[Federal Register: November 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 69207-69208]
[DOCID:fr30no06-31]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

November 22, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-441-014; ER04-445-019; ER04-443-015; ER04-435-
022.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits its Substitute Second Revised Sheet 1077 to its FERC Electric
Tariff, Third Replacement Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-192-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an errata to its 10/25/06 filing of Order 2006 Amended
Compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1118-003; ER99-4463-007; ER06-1291-001.
    Applicants: NE Energy Management, LLC; NE Hydro Generating Company;
Mt. Tom Generating Company LLC.
    Description: NE Energy Management, LLC et al submits a notice in
change in status re the market-based rate authority to each subsidiary.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-131-001; ER07-132-001; ER07-133-001.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power-El Cajon LLC; CalPeak Power-Border, LLC;
CalPeak Power-Enterprise, LLC.
    Description: CalPeak Power-El Cajon, LLC et al submit tariff sheets
that correctly reflect a 2007 Contract Year re Must-Run Service
Agreements with the California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-231-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC; New York Independent System
Operator, Inc.; ISO New England Inc.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC et al submit Procedure to
Protect for the Loss of Phase II Imports Report.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 7, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-232-000.
    Applicants: Aragonne Wind LLC.
    Description: Aragonne Wind LLC submits an Application for Order
accepting Market-based Rate Tariff, Granting Authorizations and Blanket
Authority and Waiving Certain Requirements.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-233-000.
    Applicants: Occidental Power Services, Inc.
    Description: Occidental Power Services, Inc submits revised sheets
of its Rate Schedule No. 1.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0272.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-234-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC
    Description: American Transmission Company, LLC submits an executed
Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Evansville
Water & Light.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061121-0270.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20263 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57742-57744]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3970; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-12-
51 for Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model EC130B4
and EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2014-12-51 currently requires repetitively
inspecting the tailboom to Fenestron junction frame (junction frame)
for a crack. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2014-
12-51, change the applicability from helicopters with certain hours
time-in-service (TIS) to junction frames with certain hours TIS, and
add a compliance time for sling cycles to the junction frame inspection
interval. These proposed actions are intended to detect a crack and to
prevent failure of the junction frame, which could result in loss of
the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 24,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3970; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On July 24, 2014, we issued AD 2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79
FR 45335, August 5, 2014), which was sent previously as an Emergency AD
to all known U.S. owners and operators of Airbus Helicopters Model
EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2014-12-51 applies to helicopters
with 690 or more hours TIS and requires, within 10 hours TIS, dye-
penetrant inspecting certain areas of the junction frame for a crack.
AD 2014-12-51 also requires, at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS,
either repeating the dye-penetrant inspection or performing a borescope
inspection of certain areas of the junction frame for a crack. If there
is a crack, AD 2014-12-51 requires replacing the junction frame. Those
actions are intended to detect a crack and to prevent failure of the
junction frame, which could result in loss of the Fenestron and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    AD 2014-12-51 was prompted by AD No. 2014-0145-E, dated June 6,
2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus
Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASA advises of two
incidents of crack propagation through the junction frame that
initiated in the lower right-hand side between the web and the flange
where the lower spar of the tailboom is joined. EASA states the cracks
were of a significant length and not visible from the outside of the
helicopter. EASA advises that this condition, if not detected, could
lead to structural failure, possibly resulting in Fenestron detachment
and consequent loss of control of the helicopter. As a result, EASA AD
No. 2014-0145-E required a one-time visual inspection of the junction
frame for a crack and a repetitive borescope inspection of the junction
frame for a crack.
    EASA revised AD No. 2014-0145-E with AD No. 2014-0145R1, dated June
13, 2014. EASA AD No. 2014-0145R1 changes the compliance time by
removing a calendar day requirement and by determining the time
accumulated on the junction frame instead of on the helicopter. EASA AD
No. 2014-0145R1 also allows the recurring inspection to be accomplished
either by performing the borescope inspection or by repeating the
visual inspection.

Actions Since AD 2012-12-51 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-12-51 (79 FR 45335, August 5, 2014), EASA
issued AD No. 2015-0033-E dated February 24, 2015 (EAD 2015-0033-E),
which supersedes AD No. 2014-0145-E and AD No. 2014-0145R1. EASA
determined that an inspection interval defined in sling cycles is
necessary in

addition to the existing flight hour inspection interval. EASA also
acknowledges an alternative method to inspect from the outside of the
tailboom. EASA AD No. 2015-0033-E therefore retains the previous
inspection requirements of EASA AD No. 2014-0145R1 and allows for an
alternate external visual inspection method, which can be accomplished
by a pilot, in combination with the internal inspections.
    This NPRM would retain the dye penetrant and borescope inspections
in AD 2014-12-51 but would revise the compliance times. We have
determined that applicable helicopters are those with 690 hours TIS
accumulated on the junction frame instead of on the helicopter, and
that it is necessary to include an inspection interval defined in sling
cycles.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015 (EASB 05A017), for Model
EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. EASB 05A017 describes alternate
procedures for inspecting outside the tailboom for a crack at reduced
inspection intervals in combination with the internal inspections at
extended intervals. EASB 05A017 also specifies adding sling cycles to
the existing flight hour inspection interval for helicopters that
perform external load-carrying operations. EASA issued AD No. 2015-
0033-E mandating the requirements in EASB 05A017 to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by means identified in the Addresses Section of this
proposed AD.

Other Related Service Information

    We have also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No.
EC130-53-029, Revision 0, dated February 20, 2015 (SB EC130-53-029),
which contains procedures to cut out the skin and splice at the
junction frame to facilitate the external inspection specified in EASB
05A017.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:
     Before the junction frame reaches 700 hours TIS or within
10 hours TIS, whichever comes later, removing the horizontal
stabilizer, cleaning the junction frame, and dye-penetrant inspecting
around the circumference of the junction frame for a crack, paying
particular attention to the area around the 4 spars.
     Within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever comes
first, after the dye-penetrant inspection proposed by this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles,
whichever comes first, either repeating the dye-penetrant inspection of
this proposed AD or, if the area is clean, using a borescope,
inspecting around the circumference of the junction frame for a crack.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD includes alternate compliance instructions for
helicopters modified with a cut-out in production by Airbus Helicopters
Modification 350A087421 or in service by compliance with SB EC130-53-
029. This proposed AD would not.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. If final
action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 208 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per
hour, dye-penetrant inspecting the junction frame would require 1 work-
hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85, and a total cost of $17,680 for
the fleet, per inspection cycle. Borescope inspecting the junction
frame would require .5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43 and
a total cost of $8,944 for the fleet, per inspection cycle.
    If required, replacing the junction frame would require 50 work-
hours, and required parts would cost $60,000, for a cost per helicopter
of $64,250.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 FR 45335, August 5, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France): Docket No. FAA-
2015-3970; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-006-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2
helicopters with a tailboom to fenestron junction frame (junction
frame) that has 690 or more hours time-in-service (TIS),
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the junction
frame. This condition could result in failure of the junction frame,
which could result in loss of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-12-51, Amendment 39-17921 (79 FR
45335, August 5, 2014).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 24, 2015.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before the junction frame reaches 700 hours TIS or within 10
hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove the horizontal stabilizer,
clean the junction frame, and dye-penetrant inspect around the
circumference of the junction frame for a crack in the areas shown
in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters EC130 Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 2, dated February 20, 2015 (EASB
05A017). Pay particular attention to the area around the 4 spars
(item b) of Figure 1 of EASB 05A017. An example of a crack is shown
in Figure 3 of EASB 05A017.
    (2) Within 25 hours TIS or 390 sling cycles, whichever occurs
first after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD,
and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 25 hours TIS or 390 sling
cycles, whichever occurs first, either perform the actions of
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or, if the area is clean, using a
borescope, inspect around the circumference of the junction frame
for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 2 of EASB 05A017. Pay
particular attention to the area around the 4 spars (item b) of
Figure 2 of EASB 05A017. An example of a crack is shown in Figure 3
of EASB 05A017. For purposes of this AD, a sling cycle is defined as
one landing with or without stopping the rotor or one external load-
carrying operation; an external load-carrying operation occurs each
time a helicopter picks up an external load and drops it off.
    (3) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the
junction frame.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. EC130-53-029,
Revision 0, dated February 20, 2015, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy
of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0033-E, dated February 24, 2015.
You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-3970.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302: Rotorcraft
Tailboom.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 17, 2015.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24251 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1633-1634]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194]

Cotton Dust Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Cotton Dust
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0194) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the phone number below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The information collection requirements specified in the Cotton
Dust Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may
result from their exposure to cotton dust. The major information
collection requirements of the Cotton Dust Standard include: Performing
exposure monitoring, including initial, periodic, and additional
monitoring; notifying each worker of their exposure monitoring results
either in writing or by posting; implementing a written compliance
program; and establishing a respiratory protection program in accord
with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting to decrease its current burden hours from 21,549
to 9,532 hours, a total decrease of 12,017 hours. The decrease was due
to a decrease in the number of exposed employees from 11,786 to 4,957.
In addition, there was a $1,555,336 decrease in the overall cost of
medical exams (from $2,896,328 to $1,340,992), as a result of a
decrease in the number of medical exams.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Cotton Dust Standard (29 CFR 1910.1043).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0061.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 5,474.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 25,712.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,532 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0194). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website.
    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access
the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
from the website and for assistance in using the internet to locate
docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 8, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-00393 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54687-54688]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19236]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2017-0640; FRL-10158-01-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers of Pesticides and Pesticide
Devices Under 40 CFR Part 169; EPA ICR Number 0143.13, OMB Control
Number 2070-0028

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Recordkeeping Requirements for
Producers, of Pesticides and Pesticide Devices under 40 CFR part 169''
(EPA ICR No. 0143.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0028) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through November 30, 2022. An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2017-0640, online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Yaras, Office of Compliance,
Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Pesticides, Waste
& Toxics Branch (2227A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-
4153; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register
document to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Producers of pesticides and pesticide devices must
maintain certain records with respect to their operations and make such
records available for inspection and copying as specified in section 8
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
in regulations at 40 CFR part 169.

    This information collection is mandatory under 40 CFR part 169. It
is used by the Agency to determine compliance with FIFRA. The
information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and
compliance staffs, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA), and the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) within the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), as well as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and other Federal agencies, States under Cooperative Enforcement
Agreements, and the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers of pesticides and
pesticide devices for sale or distribution in or exported to the United
States.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 169).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19,027 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 15,078 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $372,721 (per year). There are no annualized
capital or O&M costs associated with this ICR since all equipment
associated with this ICR is present as part of ordinary business
practices.
    Changes in estimates: There is a decrease of 42,054 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease of 42,054 hours is a result of our
reassessment of the assumptions used to estimate the burden of this
ICR. Adjustments resulted from corrections of clerical or computational
errors in the previous ICR renewal supporting statement. Further
adjustments to the burden estimates resulted from (1) adjustments in
the salary computation for industry to reflect current wage scales, (2)
adjustments for inflation, and (3) adjustment to the number of
respondents.

Elizabeth Vizard,
Acting Director, Office of Compliance/MAMPD.
[FR Doc. 2022-19236 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 46118-46119]
[DOCID:fr16au07-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56237; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and
2, To Remove Provisions Governing the Operation of the ACES System

August 9, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On April 25, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to remove its rule provisions governing the
operation of the ACES system. The Exchange filed Amendments No. 1 and 2
to the proposed rule change on May 29, 2007, and June 5, 2007,
respectively. The proposal was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 18, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendments No. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55892 (June 11,
2007), 72 FR 33550 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to delete the Rule 6200 Series and Rule 7026,
which govern the operations of the ACES system. The Exchange's rule
book contains rules pertaining to ``facilities'' of the exchange, and
the Exchange believes that ACES is not a ``facility'' within the
meaning of the Act.
    The ACES system is a neutral communications service that allows
Nasdaq members and non-members to route orders to one another. Market
participants may execute orders received through ACES in any manner
that they deem consistent with duties of best execution and other
applicable industry obligations. ACES does not effect trade executions
or report executed trades to the consolidated tape. Because ACES merely
allows market participants to route orders to one another for execution
and does not effect trade executions or report executed trades to the
consolidated tape, the Exchange does not believe that ACES constitutes
a facility of a national securities exchange within the meaning of the
Act, nor does it believe it is required to file or maintain rules
regarding the operation of ACES.
    In the past, when Nasdaq's parent entity, The Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc., was a subsidiary of the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), ACES rules were not included in the NASD
Manual, based on Nasdaq's and NASD's understanding that ACES is not a
facility of the NASD. These rules were, nevertheless, approved as
Nasdaq rules in connection with Nasdaq's registration as a national
securities exchange. Nasdaq now proposes the deletion of these rules
based on its conclusion that ACES is not a Nasdaq facility and that
therefore these rules are not required under the Act. However, Nasdaq
represented that it would file a proposed rule change if

ACES were modified in a manner that caused it to be deemed an exchange
facility or if ACES fees were tied to fees for, or usage of, exchange
services.

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\4\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ because the
ACES system is not a ``facility'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in section 3 of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 6(b) \7\ and 19(b)(1) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ require a national securities exchange to file its rules
with the Commission. Section 3(a)(27) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4
define the ``rules'' of an exchange with reference to its
``facilities.'' In particular, a rule of an exchange includes ``any
material aspect of the operation of the facilities'' of the exchange or
any statement with respect to ``the rights, obligations or privileges''
of exchange members or persons having or seeking access to the
facilities of the exchange.\11\ Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines
``facility,'' when used with respect to an exchange, to include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    Its premises, tangible or intangible property whether on the
premises or not, any right to the use of such premises or property
or any services thereof for the purpose of effecting or reporting a
transaction on an exchange (including, among other things, any
system of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or
otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the exchange), and
any right of the exchange to the use of any property or service.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).

    The Commission agrees with the Exchange's conclusion that ACES, as
currently operated, is not a facility of the Exchange. The Exchange has
represented that ACES is a ``pure router'' that allows one subscriber
(the ``routing subscriber'') to send an order from a Nasdaq workstation
directly to the order management system of another ACES subscriber (the
``receiving subscriber''). Moreover, the Exchange has represented that
the ACES system is not linked with the Exchange's core systems,
including the Nasdaq Market Center, the Exchange's automated system for
order execution and trade reporting. It is not possible for an order to
be routed to the Nasdaq Market Center via the ACES system.
    Once an order has been routed through ACES, the receiving
subscriber may execute the order in any manner it determines to be
consistent with its duty of best execution and other applicable
regulatory obligations. The receiving subscriber is not required to
route the order to, or execute the order on, the Nasdaq Market Center.
Because the ACES system does not route orders to the Exchange, the
Commission agrees with the Exchange's conclusion that ACES does not
have the ``purpose of effecting * * * a transaction on an exchange.''
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also represented that ACES does not report
executed trades. Rather, the receiving subscriber is responsible for
ensuring that the execution of each order sent through ACES is reported
in accordance with the applicable rules of the market center where the
order was executed.\14\ Thus, the Commission similarly agrees with the
Exchange's conclusion that ACES does not have the ``purpose of * * *
reporting a transaction on an exchange.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The ACES rules require the receiving subscriber to send an
execution message to ACES so that ACES may notify the routing
subscriber of the terms of the execution, see Nasdaq Rule 6250, but
this does not constitute the ``reporting'' of the transaction.
    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A consequence of deleting the ACES rules from the Exchange's rule
book is that the Exchange will be able to change its ACES rules without
providing public notice via filing of proposed changes with the
Commission under section 19(b) of the Act. However, the Commission
notes that if the Exchange seeks to modify the operations of the ACES
system in a manner that would cause the system to fit within the
definition of an exchange facility, the Exchange would be required to
file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to section
19(b) of the Act. For example, if the Exchange were to tie ACES fees in
any way to fees for, or usage of, any Exchange services (for example,
by offering a discount in ACES fees as an incentive for use of Exchange
services, or vice versa), the Commission would consider such fees to be
Exchange fees that must be filed with the Commission pursuant to
section 19(b) of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-043),
as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16090 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47200-47201]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1101-001.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing in Docket No.
RP17-1101-000 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-855-001.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Section 34--MetaData Clean-Up
to be effective 4/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1-000.
    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AlaTenn Reservation Fee Credit
Filing to be effective 11/2/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-2-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 100217 Negotiated Rates--Wells
Fargo Commodities, LLC R-7810-04 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-3-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 100217 Negotiated Rates--Wells
Fargo Commodities, LLC R-7810-05 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-4-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 100217 Negotiated Rates--Wells
Fargo Commodities, LLC R-7810-07 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-5-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--MarketLink--
PPL Termination to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5280.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-6-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release
Agreements--10/1/17 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/2/17.
    Accession Number: 20171002-5290.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 3, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21819 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19847-19850]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09448]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83132; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4702(b)(5), Rule 4703(d), Rule 4752(d)(2)(B), and Rule
4754(b)(2)(B)

April 30, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 18, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4702(b)(5) and Rule 4703(d) to
prevent Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders and Orders entered with a
Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute from participating in the Nasdaq Halt
Cross, and (2) to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) and Rule 4754(b)(2)(B) to
state that Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible Interest,
respectively, are used in determining the ``imbalance'' for purposes of
those rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to: (1) Amend Rule
4702(b)(5) and Rule 4703(d) to prevent Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders
(``MPPOs'') and Orders entered with a Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute
(``Midpoint Pegged Orders'') from participating in the Nasdaq Halt
Cross, and (2) to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) and Rule 4754(b)(2)(B) to
state that Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible Interest,
respectively, are used in determining the ``imbalance'' for purposes of
those rules.
Excluding MPPOs and Midpoint Pegged Orders From the Nasdaq Halt Cross
    An ``MPPO'' is defined in Rule 4702(b)(5)(A) as an Order Type with
a Non-Display Order Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between
the national best bid and offer (``NBBO''), and that will execute upon
entry only in circumstances where economically beneficial to the party
entering the Order. Today, Rule 4702(b)(5)(C) provides that MPPOs are
available during Market Hours only, and may not participate in the
Nasdaq Opening Cross conducted pursuant to Rule 4752 or the Nasdaq
Closing Cross conducted pursuant to Rule 4754.\3\ However, MPPOs are
not similarly prohibited from participating in the Nasdaq Halt Cross
conducted pursuant to Rule 4753--i.e., the process for determining the
price at which Eligible Interest shall be executed at the open of
trading for a halted security and for executing that Eligible Interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An MPPO entered prior to the beginning of Market Hours will
be rejected, and an MPPO remaining on the Nasdaq Book at 4:00 p.m.
ET will be cancelled by the System. See Rule 4702(b)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to current behavior for the Nasdaq Opening Cross and the
Nasdaq Closing Cross, the Exchange believes that it would be beneficial
for members and investors to prevent MPPOs from executing in the Nasdaq
Halt Cross, as these Orders are designed for regular trading on the
Exchange's continuous market where there is an active market

that can be used to price these Orders. The Exchange therefore proposes
to amend Rule 4702(b)(5)(C) to provide that MPPOs may not participate
in the Nasdaq Halt Cross. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add
language to Rule 4702(b)(5)(C) that explains that MPPOs will be
cancelled by the System when a trading halt is declared, and any MPPOs
entered during a trading halt will be rejected. The System currently
rejects MPPOs entered when a trading halt is in effect but does not
cancel existing MPPOs when the trading halt is declared. The proposed
behavior will ensure that MPPOs do not participate in the subsequent
reopening of the halted security in the Nasdaq Halt Cross by cancelling
existing MPPOs when the trading halt is declared in addition to
curtailing the ability of members to enter new MPPOs during the trading
halt, which the Exchange believes is consistent with the intention of
this Order Type. Furthermore, MPPOs will be handled consistently across
the Nasdaq Opening Cross, Nasdaq Closing Cross, and Nasdaq Halt Cross,
which is consistent with how the Exchange believes members want these
orders treated.
    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to remove language describing
MPPO behavior in a cross where the MPPO locks a preexisting Order.
Specifically, Rule 4702(b)(5)(A) contains language that states that:
``For purposes of any cross in which a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order
participates, a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order to buy (sell) that is
locking a preexisting Order shall be deemed to have a price equal to
the price of the highest sell Order (lowest buy Order) that would be
eligible to execute against the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order in such
circumstances. Thus, a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order to buy that locked
a preexisting Non-Displayed Order to sell at $11.03 would be deemed to
have a price of $11.02. It should be noted, however, that Midpoint Peg
Post-Only Orders may not be entered prior to the Nasdaq Opening Cross,
and the System cancels Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders prior to the
commencement of the Nasdaq Closing Cross.'' This language, which only
applies to MPPOs that participate in a cross, is no longer necessary as
MPPOs will be systematically prohibited from trading in any cross--
i.e., the Nasdaq Opening Cross, Nasdaq Halt Cross, or Nasdaq Closing
Cross. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate this language from
its rulebook.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This language references that MPPOs do not participate in
the Nasdaq Opening Cross or Nasdaq Closing Cross. Although the
Exchange is not changing that behavior, the Exchange proposes to
remove this reference, which is duplicative of language described
above in Rule 4702(b)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to MPPOs the Exchange offers Midpoint Pegged Orders.
Rule 4703(d) describes the Pegging Order Attribute, including Midpoint
Pegging. Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows an Order to have its
price automatically set with reference to the NBBO. Midpoint Pegging
means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the Inside Bid and
the Inside Offer. Midpoint Pegged Orders are not displayed. Like MPPOs,
Midpoint Pegged Orders are also designed for regular trading on the
Exchange's continuous market where there is an active market that can
be used to price these Orders. Thus, similar to the proposed handling
of MPPOs the Exchange proposes to prevent Midpoint Pegged Orders from
participating in the Nasdaq Halt Cross. As such, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 4703(d) to provide that Orders with Midpoint Pegging will
be cancelled by the System when a trading halt is declared, and any
Orders with the Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute entered during a
trading halt will be rejected. Similar to MPPOs, the System currently
rejects Midpoint Pegged Orders entered when a trading halt is in effect
but does not cancel existing Midpoint Pegged Orders when the trading
halt is declared. Similar to the behavior of MPPOs described above, the
proposed behavior for Midpoint Pegged Orders will ensure that Midpoint
Pegged Orders do not participate in the subsequent reopening of the
halted security in the Nasdaq Halt Cross by cancelling existing
Midpoint Pegged Orders when the trading halt is declared in addition to
curtailing the ability of members to enter new Midpoint Pegged Orders
during the trading halt, thereby ensuring that no Orders with this
Order Attribute will participate in the Nasdaq Halt Cross.
Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross Imbalance
    The Exchange disseminates an Order Imbalance Indicator beginning at
9:28 a.m. to increase market transparency ahead of the Nasdaq Opening
Cross, and beginning at 3:50 p.m. to increase market transparency ahead
of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. The Order Imbalance Indicator includes
several data elements that provide information about the crosses,
including the Current Reference Price, the number of paired shares at
that price, and the size of any Imbalance. On July 13, 2017, the
Exchange filed a proposed rule change that, among other things, amended
language describing the Current Reference Price, the associated paired
share count, and the definition of Imbalance.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange amended Rule 4752(a) to exclude Open Eligible Interest from
these data elements for the Nasdaq Opening Cross, and amended Rule
4754(a) to exclude Close Eligible Interest from these data elements for
the Nasdaq Closing Cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81188 (July 21,
2017), 82 FR 35014 (July 27, 2017) (Notice); 81556 (September 8,
2017), 82 FR 43264 (September 14, 2017) (Approval Order) (SR-NASDAQ-
2017-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these changes, ``Imbalance'' is now correctly defined in the
rulebook: (1) For the Nasdaq Opening Cross, as the number of shares of
buy or sell MOO, LOO or Early Market Hours orders that may not be
matched with other MOO, LOO, Early Market Hours, or OIO order shares at
a particular price at any given time, and (2) for the Nasdaq Closing
Cross, as the number of shares of buy or sell MOC or LOC orders that
cannot be matched with other MOC or LOC, or IO order shares at a
particular price at any given time. Prior to SR-Nasdaq-2017-061, the
definition of Imbalance had mistakenly included Open Eligible Interest
as contra-side interest for matching MOO, LOO or Early Market Hours
orders when calculating the size of any Imbalance in the Nasdaq Opening
Cross, and mistakenly included Close Eligible Interest as contra-side
interest for matching MOC or LOC orders when calculating the size of
any Imbalance for the Nasdaq Closing Cross.
    The term Imbalance, however, is also used in other parts of the
Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross rules. For example, the
term Imbalance is used: (1) In Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) to describe a tie-
breaker used to determine the Nasdaq Opening Cross price if more than
one price would maximize the number of shares of MOO, LOO, OIO, Early
Market Hours orders, and executable quotes and orders in the Nasdaq
Market Center to be executed pursuant to Rule 4752(d)(2)(A), and (2) in
Rule 4754(b)(2)(B) to describe a tie-breaker used to determine the
Nasdaq Closing Cross price if more than one price would maximize the
number of shares of Eligible Interest in the Nasdaq Market Center to be
executed pursuant to Rule 4754(b)(2)(A). Specifically, these rules
provide that if more than one price exists under Rule 4752(d)(2)(A) or
Rule 4754(b)(2)(A), each of which are described above, the Nasdaq
Opening Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross, respectively, shall occur at
the price that minimizes any Imbalance.

    In fact, if more than one price exists under Rule 4752(d)(2)(A),
the Nasdaq Opening Cross shall occur at the price that minimizes the
number of shares of buy or sell MOO, LOO or Early Market Hours orders
that may not be matched with other MOO, LOO, Early Market Hours, Open
Eligible Interest, or OIO order shares--i.e., the previous definition
of Imbalance under Rule 4752(a)(1). Similarly, if more than one price
exists under Rule 4754(b)(2)(A), the Nasdaq Closing Cross shall occur
at the price that minimizes the number of shares of buy or sell MOC or
LOC orders that cannot be matched with other MOC or LOC, Close Eligible
Interest or IO order shares--i.e., the previous definition of Imbalance
under Rule 4754(a)(2). While Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible
Interest are not included in the definition of Imbalance for purposes
of the Order Imbalance Indicator as such interest may be executed prior
to the execution of the cross, they are included in the cross price
calculation if remaining on the book at the time the cross is executed.
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) and Rule
4754(b)(2)(B) to appropriately describe the tie-breakers discussed
above using the previous definition of Imbalance for the Nasdaq Opening
Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross, respectively.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to introduce the changes described in this
proposed rule change in Q2 2018. The Exchange will announce the
implementation date of this functionality in an Equity Trader Alert
issued to members prior to the launch date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excluding MPPOs and Midpoint Pegged Orders From the Nasdaq Halt Cross
    As indicated in the Exchange's current rules, MPPOs are designed
for Market Hours trading and therefore do not participate in either the
Nasdaq Opening Cross or Nasdaq Closing Cross. Nevertheless, MPPOs may
trade in the Nasdaq Halt Cross today. The Exchange believes that
members prefer not to have their MPPOs executed in any of the crosses,
including the Nasdaq Halt Cross, and is therefore proposing to cancel
MPPOs when a trading halt is initiated. Furthermore, the System already
prevents the subsequent entry of MPPOs during the trading halt as
reflected in the proposed rule. The Exchange believes that it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to
treat MPPOs similarly across all three crosses so that members have a
consistent experience when entering MPPOs at different times of the
trading day.
    The proposed changes would also eliminate language in the MPPO
rules that describe MPPO handling during a cross. As explained in the
purpose section of this proposed rule change, this language will no
longer be necessary since MPPOs will be prohibited from participating
in any of the Exchange's three crosses--i.e., the Nasdaq Opening Cross,
Nasdaq Closing Cross, and Nasdaq Halt Cross. The Exchange believes that
this proposed change is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because it will properly reflect that MPPOs are no
longer eligible for any crosses, and will only trade on the continuous
book.
    Similar to the proposed handling of MPPOs, the Exchange is also
proposing to prevent Midpoint Pegging Orders from participating in the
Nasdaq Halt Cross. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to cancel these Orders
when a trading halt is initiated so that they cannot participate in the
Nasdaq Halt Cross. Furthermore, the System already prevents the
subsequent entry of additional such Orders during a trading halt. The
Exchange believes that members do not want their Midpoint Pegging
Orders to trade in the Nasdaq Halt Cross and is therefore introducing
functionality that will ensure that these Orders will not do so.
Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross Imbalance
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes regarding the
Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq Closing Cross price calculations are
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because these changes properly identify the tie-breakers used to
determine the opening and closing prices when multiple prices would
satisfy the maximum quantity requirements of Rule 4752(d)(2)(A) or Rule
4754(b)(2)(A), respectively. Open Eligible Interest or Close Eligible
Interest are not used in determining the size of any Imbalance for the
Order Imbalance Indicator because such interest may be executed before
the time of the cross. Such interest is used in the opening and closing
price tie-breakers pursuant to Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) and Rule
4754(b)(2)(B), however, because it is available to execute in the
crosses if remaining on the book at the time of the cross price
calculation. Using all available interest in these price calculations,
rather than only on-open or on-close order types ensures that these
price discovery mechanisms properly reflect the interest available at
the time the crosses are conducted. The Exchange's rules previously
included Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible Interest in the tie-
breakers when such interest was included in the definition of
Imbalance. With the recent changes to those definitions--which now
align with the interest considered in the Imbalance field of the Order
Imbalance Indictor--the Exchange believes that it is necessary to
update Rule 4752(d)(2)(B) and Rule 4754(b)(2)(B).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Currently, MPPOs and Midpoint
Pegging Orders can participate in the Nasdaq Halt Cross despite the
fact that these Orders are designed for regular trading on the
continuous book. The Exchange is now enhancing MPPO and Midpoint
Pegging Order handling to prevent all such Orders from participating in
the Nasdaq Halt Cross by cancelling existing interest on the Exchange's
order book in addition to rejecting new Orders as done by the System
today. The Exchange does not believe this change will have any
significant impact on competition as the proposed changes will apply to
all MPPOs and Midpoint Pegging Orders. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that this is how members want these Orders treated. Furthermore, the
proposed changes with respect to the Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq
Closing Cross price calculations are rule corrections and will
therefore have no impact on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver of
the operative delay would allow the Exchange to prevent MPPOs and
Midpoint Pegged Orders from participating in the Nasdaq Halt Cross
without delay. The Commission also notes that the proposal would ensure
that MPPOs and Midpoint Pegged Orders do not participate in any cross
(i.e., Nasdaq Opening Cross, Nasdaq Halt Cross, and Nasdaq Closing
Cross). According to the Exchange, MPPOs and Midpoint Pegged Orders are
designed for regular trading on the Exchange's continuous market, and
the proposal would ensure that these orders behave in a manner
consistent with members' expectations. Moreover, waiver of the
operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately correct its
rules to reflect that Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible
Interest (i.e., interest that is available to execute in the crosses if
remaining on the book at the time of the cross price calculation) are
included in tie-breakers for the Nasdaq Opening Cross and Nasdaq
Closing Cross price calculations, respectively, thus reducing any
potential member confusion surrounding the cross price calculations.
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-031 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-031. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-031 and should be submitted
on or before May 25, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09448 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32391-32392]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2011-0061, Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2007 Dodge Durango Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Manufactured for the
Mexican Market Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2007 Dodge Durango multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) manufactured
for the Mexican market (Mexican market 2007 Dodge Durango MPV), that
were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation
into the United States because they are substantially similar to
vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with
the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2007 Dodge
Durango MPV,) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform
to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted 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. E.T.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that

two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your
comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with the comments. 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).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The
docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of
this document notice. 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 search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Wallace Environmental Testing Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas
(WETL) (Registered Importer 90-005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide
whether nonconforming Mexican market 2007 Dodge Durango MPV's are
eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which
WETL believes are substantially similar are 2007 Dodge Durango MPV's
that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by
their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified
Mexican market 2007 Dodge Durango MPV's to their U.S.-certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    WETL submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified Mexican market 2007 Dodge Durango
MPV's, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same
manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being
readily altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified Mexican
market 2007 Dodge Durango MPV's are identical to their U.S.-certified
counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 108 Lamps,
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 113
Hood Latch System, 114 Theft Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems,
120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger
Cars, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems,
138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash Protection 209 Seat
Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield
Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219
Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
    Petitioner also contends that the vehicle is capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: inscription of the word
``brake'' on the instrument cluster in place of the international ECE
warning symbol.
    Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: inspection of
all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model child restraint anchorage
system components on vehicles not already so equipped to ensure that
the child restraint anchorage system meets the requirements of this
standard.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: May 31, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2011-13888 Filed 6-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P