Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 643 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of 

sale of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

federal assistance no longer 

available in 

SFHAs 

Paint Rock, Town of, Jackson County .. 010214 July 30, 1975, Emerg; June 17, 1986, Reg; 

December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Scottsboro, City of, Jackson County ..... 010112 June 26, 1974, Emerg; September 18, 

1985, Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Stevenson, Town of, Jackson County ... 010113 October 16, 1974, Emerg; December 17, 

1987, Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Tennessee: 

Blaine, City of, Grainger County ........... 470398 November 26, 1988, Emerg; December 5, 

1990, Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Jefferson City, Town of, Jefferson 

County.

475430 October 23, 1970, Emerg; April 9, 1971, 

Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region V 

Ohio: 

Magnetic Springs, Village of, Union 

County.

390839 April 30, 1999, Emerg; July 1, 2000, Reg; 

December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Marysville, City of, Union County .......... 390548 April 30, 1975, Emerg; April 2, 1986, Reg; 

December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Milford Center, Village of, Union County 390662 May 14, 1975, Emerg; June 2, 1995, Reg; 

December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Richwood, Village of, Union County ...... 390549 July 11, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1995, Reg; 

December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Union County, Unincorporated Areas ... 390808 March 16, 1977, Emerg; September 27, 

1991, Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Region VI 

New Mexico: 

Eunice, City of, Lea County .................. 350028 August 18, 1975, Emerg; August 22, 1978, 

Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Hobbs, City of, Lea County ................... 350029 September 20, 1976, Emerg; July 16, 1991, 

Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Jal, City of, Lea County ......................... 350030 September 28, 1977, Emerg; August 19, 

1985, Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

Tatum, Town of, Lea County ................. 350032 October 16, 1980, Emerg; July 1, 1988, 

Reg; December 16, 2008, Susp.

......do ............... Do. 

* do = Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. 

Dated: December 12, 2008. 

Michael K. Buckley, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation 

Directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–17 Filed 1–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 580 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0116; Notice 2] 

Petition for Approval of Alternate 

Odometer Disclosure Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final determination. 

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of 

Virginia has petitioned for approval of 

alternate requirements governing certain 

aspects of Federal odometer law. 

NHTSA is issuing a final determination 

granting Virginia’s petition. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2009. 

Request for reconsideration due no later 

than February 23, 2009. 

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:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

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: 

Nicholas Englund, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(Telephone: 202–366–5263) (Fax: 202– 

366–3820). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Commonwealth of Virginia 

petitioned NHTSA to approve the 

Commonwealth’s requirements on the 

disclosure of motor vehicle mileage 

when motor vehicles are transferred, 

which would apply in lieu of certain 

federal requirements, under 49 U.S.C. 

32701, 32705(d). As described in detail 

in Section III below, Virginia’s program 

will provide for the transfer of a 

vehicle’s title with odometer disclosure 

information electronically, instead of 

through the execution of a paper title 

that is then submitted to the state for the 

issuance of a title to the new owner, for 

an in-state transaction where there is no 

security interest in the vehicle. NHTSA 

644 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 983 (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. 

2Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act, with the 

TIMA amendments, provided in pertinent part (100 

Stat. 3309–3310): 

(d)(1)(A) Any motor vehicle the ownership of 

which is transferred may not be licensed for use in 

any State unless the transferee, in submitting an 

application to a State for the title upon which such 

license will be issued, includes with such 

application the transferor’s title and, if that title 

contains the space referred to in paragraph 

(2)(A)(iii), a statement, signed and dated by the 

transferor, of the mileage disclosure required under 

subsection (a). 

(B) This paragraph shall not apply to any transfer 

of ownership of a motor vehicle which has not been 

licensed before the transfer. 

(2)(A) Any motor vehicle the ownership of which 

is transferred may not be licensed for use in any 

State unless the title which is issued by the State 

to the transferee following such transfer— 

(i) is set forth by means of a secure printing 

process (or other secure process); 

(ii) indicates the mileage disclosure required to be 

made under subsection (a); and 

(iii) contains a space for the transferee to disclose 

(in the event of a future transfer) the mileage at the 

time of such future transfer and to sign and date 

such disclosure. 

(B) The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall 

not be construed to require a State to verify, or 

preclude the State from verifying, the mileage 

information contained in the title. 

(e)(1) In the case of any leased motor vehicle, the 

rules under subsection (a) shall require written 

disclosure regarding mileage to be made by the 

lessee to the lessor upon the lessor’s transfer of 

ownership of the leased motor vehicle. 

(2) Under such rules, the lessor of a leased motor 

vehicle shall provide written notice to the lessee 

regarding— 

(A) such mileage disclosure requirements, and 

(B) the penalties for failure to comply with them. 

(3) The lessor shall retain the disclosure made by 

any lessee with respect to any motor vehicle under 

paragraph (1) for a period of at least 4 years 

following the date the lessor transfers that vehicle. 

issued an initial determination 

proposing to grant Virginia’s petition. 

See Petition for Approval of Alternate 

Odometer Disclosure Requirements, 

Proposed rule; notice of initial 

determination, 73 FR 35617 (June 24, 

2008). In its initial determination, 

NHTSA reviewed the statutory 

background and set out the agency’s 

tentative view on applicable factors 

governing whether to grant a state’s 

petition. NHTSA came to the tentative 

conclusion that Virginia’s proposed 

alternate requirements met the statutory 

requirements for approval and invited 

public comment. After careful 

consideration of comments, NHTSA’s 

final determination analysis is set forth 

below in section VI. 

II. 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, § 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 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. 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

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. In some states, the 

title was not on tamper-proof paper. The 

problems were compounded by title 

washing through 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 odometer provisions of 

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 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 

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 of the 

vehicle. 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.2

As amended by TIMA, section 

408(f)(1) of the Cost Savings Act 

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. Section 408(f)(2) stated 

that ‘‘[t]he 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.’’ 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 645 

3NHTSA reviewed this legislative history in 1991 

when adopting the current regulations governing 

powers of attorney. See Odometer Disclosure 

Requirements, Final Rule, 56 FR 47681 (Sept. 20, 

1991). 

4 In the Initial Determination, NHTSA addressed 

the question of where the title would reside. 

Virginia did not comment on NHTSA’s discussion. 

5The 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). 

6According 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. 

C. Amendments Following the Truth in 

Mileage Act and the 1994 Recodification 

of the Cost Savings Act 

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 

§ 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 

§ 7(a), 104 Stat. 4654, 4657 (1990).3

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). 

III. Virginia’s Petition 

As explained in NHTSA’s initial 

determination, 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 

VADMV system would permit the 

transferee to request a hard copy of the 

title, printed by a secure printed 

process. The title will reside as an 

electronic record with the VADMV, but 

a hard copy of the title will be generated 

for the transferee, if requested.4

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 online 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

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

The online transaction begins when 

the transferor logs on to the VADMV’s 

Web site using his/her customer 

number, DOB, 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 

transferor would then enter the vehicle 

sales price, the odometer reading, and 

brand regarding the mileage disclosure 

(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. 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 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 be 

processed 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 

646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

7Under the VADMV program, dealers will 

continue to be subject to the dealer retention 

requirements as set forth in 49 CFR 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. 

8 49 CFR 580.7, Disclosure of odometer 

information for leased motor vehicles, governs 

lessee-to-lessor disclosures. 

9NTSF and the Texas Department of 

Transportation requested a final rule that defines 

electronic signatures using the ESIGN Act and 

allows any electronic signature for odometer 

disclosures where the process of obtaining the 

signature and disclosing the odometer mileage is 

consistent with TIMA purposes. NADA and triVIN 

encourage NHTSA to amend disclosure regulations 

to allow all states to take advantage of electronic 

titling by outlining alternate electronic odometer 

disclosure requirements. 

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 online 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.7 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. 

Virginia refers to an April 25, 2003 

letter by former NHTSA Chief Counsel, 

Jacqueline Glassman, stating that an 

electronic signature in the lessee-tolessor context satisfies the requirement 

for a written disclosure under 49 CFR 

580.7(b).8 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. When 

approved, VADMV will seek legislation 

to amend Section 46.2–603 to 

implement the alternate odometer 

disclosure requirements. 

IV. Summary of Public Comments 

NHTSA received thirteen comments 

from the following entities: (1) The 

Texas Department of Transportation; (2) 

the Iowa Department of 

Transportation—Motor Vehicle 

Division; (3) Oregon Driver and Motor 

Vehicle Services; (4) the Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation; (5) the 

Michigan Department of State; (6) the 

National Auto Auction Association 

(NAAA); (7) the American Financial 

Services Association (NTSF); (8) triVIN, 

Inc. (a company which provides 

automated title and registration 

transaction processing and business 

process outsourcing solutions); (9) the 

Alabama Department of Revenue; (10) 

the National Automobile Dealers 

Association (NADA); (11) the South 

Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles; 

(12) the Nevada Department of Motor 

Vehicles; and, (13) United Parcel 

Service (UPS). Below is a discussion of 

the comments NHTSA received. 

Of the thirteen comments received, 

nine commenters support Virginia’s 

petition without reservation (the Texas 

Department of Transportation, the Iowa 

Department of Transportation—Motor 

Vehicle Division, Oregon Driver and 

Motor Vehicle Services, the Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation, NTSF, 

triVIN, Inc., the Alabama Department of 

Revenue, NADA, and UPS). For 

example, the Iowa Department of 

Transportation states that NHTSA’s 

initial determination analysis was ‘‘well 

reasoned’’ and leads to the correct 

initial determination—to preliminarily 

grant the Commonwealth’s petition. 

Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle 

Services notes that, in its view, the 

method offered by Virginia for capturing 

and retaining odometer disclosure 

information provides a more secure 

process than currently provided for in 

Federal law. UPS notes that it has 

worked with VADMV since 1999 on 

automating the registration and title of 

new commercial vehicles. UPS stated 

that it does not receive ‘‘hard copy’’ 

paper titles and allows titles to reside 

electronically with VADMV. In practice, 

when UPS does require a paper title, 

such as for the disposition of a vehicle, 

UPS can electronically request a copy 

from VADMV, which is then printed, 

sent, and received within a few days. 

UPS states that in its experience the 

automation of these types of routine but 

necessary transactions and the 

elimination of paper documents, unless 

needed, saves time, costs, and 

unnecessary trips to VADMV offices. 

Four of the nine commenters who 

support Virginia’s petition go further, 

and request that NHTSA allow all states 

to enact similar disclosure systems 

without the need to file separate 

petitions (the Texas Department of 

Transportation, NTSF, NADA, and 

triVIN, Inc.).9

In addition to the nine commenters 

that support Virginia’s petition without 

reservation, three additional 

commenters indicate support for the 

Virginia petition, but raise certain 

concerns: the South Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles, the 

Michigan Department of State, and 

NAAA. The concerns are not in 

connection with why, in the view of the 

commenters, Virginia’s proposed 

alternate requirements would not be 

consistent with the purpose of the 

disclosure required by subsection (d) or 

(e) of Section 408 of the Cost Savings 

Act, as is required under the standard 

set forth in Section 408(f)(2) of the Cost 

Savings Act. Instead, the concerns relate 

to how Virginia’s proposal would 

operate in practice. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 647 

10Additionally, the bulk of the South Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles’ comments raise 

matters that NHTSA could only address in a 

rulemaking of general application to the states for 

electronic titling. For example, the South Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles contends other 

states’ technological and legal restrictions may 

prevent a state from enacting the type of electronic 

disclosure proposed by Virginia. It contends that 

NHTSA should provide each state enough 

flexibility to create a system that satisfies TIMA’s 

purposes while staying within specific state 

restrictions. NHTSA appreciate these suggestions. 

However, as noted above, this approach is not 

authorized by Section 408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings 

Act, and is neither within the scope of Virginia’s 

petition nor NHTSA’s initial determination. 

11The Michigan Department of State also 

questions how data fields would be presented by 

VADMV to potential transferors to fulfill TIMA’s 

purposes of title disclosures—for instance, how a 

transferor would be alerted to a salvaged title. The 

Michigan Department of State thus requested 

clarification on what information or data fields 

would be made available for parties to a transaction. 

The Michigan Department of State also questions 

how Virginia’s approach would handle multiple 

sellers or purchasers, or how liens would be 

discharged and perfected, but conceded that those 

matters were beyond the scope of Virginia’s 

petition. The Michigan Department of State also 

requested clarification on what appeals are 

available to a customer who accepted a transaction 

and later realizes he/she made an error in accepting 

the transaction. 

12 Virginia’s petition does not address, among 

others, disclosures involving leased vehicles. In 

view of the scope of Virginia’s petition, Virginia 

will continue to be subject to current Federal 

requirements as to leased vehicles and in this notice 

we do not address the purposes of the related 

provisions. 

For example, the South Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles questions 

how Virginia would approach liens and 

powers of attorney, questions which, as 

NHTSA explained in its initial 

determination, are outside of the scope 

of Virginia’s petition.10 The Michigan 

Department of State, at the outset, states 

that Virginia’s petition is consistent 

with Federal odometer standards. 

However, it notes that many states, 

including Michigan, require dealers to 

possess assigned certificates of title 

prior to transfer to the buyer, typically 

accomplished by holding a paper title. 

It notes that Virginia’s petition would 

require Virginia owners to obtain a 

paper title for out-of-state transfers, 

thereby adding complication to out-ofstate transactions.11 NAAA states that it 

generally supports Virginia’s proposal. 

However, it contends that Virginia’s 

approach may be an impediment to 

interstate transfers due to the three day 

wait period for a PIN. NAAA contends 

that this wait period creates an 

impediment to out-of-state wholesale 

purchasers and sellers; per NAAA, 

without the ability to make a same-day 

transaction, potential purchasers may 

steer clear of auto auctions potentially 

involving Virginia titles. NAAA, 

therefore, proposes that Virginia’s 

petition serve as an optional method for 

Virginians to transfer title while keeping 

paper transfers as a valid procedure, 

even for vehicles issued electronic titles. 

However, to the extent Virginia’s 

proposal does not continue to support 

traditional paper transfers as an option, 

NAAA does not support the petition. 

Only one of thirteen commenters does 

not support Virginia’s petition: The 

Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. 

It contends that an electronic titling 

process would be more time consuming 

and expensive than existing paper 

systems and raises questions as to how 

the system would operate in practice, 

particularly in connection with how 

Virginia’s electronic system would 

recognize mileage differences entered by 

the buyer and seller. The Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles also 

raises concerns in connection with the 

purposes of TIMA. It contends that, 

under Virginia’s petition, unless 

requested by the buyer, vehicles could 

be transferred multiple times without a 

paper title. By eliminating paper titles, 

the Nevada Department of Motor 

Vehicles recognizes that the likelihood 

of attempted alterations would decrease. 

However, it contends that it may be 

easier to pass branded titles because not 

all states use the National Motor Vehicle 

Title Information System (NVMTIS). 

The Nevada Department of Motor 

Vehicles further contends that for a 

vehicle coming from such a state into 

Virginia, VADMV would not have the 

odometer reading in its system, save for 

what the transferor enters, thus creating 

the potential to launder out-of-state 

titles through Virginia. 

V. Statutory Purposes of TIMA 

The Cost Savings Act, as amended by 

TIMA in 1986, contains a specific 

provision on approval of State 

alternative odometer disclosure 

programs. Subsection 408(f)(2) of the 

Cost Savings Act (now recodified at 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 Costs Savings Act were 

recodified to 49 U.S.C. 32705(b) and 

(c)). In light of this provision, an 

important question is what are the 

purpose(s) of the disclosure required by 

section 408(d), (e) of the Cost Savings 

Act as amended by TIMA. We now turn 

to our interpretation of the purposes of 

these subsections, as germane to 

Virginia’s petition.12

In the initial determination, NHTSA 

set forth its tentative view of the 

purpose(s) of the disclosure required by 

section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act 

as amended by TIMA. NHTSA also 

provided a full opportunity for 

comment, including on the statutory 

purposes that govern the resolution of a 

state’s petition. As noted above, most 

commenters agreed with NHTSA’s 

initial determination. While some 

expressed concern about how Virginia’s 

program would operate in practice, 

none disagreed with NHTSA’s 

delineation of the purposes of the 

disclosure under TIMA. Indeed, no 

commenter directly addressed the 

purposes of TIMA set forth in our initial 

determination. In these circumstances, 

and upon careful consideration, the 

agency adopts the statement of the 

purposes in the initial determination, 

which are set out below. 

One 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 

648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

13Since Virginia’s program does not cover leased 

vehicles, the purposes of Section 408(e) of the Cost 

Savings Act as amended by TIMA are not germane. 

14NHTSA’s final 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). 

reduce abuses associated with this lack 

of controls, TIMA required that a 

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, 

§ 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 ‘‘‘[o]ther 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, § 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 odometer 

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, 

§ 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. 

VI. NHTSA’s Final Determination 

In this part, NHTSA considers the 

Virginia program in light of the 

purposes of the disclosure required by 

subsection (d) of section 408.13

As an initial matter, under section 

408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings Act, 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) of 

section 408, as the case may be. The 

purposes of the odometer disclosure are 

discussed above, as is the Virginia 

program. 

The majority of the commenters 

agreed with the initial determination. Of 

those commenters that did not fully 

support the initial determination, the 

concerns raised by the South Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles, the 

Michigan Department of State, and 

NAAA do not implicate whether or not 

Virginia’s proposed alternate 

requirements satisfy the purposes of 

section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act. 

In particular, how powers of attorney 

are handled, how liens are perfected 

and discharged, how dealers are 

affected, how the system will handle 

auto auctions, and the potential costs 

and time associated with implementing 

Virginia’s system, all fall outside the 

scope of Virginia’s petition 14 and do not 

implicate whether or not Virginia’s 

proposed alternate requirements are 

consistent with TIMA. 

As to commenters’ suggestion that 

NHTSA allow all states to pursue an 

approach like Virginia’s proposal, such 

an approach is not within the scope of 

Virginia’s petition nor NHTSA’s initial 

determination. NHTSA, therefore, is 

unable to address such a request within 

the scope of NHTSA’s final 

determination here. Also, section 

408(f)(2) of the Cost Savings Act 

contemplates a submission of alternate 

requirements by a State. 

As explained in NHTSA’s initial 

determination, a purpose of TIMA is to 

assure that the form of the odometer 

disclosure precludes odometer fraud. 

NHTSA has determined that Virginia’s 

alternate disclosure requirements satisfy 

this purpose. Under Virginia’s program, 

the title will reside as an electronic 

record with the VADMV; however, 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 as 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 649 

15 If the transferor does not return the existing 

title to VADMV, the existing title will be invalid 

once the vehicle transfers to the transferee. 

16Electronic 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). 

17Further 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. 

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. 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 online transaction, the transferor is 

instructed to mail the existing title to 

the VADMV for destruction.15 If the 

transaction is successful, the VADMV 

will retain an electronic title, which 

includes a record of the transaction and 

the odometer disclosure information. 

Another purpose of TIMA is to 

prevent alterations to disclosures on 

titles and to preclude counterfeit titles, 

through secure processes. In this regard, 

NHTSA has determined that Virginia’s 

proposed process satisfies this purpose. 

By eliminating paper titles, the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles concedes 

that the likelihood of attempted 

alterations would decrease. The Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles did 

express the concern that, under 

Virginia’s petition, unless requested by 

the buyer, vehicles could be transferred 

multiple times without a paper title 

which may ‘‘serve as a way to pass 

along branded vehicles.’’ Nevada did 

not explain how this problem would 

arise. In any event, NHTSA respectfully 

does not agree. In our view, Virginia’s 

alternate disclosure requirements 

provide at least equivalent security 

protections against altering, tampering, 

or counterfeiting titles to a paper title 

printed through a secure process. 

Electronic recordation of the odometer 

reading decreases the likelihood of any 

subsequent odometer disclosure being 

altered by erasures or other methods. 

Under Virginia’s system, once the 

transaction is completed, VADMV stores 

an electronic version of the title and 

may upon request send a paper copy of 

the title to the transferee. The transferee 

may never request a paper title, even if 

there is a subsequent transfer. However, 

subsequent transferees will view an 

electronic odometer disclosure at the 

time of transfer as they verify the 

transferor’s mileage disclosure. 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 VADMV issues 

a paper title only upon request. As an 

electronic title, 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 determined in 

this matter that Virginia’s alternate 

disclosure requirements provide for a 

system that creates an equivalent to a 

‘‘paper trail’’ that assists law 

enforcement in identifying and 

prosecuting odometer fraud. NHTSA 

has analyzed the concern of the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles that, 

under Virginia’s proposal, it may be 

easier to pass branded titles because not 

all states use the National Motor Vehicle 

Title Information System (NVMTIS). 

NHTSA does not agree. Here, the paper 

trail under Virginia’s proposal 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 16 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. 

Moreover, the overall purpose of 

TIMA is to protect consumers by 

assuring that they receive valid 

representations of the vehicle’s actual 

mileage at the time of transfer based on 

odometer disclosures. In connection 

with this TIMA purpose, NHTSA has 

analyzed the concern of the Nevada 

Department of Motor Vehicles that, 

under Virginia’s proposal, for a vehicle 

coming into Virginia from another state, 

VADMV would not have the odometer 

reading in its system, save for what the 

transferor enters, thus creating the 

potential to launder out-of-state titles 

through Virginia. Again, NHTSA does 

not agree. Transactions involving out-ofstate titles are outside the scope of 

Virginia’s electronic disclosure 

proposal. Here, Virginia’s alternate 

disclosure requirements include several 

prerequisites, including a vehicle titled 

in Virginia, 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.17

For the foregoing reasons, and upon 

review of the entire record, NHTSA 

hereby issues a final determination 

granting Virginia’s petition for 

requirements that apply in lieu of the 

650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

federal requirements adopted under 

section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act. 

Other requirements of the Cost Savings 

Act continue to apply in Virginia. 

NHTSA reserves the right to rescind this 

grant in the event that information 

acquired after this grant indicates that, 

in operation, Virginia’s alternate 

requirements do not satisfy one or more 

applicable requirements. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32705; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: January 2, 2009. 

David Kelly, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–43 Filed 1–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P