        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 93
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540; FRL-8914-5]
        RIN 2060-AP29
        Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is announcing the extension of the public comment period on the proposed rule, “Transportation Conformity Rule PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments.” This proposed rule was published May 15, 2009 in the Federal Register (74 FR 23024), and written comments on the proposed rule were to be submitted by June 15, 2009. EPA also stated in the proposal that the comment period would be extended if a public hearing was requested by a certain date. On May 26, 2009, EPA received such a request to hold a public hearing for this proposed rule, and the public hearing was held on June 4, 2009 at the EPA in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a result, EPA is notifying the public again that the deadline to submit public comments on the proposal is now June 29, 2009.

          DATES:
          Comments on the May 15, 2009 (74 FR 23024) proposed rule must be received on or before June 29, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-9744.
          • Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. Please include a total of two copies.
          • Hand Delivery: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: EPA West Building, EPA Docket Center (Room 3334), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. Please include two copies. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Laura Berry, State Measures and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail address: berry.laura@epa.gov, telephone number: (734) 214-4858, fax number: (734) 214-4052; or Patty Klavon, State Measures and Conformity Group, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, e-mail address: klavon.patty@epa.gov, telephone number: (734) 214-4476, fax number: (734) 214-4052.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI
        Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
        When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        3. Docket Copying Costs
        You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.
        B. How Do I Get Copies of This Proposed Rule and Other Documents?
        1. Docket

        EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0540. You can get a paper copy of this Federal Register document, as well as the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action at the official public docket. See the ADDRESSES section for its location.

        2. Electronic Access
        You may access this Federal Register document electronically through EPA's Transportation Conformity Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm. You may also access this document electronically under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

        An electronic version of the official public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
        Certain types of information will not be placed in the electronic public docket. Information claimed as CBI and other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute is not available for public viewing in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in the electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.

        To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in the electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in the electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in the ADDRESSES section. EPA intends to provide electronic access in the future to all of the publicly available docket materials through the electronic public docket.
        Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to the electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in the electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in the electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

        For additional information about the electronic public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

          Dated: June 3, 2009.
          Margo T. Oge,
          Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

      [FR Doc. E9-13332 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 580
        [Docket NHTSA-2012-0122; Notice 1]
        Petition for Approval of Alternate Odometer Disclosure Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of initial determination.

          SUMMARY:
          The State of Arizona has petitioned for approval of alternate requirements to certain requirements under Federal odometer law. NHTSA initially denies Arizona's petition. This notice is not a final agency action.

          DATES:
          Comments are due no later than September 19, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA-2012-0122] 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: 202-493-2251.

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

            1 Sec. 401-13, Public Law 92-513, 86 Stat. 961-63.

            2 Sec. 1-3, Public Law 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309.

        TIMA's motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements apply in a State unless the State has alternate requirements approved by the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated administration of the odometer program to NHTSA. Therefore, a State may petition NHTSA for approval of such alternate odometer disclosure requirements. 49 CFR 580.11 governs petitions for approval of alternate disclosure requirements.
        Seeking to implement an electronic odometer disclosure submittal process for licensed dealers, the State of Arizona petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements.
        As discussed below, NHTSA's initial assessment is that Arizona's petition does not satisfy the requirements for a petition for approval of alternate disclosure requirements as set forth at 49 CFR 580.11(b), and that Arizona's proposed alternate odometer disclosure requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by Federal odometer law. For these reasons, as explained below, NHTSA preliminarily denies Arizona's petition.
        II. Statutory Background and Purposes
        A. Statutory Background

        NHTSA reviewed the statutory background of Federal odometer law in its consideration of petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements by Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida, and New York. See 74 FR 643, Jan. 7, 2009 (granting Virginia's petition); 75 FR 20925, Apr. 22, 2010 (granting Texas' petition); 76 FR 1367, Jan. 10, 2011 (granting Wisconsin's petition in part); 77 FR 36935, June 20, 2012 (granting Florida's petition in part, and denying Florida's petition in part); see also 76 FR 65485, Oct. 21, 2011 (initial determination denying New York's petition). The statutory background of the Cost Savings Act and TIMA, as related to odometer disclosure requirements, other than in the transfer of leased vehicles and vehicles subject to liens where a power of attorney is used, is discussed at length in NHTSA's final determination granting Virginia's petition. 74 FR 643; see also 77 FR 36935; 76 FR 48101, Aug. 8, 2011 (addressing leased vehicles and powers of attorney).3
           A brief summary of the statutory background of Federal odometer law follows.

            3 Arizona's petition does not address leased vehicles or powers of attorney.

        In 1972, Congress enacted the Cost Savings Act to establish safeguards for consumers which prohibited odometer tampering. Among other things, the Cost Savings Act made it unlawful to alter an odometer's mileage, and required written disclosure of odometer mileage in connection with any transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle.4
           However, the Cost Savings Act had a number of shortcomings, which are discussed below.

            4 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).

        In 1986, Congress enacted TIMA to address the Cost Savings Act's shortcomings. Congress was specifically concerned with addressing odometer fraud in the commercial market, and noted that used car auctions, distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and used car lots of new car dealers often may be directly involved in fraud.5
           TIMA also added a provision to the Cost Savings Act, allowing States to obtain approval for alternate odometer disclosure requirements. Pursuant to Section 408(f) of the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA: The Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may be.

            5 S. Rep. 99-47, at 2 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5621.

        In 1994, in the course of the recodification of various laws pertaining to the Department of Transportation, the Cost Savings Act, as amended, was repealed, reenacted, and recodified without substantive change. See Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, 1048-1056, 1379, 1387 (1994). The odometer statute is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32701 et seq. 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, with subsequent amendments, 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).
        B. Statutory Purposes
        In our final determinations, after notice and comment, granting the petitions for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements of Virginia, Texas, and, in part, Wisconsin and Florida, we identified the statutory purposes of TIMA.6
           74 FR 643; 75 FR 20925; 76 FR 1367; 77 FR 36935. These purposes are summarized below.

            6 Any statements which refer to the “purposes of TIMA” or a “purpose of TIMA” should be interpreted to refer to the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may be, as stated in Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA.

        One purpose of TIMA was to ensure that the form of the odometer disclosure precluded odometer fraud. The Cost Savings Act did not require odometer disclosures to be made on a vehicle's title. This created a potential for odometer fraud, because a transferor could easily alter the odometer disclosure or provide a new statement with different mileage.7
           TIMA addressed this shortcoming of the Cost Savings Act by requiring mileage disclosures to be on a vehicle's title instead of a separate document. Titles also had to contain space for the seller's attested mileage disclosure.

            7 See S. Rep. 99-47, at 2-3 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5621-22; H. Rep. 99-833, at 33 (1986).

        A second purpose of TIMA was to prevent odometer fraud by processes and mechanisms making the disclosure of an odometer's mileage on the title a condition of the application for a title, and a requirement for the title issued by the State.8
           This was intended to eliminate or significantly reduce abuses associated with lack of control of the titling process.9
           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.

            8 See S. Rep. 99-47, at 2-3 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5621-22; H. Rep. 99-833, at 18, 32 (1986).

            9 Sec. 2, Public Law 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309.

        Third, TIMA sought to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. Prior to TIMA, titles could be printed through non-secure processes, and could be easily altered or laundered.10
           To address this shortcoming of the Cost Savings Act, TIMA required titles to be printed by means of a secure printing process or protected by other secure processes.11

            10 See S. Rep. 99-47, at 3 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5620, 5622.

            11 See H. Rep. 99-833, at 18, 33 (1986).

        A fourth purpose of TIMA was to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail.12

           This would allow consumers to be better informed and provide a mechanism for tracing odometer tampering and prosecuting violators. Under the Cost Savings Act, prior to TIMA, odometer disclosures could be made on pieces of paper and did not have to be submitted with new title applications. TIMA required new applications for title to include the transferor's mileage disclosure statement on the title, creating a permanent record that could easily be checked by subsequent owners or law enforcement officials. This record would provide critical snapshots of the vehicle's mileage at every transfer, which are fundamental links in the paper trail.

            12 See H. Rep. 99-833, at 18, 33 (1986).

        Finally, the general purpose of TIMA was to protect consumers by ensuring that they received valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures.13
           The TIMA amendments were directed at resolving shortcomings in the Cost Savings Act.

            13 See Sec. 1-3, Public Law 99-579, 100 Stat. 3309.

        III. The Arizona Petition
        Arizona seeks to implement an electronic odometer disclosure submittal process for licensed motor vehicle dealers, and petitions NHTSA for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirements. The petition requests NHTSA to allow use of alternate odometer disclosure procedures in two situations.
        As background, according to information posted on the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Web site, there are over 700 new motor vehicle dealers licensed in Arizona and over 1,400 used motor vehicle dealers licensed in Arizona.14
           The Arizona Automobile Dealers Association, which represents new car and truck franchised dealers, has over 250 members.15
           The Arizona Independent Automobile Dealers Association, which calls itself the voice of the used motor vehicle industry and represents non-franchised motor vehicle dealers in Arizona, has 215 registered dealers.16

            14 http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/MotorVehicleDealers/LicensedDealers.asp (Arizona Licensed Motor Vehicle Dealer Listing, June 2012).

            15 http://www.aada.com/.

            16 See http://www.aiada.net/.

        A. Arizona Law Regarding Dealers
        Since Arizona's petition addresses the transfer of used motor vehicles to and from licensed Arizona dealers, we briefly describe certain aspects of Arizona law relevant to such transfers. Currently, pursuant to the Arizona Revised Statutes, a dealer shall not offer for sale or sell a used motor vehicle until the dealer has obtained a certificate of title to the motor vehicle.17
           The Arizona Administrative Code further requires that the dealer's name shall be recorded on a title certificate as transferee or purchaser.18
           A certificate of title in Arizona includes space for ownership change information, including an odometer mileage disclosure statement, and dealer reassignment information.19

            17 Ariz. Rev. Stat. 28-4409(A)(2).

            18 Ariz. Admin. Code R17-5-404

            19 Ariz. Admin. Code R17-4-202(B).

        Arizona's petition does not identify any proposed changes to applicable State law.
        B. Arizona's Proposed Projects
        Arizona proposes that licensed dealers meeting specified technical requirements would electronically scan and upload documents to ADOT, including documents used to make odometer disclosures, rather than mailing or hand-carrying the documents to ADOT. Based on this description, it is our understanding that Arizona's proposals would only apply to vehicles acquired by licensed Arizona dealers and sold to in-state buyers.
        According to the petition, dealers would scan documents using a specified format and resolution, and would encrypt the scanned images. Dealers would transmit the images to ADOT through a secure system using account codes, user/group profiles, and passwords.20
           ADOT would have the ability to sanction participating dealers, including revoking their ability to electronically submit documents to ADOT. ADOT would retain electronic files in a document management system, and dealers would be required to retain hard copies of the documents submitted in accordance with retention periods specified by Federal and Arizona law.

            20 The petition does not describe whether employees of a dealer would share information to access the ADOT system or whether each employee of a dealer would have unique access information, so that a submission could be traced to a specific individual.

        Both of Arizona's proposed projects would utilize odometer disclosures made on a form described in the petition as a Secure Odometer Disclosure.21
           An example of a completed Secure Odometer Disclosure form is attached to Arizona's petition. The example form includes ADOT identifying information in the upper left-hand corner and indicates that it is void if altered or erased. Arizona's petition describes the form as using a watermark displaying the word VOID when scanned. This feature is visible on the example provided; the word VOID appears repeatedly across the entire form. The form does not have any unique identifier, such as a serial number.

            21 We note that, based on the example form, a Secure Odometer Disclosure would be used solely for the purpose of making an odometer disclosure. It would not transfer ownership of a vehicle.

        The top section of the proposed Secure Odometer Disclosure form includes spaces for Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), Year, Make, Body Style, Buyer Name, and Title Number. The form also appears to include a space for Sale Date; however, the example attached to Arizona's petition is completed with the sale state (AZ) in that space.
        The next section of the Secure Odometer Disclosure form includes the following statement: “Federal and State law require that the seller states the mileage in connection with the transfer of ownership. Failure to complete the odometer statement, or providing a false statement, may result in fines and/or imprisonment.” Below that statement is a space for Odometer Reading and boxes to check to indicate whether the odometer reading is in miles or kilometers. There is also a box to check to indicate “Mileage in excess of odometer mechanical limits,” and a box to check to indicate “NOT Actual Mileage, WARNING—ODOMETER DISCREPANCY.” Below, the form states: “I certify to the best of my knowledge that the odometer reading is the actual mileage unless one of the boxes above is checked.”
        The following section of the Secure Odometer Disclosure form includes spaces for Seller/Dealership name (printed), Dealer Number, Street Address, City, State, Zip, Agent Name, and Seller/Agent Signature.
        At the bottom of the Secure Odometer Disclosure form is the following statement: “I am aware of the above odometer certification made by the seller.” This statement is followed by spaces for Buyer Name (printed) and Buyer Signature.
        The Secure Odometer Disclosure form would be completed and signed by hand. A licensed automobile dealer would scan and electronically submit the completed Secure Odometer Disclosure form, along with other documents as described below, to ADOT.
        1. Project One
        For purposes of the first project addressed by the petition (Project One), Arizona seeks to institute alternate odometer disclosure requirements for a trade in or sale of a used vehicle to a licensed dealer when there is no paper title 22
           and the vehicle is subject to electronic lien(s).

            22 It appears that there is an electronic title. The petition describes Arizona as having state laws designed to facilitate a nearly paperless vehicle title system, but does not provide copies of, cite to, or otherwise describe those laws.

        According to the petition, the transferor would make an odometer disclosure to the dealer on a Secure Odometer Disclosure form, signed by both parties. The dealer would then apply for a title in its own name by scanning and electronically submitting a title application, Secure Odometer Disclosure form, and other supporting documents to ADOT.
        The petition specifies that the dealer would make an odometer disclosure on the title at the time it resells the vehicle. Petition at p. 2. While this indicates that ADOT would send the dealer a new paper title after the transfer of the vehicle to the dealer is complete, another portion of the petition describing the process states that the selling dealer would make an odometer disclosure on a Secure Odometer Disclosure form. Petition at p. 3. According to this portion of the petition, the dealer would then scan and electronically submit the completed Secure Odometer Disclosure form and other supporting documents to ADOT.23
           The petition appears to propose that the dealer would scan and electronically submit a Secure Odometer Disclosure, but not the title, to ADOT following the dealer's sale of the vehicle.24

            23 The purpose of this submission is not clear from the petition. Unlike the submission following the initial transaction in Project One (the transfer of a vehicle to the dealer), the petition does not specify that the dealer would submit a title application along with the Secure Odometer Disclosure form.

            24 This is unlike the petition's description of the dealer's electronic submission to ADOT for purposes of Project Two, discussed below.

        The dealer would retain the original Secure Odometer Disclosure forms for the retention periods specified by Federal and Arizona law.
        2. Project Two
        Arizona's petition also describes a second project (Project Two), for which it seeks alternate odometer disclosure requirements. Project Two would apply to a licensed dealer's sale of a used motor vehicle that had a paper title at the time it was transferred (traded in or sold) to a licensed dealer.
        The petition states that the vehicle would be resold by a dealer using the paper title from the transferor. It appears, based on this description and the requirements of Arizona law that a dealer's name shall be recorded on a title certificate as transferee or purchaser and that a title include space for dealer reassignment information, that the dealer would make an odometer disclosure on the paper title at the time it resells the vehicle.25
           However, the petition also specifies that if the dealer applies for a new title in the name of the vehicle purchaser, the dealer and purchaser would complete a Secure Odometer Disclosure form. The dealer would then scan and electronically submit a title application, the paper title,26
           the Secure Odometer Disclosure form, and supporting documents to ADOT. The dealer would retain the original documents (including the original paper title) for the retention periods specified by Federal and Arizona law. According to the petition, a new title would be sent to the buyer if there is no lien on the vehicle. If there is a lien, both the lien and the title would be maintained as electronic records by ADOT.

            25 Arizona's petition is not detailed and at points is not clear. To the extent our reading of the petition is inconsistent with Arizona's intent, we invite Arizona to clarify its proposals in comments.

            26 It appears that the dealer would be required to submit scans of both the front and back of the paper title.

        C. Arizona's Position on Meeting the Statutory Purposes

        Arizona's petition asserts that its proposals are consistent with the purposes of Federal odometer law and regulations.27
           Arizona identifies the purposes of Chapter 327 of Title 49 as a whole. Specifically, those purposes are to prohibit tampering with motor vehicle odometers, and to provide safeguards to protect purchasers in the sale of motor vehicles with altered or reset odometers. 49 U.S.C. 32701(b). Arizona also identifies the purposes of Federal regulations pertaining to odometer disclosure requirements, as set forth at 49 CFR 580.2. Those purposes, other than for leased vehicles, are to provide purchasers of motor vehicles with odometer information to assist them in determining a vehicle's condition and value by making the disclosure of a vehicle's mileage a condition of title, and to preserve records that are needed for the proper investigation of possible violations of the Cost Savings Act and any subsequent prosecutorial, adjudicative, or other action.

            27 As discussed above, pursuant to Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act, as amended by TIMA: The Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may be.

        Arizona asserts that its proposed projects support the enforcement of Federal odometer law by ensuring that a Secure Odometer Disclosure form is submitted and transmitted electronically by a dealer to a certified ADOT processor. Arizona also states that a watermark displaying the word VOID across the Secure Odometer Disclosure form when scanned will serve as a secure measure to submission of a fraudulent form. Arizona also asserts that the processes it proposes will offer greater protections against potential odometer fraud than does 49 CFR part 580.
        IV. Analysis
        A. Requirements for a Petition Under 49 CFR 580.11(b)

        As a preliminary matter, NHTSA's initial determination is that Arizona's petition does not satisfy the requirements for a petition for approval of alternate disclosure requirements, set forth in 49 CFR 580.11(b).
        First, the petition does not set forth the motor vehicle disclosure requirements in effect in the State, including a copy of the applicable State law or regulation, as required by 49 CFR 580.11(b)(3). We reviewed Arizona law and discussed relevant provisions above.28
           The petition states that Arizona is requesting to change the manner in which documents are submitted to and maintained by the State, and not the manner in which odometer disclosures are made.29
           However, we found no reference to a Secure Odometer Disclosure in the Arizona Revised Statutes or Arizona Administrative Code.

            28 To the extent Arizona believes additional provisions (including any proposed new provisions) are relevant, we invite Arizona to set forth and include a copy of such provisions in comments.

            29 The petition asserts that, under both of the proposed projects, all required odometer disclosures will continue to be made in the manner required by 49 CFR part 580. We note that this assertion is illogical; if all required odometer disclosures will be made in the manner required by 49 CFR PART 580 then Arizona has no need to petition for approval of alternate disclosure requirements.

        Second, Arizona's petition does not adequately demonstrate that the State motor vehicle requirements are consistent with the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. See 49 CFR 580.11(b)(4). As noted above, Section 408(f) of the Cost Savings Act, as added by TIMA, states in pertinent part that the Secretary shall approve alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State unless the Secretary determines that such requirements are not consistent with the purpose of the disclosure required by subsection (d) or (e), as the case may be.30
           The petition includes a very limited discussion of how, according to Arizona, its proposals are consistent with the statutory purposes of Section 408(d).31

           The petition specifically describes the proposed method of electronically submitting a Secure Odometer Disclosure form to ADOT and the use of a watermark as supporting the purposes of the law. However, Arizona's petition does not specifically address the purposes of Section 408(d) of the Cost Savings Act, even though NHTSA had specifically addressed this in prior Federal Register notices. Arizona also does not explain how use of a Secure Odometer Disclosure form to make an odometer disclosure is consistent with the relevant purposes.

            30 We note that the statute predicates approval of alternate motor vehicle mileage disclosure requirements submitted by a State on their consistency with the purpose of the statutory disclosure requirements. Most States that have petitioned for approval of alternate odometer disclosure requirement have specifically addressed the purposes of TIMA related to the disclosure requirements, as set forth above. See 76 FR 1367; 76 FR 65485; 77 FR 36935. Instead of addressing the purpose of the statutory disclosure requirements, Arizona instead addressed the broader, overall purposes of Federal odometer law (which originate from Section 401 of the 1972 law) and the purposes of Federal odometer regulations.

            31 We do not address Section 408(e), which concerned leased motor vehicles, because Arizona's petition does not address leased motor vehicles.

        B. Arizona's Proposal in Light of TIMA's Purposes

        In view of the initial, non-final, nature of our assessment of whether Arizona's petition meets the requirements for a petition, we now proceed to our initial assessment of whether Arizona's proposed projects satisfy TIMA's purposes. We address Arizona's two proposed projects in turn.
        1. Project One
        NHTSA has initially determined that Project One would not satisfy the first purpose of TIMA, to ensure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. TIMA addressed the potential for fraud by requiring mileage disclosures to be on a vehicle's title instead of a separate document. Project One is inconsistent with this purpose because it proposes using a Secure Odometer Disclosure form, separate 32
           from the vehicle's title, to make an odometer disclosure. First, a transferor would use a Secure Odometer Disclosure form to make an odometer disclosure upon trading in or selling the vehicle to a dealer.33
           Second, a dealer, who had obtained title in its own name for the vehicle, would apparently make an odometer disclosure on a Secure Odometer Disclosure at the time it resells the vehicle.34
           An unscrupulous person could discard a Secure Odometer Disclosure form signed by both parties and create another Secure Odometer Disclosure form bearing an inaccurate odometer disclosure prior to submitting it to ADOT.

            32 NHTSA has approved petitions establishing a process for an odometer disclosure to be directly linked to a vehicle's title using a secure process involving both parties. See 74 FR 643; 75 FR 20925; 76 FR 1367; 77 FR 36935. In such cases, the odometer disclosure is not separate from the title.

            33 We note that Project One addresses vehicles subject to liens. In amendments to TIMA pertaining to titles in the possession of a lienholder when the transferor transfers ownership of the vehicles, Congress maintained the requirement that the disclosure be on the title itself. It did provide for the use of a secure power of attorney under restrictive conditions, as an exception to the prohibition that a person may not sign an odometer disclosure statement as both the transferor and transferee.

            34 The petition also specifies that the dealer would make an odometer disclosure on the title. Arizona does not explain why the dealer also apparently would make an odometer disclosure on a separate Secure Odometer Disclosure form.

        NHTSA has also initially determined that Project One does not satisfy the second purpose of TIMA, 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. There is no such requirement in Project One. Instead, Project One would allow a dealer to apply for and obtain a title in its own name by electronically transmitting a Secure Odometer Disclosure form, separate from the vehicle's title, to ADOT.35

            35 Project One also proposes that a dealer would electronically submit a Secure Odometer Disclosure to ADOT following its subsequent resale of the vehicle, but it is unclear from the petition whether this submission is for the purpose of a title application.

        NHTSA has also initially determined that Project One also does not satisfy the third purpose of TIMA, which is to prevent alterations of odometer disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. Project One would make odometer disclosures on Secure Odometer Disclosure forms, which are susceptible to substitutions, alterations, and/or forgery. Arizona's petition states that the use of a watermark on the Secure Odometer Disclosure form and security features in dealers' electronic submissions to ADOT provide sufficient levels of security. However, Arizona has not shown how the watermark would prevent submission of a fraudulent form, as the petition claims. According to the petition, the word VOID is displayed after the form is scanned. Since, in proposed Project One, a dealer is required to scan the form to submit it to ADOT, Secure Odometer Disclosure forms received by ADOT would appear as VOID. Arizona has not explained how ADOT would distinguish between an altered form that read VOID prior to being scanned, and a legitimate form that read VOID after being scanned.36
           Moreover, dealers would have access to blank forms bearing the watermark, which could be used by an unscrupulous person to create a new, fraudulent form prior to submitting it to ADOT, as discussed above.

            36 The placement of the word VOID repeatedly across the Secure Odometer Disclosure form also obscures the writing on the form, and may make the disclosure difficult to read once scanned.

        NHTSA has initially determined that Project One also does not satisfy the fourth purpose of TIMA, to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. Project One would not create a scheme of records equivalent to the paper trail required by law. The mileage recorded in an odometer disclosure establishes a critical benchmark for evaluating the remaining mileage declarations that will follow. NHTSA has initially determined that Project One's proposed use of a Secure Odometer Disclosure form would not create records and a paper trail consistent with this purpose of TIMA because the form is separate from the vehicle's title and, as discussed above, a person could create and submit a fraudulent form. ADOT has no means of ensuring that the form submitted was actually signed by the seller and the buyer.37
           Thus, the benchmark for evaluating mileage declarations that follow would be lacking, and there would not be a clear record and paper trail as contemplated by TIMA.

            37 A further concern is that a scan could be digitally altered. This issue is discussed in further detail below, with respect to Project Two. Unlike other petitions approved by NHTSA, under Arizona's proposal, only one party involved in the vehicle transfer would transmit information regarding the odometer disclosure to the State. See 74 FR 643; 75 FR 20925; 76 FR 1367; 77 FR 36935.

        The information disclosed in a proposed Secure Odometer Disclosure form also creates an inadequate paper trail. Based on the example provided by Arizona, as described in detail above, the Secure Odometer Disclosure form does not require disclosure of the transferee's address. Arizona offers no explanation for this omission, which could make tracing and prosecuting fraud more difficult.38

            38 Contrary to Arizona's representation that its proposals are in compliance with Federal odometer regulations, a Secure Odometer Disclosure form would not require disclosure of a transferee's current address, as required by 49 CFR 580.5(c)(4), and vehicle model, as required by 49 CFR 580.5(c)(5). We also note that, based on the completed example form provided by Arizona, the date of transfer is not disclosed, as is required by 49 CFR 580.5(c)(2). Although the form does appear to include a space for sale date, the completed example indicates AZ (i.e. sale state) in that space. The Secure Odometer Disclosure form also does not explicitly warn a customer not to rely on the odometer reading if the odometer disclosure is marked to indicate that it does not reflect the actual mileage of the vehicle, as required by 49 CFR 580.5(e)(3). The form does include a warning notice to alert the transferee that a discrepancy exists between the odometer reading and the actual mileage, as is also required by 49 CFR 580.5(e)(3).

        Arizona's proposed use of a Secure Odometer Disclosure form could also result in an inadequate paper trail when used for the initial transfer (the transfer of a vehicle to a dealer). One section of the form includes spaces for Seller/Dealership Name (printed), Dealer Number, Street Address, City, State, Zip, Agent Name, and Seller/Agent Signature. When the seller is not a dealer, it is unclear which party should complete this section. If the transferee dealer's agent fills in this section of the form, there would be no spaces on the form for the transferor to disclose his or her name and address. There also would be no space for the transferor to sign, which is of crucial importance since the transferor must certify the odometer disclosure. Even if the dealer completed only the “Buyer” portions of the form, the form appears inadequate. Since there are only spaces for Buyer Name and Buyer Signature, the form may lack either the dealership name or name of the dealer's agent who completed the form.
        NHTSA has also initially determined that Project One does not satisfy the general purpose of TIMA, of protecting consumers by ensuring that they receive valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. First, Arizona's proposed Project One relies on odometer disclosures made on Secure Odometer Disclosure forms, which is problematic, as is described above, because a person can create and submit a fraudulent form, and because ADOT has no means to verify whether a submitted form is authentic. If a fraudulent Secure Odometer Disclosure form was submitted to ADOT, it would lead to subsequent owners of a vehicle receiving inaccurate representations of the vehicle's actual mileage. Second, Arizona's proposal apparently would require a dealer make two separate disclosures (one on the title, and another on a Secure Odometer Disclosure form) at the time it resells the vehicle. This creates the potential that a buyer would receive inconsistent odometer disclosures.
        2. Project Two
        NHTSA has initially determined that Arizona's proposed Project Two would not satisfy the first purpose of TIMA, to ensure that the form of the odometer disclosure precludes odometer fraud. As discussed above, TIMA addressed the potential for fraud by requiring mileage disclosures to be on a vehicle's title instead of a separate document. Project Two is inconsistent with this purpose because it proposes the use of a Secure Odometer Disclosure form, separate from the vehicle's title, to make an odometer disclosure. As discussed with Project One, an unscrupulous person could create and submit a fraudulent form to ADOT.
        NHTSA has also initially determined that Project Two does not satisfy the second purpose of TIMA, 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. As described above, it appears from Arizona's petition that a dealer would make an odometer disclosure both on the vehicle's title and on a Secure Odometer Disclosure form at the time it resells the vehicle.39
           The dealer would electronically submit both documents to ADOT for purposes of obtaining a new title for the vehicle's purchaser. Since it is not clear which odometer disclosure (if any) ADOT would consider valid in the event the two disclosures were inconsistent, there is the potential that an odometer disclosure on the title would not be considered the required element for the title issued by the State.40

            39 Arizona does not explain why two separate odometer disclosures would be made for the purpose of a single transaction.

            40 The petition states that a Motor Vehicle Certified Processor (which we understand to be a person, rather than an automated program) makes a visual comparison between the record for the vehicle, Secure Odometer Disclosure, and other documents submitted. The petition does not specify the process if a discrepancy in the documents is found.

        It is NHTSA's initial determination that Project Two also does not satisfy the third purpose of TIMA, to prevent alterations of disclosures on titles and to preclude counterfeit titles through secure processes. Project Two proposes using Secure Odometer Disclosure forms to make odometer disclosures, but such forms are susceptible to substitutions, alterations, and/or forgery, as discussed above with respect to Project One. In addition, Project Two specifies that a dealer would submit scans of a paper title to ADOT in support of a new buyer's application for a title. The original paper title would not be sent to the State; the dealer would retain it. A sophisticated person may be able to submit to ADOT a scanned image that does not state the authentic disclosed mileage. The petition addresses some technical requirements for scanning and transmitting documents, but does not specifically address security measures that would prevent tampering or allow detection of a scanned image that contains an alteration.
        NHTSA has also initially determined that Project Two does not satisfy the fourth purpose of TIMA, to create a record of the mileage on vehicles and a paper trail. As discussed above with respect to Project One, the use of a Secure Odometer Disclosure form to make an odometer disclosure would not create records and a paper trail consistent with this purpose of TIMA because it is separate from the vehicle's title, there is the potential for a person to create and submit a fraudulent form, and ADOT has no means of ensuring that a form submitted is an authentic form signed by both parties. Additionally, Project Two relies on dealers to submit scans of documents to ADOT. As discussed above, such scans are susceptible to alterations. The information disclosed in a Secure Odometer Disclosure form also creates an inadequate paper trail, as addressed by our discussion of Project One above. Specifically, the form does not include space for the transferee's address, or adequate space for disclosure of the name of a dealership and its agent's name in the case of a buyer that is a dealer.
        NHTSA has initially determined that Project Two also does not satisfy the general purpose of TIMA, to protect consumers by ensuring that they receive valid representations of the vehicle's actual mileage at the time of transfer based on odometer disclosures. NHTSA's rationale regarding this general purpose is the same as discussed above with respect to Project One. Specifically, a fraudulent Secure Odometer Disclosure form may be submitted to ADOT, which has no means to verify the authenticity of the form. Additionally, Project Two involves scans of titles, which are susceptible to alterations, as described above. If a fraudulent disclosure was submitted to ADOT, subsequent owners would receive inaccurate representations of the vehicle's actual mileage. Like Project One, Project Two also creates the potential for inconsistent odometer disclosures because of the apparent requirement that a dealer make an odometer disclosure both on a paper title and a Secure Odometer Disclosure at the time it resells the vehicle.
        V. NHTSA's Initial Determination

        For the foregoing reasons, NHTSA preliminarily denies Arizona's petition regarding proposed alternate disclosure requirements.

        This is not a final agency action. NHTSA invites comments within the scope of this notice from the public, including Arizona.
        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 Web site 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: August 14, 2012.
          O. Kevin Vincent,
          Chief Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2012-20381 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
        Office of Federal Procurement Policy
        48 CFR Part 9904
        Harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413 With the Pension Protection Act of 2006

          ACTION:
          . Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Cost Accounting Standards Board, invites public comments concerning an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413 with the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

          DATES:
          Comments must be in writing and must be received by November 3, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          The full text of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Board's response to public comments on the Staff Discussion Paper and the draft proposed amendments to Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413, is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/casb/2008_anprm.pdf and http://www.regulations.gov.
          All comments to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be in writing. Due to delays in the receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Electronic comments may be submitted in any one of three ways:
          1. Comments may be directly sent via http://www.regulations.gov—a Federal E-Government Web site that allows the public to find, review, and submit comments on documents that agencies have published in the Federal Register and that are open for comment. Simply type “CAS Pension Harmonization ANPRM” (without quotes) in the Comment or Submission search box, click Go, and follow the instructions for submitting comments;
          2. Comments may be included in an e-mail message sent to casb2@omb.eop.gov. The comments may be submitted in the text of the e-mail message or as an attachment; or

          3. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395-5105.

          Be sure to include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and e-mail address in the text of your public comment and reference “CAS Pension Harmonization ANPRM” in the subject line. Comments received by the date specified above will be included as part of the official record.

          Please note that all public comments received will be available in their entirety at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/casb/index_public_comments.html and http://www.regulations.gov after the close of the comment period.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Eric Shipley, Project Director, Cost Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 410-786-6381).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Regulatory Process
        Rules, Regulations and Standards issued by the Cost Accounting Standards Board (Board) are codified at 48 CFR Chapter 99. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g), requires that the Board, prior to the establishment of any new or revised Cost Accounting Standard (CAS or Standard), complete a prescribed rulemaking process. The process generally consists of the following four steps:
        1. Consult with interested persons concerning the advantages, disadvantages and improvements anticipated in the pricing and administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption of a proposed Standard.
        2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        4. Promulgate a Final Rule.

        This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is step two of the four-step process.
        B. Background and Summary
        The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards Board, is today releasing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) 412 and 413 with the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780). The Office of Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)(1), requires the Board to consult with interested persons concerning the advantages, disadvantages, and improvements anticipated in the pricing and administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption of a proposed Standard prior to the promulgation of any new or revised CAS.
        The PPA amended the minimum funding requirements and tax-deductibility of contributions to pension plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The PPA requires the Board to revise Standards 412 and 413 of the CAS to harmonize with the amended ERISA minimum required contribution not later than January 1, 2010.
        On July 3, 2007, the Board published a Staff Discussion Paper (72 FR 36508) in accordance with 41 U.S.C. 422(g) to solicit public views with respect to the Board's statutory requirement to “harmonize” CAS 412 and 413 with the PPA. Differences between CAS 412 and 413 and the PPA, as well as issues associated with pension harmonization were identified in the Staff Discussion Paper (SDP). Respondents were invited to identify and comment on any issues related to pension harmonization that they felt were important. The SDP identified issues related to pension harmonization and did not necessarily represent the position of the Board.

        The SDP noted basic conceptual differences between the CAS and the PPA that affect all contracts and awards subject to CAS 412 and 413. The PPA utilizes a settlement or liquidation approach to value pension plan assets and liabilities, including the use of accrued benefit obligations and interest rates based on current corporate bond rates. On the other hand, CAS utilizes the going concern approach to plan asset and liability valuations, i.e., assumes the company (or in this case the pension plan and trust) will continue in business, and follows accrual accounting principles that incorporate long-term, going concern assumptions about future asset returns, future years of employees' service, and future salary increases. These assumptions about future events are absent from the settlement approach.

        The full text of the public comments to the SDP is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/casb/index_public_comments.html under “Combined Public Comments on the Staff Discussion Paper on the Harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413 with the Pension Protection Act of 2006,” and http://www.regulations.gov.

        The Board believes that the accounting for pension costs for contract costing purposes should continue to reflect the long-term nature of the pension plan for a going-concern. The Cost Accounting Standards are intended to provide cost data not only to determine the incurred cost for the current period, but also to provide consistent and reasonable cost data for forward-pricing contracts over the near future. Financial statement accounting, on the other hand, is intended to report the change in an entity's financial position and results of operations during the current period. ERISA does not prescribe a unique cost or expense for a period. The minimum required contribution rules of ERISA, as amended by the PPA, instead require that the plan achieves funding of its current settlement liability within a short period of time. On the other hand, the ERISA tax-deductible maximum contribution is based on the plan's long-term benefit levels plus a reserve against adverse experience. ERISA permits the entity a wide contribution range that allows the company to set long-term financial management decisions on the funding of the ongoing pension plan.
        The Board recognizes that contract cost accounting for a going concern must, nevertheless, address the risk associated with inadequate funding of a plan's settlement liability and therefore proposes implementation of a minimum liability based on the accrued benefits valued based on corporate bond rates. Furthermore, harmonization with the PPA minimum required contribution, which is based on the ERISA “funding target” and “target normal cost,” will help alleviate the disparity in timing between ERISA's minimum funding requirements and recognition of such required funding in contract costing. Once harmonization is achieved, maintaining the going concern basis for contract costing allows contractors to set long-term funding goals that avoid undue cost/contribution volatility.
        The Board continues to believe that issues of benefit design, investment strategy, and financial management decisions for the pension plan fall under the contractor's purview. The Board also believes that the Cost Accounting Standards must remain sufficiently robust to accommodate evolving changes in financial statement reporting and theory as well as Congressional changes to ERISA.

        After considering the effects of accelerating recognition of actuarial gains and losses, the Board proposes changing the amortization period for gains and losses to a 10-year amortization period from its current 15-year period to provide more timely adjustment of plan experience while not introducing unmanageable volatility. This shorter amortization period also more closely follows the 7-year period required by ERISA to fully fund the plan's settlement liability.
        In assessing the potential for volatility that would adversely impact forward pricing, the Board noted that for pension plans that are close to being fully funded, the sudden and unpredictable elimination or emergence of significant pension costs has been problematic for many years. Accordingly, the Board proposes to revise the “assignable cost limitation” so that it does not apply until the actuarial value of assets equals or exceeds 125% of the actuarial accrued liability plus normal cost. In addition, the actuarial gains that give rise to surplus assets will be amortized over 10 years and will reduce the surplus in an orderly and timely fashion.
        The Board proposes a specific transition method for implementing harmonization. This transition method would apply to all contractors subject to CAS 412 and 413 through full CAS-coverage or Federal Procurement Regulation (FAR) § 31.205-6(j). The proposed transition will phase-in revisions to the liability and normal cost measurement and to the amortization periods during the first 5 years as new contracts are priced and awarded so that the cost effects of harmonization are gradually recognized.
        The proposed transition phase-in lasts for a specific 5-year period that tracks the typical contracting cycle. More importantly, the proposed transition phase-in should provide at least partial harmonization relief for contractors with contracts that are exempt from CAS-Coverage. At the same time the proposed phase-in provisions are intended to make the possible cost increases due to harmonization more manageable for the procuring agencies.
        The draft proposed rule allows companies to use the same actuarial methods and valuation software for ERISA, financial statement and government contract costing purposes. Except for the interest rate, the same general set of actuarial assumptions can be used for all three purposes. This will allow agencies and government auditors to place reliance on data from ERISA and financial statement valuations, and allow contractors to avoid unnecessary actuarial effort and expense.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law 96-511, does not apply to this draft proposed rule, because this rule imposes no paperwork burden on offerors, affected contractors and subcontractors, or members of the public which requires the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The records required by this draft proposed rule are those normally maintained by contractors who claim reimbursement of post-retirement benefit costs under government contracts.
        D. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Because most contractors must measure and report their post-retirement benefit liabilities and expenses in order to comply with the requirements of SFAS 106 for financial accounting purposes, the economic impact of this draft proposed rule on contractors and subcontractors is expected to be minor. As a result, the Board has determined that this draft proposed rule will not result in the promulgation of an “economically significant rule” under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, and that a regulatory impact analysis will not be required. Furthermore, this draft proposed rule does not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities because small businesses are exempt from the application of the Cost Accounting Standards. Therefore, this draft proposed rule does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.

          Paul A. Denett,
          Chairperson, Cost Accounting Standards Board.

      [FR Doc. E8-20255 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3110-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0509; A-1-FRL-9906-95-Region 1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. This revision includes regulatory amendments that require the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities by December 22, 2015, and a demonstration that such removal is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of New Hampshire's revised vapor recovery regulation.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 9, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0509 by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
          4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0509,” Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109—3912.

          5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0509. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 through www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 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 electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
          In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency: Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-0660, email garcia.ariel@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
        Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

          I. Background and Purpose
          II. Summary of New Hampshire's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program SIP Revision.
          III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision.
          IV. Proposed Action.
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

        I. Background and Purpose

        On June 18, 2013, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of New Hampshire's revised Env-Or 500, Recovery of Gasoline Vapors (formerly numbered Env-A 1205), and a demonstration that such removal is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II vapor recovery systems are installed at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) and capture the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline pump. The system carries the vapors back to the underground storage tank at the GDF to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation.
        Stage II vapor recovery systems and vehicle ORVR systems were initially both required by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs. Also, under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures. CAA section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR for light-duty vehicles (passenger cars). EPA adopted these requirements in 1994, at which point moderate ozone nonattainment areas were no longer subject to the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirements. ORVR equipment has been phased in for new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 1998, and starting with model year 2001 for light-duty trucks and most heavy-duty gasoline powered vehicles. ORVR equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles since 2006.

        During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in ozone nonattainment areas and certain attainment areas of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems would eventually become largely redundant technologies, and provided authority to EPA to allow states to remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs after EPA finds that ORVR is in “widespread use.” Effective May 16, 2012, the date the final rule was published in the Federal Register (see 77 FR 28772), EPA determined that ORVR systems are in widespread use nationwide for control of gasoline emissions during refueling of vehicles at GDFs. Currently, more than 75 percent of gasoline refueling nationwide occurs with ORVR-equipped vehicles, so Stage II vapor recovery programs have become largely redundant control systems and Stage II vapor recovery systems achieve an ever declining emissions benefit as more ORVR-equipped vehicles continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet.1

           In its May 16, 2012 rulemaking, EPA also exercised its authority under CAA section 202(a)(6) to waive certain federal statutory requirements for Stage II vapor recovery systems at GDFs. This decision exempts all new ozone nonattainment areas classified serious or above from the requirement to adopt Stage II vapor recovery programs. Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012 rulemaking also noted that any state currently implementing Stage II vapor recovery programs may submit SIP revisions that would allow for the phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery systems.

            1 In areas where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor recovery systems are used, the differences in operational design characteristics between ORVR and some configurations of these Stage II vapor recovery systems result in the reduction of overall control system efficiency compared to what could have been achieved relative to the individual control efficiencies of either ORVR or Stage II emissions from the vehicle fuel tank.

        II. Summary of New Hampshire's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program SIP Revision

        New Hampshire adopted its Stage II Vapor Recovery Program in 1992 in order to satisfy the requirements of sections 182(b)(3) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA. The New Hampshire Stage II vapor recovery program requirements were codified in New Hampshire rule Env-A 1205, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Gasoline Dispensing Facilities and Gasoline Tank Trucks, and EPA approved the program into the New Hampshire SIP on December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67405). New Hampshire's rule required gasoline dispensing facilities in Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford counties to install Stage II vapor recovery systems. In addition, in a SIP revision dated July 9, 1998, New Hampshire identified comparable measures (a combination of emission reductions from the implementation of Stage II and reformulated gasoline) to meet the CAA section 184(b)(2) requirement for a state in the OTR to adopt Stage II or comparable measures. EPA approved New Hampshire section 184(b)(2) Stage II comparability demonstration on September 29, 1999 (64 FR 52434).

        On June 18, 2013, New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision requesting the removal of its Stage II vapor recovery program from the New Hampshire SIP. The SIP revision consists of New Hampshire's revised regulation Env-Or 500, Recovery of Gasoline Vapors, formerly known as Env-A 1205. The revised rule exempts new dispensing facilities from the requirements to install Stage II vapor recovery systems and requires existing Stage II vapor recovery systems to be decommissioned by December 22, 2015.

        The June 18, 2013 SIP revision also includes a narrative demonstration supporting the removal of the New Hampshire Stage II vapor recovery program. This demonstration consists of an analysis that the Stage II vapor recovery controls provide only de minimis emission reductions due to the prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles. This demonstration also highlights that EPA redesignated the ozone nonattainment area in southern New Hampshire to attainment for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6741) and that EPA designated the entire state of New Hampshire as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012).
        III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision

        EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's revised regulation Env-Or 500, Recovery of Gasoline Vapors, and accompanying SIP narrative and has concluded that New Hampshire's June 18, 2013 SIP revision is consistent with EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772; May 16, 2012) and EPA's “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” (EPA-457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter referred to as EPA's Guidance Document.

        New Hampshire's June 18, 2013 SIP revision includes a CAA section 110(l) anti-back sliding demonstration based on equations in EPA's Guidance Document. According to these calculations, the potential loss of refueling emission reductions from removing Stage II vapor recovery systems in 2012 (the effective date of the regulation amendments) is 9.36 percent, thus meeting the 10 percent de minimis recommendation in EPA's Guidance Document.
        In addition, New Hampshire's ozone redesignation request, which EPA approved on January 31, 2013 (78 FR 6741), included a maintenance plan with future year emission estimates. The maintenance plan showed that estimated VOC and NOx emissions in 2012 and 2022 were less than the 2008 attainment year VOC and NOx emissions. The anticipated phase-out of New Hampshire's Stage II program was included in these emission projections. Therefore, the maintenance plan estimates also support the position that discontinuing the Stage II program does not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

        Finally, New Hampshire's June 18, 2013 SIP revision also includes calculations illustrating that the overall emissions effect of removing the Stage II vapor recovery program would be an increase of 171 tons in 2012. EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory database, Version 1, illustrates that New Hampshire's statewide anthropogenic VOC emissions were 44,974 tons (see www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html), therefore the 171 annual tons of VOC emissions increase calculated by New Hampshire are only about 0.4 percent of the total anthropogenic VOC emissions in New Hampshire. Also, these foregone emissions reductions in the near term continue to diminish rapidly over time as ORVR phase-in continues. Therefore, EPA believes that the resulting temporary increases in VOC emissions will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
        IV. Proposed Action

        EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's June 18, 2013 SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the amended New Hampshire rule Env-Or 500, Recovery of Gasoline Vapors, and incorporate it into the New Hampshire SIP. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA guidance, and it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

        EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          H. Curtis Spalding,
          Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. 2014-04950 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P