INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

OMB-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR & RADIATION

A.	JUSTIFICATION

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

a.	Title:   Recordkeeping and Reporting for Diesel Fuel Produced by
Transmix Processors.

EPA Number:      2463.01

b. Short characterization:

	With this proposed information collection request (ICR), the Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR) is seeking permission to collect information
related to diesel fuel produced by transmix processors.  “Transmix”
is a mixture of finished fuels, such as pipeline interface, that no
longer meets the specifications for a fuel that can be used or sold
without further processing.  “Pipeline interface” means the mixture
of different fuels that abut each other during pipeline shipment.  The
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements apply to producers of
fuels from transmix, as well as parties who take custody to these fuels.
 The associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements are proposed to
include:

Submission of a compliance plan by transmix processors;

Submission of necessary updates to that compliance plan; and

Initial programming and use of product transfer document (PTD) codes by
transmix processors and other parties who handle transmix in the
distribution system.

	There are no associated registration requirements as a result of this
proposal, since all known transmix processors are already registered
with EPA as “refiners” and are not required to take any additional
action.  Furthermore, as refiners subject to the existing diesel
regulations, transmix processors are already required to test diesel
fuel for sulfur.  Recordkeeping and reporting associated with that
activity has been accounted for under EPA’s diesel fuel program ICR,
OMB number 2060-0308 (renewal pending).

	Specifically, EPA is proposing the following amendments are to the
following sections in 40 CFR Part 80:

Section	Description

80.511(b)(4)	Amended to allow for the production and sale of 500-ppm
locomotive and marine (LM) diesel fuel produced from transmix past 2014.

80.513 (entire section)	Amended to allow for the production and sale of
500-ppm LM diesel fuel produced from transmix past 2014.

80.572(d)	Amended to extend 500ppm LM diesel fuel label past 2012.

80.597(d)(3)(ii)	Amended to include 500-ppm LM diesel fuel in the list
of fuels that an entity may deliver or receive custody of past June 1,
2014.

2.  Need For, and Use of, the Collection

Authority for the Collection

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
42 U.S.C. §§ 7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and
reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the
CAA.  The relevant regulations are in 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of
Fuels and Fuel Additives.

	b. Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

	The reported data will enable EPA to:

	1)  Process compliance plans from transmix producers.

	2)  Ensure that diesel fuel made from transmix meets the standards
required under the regulations at 40 CFR Part 80, and that the
associated benefits to human health and the environment are realized.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria

	a.  Non-duplication

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication
in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements
from various organizations within the Agency have been combined to
minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats.
The information in this collection will not be available from another
source.

	b.	Public Notice

	EPA will submit the ICR to OMB for review, along with the notice of
proposed rulemaking.  This proposed supporting statement is being
docketed in order to permit interested parties to fully comment upon the
performance-based approach and the recordkeeping and reporting costs
associated with it.

	c. 	Consultations

	EPA is providing an opportunity for notice and comment regarding the
proposed rule and this proposed supporting statement.  We anticipate
that the notice of proposed rulemaking and the proposed information
collection will generate comments from interested parties.  We will
consider these comments in generating a supporting statement for
submission to OMB in connection with the final rule.

	d. 	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

	  For most items in this proposed information collection, the frequency
of response is determined by the submitter.

	e.	General Guidelines

	This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines.

	f. 	Confidentiality

	EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business
confidentiality for any or all of the information they submit.
Information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with
40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency procedures.  The template for
qualification that we use for diesel sulfur permits a party to clearly
assert a claim of business confidentiality on the actual submission.  We
anticipate developing a similar form for this approach when it is
finalized.  Information that is received without a claim of
confidentiality may be made available to the public without further
notice to the submitter under 40 CFR § 2.203.

g.	Sensitive Information

	Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be
treated as confidential information in accordance with the procedures
outline in 40 CFR Part 2.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

	a.	Respondents/SIC Codes

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The respondents to this information collection
are:

Refiners who produce diesel fuel from transmix (i.e., transmix
processors)

Parties in the distribution chain who handle diesel fuel made from
transmix (e.g., distributors, carriers)

	Recordkeeping and reporting are required by the following industries,
with SIC Code/2002 NAICS Code indicated in parentheses:  refiners
(2911/324110), [and petroleum marketers and other distributors (5171,
5172/424710, 424720).

	b.	Information Requested

		In order to qualify a test method, the following information must be
provided to the Agency

		A)	Reporting:  Respondents who produce diesel fuel from transmix
(i.e., transmix processors) must submit to EPA in order to have a
compliance plan approved.  Other reporting is related to PTDs, which are
used in the normal course of business by all parties in the petroleum
distribution system already.

		B)	Recordkeeping:  Under the existing diesel fuel regulations,
respondents must retain underlying records for five (5) years.  This
time period is consistent with the required record retention for all 40
CFR Part 80 fuels programs.

5.  The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

a.	Agency Activities

EPA will review compliance plans and updates that are submitted.

Data will be stored.

b. 	Collection and Methodology and Management

	Compliance plans will be submitted by transmix producers in accordance
with the regulations.  A common form is not feasible, since the content
of the submission may vary from respondent to respondent.  PTDs are used
in the normal course of business.  EPA may ask to review a party’s
PTDs, but does not routinely collect them.

c.	Small Entity Flexibility

	This collection will not adversely affect small entities.

d.	Collection Schedule

	The collection schedule for this information collection is largely
driven by the respondent.  Refiners are required to submit a compliance
plan only if they wish to produce diesel fuel from transmix.  PTDs are
used by parties in the distribution chain in the normal course of
business; the frequency of PTDs indicating diesel-from-transmix has been
estimated for this ICR, but the actual frequency will be driven by the
parties and by demand for the product.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection

a.	We drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the
same entities to develop estimates of the burden associated with this
collection.  We estimate that 25 refiners will produce diesel fuel from
transmix and will be required to submit compliance plans.  We estimate
that 150 additional parties (e.g., distributors, carriers) will handle
the product and be subject to the PTD requirements. Of these 150
additional parties who distribute and carry the fuel, we estimate that
45% of the volume distributed/carried will be by barge, 45% will be by
rail, and 10% will be by truck.

b.	Three labor categories are involved:  managerial (includes legal and
professional review), technical, and clerical. The estimates use the
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from "Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation - Table 12 - Private Industry, Manufacturing, and
Non-Manufacturing Industries by Occupational Group” (December 2003),
with a 3% annual inflation factor applied to bring the values to the
present.  Using this method, the following wages and benefits apply by
category:

Wages and Benefits

Managerial 		$53.87 per hour

Technical		$35.29 per hour

Clerical		$24.56 per hour

Doubling for company overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for
convenience, rounding up to the dollar, gives the following rates for
this proposed ICR:

Total Employer Cost

Managerial		$108 per hour

Technical		$71 per hour

Clerical		$49 per hour

It is assumed that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1
hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical.  This gives
an average labor cost of $71 per hour, which will be used in this ICR.
Note that the figures in this table are rounded to the next whole
number, wherever possible. We estimate the following burden:

Table I – Transmix Processors (Refiners)

Collection Activity	Total Number

of Respondents	Number of Responses per Respondent	Total Number of
Responses	Hours Per Response	Total Hours	Total

Cost

$

Submission of Compliance Plan	25	1	25	 8 (24 total hours for one report
divided by 3 years to yield annual burden)	200	$14,200

 Annual updates to compliance plan	25	2	50

6 hours per report

300

$21,300

Programming of PTD Codes (one time cost)	25	1	25	8 (24 hours total for
one program-ming instance divided by 3 to yield annual burden)	200
$14,200

Application of PTD Codes to batches	25	364	9,104	.0003 (1 second per
instance of reporting	3	$213

TOTAL

	  =SUM(ABOVE)  9,204

  =SUM(ABOVE)  703 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  $49,913.00

	Table II – Product Transfer Documents for Parties Downstream of the
Transmix Processor

Collection Activity	Total Number

of Respondents	Number of Responses per Respondent	Total Number of
Responses	Hours Per Response	Total Hours	Total

Cost

$

Programming of Code	150	1	150	 8 (24 hours total for one program-ming
instance divided by 3 to yield annual burden)	1200	$85,200

 Application of Code	150	61	9,104	.0003 (1 second per instance of
reporting	3	$213

TOTAL

	  =SUM(ABOVE)  9,254

  =SUM(ABOVE)  1203 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  $85,413.00

c. Estimating the Agency Burden and Cost

	The Agency burden consists of one GS-13 engineer (estimated at $161,000
including overhead to review compliance plans and compliance plan
updates.  We estimate that this employee will Spend 5% of his/her time
engaged in such review.  This yields an Agency cost of $8,050.

d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We were able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon
experience regulating the same entities.

e.	Bottom Line Annual Burden Hours and Costs

	For transmix producers, we estimate 25 respondents, and a total annual
reporting burden of 703 hours and $49,913.00.  For other parties in the
distribution system, we estimate 150 respondents, and a total annual
reporting burden of 1,203 hours and $85,413. Considering all respondents
who would be subject to this information collection yields an annual
total of 175 respondents, 1,906 hours, and $135,326.  We do not
anticipate any additional recordkeeping burden, since diesel PTDs are
normally kept in the course of business.

f.	Reason for Change in Burden

	This proposed supporting statement has been prepared in anticipation of
EPA’s future submission of a proposed, new collection to OMB.

g.	Burden Statement

	We estimate an annual reporting burden of 28 hours per respondent who
is a transmix producer.   We estimate an annual reporting burden of 8
hours for all other respondents. Considering all respondents (transmix
producers and other parties) who would be subject to this proposed
information collection, the annual reporting burden, per respondent,
would is estimated to be 11 hours.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Interested parties are
urged to comment on the Agency's need for this information collection,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated
collection technique.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule,
which includes this ICR.   Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA
and OMB.  Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.  The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments
on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part of the supporting statement is not applicable.

 Since EPA regulations dictate labeling language, no information is
collected via labels.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19793]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0181]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on March 13, 2020, the Durbin
& Greenbrier Valley Railroad Inc. (DGVR) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR part 215, Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0181.
    DGVR is operator of the West Virginia Central Railroad via
contractual agreement with the West Virginia State Rail Authority
(WVSRA), which includes the operations of the Cass Scenic Railroad
(CSR), in Cass, West Virginia. The passenger cars for which DGVR is
seeking relief are the fleet of historic freight cars converted for
passenger tourist service on the CSR.
    Specifically, DGVR seeks FRA approval per 49 CFR 215.203(a) to
allow 15 passenger cars--formerly freight cars, including four flat
cars (Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4), nine 40-foot steel frame cars (Nos. 5, 6,
7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15), and two cabooses (Nos. 9 and 14)--that
are over 50 years old to operate on track owned by the WVSRA. Because
the cars would be used for historic tourist operations, DGVR also
requests to waive the stenciling requirements outlined in 49 CFR
215.303. DGVR explains the cars will be limited to 10 miles per hour
and will not be used in interchange.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 26, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-07387 Filed 4-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60594-60595]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-14-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725U); Errata
and Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Errata and comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-725U (Mandatory
Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard CIP-014) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection
requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission published notices in the Federal
Register (82 FR 41618, 9/1/2017, and 82 FR 50645, 11/1/2017) requesting
public comments. FERC received no comments on the FERC-725U for either
notice and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.
    This 30-day errata and notice corrects the total annual burden
estimates and explains changes in the calculation of the annual burden
estimates. There are no changes to the information collection, filing,
or recordkeeping requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due by January
22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0274 (FERC-725U) should be sent via email to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected], Attention:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may
also be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC17-14-000, by one
of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles: Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard CIP-
014.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0274.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725U information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: Two previous notices proposing the extension of FERC-725U
were published in the Federal Register.\1\ The total annual burden
presented in those notices was incorrect and based on faulty approaches
for calculating burden estimates. This 30-day errata/notice corrects
the total annual burden estimates and explains changes in calculation
of the annual burden estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 60-Day notice: 82 FR 41618, 9/1/2017; 30-day notice: 82 FR
50645, 11/1/2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden for the FERC-725U information collection is estimated
based on the five year cycle of the requirements in the Reliability
Standard. Over this five-year cycle, annual burden levels fluctuate
greatly based on which reporting requirements are implicated each year.
    FERC extensions usually request three years of extension/approval.
However, using a three-year timespan to calculate the burden would
cause the total annual burden to fluctuate in an unrepresentative way
because of the mathematical mismatch between the Reliability Standard's
five-year cycle and the three-year PRA cycle for OMB approval. Some
extension requests would propose inordinately high or low burden solely
dependent on the timing of the request, not on any actual changes to
reporting requirements.
    In order to provide the annual burden estimate in a more
representative way, Commission staff is calculating the average annual
burden using the five-year cycle of the Standard and using that average
for Years 1-3 of this extension.
    Types of Respondents: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for the FERC-725U information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                      FERC-725U: Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard CIP-014 \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of
Year and requirement for this PRA   Number and type  of   responses per   Total number    Average burden hours  and cost   Total burden hours  and total
         clearance cycle                respondents        respondent     of responses          per response \4\                       cost
                                   (1).................             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)............................  (3) * (4)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1:
    Record Retention.............  334 TO and 2 TOP \5\               1             336  2 hrs.; $76....................  672 hrs.; $25,536.

Year 2:
    R1...........................  334 TO..............               1             334  20 hrs.; $1,280................  6,680 hrs.; $427,520.
    R2...........................  334 TO..............               1             334  34 hrs; $2,448.................  11,356 hrs.; $817,632.
    R3...........................  2 TOP...............               1               2  1 hrs.; $129...................  2 hrs.; $258.
    R4...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  80 hrs.; $5,120................  2,560 hrs.; $163,840.
    R5...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  320 hrs.; $20,480..............  10,240 hrs.; $655,360.
    R6...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  304 hrs.; $19,456..............  9,728 hrs.; $622,592.
    Record Retention.............  334 TO and 2 TOP....               1             336  2 hrs.; $76....................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
Year 3:
    Record Retention.............  334 TO and 2 TOP....               1             336  2 hrs.; $76....................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
Year 4:
    R1...........................  30 TO...............               1              30  20 hrs.; $1,280................  600 hrs.; $38,400.
    R2...........................  30 TO...............               1              30  34 hrs.; $2,448................  1,020 hrs.; $73,440.
    R3...........................  2 TOP...............               1               2  1 hrs.; $129...................  2 hrs.; $258.
    R4...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  80 hrs.; $5,120................  2,560 hrs.; $163,840.
    R5...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  80 hrs.; $5,120................  2,560 hrs.; $163,840.
    R6...........................  30 TO and 2 TOP.....               1              32  134 hrs.; $8,576...............  4,288 hrs.; $274,432.
    Record Retention.............  334 TO and 2 TOP....               1             336  2 hrs.; $76....................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
Year 5:
    Record Retention.............  334 TO and 2 TOP....               1             336  2 hrs.; $76....................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
        Year 1 Total.............  ....................  ..............             336  ...............................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
        Year 2 Total.............  ....................  ..............             336  ...............................  41,238 hrs.; $2,712,738.
        Year 3 Total.............  ....................  ..............             336  ...............................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
        Year 4 Total.............  ....................  ..............             336  ...............................  11,702 hrs.; $739,746.
        Year 5 Total.............  ....................  ..............             336  ...............................  672 hrs.; $25,536.
                                                                                -------------------------------
            Total (for Years 1-5)  ....................  ..............  ..............  ...............................  54,956 hrs.; $3,529,092.
                                                                                -------------------------------
            Average Annual Burden  ....................  ..............  ..............  ...............................  10,991 hrs.; $705,818.
             and Cost (for Years
             1-5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A brief synopsis follows of the Reliability Standard's five-year
cycle and its relation to Requirements R1-R6 and Record Retention
Requirements. (The year stated is the year in this 3-year PRA cycle
with the requirements imposed during that year.) \6\

    \3\ For each Reliability Standard, the Measure shows the
acceptable evidence for the associated Reporting Requirement (R
numbers), and the Compliance section details the related
Recordkeeping Requirement.
    \4\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $XX per Hour
= Average Cost per Response.
    The hourly cost figures are based on data for wages plus
benefits from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (as of 11/9/2016) at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. The figures are rounded for
the purposes of calculations in this table and are:
     For electrical engineers (occupation code: 17-2071),
$64.29/hr., rounded to $64/hr.
     for attorneys (occupation code: 23-0000), $129.12/hr.,
rounded to $129/hr.
     for administrative staff (occupation code: 43-0000),
$37.75/hr., rounded to $38/hr.
    The record retention cost is based on the administrative staff
category; R3 is based on the attorney category; and Requirements R1,
R4, R5 and R6 are based on the electrical engineer category.
    R2 is a mix of the electrical engineer (30 hrs. at $64/hr.) and
attorney (4 hrs. at $129/hr.) categories. The resulting average
hourly figure is $71.65, rounded to $72/hr.
    \5\ TO: transmission owner; TOP: transmission operator.

    \6\ Although Year 4 includes R1-R6 and Record Retention similar
to Year 2, the related burden is not in the same amount as in Year
2.
    Also note that Years 4 and 5 are part of the 5-year Reliability
Standard's cycle but beyond the current 3-year PRA approval cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Year 1: Record Retention only
 Year 2: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and Record Retention
 Year 3: Record Retention only
 Year 4: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and Record Retention
 Year 5: Record Retention only

    For this 3-year PRA extension request, we will use the annual
averages (over the 5-year cycle of the Reliability Standard, as shown
in the table) for:

     Burden of 10,991 hours
     cost of $705,828

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 15, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27496 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66619-66620]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23245]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a joint Open Meeting with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Thursday, October 22, 2020, at
10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public via audio webcast only on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: At the joint open meeting, the Commissions
will consider whether to adopt rule amendments to lower the margin

requirement for an unhedged security futures position from 20% to 15%
and adopt certain conforming revisions to the security futures margin
offset table.
    At the meeting, the Commissions also will consider whether to issue
a request for comment on the portfolio margining of uncleared swaps and
non-cleared security-based swaps. The request for comment would solicit
comment on all aspects of the portfolio margining of uncleared swaps,
non-cleared security-based swaps, and related positions, including on
the merits, benefits, and risks of portfolio margining these types of
positions, and on any regulatory, legal, and operational issues
associated with portfolio margining them.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: October 15, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23245 Filed 10-16-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47331-47333]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16274]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-10011-88-Region 6]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Cimarron Mining Corporation
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Cimarron Mining Corporation Superfund Site
(Site) located in Carrizozo, New Mexico, from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of
New Mexico, through the New Mexico Environment Department, have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written

comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily
suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Purcell, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, SEMD-RB-LNOS,
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 announces its intent to delete the Cimarron Mining
Corporation Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this preamble explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III of this preamble discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section IV of this preamble
discusses where to access and review information that demonstrates how
the deletion criteria have been met at the Cimarron Mining Corporation
Superfund Site.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State of New Mexico, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New Mexico before developing
this Notice of Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State of New Mexico 30 working days for
review of this action prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The State of New Mexico, through the New Mexico Environment
Department, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, Ruidoso News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this action, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
Site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in
the deletion docket. The material provides explanation of EPA's
rationale for the deletion and demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria. This information is made available for public inspection in
the docket identified above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: July 22, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-16274 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35617-35623]
[DOCID:fr24jn08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 580

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0116; Notice 1]

Petition for Approval of Alternate Odometer Disclosure
Requirements

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of initial determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of Virginia has petitioned for approval of
alternate requirements governing certain aspects of the Federal
odometer law. NHTSA has initially determined that Virginia's proposed
alternate requirements are generally consistent with the purposes of
the applicable portion of the federal odometer disclosure law.
Accordingly, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's petition. This is
not a final agency action.

DATES: Comments are due no later than July 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2008-0116] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: 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. Statutory Background

A. The Cost Savings Act

    In 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (Cost Savings Act), among other things, to protect
purchasers of motor vehicles from odometer fraud. See Public Law 92-
513, 86 Stat. 947, 961-63 (1972).
    To assist purchasers to know the true mileage of a motor vehicle,
Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act required the transferor of a motor
vehicle to provide written disclosure to the transferee in connection
with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. See Public Law 92-513,
Sec.  408, 86 Stat. 947 (1972). Section 408 required the Secretary to
issue rules requiring the transferor to give a written disclosure to
the transferee in connection with the transfer of the vehicle. 86 Stat.
962-63. The written disclosure was to include the cumulative mileage on
the odometer and, as the case may be that the actual mileage is
unknown, if the odometer reading is known to be different from the
number of miles the vehicle actually traveled. Section 408 stated that
the Secretary was to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to
provide written disclosures to the transferee in connection with the
transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Id. The disclosures were to
include the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer, or disclose
that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to
the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has
actually traveled. The rules were to prescribe the manner in which
information shall be disclosed under this section and in which such
information shall be retained. Id. Section 408 further stated that it
shall be a violation for any transferor to violate any rules under this
section or to knowingly give a false statement to a transferee in
making any disclosure required by such rules. Id.
    Id. The Cost Savings Act also prohibited disconnecting, resetting,
or altering motor vehicle odometers. Id. The statute subjected
violators to civil and criminal penalties and provided for Federal
injunctive relief, State enforcement, and a private right of action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1976, Congress amended the odometer disclosure provisions
in the Cost Savings Act to provide further protections to purchasers
from unscrupulous car dealers. See Public Law 94-364, 90 Stat. 981
(1976). It amended section 408(b) and added new subsection 408(c)
requiring that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under
this section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any
disclosure required by such rule and no transferee who, for purposes
of resale, acquires ownership of a motor vehicle shall accept any
written disclosure required by any rule under this section if such
disclosure is incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were shortcomings in the odometer provisions of the Cost
Savings Act. Among others, in some states, the odometer disclosure
statement was not on the title; it was a separate document that could
easily be altered or discarded and did not travel with the title.
Consequently, it did not effectively provide information to purchasers
about the vehicle's mileage or substantially curb odometer fraud. In
some states, the title was not on tamper-proof paper. The problems were
compounded by title washing thought states with ineffective controls.
In addition, there were considerable misstatements of mileage on
vehicles that had formerly been leased vehicles, as well as on used
vehicles sold at wholesale auctions.

B. The Truth in Mileage Act

    In 1986, Congress enacted the Truth in Mileage Act (TIMA), which
added provisions to the Cost Savings Act. See Public Law 99-579, 100
Stat. 3309 (1986). The TIMA amendments expanded and strengthened
Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act.
    Among other requirements, TIMA precluded the licensing of vehicles,
the ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the
several requirements were met by the transferee and transferor. The
transferee, in submitting an application for a title, is required to
provide the transferor's (seller's) title, and if that title contains a
space for the transferor to disclose the vehicle's mileage, that
information must be included and the statement must be signed and dated
by the transferor. TIMA also precluded the licensing of vehicles, the
ownership of which was transferred, for use in any State unless the
several titling requirements were met. Titles must be printed by a
secure printing process or other secure process. They must indicate the
mileage and contain space for the transferee to disclose the mileage in
a subsequent transfer. As to leased vehicles, the Secretary was
required to publish rules requiring the lessor of vehicles with leases
to advise its lessee that the lessee is required by law to disclose the
vehicle's mileage to the lessor upon the lessor's transfer of
ownership. In addition, TIMA required that auction companies establish
and maintain records on vehicles sold at the auction, including the
name of the most recent owner of the vehicle, the name of the buyer,
the vehicle identification number and the odometer reading on the date
the auction took possession of the vehicle.
    TIMA further provided that its provisions on mileage statements for
licensing of vehicles (and rules involving leased vehicles) apply in a
State, unless the State has in effect alternate motor vehicle mileage
disclosure requirements approved by the Secretary.\2\ In particular,
Section 408(f)(2) 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) of Section 408, as the case may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In particular, section 408 of the Cost Savings Act was
amended by TIMA to add the following relevant part at the end of
section 408. Cost Savings Act Section 408(d) (now codified at 49
U.S.C. 32705(b)) requires the disclosure on the vehicle title. Cost
Savings Act Section 408(e) (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(c))
addresses leased vehicles. Cost Savings Act subsection (g) (now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(e)) addresses wholesale auctions.

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

C. Amendments Following the Truth in Mileage Act and the 1994
Recodification of the Law

    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, consistent with the purposes of the Act and the need to
facilitate enforcement thereof, providing for the mileage disclosure,
the transferor to keep a copy of the power of attorney, and for the
original power of attorney to be submitted to the State. See Public Law
100-561 Sec.  401 (adding Section 408(d)(2)(C)), 102 Stat. 2805 (1988).
In 1990, Congress amended section 408(d)(2)(C) of the Cost Savings Act,
which had been adopted in 1988. The amendment addressed retention of
powers of attorneys by states and provided that the rule adopted by the
Secretary shall 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 (1990).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA previously reviewed this legislative history in 1991
when adopting the current regulations governing powers of attorney.
See Odometer Disclosure Requirements, Final Rule, 56 Fed. Reg. 47681
(Sept. 20, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, in the course of the 1994 recodification of various laws
pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act,
as amended by TIMA, was repealed. It was reenacted and recodified
without substantive change. See Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745,
1048-1056, 1379, 1387 (1994). The statute is now codified at 49 U.S.C.
32705 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).

II. Statutory Purposes

    As discussed above, the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA in
1986, contains a specific provision on approval of State programs.
NHTSA ``shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure
requirements submitted by a State unless the [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 Costs Savings Act were recodified to 49 U.S.C.
32705(b) and (c)). Subsection 408(f)(2) of the Costs Savings Act,
recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(d). In light of this provision, we now
turn to our interpretation of the purposes of these subsections, as
germane to Virginia's petition.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Virginia's petition does not address disclosures in leases
or disclosures by power of attorney. In view of the scope of
Virginia's petition, Virginia 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A purpose of TIMA was to assure that the form of the odometer
disclosure precluded odometer fraud. To prevent odometer fraud, which
was facilitated in some States by disclosure statements that were
separate from titles, under TIMA the disclosure must be contained on
the title provided to the transferee and not on a separate document.
Related to this, the title was required to contain space for the
disclosures. The Senate Report associated with TIMA noted that Federal
law had not specified the form in which the odometer reading disclosure
must be made. See S. Rep. No. 99-47, at 3 (1985), reprinted in 1986
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620. In some States, where the disclosure statement was
on a separate piece of paper from the vehicle's title, the transferor
could easily alter it or provide a new statement with a different
mileage. The vehicle could be titled with a lower mileage than in the
transferor's disclosure in a State that does not require an odometer
reading on the title. Id. In this regard, in some States there was no
place for recording the odometer reading on the title when the vehicle
was sold. Id. at 2. A consequence of these practices was that the new
title contained no odometer reading and the purchaser/wholesaler could
then disclose whatever odometer reading it chose. Id.
    Another 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. Prior to TIMA, odometer fraud was
facilitated by the ability of transferees to apply for titles without
presenting the transferor's title with the disclosure. To eliminate or
significantly reduce abuses associated with this lack of controls, TIMA
required that any vehicle, the ownership of which is transferred, may
not be licensed unless the application for the title is accompanied by
the title of such vehicle. Thus, ``in the case of an application for a
new motor vehicle certificate of title, if the prior owner's title
certificate contains a space for the disclosure of the mileage, when
the title certificate is submitted to the State * * *, it shall contain
a statement, signed and dated by the prior owner, of the mileage
required to be disclosed by the prior owner.'' See S. Rep. No. 99-47,
at 2-3 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5625-26. See also
Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA, Sec.  408(d), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b).
    TIMA also 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.
It could also be set forth by other secure process that might evolve in
the future. As noted in the legislative history, because the title
could be printed through a non-secure process, persons could alter it
or launder it. See S. Rep. No. 99-47, at 3 (1985), reprinted in 1986
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620. The House Report 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), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b).
    Another purpose was to create a record of the mileage on vehicles
and a paper trail. The underlying purposes of this record and trail was
to enable consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism
through which odometer tampering can be traced and violators
prosecuted. The creation of a paper trail would improve the enforcement
process by providing evidence of fraudulent transfers, including by
consumers and the individuals engaged in such practices. More
specifically, the paper trail would document transfers and create
evidence showing the incidence of rollbacks. Under TIMA, as part of the
paper trail, the title must include a space for the mileage of the
vehicle. New applications for titles must include a mileage disclosure
statement signed by the prior owner of the vehicle. There would be a
permanent record on the vehicle's title at the place where the vehicle
is titled, usually the State motor vehicle administration. This record
could be checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement officials, who
would have a critical snapshot of the vehicle's mileage at every
transfer, which is the fundamental link in the paper trail for
enforcement. These provisions were aimed at providing purchasers and
law

enforcement with the much-needed tools to combat odometer fraud. The
House Report associated with TIMA focused on the lack of evidence or
``paper trail'' showing the incidence of rollbacks as one of the major
barriers to decreasing odometer fraud. H.R. Rep. No. 99-833, at 18
(1986). The House Report noted that a purpose of Section 408(d), which
required the seller to disclose the mileage on the title and titles to
include the mileage disclosure and a space for recording mileage on the
next transfer, is to create a permanent record or paper trail for car
owners and law enforcement and other State officials to track odometer
fraud. Id. A permanent record on the vehicle's title would be
maintained at the place where it is titled. Id. Thus, the underlying
purpose of this record and trail was to enable consumers to be better
informed and provide a mechanism through which odometer tampering can
be traced and violators prosecuted. See Cost Savings Act, as amended by
TIMA, Sec.  408(d), 49 U.S.C. 32705(b).
    Moreover, 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.
The TIMA amendments were directed at resolving shortcomings in the Cost
Savings Act.

III. Virginia's Petition

    Virginia proposes to allow parties to transfer title through the
Internet by electronic means and to maintain an electronic record of
the title in the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VADMV) system.
The proposal permits the transferee to request a hard copy of the
title, printed by a secure printed process. While it is not entirely
clear from Virginia's petition, it appears that the ``title'' will
reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that a hard copy of
the title will be generated for the transferee, if requested.
    The Virginia petition states that its proposal would permit ``the
transferor to disclose the odometer mileage to the transferee and the
transferee to view and acknowledge receipt of the transferor's
disclosure in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle, as part of a
secure on-line transaction with the VADMV.'' Under Virginia's proposal,
to complete a sale of the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle
(transferor) and the purchaser of the vehicle (transferee) would be
required to perform several steps after they agree upon the sale.
Included in this process is the creation and use of electronic
signatures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Virginia's petition, an electronic signature would be created
during the process of transferring the title. According to VADMV, the
customer number, unique personal identification number (PIN) and date
of birth (DOB) of the customer will be used in combination to create
the electronic signature for each transferor and transferee. Thus, as a
threshold matter, the process for transferring title would require both
the transferor and the transferee to obtain a PIN from the VADMV.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ According to Virginia, the process whereby a customer
obtains a PIN is currently in place, as a PIN already provides a
secure and confidential Internet access to VADMV services and is
required in order to conduct a number of on-line transactions. In
order to obtain a PIN, a customer must provide his or her unique
customer number and date of birth and certify, under penalty of
perjury, that the customer number and DOB submitted in the PIN
request belong to the customer requesting the PIN. Within three (3)
business days of the customer's request, the VADMV mails a randomly
generated 4-digit PIN to the customer by first class mail, and the
assigned PIN is encrypted on the customer's VADMV record. In order
to conduct a transaction on VADMV's Internet Web site, the customer
is prompted to enter the VADMV assigned PIN and the Web site will
prompt the customer to personalize his/her PIN for added security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The online transaction begins when the transferor logs on to the
VADMV's Web site using his/her customer number, date of birth and PIN
to verify the transferor's identity. These also would be used to create
the electronic signature of the transferor. The transferor would then
select the ``vehicle transfer of ownership'' transaction and either
choose the vehicle from a displayed list of eligible vehicles or enter
the vehicle's VIN. The transfer would then enter the vehicle sales
price, the odometer reading and brand (Actual, Not Actual or Exceeds).
After entering this data, the VADMV 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. The VADMV system will also prompt the transferor to mail
the existing vehicle title to the VADMV for destruction.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to the Virginia petition, if the transferor fails
to return the existing vehicle title to the VADMV, the title is
invalidated in the VADMV system and would be unable to transfer
title in Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction would remain in ``pending'' status with VADMV until
the transferee logs on to complete the transfer of ownership
transaction. Meanwhile, the VADMV system would automatically check the
odometer reading entered by the transferor against the odometer reading
on the VADMV system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor
is lower, the transaction will be immediately rejected and referred to
the VADMV Law Enforcement Services Division for an investigation.
    The transferee would then log on to VADMV's Web site, using his/her
customer number, DOB and PIN (this would be the transferee's electronic
signature). The transferee would select the pending vehicle transfer of
ownership transaction, and he/she would enter the unique transaction
number that was provided by the transferor. The transferee would be
required to enter the correct transaction number in order to obtain
access to the pending transaction. Once such access is obtained, the
transferee would verify the sales price, odometer reading and brand
that were entered by the transferor. The transaction would process if
all the data entered by the transferor is verified and acknowledged as
correct by the transferee. Ownership of the vehicle would transfer to
the transferee and an electronic title record would be established by
VADMV. The VADMV would then maintain the electronic title and would
issue a paper title upon the request of the transferee.
    If the transferee does not agree with the information entered by
the transferor, then the VADMV system will reject the transaction. The
transferor will have the opportunity to correct the sales price,
odometer reading and brand for the rejected transaction. The transferee
would then re-verify the information to ensure the accuracy. A second
discrepancy would result in cancellation of the electronic transaction.
    Virginia's petition asserts that its proposed alternate odometer
disclosure is consistent with federal odometer law, but it did not
address the purposes of TIMA. As advanced by VADMV, Virginia's
alternative ensures that a fraudulent odometer disclosure can readily
be detected and reliably traced to a particular individual by providing
a means for the VADMV to validate and authenticate the electronic
signatures of both parties. This verification is done through the
generation of the customer number and unique PIN that are provided to
customers of the VADMV. Virginia states that this unique electronic
signature can be quickly and reliably traced to a particular
individual.

    Second, Virginia 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. During the transfer-of-
ownership transaction, the transferee would view the odometer reading
and brand information that was supplied by the transferor, thereby
ensuring that the transferee is aware of the vehicle's mileage as well
as any problem with the odometer that was disclosed by the transferor.
    Third, VADVM asserts that its proposal provides a level of security
equivalent to that of a disclosure on a secure title document.
According to Virginia, the unique electronic signatures (customer
number, PIN and DOB) utilized by each party to the transaction in
addition to the unique transaction number generated by the VADMV ensure
secure access to the on-line transaction and a reliable means of
verifying the identities and electronic signatures of each individual.
In addition, Virginia notes added security in its proposal because the
information from the transferor and transferee must match exactly. If a
discrepancy exists that is not corrected, the transaction would
automatically be rejected and transfer of ownership would not take
place. Virginia states that the same process would be used in dealer
transactions with additional safeguards.\8\ The additional safeguards
will include a requirement that a dealership notify the VADMV of
employees authorized to do titling activities for the dealership. This
authorization will be stored by the VADMV on-line system. When the
employee logs onto the VADMV on-line system, he or she will also be
requested to enter the dealer number that is assigned by the VADMV and
the employee's logon information. If the VADMV does not show an
authorization by the dealership, the employee will not be eligible to
continue with the transaction for that dealership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Dealers will continue to be subject to the dealer retention
requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Sec.  580.8(a), which requires
dealers and distributors to retain a copy of odometer disclosure
statements that they issue and receive for five years. These
requirements are not based upon the TIMA amendments that added
Section 408(d) to the Cost Savings Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Virginia refers to an April 25, 2003 letter by former NHTSA Chief
Counsel, Jacqueline Glassman, stating that an electronic signature in
the lessee-to-lessor context satisfies the requirement for a written
disclosure under 49 CFR 580.7(b).\9\ Virginia contends that the written
disclosure requirements under 49 CFR 580.7(b) are no different than
those under 49 CFR 580.5(c). It also maintains that the electronic
record and signature aspects of its proposal comport with the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), 15
U.S.C. 7001 et seq., and Virginia's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
(UETA), Va. Code 46.2-629. Last, Virginia notes that it does not have
regulations in effect that address odometer mileage disclosure
requirements. Current state law permits the creation of electronic
certificates of title, but requires a paper certificate of title for
all transfers of vehicle ownership. Va. Code 46.2-603. If its proposal
were approved, VADMV would seek legislation to amend Section 46.2-603
to implement the alternate odometer disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 CFR 580.7, Disclosure of odometer information for leased
motor vehicles, governs lessee-to-lessor disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis

    As discussed above, the standard is that NHTSA ``shall approve
alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a
State unless the [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 Virginia program. We now provide our initial assessment whether
Virginia's proposal satisfies TIMA's purposes as relevant to its
petition.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This initial determination does not address odometer
requirements that are not based on Section 408(d) of the Cost
Savings Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 32705(b). Virginia will
continue to be subject to all federal requirements that are not
based on Section 408(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A purpose is to assure that the form of the odometer disclosure
precludes odometer fraud. In this regard, NHTSA has initially
determined that Virginia's proposed alternate disclosure requirements
satisfy this purpose. Under Virginia's proposal, it appears that the
``title'' will reside as an electronic record with the VADMV, but that
a hard copy of the title will be generated for the transferee, if
requested. Virginia'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, NHTSA does not believe the electronic transaction Virginia has
outlined implicates the space requirement. NHTSA, however, assumes that
if a hard copy of the title is requested, Virginia will continue to
provide a separate space on the hard copy title, in keeping with TIMA
and current practice.
    Another 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. In this regard, NHTSA has initially
determined that Virginia's proposed process satisfies this purpose.
During the proposed on-line process for retitling, the disclosure of
odometer information occurs during the transfer of ownership and a
title is required by Virginia's proposal to complete the transaction.
During the on-line transaction, the transferor is instructed to mail
the existing title to the VADMV for destruction.\11\ If the transaction
is successful, the VADMV will retain an electronic title, which
includes a record of the transaction and the odometer disclosure
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If the transferor does not return the existing title to
VADMV, the existing title will be invalid once the vehicle transfers
to the transferee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another purpose of TIMA is to prevent alterations to disclosures on
titles and to preclude counterfeit titles, through secure processes.
NHTSA has initially determined in this matter that Virginia's alternate
disclosure requirements appear to provide equivalent security against
alterations, tampering or counterfeit titles to a paper title printed
through a secure process, if not even more security. Electronic
recordation of the odometer reading decreases the likelihood of any
subsequent odometer disclosure being altered by erasures or other
methods. As we understand Virginia's proposal, once the transaction is
completed, VADMV stores an electronic version of the title until the
transferee requests it. The transferee may never request the title,
even if there is a subsequent transfer. Under this system, all
subsequent transfers may be performed through the on-line process. Each
time an on-line transfer occurs, the VADMV stores the electronic
version of the title, and issues a paper title only upon request. If
the title remains in electronic form, the likelihood of an individual
altering, tampering or counterfeiting the title is decreased
significantly. Moreover, the electronic recordation can detect an
attempted alteration or fraudulent disclosure almost immediately. If a
transferee requests a paper title, the VADMV will issue a paper title,
printed through a secure process, with the requisite odometer
information on the title.
    Another purpose of TIMA is to create a record of the mileage on
vehicles and

a paper trail. NHTSA has initially determined in this matter that
Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements provides for a system that
creates an equivalent to a ``paper trail'' that assists law enforcement
in identifying and prosecuting odometer fraud. The paper trail starts
with the establishment of the electronic signatures of the parties. The
electronic signatures of the transferor and transferee are readily
detectable and can be reliably traced to the particular individual due
to the system's means for validating and authenticating the electronic
signature of each individual. VADMV can validate and authenticate an
individual electronic signature because the electronic signature
consists of the individual's unique customer number, DOB and PIN. In
order to obtain a unique customer number, VADMV must have an
individual's address on file. In order to obtain a PIN, the individual
must also certify, under penalty of perjury, that the customer number
and DOB submitted in the PIN request belong to the customer requesting
the PIN. The customer number and PIN are required to log on to the
VADMV system. Based upon the information provided by each individual to
the transaction, the VADMV can trace the PIN to the assigned
individual. The ability to identify the individuals to the transaction
through the electronic signature \12\ maintains the purposes behind the
creation of a paper trail since the VADMV will have a history of each
transfer of the vehicle and can discover incidences of rollbacks. After
the transaction is completed, the title is electronically recorded and
stored by the VADMV. It includes the mileage of the vehicle at the
transfer. These electronic records will create the electronic
equivalent to a paper based system and are accessible to law
enforcement officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the overall purpose of TIMA is 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.
Here, Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements include several
prerequisites that make it unlikely that the representations of a
vehicle's actual mileage by the transferor to the transferee would be
of lesser validity than representations made through a vehicle transfer
by paper title and potentially deter odometer fraud better than a paper
title. These prerequisites include the verification of the individuals
to the transfer transaction through the issuance of a PIN number from
VADMV. Virginia's alternate disclosure requirements also include
procedures to assure that a transferee verifies the odometer disclosure
made by the transferor. In addition, the verification of the odometer
reading provides indication of potential fraud to the transferee should
the transferor attempt to enter a different mileage into the system
than the mileage the transferee observed on the vehicle when the
agreement to purchase was made.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Further protection is provided by the VADMV system itself.
The system automatically cross references the odometer reading
entered by the transferor against the odometer reading on the VADMV
system. If the odometer reading entered by the transferor is lower
than the mileage recorded in the VADMV system, the VADMV system will
immediately reject the transaction and refer the individual to the
VADMV Law Enforcement Services Division for investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. NHTSA'S Initial Determination

    For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA preliminarily grants Virginia's
proposed alternate disclosure requirements. This is not a final agency
action. NHTSA invites public comments within the scope of this notice.
Should NHTSA decide to issue a final grant of this petition, it will
likely reserve the right to rescind that grant in the event that
information acquired after that grant were to indicate that, in
operation, Virginia's alternate requirements do not satisfy applicable
standards.

Request for Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (see 49 CFR
553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your
primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach
necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System Webbsite at http://
dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information,'' or ``Help/Info'' to
obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we also will consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal
suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location.
    You also may see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions for accessing the
Docket.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Issued on: June 11, 2008.
Stephen P. Wood,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety, Standards and
Harmonization.
[FR Doc. E8-13592 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P