs on to complete the transfer of ownership transaction.
Meanwhile, the VTR system would automatically check the odometer
reading entered by the transferor against VTR odometer records. If the
odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower than in the State's
records, the transaction will be immediately rejected.
    Once transferees log on to TexasOnline and are authenticated, TOAS
will transfer them to the TxDOT VTR system where they can select
``vehicle transfer of ownership'' and enter the unique transaction
number obtained from the transferor. The transferee must enter the
correct transaction number to continue. Once access is obtained, the
transferee would verify the sales price, odometer reading and brand
entered by the transferor. If all the data entered by the transferor
are verified and acknowledged as correct by the transferee, ownership
of the vehicle would pass to the transferee and an electronic title
record would be established by the VTR system. The VTR system would
then contact the transferor and request that the transferor's original
paper title be mailed to the VTR for destruction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to the Texas petition, the previous title,
regardless if it were electronic or paper, would be superseded by
the ``new'' electronic title. The ``old'' title is invalidated in
the VTR system and would be unable to transfer title in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the transferee does not agree with the information entered by
the transferor, then the VTR system will reject the transaction. The
transferor will have the opportunity to correct the sales price and
odometer reading for the rejected transaction. The transferee would
then re-verify the information to ensure its accuracy. A second
discrepancy would result in cancellation of the electronic transaction.
    Texas's petition states that the same process, along with
additional safeguards, will be used in dealer assignments and
reassignments of vehicle ownership. According to Texas, such safeguards
include requiring the dealership to notify VTR of the employees
authorized to do titling activities for the dealership.\14\ This
authorization will be stored in the TxDOT VTR system. To complete a
transaction, the authorized employee will be required to enter his or
her authorization number and the dealer number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Texas's petition did not address the dealer retention
requirements as set forth in 49 CFR 580.8(a). In response to NHTSA's
initial determination, Texas submitted comments stating that dealers
will be provided with a paper or electronic record of any odometer
disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas asserts that its proposed alternate odometer disclosure is
consistent with Federal odometer law. As advanced by TxDOT, Texas's
alternative ensures that a fraudulent odometer disclosure can readily
be detected and reliably traced to a particular individual by providing
a means for TxDOT to validate and authenticate individual identities
through electronic signatures. As described above, the parties'
electronic signatures are established and their identities
authenticated through the four TOAD data elements: Texas driver's
license or identification card number, driver's license or
identification card audit number, date of birth, and the last four
digits of social security number. TOAS then verifies the identity of
the transferor and transferee through the submission of the required
information. To conduct any transaction, both the transferor and
transferee will have to authenticate their identity by submitting the
correct data elements.
    Texas also asserts that its proposal provides a level of security
equivalent to that of an existing disclosure on secure paper titles and
that on-line identity authentication acts in lieu of an actual
signature on the title. Furthermore, Texas states that the electronic
odometer disclosure provided by the transferor will be available to the
transferee at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred.
    The Texas petition maintains that the electronic record and
signature components of the proposal comport with the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), 15 U.S.C. 7001
et seq. Current State law permits the creation of electronic
certificates of title, but requires a paper certificate of title for
all transfers of vehicle ownership. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. Sec.
501.117. If its proposal were approved, Texas could pass pending
legislation that would implement its proposed electronic title system.

V. Summary of Public Comments

    NHTSA received comments from three entities: (1) The State of
Texas, (2) the Alabama Department of Revenue (Alabama), and (3) the
National Auto Auction Association (NAAA). In general, Alabama and NAAA
supported the Texas's petition.
    Texas's comments responded to NHTSA's requirements, in its initial
determination, that Texas meet certain conditions for approval of its
petition. Texas's comments respond to NHTSA's conditions that Texas
demonstrate that its program (1) enables transferees to obtain a paper
copy of the title that meets the requirements of TIMA, (2) permits
dealers to retain a copy of all odometer disclosures that they issue
and receive, and (3) requires disclosure of the brand, or demonstrates
that these requirements are met. Texas submitted comments that indicate
that the alternate odometer program will enable transferees to obtain a
paper copy of the title if requested by the owner or lien holder. In
addition, Texas stated that dealers will be provided with a paper or
electronic record of the odometer disclosure. Finally, Texas responded
that it will continue to require the odometer reading and brand on
paper titles and maintain electronic copies of the odometer reading and
brand.
    In addition to supporting Texas's petition, the State of Alabama
requests that NHTSA allow all states to enact similar disclosure
systems without the need to file separate petitions. Alabama adds that
it recently implemented an electronic title application system, but
must require paper as part of the process due, in part, to Federal
odometer law. In Alabama's view, NHTSA's authorization for electronic
titling will permit each State to determine its own method of secure
identification and title transfers between motor vehicle owners.
    NAAA raises a concern that the Texas title transfer system could be
an impediment for out-of-state wholesale purchasers and sellers because
Texas's system differs from other States' title transfer systems.

VI. NHTSA'S Final Determination

    In this part, NHTSA considers the Texas program in light of the
purposes of the disclosure required by subsection (d) of section 408 of
the Cost Savings Act.\15\ We also respond to comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Since Texas's program does not cover disclosures by power
of attorney or transfers involving leased vehicles, the purposes of
sections 408(d)(1)(c) and (e) of the Cost Savings Act as amended by
TIMA are not germane. Thus, Texas continues to be subject to all
Federal requirements that are not based on sections 408(d)(1)(A),
(B), and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, the standard is
that NHTSA ``shall'' approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure
requirements submitted by a State unless NHTSA determines that such
requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure
required by subsection (d) or (e) as the case may be. The purposes are
discussed above, as is the Texas alternate program.
    The State of Alabama and NAAA agreed with the initial
determination. Alabama also proposed that NHTSA authorize all states to
implement

electronic odometer disclosure so each state could determine its own
methodology for odometer disclosure. This approach is not within the
scope of Texas's petition or NHTSA's initial determination. NHTSA is,
therefore, unable to address such a request. In addition, while we
appreciate Alabama's view that NHTSA should provide a general
authorization for electronic odometer disclosure, the Cost Savings Act
does not authorize such an approach. The Cost Savings Act established
odometer disclosure requirements for general application. Alternate
odometer requirements in individual states are authorized under Section
408(f)(2), which requires individual state petitions.
    NAAA added that Texas's alternate program could create an
impediment for out-of-state wholesale purchasers and sellers who are
unaware of the electronic transfer requirements. These comments fall
outside of the scope of Texas's petition and do not implicate whether
or not Texas's proposed alternate requirements are consistent with
TIMA's purposes. As a practical matter, NAAA would prefer uniform State
systems and that Texas's alternate electronic odometer program
accommodate practices in other States. That approach is not consistent
with TIMA's requirement that NHTSA approve individual State alternate
mileage disclosure requirements if statutory conditions are met.
    We now turn to whether the Texas program is consistent with TIMA's
purposes. As explained above, a purpose of TIMA is assuring that the
form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. NHTSA has
determined that Texas's proposed alternate disclosure requirements
satisfy this purpose. Under Texas's proposal, the ``title'' will reside
as an electronic record with the TxDOT, but a hard copy of the title
will be generated upon request. Texas's proposed system will,
therefore, continue to have the odometer disclosure on the virtual
``title'' itself, as required by TIMA, and not as a separate document.
As to TIMA's requirement that the title contain a space for the
transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, the Texas electronic
title contains a data element that is required for the transaction,
which is consistent with the space requirement. Hard copies of these
electronic titles will provide a separate space for owners to execute a
proper odometer disclosure in keeping with TIMA and current practice.
    Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent odometer fraud by processes
and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the
title a condition of the application for a title and a requirement for
the title issued by the State. NHTSA has determined that Texas's
proposed process satisfies this purpose. The proposed on-line title
transfer process requires disclosure of odometer information before the
transaction can be completed. One item of odometer information omitted
from Texas's initial submission was the statement whether the odometer
reflects the actual mileage or if the actual mileage is unknown,
commonly referred to as the ``brand.'' See 49 CFR 580.5(e). Texas's
comments indicate that its electronic disclosure requirements will
require the transferor to state the brand. Following the disclosure of
the odometer information and if the transaction is successful, the VTR
system will retain an electronic title, which includes a record of the
transaction and the odometer disclosure information. Once the
transaction is complete, transferors are instructed to mail the
existing title to the VTR for destruction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If the transferor does not return the existing title to
VTR, the existing title will be invalid once the vehicle transfers
to the transferee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations of disclosures on
titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes.
VTR's alternate disclosure requirements appear to be as secure as
current paper titles. Electronic recording of odometer readings and
disclosures decreases the likelihood of any subsequent odometer
disclosure being altered by erasures or other methods. As we understand
Texas's proposal, once the transaction is completed, the VTR system
stores an electronic version of the title unless the transferee
requests it.
    Under the VTR system, all subsequent transfers may be performed
through the on-line process. Each time an on-line transfer occurs, the
VTR system stores the electronic version of the title, and issues a
paper title only upon request. Since the title remains in electronic
form under State care and custody, the likelihood of an individual
altering, tampering or counterfeiting the title is significantly
decreased. These electronic records are maintained in a secure
environment and any attempted alteration would be detected by the
system. Finally, if a transferee requests a paper title, the VTR will
issue a paper title that complies with TIMA's requirements.
    Another purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on
vehicles and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record
trail are to better inform consumers and provide a mechanism to trace
odometer tampering and prosecute violators. In NHTSA's view, the
proposed electronic title transfer system will create a scheme of
records equivalent to the current ``paper trail'' now assisting law
enforcement in identifying and prosecuting odometer fraud. Under the
Texas proposal, creation of a paper trail starts with the establishment
of the electronic signatures of the parties. The system's procedures
for validating and authenticating the electronic signature of each
individual through TOAS and TOAD and the electronic signatures of the
transferor and transferee are reliable, readily detectable and can
easily be linked to particular individuals.\17\ Because using an
electronic signature employs data elements such as the Texas driver
license or identification card number, driver license or identification
card audit number, date of birth and last four digits of the
individual's social security number, the VTR system can validate and
authenticate such individual electronic signatures. This authentication
process also allows the VTR system to trace the individuals involved in
the transaction. Furthermore, Texas's comments indicate that the VTR
system will enable dealers to retain a paper or electronic copy of all
odometer disclosures that they issue and receive. The Texas system
meets the purposes of creating a paper trail since the VTR system will
have histories of odometer disclosures linked to individuals for each
title transfer. These electronic records will create an electronic
equivalent to a paper based system that will be equally valuable to law
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Electronic signatures are generally valid under applicable
law. Congress recognized the growing importance of electronic
signatures in interstate commerce when it enacted the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign). See Public
Law 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000). E-Sign established a general rule
of validity for electronic records and electronic signatures. 15
U.S.C. 7001. It also encourages the use of electronic signatures in
commerce, both in private transactions and transactions involving
the Federal Government. 15 U.S.C. 7031(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, TIMA's overall purpose is protecting consumers by assuring
that they receive valid representations of actual vehicle mileage at
the time of transfer. Here, Texas's proposed alternate disclosure
requirements include several characteristics that would assure that
representations of a vehicle's actual mileage would be as valid as
those found in current paper title transfers. These characteristics
include identity and residency authentication, an automatic system
check of the reported mileage against previously reported mileage, and

transferee verification of the data reported by the transferor.\18\ In
addition, by providing rapid access to records of past transfers, the
scheme proposed by Texas could potentially provide superior deterrence
to odometer fraud when compared to the current paper title system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Further protection is provided by the VTR system itself.
The system automatically cross references the odometer reading
entered by the transferor against the odometer reading on the VTR
system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower
than the mileage recorded in the VTR system, the VTR system will
immediately reject the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, and upon review of the entire record,
NHTSA hereby issues a final determination granting Texas's petition for
requirements that apply in lieu of the Federal requirements adopted
under section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act. Other requirements of the
Cost Savings Act continue to apply in Texas. NHTSA reserves the right
to rescind this determination in the event that future information
indicates, in operation, Texas's alternative requirements do not
satisfy one or more applicable requirements.

    Issued on: April 7, 2010.
David Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-8320 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4987]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01025]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0371; FRL-9932-58-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Rules, Public Notice and Comment Process, and Renumbering; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Utah on February 25, 2013, August 5, 2013, and March 5, 2014.
These submittals request SIP revisions to incorporate several changes
to Utah's rules, including the permit public notice and comment process
requirements, and renumbering for the ``Interstate Transport''
provisions. EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 29,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0371. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. Please see
the Direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Federal Register for detailed instruction on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments.
A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to
the direct final rule.
    If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further
action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA
will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule.
    EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information, please see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a distinct
provision of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. See the
information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which
is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal
Register.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 4, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the
Office of Federal Register on January 14, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2016-01025 Filed 1-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63193-63195]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22038]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0557; Project Identifier AD-2020-00541-E;
Amendment 39-21269; AD 2020-20-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-15-04
for certain General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2,
CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F,
CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-
80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-
80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-80C2L1F, and CF6-80C2K1F model
turbofan engines. AD 2018-15-04 required ultrasonic inspection (UI) of
high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 and stage 2 disks. This AD retains
the required inspections while expanding the population of affected HPT
disks. This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of an HPT stage 2
disk and the manufacturer's determination to expand the population of
affected HPT disks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 12, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 12,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: www.ge.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0557.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.govby searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0557; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Stevenson, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7132; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-15-04, Amendment 39-19336 (83 FR
43739, August 28, 2018) (``AD 2018-15-04''). AD 2018-15-04 applied to
certain GE CF6-80A, CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-
80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1,
CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-
80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-
80C2D1F, CF6-80C2L1F, and CF6-80C2K1F model turbofan engines. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2020 (85 FR 35024). The
NPRM was prompted by an uncontained failure of an HPT stage 2 disk and
the manufacturer's determination to expand the population of affected
HPT disks. The NPRM proposed to retain the required inspections of AD
2018-15-04, while expanding the population of affected HPT disks. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Update the No-Reporting Requirements

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the FAA update paragraph (h)
of this AD to include a no-reporting requirement with respect to
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3), of GE CF6-80A Service
Bulletin (SB) 72-0869 R02, dated May 29, 2019 (``GE SB 72-0869 R02'').
DAL reasoned that paragraph (h) of the NPRM contains a no-reporting
requirement for the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(2)(c)
and 3.A.(2)(f), of GE CF6-80C2 SB 72-1562 R04, dated May 29, 2019 (``GE
SB 72-1562 R04''); but fails to include a no-reporting requirement
associated with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3), of
GE SB 72-0869 R02.
    The FAA disagrees. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD requires a UI of the
HPT stage 1 and 2 disks on affected CF6-80C2 model turbofan engines
using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2), of GE SB 72-
1562 R04. Within paragraph 3.A.(2) of GE SB 72-1562 R04 are
instructions that include reporting certain information to GE.
Therefore, the FAA found it necessary to indicate in this AD that these
reporting instructions are not required. Paragraph (g)(2) of this AD
requires the use of paragraph 3.A.(2) of GE SB 72-0869 R02, which does
not include reporting instructions to perform the UI. This AD does not
require the use of paragraph 3.A.(3) of GE SB 72-0869 R02 and, as such,
the addition of a no-reporting requirement for that paragraph is
unnecessary.

Support for the AD

    The Boeing Company, FedEx Express, United Airlines Engineering, and
the Air Line Pilots Association, International, expressed support for
the AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed GE CF6-80C2 SB 72-1562 R04, dated May 29, 2019.
The SB describes procedures for UI of CF6-80C2 turbofan engine HPT
stage 1 and 2 disks. The FAA also reviewed GE CF6-80A SB 72-0869 R02,
dated May 29, 2019. The SB describes procedures for UI of CF6-80A
turbofan engine HPT stage 2 disks. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,512 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UI of HPT disk........................  10 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $850      $1,285,200
                                         hour = $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that are required based on the results of the inspection.
The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace CF6-80C2 HPT stage 1 disk.............  0.25 work-hours x $85 per hour =        $799,700     $799,721.25
                                                 $21.25.
Replace CF6-80C2 HPT stage 2 disk.............  0.25 work-hours x $85 per hour =         364,600      364,621.25
                                                 $21.25.
Replace CF6-80A HPT stage 2 disk..............  0.25 work-hours x $85 per hour =         344,000      344,021.25
                                                 $21.25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-15-04, Amendment 39-19336
(83 FR 43739, August 28, 2018); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-20-13 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-21269; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0557; Project Identifier AD-2020-00541-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 12, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-15-04, Amendment 39-19336 (83 FR 43739,
August 28, 2018).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-
80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-
80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-
80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-
80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-
80C2L1F, and CF6-80C2K1F model turbofan engines with high-pressure
turbine (HPT) disks with serial numbers listed in Tables 1 and 2 of
Appendix A in GE CF6-80C2 Service Bulletin (SB) 72-1562 R04, dated
May 29, 2019; and Table 1 of Appendix A in GE CF6-80A SB 72-0869
R02, dated May 29, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of an HPT stage 2
disk and the manufacturer's determination to expand the population
of affected HPT disks. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the HPT stage 1 disk (CF6-80C2 engines) and the HPT stage 2 disk
(CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A

engines). The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an
uncontained HPT disk release, damage to the engine, and damage to
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic
inspection (UI) for cracks in HPT stage 1 and stage 2 disks on the
CF6-80C2 turbofan engine at each piece-part exposure using the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2), of GE CF6-80C2 SB
72-1562 R04, dated May 29, 2019.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, perform a UI for cracks
in HPT stage 2 disks on the CF6-80A turbofan engine at each piece-
part exposure using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
3.A.(2), of GE CF6-80A SB 72-0869 R02, dated May 29, 2019.
    (3) If any disk fails the inspection required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD, replace the disk before further flight.

(h) No Reporting Requirements

    The reporting requirements specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(2)(f), of GE CF6-80C2
SB 72-1562 R04, dated May 29, 2019, are not required by this AD.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' of the HPT
stage 1 or stage 2 disk is the separation of that HPT disk from its
mating rotor parts within the HPT rotor module (thermal shield and
HPT stage 1 and stage 2 disk, respectively).

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Scott Stevenson,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 Service Bulletin (SB)
72-1562 R04, dated May 29, 2019.
    (ii) GE CF6-80A SB 72-0869 R02, dated May 29, 2019.
    (3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: www.ge.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 24, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22038 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US

02/28/2008 10:26 AM

	To

	Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	cc

	Subject

	Fw: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487  Lead Compounds TSCA §8(d) Rule  - 73 FR
5109 (Jan. 29, 2008)

	----- Forwarded by Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US on 02/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US

02/28/2008 08:25 AM

	To

	"Votaw, James"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	cc

	Subject

	RE: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487  Lead Compounds TSCA §8(d) Rule  - 73 FR
5109 (Jan. 29, 2008)

The rule only applies to manufacturers and importers of consumer
products that are intended for use by children and that contain lead.
Purchasing a product domestically does not make you a manufacturer or,
necessarily, an importer.  You may want to review TSCA regulations
concerning who is an importer, however, which can be quite broad.  See,
for example, 40 CFR 707.20, the definition of importer in 40 CFR 704.3,
and EPA's TSCA importer webpages at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/imex.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/sect13.htm

Mike Mattheisen

Acting Branch Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

202-564-3077

"Votaw, James"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
02/27/2008 05:44 PM

	To

	Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	cc

	Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	Subject

	RE: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487  Lead Compounds TSCA §8(d) Rule  - 73 FR
5109 (Jan. 29, 2008)

Dear Mr. Mattheisen,

Thank you very much for this response.  It does not, however, appear to
address my first question (below), which, stated otherwise, is whether
it is ONLY persons who import lead and lead compounds that are in, or
part of, articles that are consumer products intended for use by
children that potentially must report (e.g., would a company that
imports lead-free toys, but also imports lead-containing car batteries
need to search its files for otherwise responsive lead studies
concerning, e.g., domestically purchased toys?).

Thank you.

James G. Votaw

WilmerHale

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20006 USA

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (t)

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (f)

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (c)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:53 PM

To: Votaw, James

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject: Fw: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487 Lead Compounds TSCA §8(d) Rule - 73
FR 5109 (Jan. 29, 2008)

Mr. Votaw, below are answers that EPA recently gave to four questions
that were submitted by another correspondent on the same general subject
as your questions.  These answers address your questions in general and
provide additional clarification and guidance.  To address your third
question specifically, studies that do not show any measurable lead
content do not have to be reported.

   Persons who must submit include importers of lead and lead compounds

   that are in, or part of, articles that are consumer products intended

   for use by children.  The phrase "intended for use by children" is

   defined in 40 CFR 710.43.

[....]

Mike Mattheisen

Acting Branch Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

202-564-3077

----- Forwarded by Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US on 02/14/2008 03:52 PM -----

             "Votaw, James"

             <James.Votaw@wil

             merhale.com>                                            To

                                      Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

             02/14/2008 03:11                                        cc

             PM

                                                                Subject

                                      EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487  Lead

                                      Compounds TSCA §8(d) Rule  - 73

                                      FR 5109 (Jan. 29, 2008)

Dear Mr. Nash,

As we briefly discussed, I would be grateful if would advise me of the
Agency's view on three questions raised by the recent TSCA §8(d) rule
for lead and lead compounds:

(1) Given the final rule text at 40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(i), would a firm be
subject to obligations to search for and to submit covered studies (if

any) if that firm:  (a) imports only lead-free products "intended for
use by children," but (b) otherwise also imports other products, not
"intended for use by children," that do contain measurable lead (e.g.,
car batteries or paint with very low levels of lead)?

(2)  Would the unpublished results of a simple product-content test
analyzing for the potential presence of lead in a product "intended for
use by children" (other than children's metal jewelry) constitute a
reportable "health and safety study"?

(3)  Given that studies "relat[ing] to the lead content" of a product
can be negative, and the language of  40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(ii)
(identifying "studies showing any measurable lead content" as
reportable), would a study showing the absence of lead in a product
(negative result) constitute a reportable "health and safety study"?

Thank you.

James G. Votaw

WilmerHale

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20006 USA

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (t)

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (f)

+1<PHONE_NUMBER> (c)

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 54648]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21546]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting
of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R, E&D) Advisory
Committee.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME: Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee.

TIME AND DATE: September 26, 2012--9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

PLACE: JMA Solutions, 600 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 400E, Washington,
DC 20024.

PURPOSE: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the Committee
guidance for FAA's research and development investments in the areas of
air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and
environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public but
seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the meeting or obtain
information should contact Gloria Dunderman at<PHONE_NUMBER> of
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Members of the public may present a written
statement to the Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2012.
Catherine A. Bigelow,
Manager, Research and Development Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-21546 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M