[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41728-41730]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 24, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC07-115-000.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Energias Renovables S.A.U.
    Description: Iberdrola Energias Renovables SAU submits a supplement
to its application submitted on 7/13/07 and seeks to clarify transfers
of facilities.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070720-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG07-73-000.
    Applicants: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC submits a Notice
of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to
Section 366.7(a) of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-74-000.
    Applicants: CPV Liberty, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of CPV Liberty, LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070723-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 13, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3001-018; ER03-647-010.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits its
report pursuant to the Commission's 5/18/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070717-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-163-006.
    Applicants: Milford Power Company, LLC; ISO New England Inc.;
Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel.
    Description: Compliance filing pursuant to Commission's 5/18/07, 4/
19/06, and 10/27/06 Orders.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-879-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: Compliance Refund Report of Louisville Gas and
Electric Co. and Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Filed Date: 07/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070723-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1150-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy South Bay, LLC.

    Description: Dynegy South Bay, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 131
to its Reliability Must-Run Agreement w/ California Independent System
Operator Corporation to correct a typographical error.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070718-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1151-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits a Wholesale
Distribution Service Agreement for service to its affiliate, MATEP LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070718-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1152-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits Service
Agreement--Rate Schedule 51, dated 7/16/07 with the City of Marshfield,
WI.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1153-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf
of Ohio Power Company submits a Notice of Cancellation of Original
Service Agreement 327 under its Open Access Transmission Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1154-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits its Notice of Termination of the Dynamic Scheduling Agreement
for Scheduling Coordinators with Mirant Energy Trading LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/17/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1155-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Benton County
Wind Farm LLC et al., as Service Agreement 1849 to FERC Electric
Tariff, 3rd Rev Vol 1.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1156-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits jurisdictional agreements re Long-
Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service et ac with Weyerhaeuser
Co et al.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1157-000.
    Applicants: Logan Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Request for authorization to sell energy and capacity
at market-based rates and waiver of the 60 day notice requirement.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1158-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP Texas North Company submits a fully executed
Amended and Restated Interconnection Agreement with Buffalo Gap Wind
Farm 3 LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1159-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp on behalf of the
AEP Operating Companies submits an Interconnection and Local Delivery
Service Agreement with the City of St Mary's, Ohio.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1160-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits the First Amended
and Restated Partial Requirements Service Agreement with Rutherford
Electric Membership Corp, dated as of 5/1/07 pursuant to Section 205 of
the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070720-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1161-000.
    Applicants: Public Power & Utility, Inc.
    Description: Public Power & Utility, Inc submits a petition for
acceptance of initial tariff, waivers & blanket authority pursuant to
Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070720-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES07-46-000; ES07-47-000; ES07-48-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Nuclear LLC; PSEG Fossil LLC; PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Application of PSEG Fossil LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC and
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC for Approval of Corporate Guarantees.
    Filed Date: 07/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070719-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 9, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-19-001; OA07-43-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits an errata to
the Section 206 compliance filing, containing Substitute Original
Sheets 8-9, 102-104 in compliance with FERC's 7/13/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070720-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 8, 2007.
    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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14796 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR REGION 7 LEAD EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROJECT IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ( Agency Information Collection)

December 10, 2004 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance TABLE OF CONTENTS Part A 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 3( c) Consultations 3( d) Effects of less Frequent Data Collection 3( e) General Guidelines 3( f) Confidentiality 3( g) Sensitive Questions 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes 4( b) Information Requested 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 5( d) Collection Schedule 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden 6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table 6( d) Reasons for Changes in Burden 6( e) Burden Statement Part B 1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey objectives 1( b) Key Variables 1( c) Statistical Approach 1( d) Feasibility 2. SURVEY DESIGN 2( a) Target Population and Coverage 2( b) Sample Design 2( c) Precision Requirements 2( d) Questionnaire Design 3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS 4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods 4( b) Survey Response and Follow up 5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS 5( a) Data Preparation 5( b) Analysis 5( c) Reporting Results Part A 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR: Region 7 Lead Education and Awareness Project in St. Louis, Missouri ( EPA ICR Number 2161.01).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or Agency) is interested in determining the status of compliance by lessors with Title X, Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead Based Paint and/ or Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing rule ( Disclosure Rule) and in determining whether lessees of target housing are reading the EPA pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home, and are making behavioral changes to reduce lead exposure as a result. Many entities, including the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) and the Missouri Department of Health ( MDoH) are interested in assessing the effectiveness of their education and outreach efforts in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri.

The EPA Region 7 is planning to collaborate, via a cooperative agreement, with an interested state agency or multi jurisdictional state organization to conduct surveys of lessors conducting business in areas of St. Louis, Missouri identified as high risk for lead poisoning in children. ( A lessor is defined as any entity that offers target housing for lease, rent, or sublease.) The collaboration is designed as a tri fold approach: to identify the study population, to conduct site visits, and to tabulate the data. This data will identify the rate of lessor noncompliance with the Disclosure Rule in high risk areas of St. Louis and will assist Region 7 in determining the effectiveness of the Federal regulation and in targeting lead based paint inspections and compliance assistance for FY05 and beyond. The data will also support the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA) in collecting statistically valid compliance assistance outcome data needed to present the impacts of compliance assistance for Government Performance and Results Act ( GPRA) reporting purposes. A secondary activity in the collaboration will be for the Recipient to conduct surveys and focus groups with lessees regarding whether disclosure actually occurred, to find out if the lessees read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and if the lessees implemented methods to reduce lead exposure as a result.

The surveys will be focused in areas that have high lead poisoning levels and also areas that have a large minority population that may be unaware of the Disclosure Rule and/ or lead hazards in general. The project will yield data that can be analyzed by EPA headquarters and EPA Region 7 to serve as a basis for better educating the lessees in pre 1978 housing in St. Louis, Missouri, more efficient enforcing of the EPA/ HUD Disclosure Rule, and for evaluating the education and outreach efforts of EPA, HUD and MDoH. 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection There are four main purposes for these information gathering surveys: ° To collect data to determine the rate of lessor non compliance with the Disclosure Rule in high risk areas in St. Louis. For this sector, for which Region 7 is planning to initiate compliance assistance, a baseline level of performance and regulatory awareness is needed to measure future progress. ° To collect data to target Disclosure Rule inspections in FY05 and beyond. ° To collect data to determine if families are reading the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and implementing methods to reduce exposure as a result. ° To assist EPA, HUD and MDoH in evaluating their education and outreach efforts.

The rate of lessor non compliance with the Disclosure Rule; the rate at which lessees read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and modify behavior to reduce exposure as a result; and the effectiveness of HUD's education and outreach efforts, all requested by these surveys, are not currently in federal or state databases. These surveys will help OECA evaluate the effectiveness of compliance assistance outreach and will enable OECA to report compliance assistance outcome data that is statistically valid and can be used for GPRA reporting purposes. The surveys will also assist EPA, HUD and MDoH in assessing the effectiveness of their education and outreach.

The EPA is permitted to collect the information under the following statute: Toxic Substances Control Act. The information collected through this Information Collection Request ( ICR) will aid EPA in achieving the Agency's Strategic Plan goal of protecting the environment through sector based approaches. This goal was developed in response to the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act and is described in EPA's 2000 Strategic Plan, Chapter 2, Protecting the Environment Through the Sector Based Approach.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The EPA Region 7, EPA Headquarters, HUD and MDoH will be the users of the data collected by the surveys covered under this ICR. The EPA OECA and Region 7 will use the lessor data to determine a baseline and follow up level of regulatory awareness and environmental performance which EPA cannot determine using existing databases. The EPA Region 7 will also use the data collected from the lessor sector to plan compliance assistance to this sector and to target inspections in FY05 and beyond. This information will then be used to measure if compliance assistance efforts undertaken by Region 7 in the lessor sector improved the level of regulatory awareness and regulatory compliance for this sector. This information will be of sufficient quality for reporting under the GPRA.

The EPA OECA will use the information collected on the lessor sector to identify compliance assistance mechanisms effective for this sector. HUD will use the information to evaluate their outreach efforts. MDoH will use the information to target both their own education and outreach and to partner with other entities involved in resolving the childhood lead poisoning problem in St. Louis, Missouri. 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other federal agency. The sector to be studied using this ICR comprises: ° Lessors conducting business in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri who are impacted by the Title X Disclosure Rule. ° Lessees of target housing located in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri.

The EPA has reviewed its databases to identify information for evaluating Disclosure Rule compliance for this segment of lessors and for evaluating lessee awareness and behavior regarding lead education. Currently, EPA does not have sufficient information for these evaluations, since EPA has not collected this information to date.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB On September 22, 2004, EPA posted a pre ICR Federal Register Notice announcing its intent to submit an ICR to OMB regarding compliance assistance surveys for the lessor sector in the highest risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri. The EPA received two comments in response to this website posting. The first was advising EPA that the Federal Register Notice had been forwarded to subscribers to the Food Industry Environmental Network ( FIEN) regulatory and policy E mail alert service for food industry trade associations, professional societies, food and agriculture departments of universities and colleges, government offices, and consulting and law firms. This comment required no response. The second comment came from an EPA employee inquiring whether funds would be available for additional studies in other geographical areas similar to the statistically valid survey to be conducted in St. Louis, Missouri. The EPA lead based paint program responded that additional funds are not available at this time, but that he would be contacted if funds became available in the future for similar studies.

3( c) Consultations The EPA Region 7 consulted with Lynn Vendinello, National Planning/ Measures and Analysis Staff, Office of Compliance, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division, OECA/ ORE, EPA, ( 202) 564 7066; Carl Eichenwald, Branch Chief, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division, EPA, ( 202) 564 4036; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Susan Thomas, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, ( 573) 526 4911 and Scott Clardy, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, ( 573) 751 6102.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The survey and site visit program for the lessor sector includes a baseline survey and an additional survey in FY2007 to determine the effectiveness of compliance assistance. Also, interviews with lessees of lessors declaring their compliance with the Disclosure Rule will be conducted after the lessor baseline survey. This data collection request does not require periodic reporting or record keeping.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2). 3( f) Confidentiality The EPA does not expect that any confidential business information or trade secrets will be required from the lessors or lessees. In addition, lessors to be surveyed will be chosen such that the identify of the lessor submitting the survey information and the location of his/ her properties will be unknown to the Agency.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The surveys and site visits addressed in this ICR do not contain any sensitive questions.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The respondents for this ICR will be the following: ° 100 lessors conducting business in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri. These lessors fall under SIC codes 6513, 6514 and 6531 and NAICS codes 531190, 531110, 531210 and 531311. ° 50 lessees leasing property in high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri. The lessees do not have an SIC or NAICS designation.

4( b) Information Requested The lessor site visit program will request information related to compliance or non compliance with the Disclosure Rule. The lessee site visit program and lessee focus groups will result in information related to the compliance or non compliance of the lessor before the lessee was obligated under a lease and also whether the lessee read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet after receiving it from the lessor and implemented methods to reduce lead exposure as a result.

( 1) The EPA Region 7 and the Recipient have developed a survey instrument to be used to determine lessor compliance or the level of noncompliance with the Disclosure Rule.

The Interview portion of the survey instrument addresses such topics as: ° Is the lessor familiar with the Disclosure Rule ° Did the lessor distribute the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet ° Does the lessor have knowledge of lead hazards in his/ her property ° Did the lessee receive reports, etc. regarding lead based paint inspections The Records Review portion of the survey instrument addresses such topics as: ° The appropriateness of the lead disclosure itself ° Whether knowledge of lead hazards was disclosed ° Whether the lead disclosure information was properly documented See Part B, Section 2( d) for the specific survey instrument developed for the lessor sector.

( 2) The Recipient will develop a survey to determine whether the lessees read and understood the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home, and whether they modified their behavior to reduce lead exposure as a result. 4( c) Respondent Activities Lessor survey respondent activities include answering questions posed by the Recipient to determine the level of compliance or noncompliance with the Disclosure Rule. The site visit respondents will participate in an estimated thirty minute to two hour site visit; the length of the site visit may depend on the level of compliance or noncompliance with the Disclosure Rule. Some lessor respondents may also attend a compliance assistance presentation. Lessee survey respondent activities include answering questions posed by the Recipient to determine whether the lessee read and understood the pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home, and whether s/ he modified behavior to reduce lead exposure as a result. Some lessee respondents may also attend a focus group meeting.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The Recipient will use 2000 census data to determine the number of pre 1970 residential properties within the study area and to estimate the number of rental properties. Results will be provided to EPA headquarters to assist in determining the validity of the study population. The EPA headquarters will create the project list of visits to be conducted by statistically selecting lessors and the number of associated properties to be visited. This list of site visit candidates will include backup candidates in the event that some lessors do not wish to cooperate with the study. ° Region 7 will use standard protocol when determining the record review period for this project. ° Region 7 will train the Recipient to properly use the checklist, etc. ° Region 7 will determine what constitutes compliance. The final evaluation can rate different questions on the checklist to determine compliance, e. g., 4 out of 7 questions incorrect constitutes noncompliance. ° No enforcement actions will be taken as a result of information obtained from the lessor survey visits. ° Region 7 will develop an exception statement that addresses egregious/ criminal situations. ° Region 7 will determine how to deal with tips/ complaints regarding residences in the study area during the study period and will communicate the decision to the lessors. ° The EPA will use in house resources to conduct data evaluation of site visit results.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Upon approval of this ICR: ° The EPA's Recipient will identify the study population and obtain the names/ addresses of lessors and the addresses of the associated rental properties within the study population. The Recipient will develop a coded companion list that conceals the identify of the lessor and associated properties. ° The Recipient will conduct lessor compliance site visits to determine compliance with the Disclosure Rule using a checklist approved by EPA Region 7. A site visit will include interviewing lessors and reviewing lessor files. ° The Recipient will design a checklist for the lessee visits to determine if families are reading the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and implementing methods to reduce exposure as a result. Recipient will have the checklist approved by Region 7 prior to lessee visits. ° The Recipient will conduct lessee visits to determine if families are reading the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and implementing methods to reduce exposure as a result. ° Information will be collected on survey forms and entered into a database. Data entry will be double checked to ensure accurate data transcription. The sector databases created from these surveys will be accessible to EPA and other governmental agencies. ° The Recipient will conduct a series of lessor seminars. ° The lessee site visit survey will be used to assess the quality of the information provided by the lessors. A comparison of the results between the lessor and lessee surveys will give EPA a sense of whether lessor respondents are providing accurate information in their lead disclosure activities. ° The Recipient will tabulate responses from lessor compliance visits and lessee visits and generate a report that summarizes responses. ° The Recipient will send survey checklists to EPA headquarters electronically.

Lessor Seminars: ° The Recipient will conduct seminars for lessors. There will be a pre and post test conducted at each seminar.

Lessee Focus Groups: ° The Recipient will identify potential participants and will conduct a series of lessee focus groups. The focus groups will be located in the particular neighborhoods of the study. Every effort will be made to select lessees with children under age 6, or those who have grandchildren under age 6. ° The participants will be shown the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and will be given a brief survey to identify their knowledge of lead hazards and the Disclosure Rule. ° The feedback from each focus group will be compiled into a report and submitted as part of the project findings.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The lessor and lessee surveys should have minimal impact on the respondents since the surveys are one time information requests for any given respondent. The lessor surveys will require on average 30 minutes to two hours to complete and the lessee surveys will require no more than one hour to complete.

The site visits are designed to evaluate regulatory compliance in a sector that is not wellrepresented in EPA's databases. One of the reasons that the sector is not well represented is that most lessors conduct business as small operations. The EPA anticipates that small operations will not require a full two hours to complete the survey, but instead will likely require only 30 minutes for survey completion. Therefore, EPA has built small entity flexibility into the site visit program by adapting the length of the visit and the burden on the operation, to the size of the operation.

5( d) Collection Schedule & Project Schedule Phase I   Identification of Study Population: Within 3 months of ICR approval by OMB Phase II   Conducting of Site Visits   The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to occur under the following schedule for each sector covered: Lessor Sector: Within 6 months of ICR approval by OMB. Lessee Sector: Within 9 months of ICR approval by OMB. Phase III   Evaluate Data/ Determine Compliance Rate: Within 3 months of obtaining site visit data Project Completion   Twenty four months from cooperative agreement award date 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs Attachment A includes Tables 1, 2 and 3 which illustrate Respondent Burden and Costs ( Table 1), Agency Burden and Costs ( Table 2) and Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA ( Table 3)

Table 1 presents estimates of the initial respondent burden for labor hours and costs associated with this ICR. There is no recurring respondent burden associated with this ICR. No capital or operations and maintenance costs are incurred by respondents under this ICR.

6( b) Estimating Agency Burden Table 2 presents estimates of the initial Agency burden ( including contractor support) associated with this ICR. There is no recurring agency burden associated with this ICR.

6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table Table 3 presents the bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA.

6( d) Reasons for Changes in Burden Since this is a new information collection, there is no change in burden for this collection.

6( e) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per lessor survey and to average 30 minutes per lessee survey. These estimates include the time required to complete the surveys and for the site visit interview. " Burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA 2004 0045, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments tot he Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID NO. OECA 2004 0045 and EPA ICR number 2161.01 in any correspondence.

Part B 1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey Objectives The goals for each of the surveys covered by this information collection request are summarized below by sector:

Lessor Sector: To determine the rate of compliance with the Disclosure Rule by lessors in areas at high risk for lead poisoning in St. Louis, Missouri To determine if additional Disclosure Rule compliance assistance materials should be developed Lessee Sector: To determine if lessees read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet To determine if lessees implemented methods to decrease lead exposure as a result of lead hazard awareness 1( b) Key Variables The key variables in each survey will be the lessors' compliance with the Disclosure Rule. This compliance measurement will be determined as a percentage of lessor respondents within the sector in compliance with the Disclosure Rule.

1( c) Statistical Approach The population of lessors in the targeted high risk areas in St. Louis will be determined in Phase I of the project. The size of the target population and EPA budget constraints require a statistical analysis using a subset of lessors in the sector ( a minimum of 100 lessors). The EPA OECA intends to use Recipient support for the surveys and site visits.

The population of lessees in the targeted high risk areas in St. Louis will be determined during Phase I of the project. The size of the target population and EPA budget constraints require a statistical analysis using a subset of lessees in this sector ( a minimum of 50 lessees). The EPA OECA intends to use recipient support for the surveys and site visits.

1( d) Feasibility What obstacles might the respondents face in completing the surveys? A goal of the surveys is to assess, for the lessor sector, regulatory awareness and compliance with respect to the federal Disclosure Rule. The questions have been structured in a yes/ no checklist format and the data being requested should be readily known by the respondents. In some cases a respondent may need to review lease records to determine whether they have met total compliance. However, these types of questions have been minimized as much as possible.

Are sufficient funds available to complete the surveys as designed? The EPA funds are available for the survey site visits, lessor seminars, lessee focus groups and follow up surveys.

Will the survey results be ready in time to serve the program's decision making needs? Assuming OMB approval, the data collection will be completed within nine months of the IRC approval. For the lessor sector, survey results will be used for EPA/ OECA enforcement and compliance assistance decisions for the 2005 and beyond time frame.

2. SURVEY DESIGN 2( a) Target Population and Coverage A discussion of the target populations and coverage are provided by sector below:

Lessor Sector: For the lessor sector, the target population is lessors doing business in the areas of St. Louis, Missouri determined to be at highest risk for childhood lead poisoning, excluding public housing and other HUD owned housing. This subset of lessors has been chosen for coverage since the ICR input will be used by EPA Region 7 in their section 1018 inspection targeting efforts. Lessee Sector: For the lessee sector, the target population is lessees leasing rental property in the areas of St. Louis, Missouri determined to be at highest risk for childhood lead poisoning. This subset of lessees has been chosen for coverage since the ICR input will be used by EPA Region 7 in planning the nonregulatory outreach to this subset of respondents and will be used by EPA, HUD and MDoH to assess the effectiveness of their education and outreach.

2( b) Sample Design The sampling design by sector to be surveyed is presented below:

Lessor Sector: Sampling Frame: The sampling frame for this sector is the EPA Region 7 lessors which have been identified by the Recipient.

Sample Size: Based on standard statistical sampling techniques, EPA has estimated that a sample size of 100 lessors will be required to estimate a compliance rate for lessors. To arrive at this range, EPA began by determining the appropriate equation for determining the sample size for estimating a sample proportion.

Stratification Variables: In drawing the random sample, EPA will stratify the sample size among the targeted high risk areas based on the proportion of lessors in each area. The EPA is not intending to make comparisons between the areas using a set precision or calculate a valid performance rate by zip code areas ( i. e., EPA is not drawing a valid random sample by zip code). Rather, EPA is stratifying the sample to ensure representation among all zip code areas. The EPA has not yet determined the specific percentages that will be applied to each zip code area.

Sampling Method: The Recipient will conduct the surveys on this sector as a voluntary random sample. The EPA will assign each lessor a random number ( using a random number generator such as the one available in Microsoft Excel) and then sort the list using the random number. The first 100 lessors in this sorted list will constitute the random sample and is specified below.

The EPA anticipates that each lessor visited in the site visit survey will result in a completed survey. In the event that some lessors do not agree to participate in the site visit program, EPA will continue to pull lessors from the sorted list of lessors until the desired sample size is attained ( i. e., 100 lessors). The EPA will track which lessors declined to participate and use available information on these lessors ( e. g. size, location, etc.) to determine if some nonresponse bias exists.

Lessee Sector: Sampling Frame: The sampling frame for this sector is EPA Region 7 lessees which have been identified through the lessor surveys.

Sample Size: The EPA will follow the same methodology and assumptions as described above for lessees in choosing a sample size for the lessees sector.

Stratification Variables: The EPA will stratify the random sample by zip code area for the on site surveys and will ensure that each of the targeted high risk areas in St. Louis, Missouri is represented in the survey. The EPA will use the information contained in the sampling frame to determine the percentages of each zip code area. As with the method for lessors, EPA is not intending to make comparisons between zip code areas with known precision, but is only concerned with ensuring representation for all lessees in the high risk areas of St. Louis, Missouri.

Sampling Method: The Recipient will conduct the surveys on this sector as a voluntary random sample. The EPA's recipient will assign each survey lessee a random number ( using a random number generator such as the one available in Microsoft Excel) and then sort the list using the random number. The first 50 lessees in this sorted list will constitute the random sample and is specified below.

The EPA anticipates that each lessee visited in the site visit survey will result in a completed survey. In the event that some lessees do not agree to participate in the site visit program, EPA's recipient will continue to pull lessees from the sorted list of lessees until the desired sample size is attained ( i. e., 50). The EPA's recipient will track which lessees declined to participate and will use available information on these facilities ( e. g., location, etc.) to determine if some nonresponse bias exists.

2( c) Precision Requirements Precision: The EPA's sample size estimates are based on ten percentage points in precision and a 90 percent confidence level. That is, EPA will be 90 percent certain that the estimated results will be within plus or minus 10 percentage points of the actual ( population) results. This precision will allow for the identification of trends in the results. Greater precision in the results is not practical since the required sample sizes for a small sampling error are significantly greater and beyond the budget available to EPA for these studies.

2( d) Questionnaire Design Lessor Survey: A draft of the survey for the lessor sector is included here as Attachment B. It contains both an interview section and a records review section. The lessor survey is designed to provide general information on compliance with the Disclosure Rule by requesting information on practices related to Disclosure Rule requirements and by reviewing lessor records.

The interview questions of the survey request general information about the lessor's awareness of the Disclosure Rule and whether s/ he is in compliance or his/ her level of noncompliance. The records review portion of the survey is designed to determine whether the lease contained the lead warning statement, whether reports were provided to the lessee, whether the lease form was properly documented, etc. The following sections provide a detailed description of the rationale for the questions in the survey. ° Questions 1 through 5 in the Interview survey request information about the lessor's level of awareness of the Disclosure Rule, knowledge of lead based paint hazards in his/ her properties, whether they provided the EPA/ HUD lead hazard pamphlet, and whether certain other disclosure information was provided to the lessee. ° Questions 1 and 2 of the Records Review survey relate to the appropriateness of the lease itself. ° Questions 3 through 5 examine whether knowledge of lead hazards was disclosed. ° Questions 6 through 12 demonstrate whether the lease agreement was properly documented.

Lessee Survey: The EPA's survey for the lessee sector will be developed by the Recipient upon ICR approval by OMB. This survey will be used to obtain information to evaluate the level of behavior change occurring in the lessee sector and to evaluate the impacts of nonregulatory outreach and awareness. The second component is a checklist that will be used during the site visit to verify information obtained during the lessors' surveys. This checklist will compare the lessee responses to the lessor responses.

The lessee survey is designed to provide data regarding whether the lessee read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet and whether the lessee implemented methods to decrease lead exposure as a result.

3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS The EPA Region 7 will not conduct a pre test or pilot test of their surveys.

4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods For each sector survey, EPA intends to conduct survey collection data through a site visit program. 4( b) Survey Response and Follow Up For the site visit surveys, EPA expects to achieve a completed survey for each site visited. Survey data will be recorded on paper survey forms.

5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS 5( a) Data Preparation For each survey, EPA or its Recipient will enter the survey results into an electronic database using off the shelf software ( e. g. Excel, Access). The data entry will be double checked to ensure that data were entered accurately and missing data items will be flagged. The Recipient will attempt to collect any missing data items in the lessor sector through phone contacts with the lessors.

5( b) Analysis The survey and seminar results will be analyzed to determine: ° Each lessor's compliance with the federal Disclosure Rule. ° Key compliance problem areas where a majority of lessors sampled appear to be unaware of or potentially noncompliant with the key federal requirement. ° Compliance assistance outreach methods preferred by the lessors. ° Percentage of lessees who read the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home pamphlet. ° Percentage of lessees who implement methods to reduce lead exposure as a result of lead hazard awareness. ° Lead information nonregulatory outreach approaches preferred by the lessees.

To look at these issues, EPA will employ a variety of statistical techniques, including:

Analysis of variance   EPA will use analysis of variance ( ANOVA) techniques to explore the sources of variation in the data. EPA may employ a multiple factor ANOVA to look for significant differences across both the sectors and survey methods.

Other   EPA will explore the use of other techniques such as correlation analysis or regression analysis. One analysis may be discriminant analysis which attempts to derive reliable predictors for a certain variable.

These statistical techniques are described and found in a variety of statistical text books such as Kachigan, Sam Kash, Statistical Analysis, New York: Radius Press.

One purpose of this sampling will be to compare the responses of the lessor surveys with the lessee surveys. The EPA will have confidence in the site visit survey responses since the survey takers will be able to verify that the responses given are correct. The EPA will be able to assess the quality and accuracy of the information collected from the lessors by comparing to the lessee survey responses.

In addition, EPA will assess the actual burden ( respondents and agency) required to solicit, respond, and review surveys.

5( c) Reporting Results Each set of survey results will be summarized and documented in a sector based report. The reports will be made available to other EPA personnel and to HUD and MDoH. The databases developed under these survey activities will be publicly available upon request. ATTACHMENT A Table 1. Respondent Burden and Costs Activity Burden Hours and Cost Per Recipient Total Burden Hours and Cost For All Recipients Labor Hours Costs ( a) Labor Hours Costs ( a)

Lessor Surveys 2.0 $ 95.24 200 $ 9,524.00 Lessee Surveys 0.5 $ 23.81 25 $ 1,190.50 Totals 225 $ 10,714.50 ( a) Assumes a $ 47.62/ hr rate base on the Bureau of Labor Statics " Employer Costs for Employment Compensation." [$ 29.76 + 60% overhead = $ 47.62/ hr] No other direct costs [ ODCs] are anticipated for the sector surveys. ATTACHMENT A ( cont'd.)

Table 2. Agency Burden and Costs Sector Activity Costs Labor Total Costs Hours Costs ( a)

Lessor Survey Oversight & Admin. 142 $ 4,967.00 $ 4,967.00 Lessee Survey Oversight & Admin 18 $ 630.00 $ 630.00 Totals 160 $ 5,597.00 ( a) Agency $/ hr rate is based on a 1998 GS 13/ 01 salary of $ 55,969 or 26.91/ hr. with a 30% overhead.

The resulting hourly rate is $ 34.98/ hr. ATTACHMENT A ( cont'd.)

Table 3. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA Category Total Labor Hours Total Costs ($)

Respondent Burden 225 $ 10,715.00 Agency Burden 160 $ 5,597.00 Totals 385 $ 16,312.00


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65833-65835]
[DOCID:fr23no07-127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0036]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger cars are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger cars 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 (1) 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, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered
to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 24,
2007.

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. ET,
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) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov
.

    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 see the comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) On that page, click on ``search for dockets.''
    (3) On the next page (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number
and title shown at the heading of this document, and select
``Nonrulemaking'' from the drop-down menu in the Type field and
``Vehicle Import Eligibility'' in the drop-down menu in the Sub-Type
field.
    (4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of the word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable. 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. (WETL) of Houston,
TX (Registered Importer 90-005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger cars are eligible for
importation into the United States. The vehicles which WETL believes
are substantially similar are 1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger cars
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 compared non-U.S.-certified 1992 Alfa
Romeo Spyder passenger cars 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 1992 Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger
cars, 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 1992
Alfa Romeo Spyder passenger cars 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, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 106
Brake Hoses, 107 Reflecting Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 110 Tire
Selection and Rims, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 112 HeadLamp Concealment
Devices, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118
Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 124
Accelerator Control 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, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat
Belt Assembly Anchorages, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps, 212
Windshield Mounting, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone
Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Installation of an
indicator lamp lens cover inscribed with the word ``brake'' in the
instrument cluster in place of one inscribed with the international ECE
warning symbol; and

(b) replacement or conversion of the speedometer to read in miles per
hour.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Installation of U.S.-model: (a) Headlamps; (b) taillamps;
(c) rear side marker lamps; and (d) rear high mounted stop lamp and
associated wiring.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a supplemental
key warning buzzer to meet the requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification: Installation of a vehicle
identification plate near the left windshield post to meet the
requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Installation of: (a) A
seat belt warning buzzer; (b) U.S.-model driver's side air bag system;
and (c) knee bolsters.
    Petitioner states that the vehicle's restraint system includes Type
II seat belts at the front outboard designated seating positions.
    Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: Installation of U.S.-model
door reinforcement beams.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of a rollover
valve in the fuel tank vent line between the fuel tank and the
evaporative emissions collection canister to comply with the
requirements of this standard.
    The petitioner states that U.S.-model bumper support structure
components must be installed to ensure compliance with the requirements
of the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
    The petitioner further states that all vehicles will be inspected
for compliance with the parts marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard at 49 CFR part 541 and that U.S.-model antitheft
devices will be installed on vehicles not already so equipped prior to
importation.
    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: November 16, 2007.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-22861 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


1 Procedures for Conducting Compliance Audit Required by 40 CFR § 270.275( f) Standardized Permit Environmental Compliance Audit 1. Section 270.275( f) requires that in addition to other information, the standardized permit applicant must submit to the permitting authority an audit of the facility's compliance status with 40 CFR part 267. This guidance provides environmental compliance auditing procedures that may be used by the auditor to satisfy the requirements of § 270.275( f). When conducting this audit, the auditor may follow the environmental compliance audit procedures set forth below. The auditor may also wish to consult the Protocol for Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits of Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA 305 B 98 006 ( December 1998). You will find that protocol at the following web address: www. epa. gov/ compliance/ incentives/ auditing/ protocol. html.

2. As required by § 270.280( c)( 2), the scope of the audit shall address the requirements of proposed 40 CFR part 267, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit, that apply to the facility. The auditor may develop a sitespecific audit protocol or inspection checklist to be used while conducting the audit.

3. As required by § 270.280( c)( 1), the auditor shall be appropriately trained for conducting the audit. The auditor should have a working process knowledge of the facility or of another facility with similar operations, and should have a working knowledge of the proposed 40 CFR part 267 requirements that apply to the facility.

Standardized Permit Environmental Compliance Auditing Procedures Scope of Audit As required by § 270.280( c)( 2), the scope of the audit shall include the following requirements of 40 CFR part 267, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit, as applicable:

Subpart A General Subpart B General Facility Standards Subpart C Preparedness and Prevention Subpart D Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures Subpart E Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notifying Subpart F Releases from Solid Waste Management Units Subpart G Closure Subpart H Financial Requirements Subpart I Use and Management of Containers Subpart J Tank Systems Subpart DD Containment Buildings 2 Audit Scheduling The auditor may schedule the audit by contacting the facility's environmental manager to determine the optimal date( s) for the audit. The auditor may then follow up with a letter to the facility's environmental manager ( with a copy to the permitting authority) confirming the audit date( s) and describing the audit agenda, scope, and plan.

Pre Audit Preparation 1. This guidance recommends that the facility's environmental manager provide the auditor with environmental information about the facility, including a description of the primary function of the facility and each of the facility's manufacturing processes; an organization chart; facility map; process flow diagrams; identification of all waste streams, sources of emissions, and emissions points; and copies of all applicable environmental permits.

2. It is also recommended that the facility's environmental manager identify any and all sitespecific training requirements that may be necessary to ensure that the auditor can effectively and safely conduct the required audit.

3. The facility's environmental manager may discuss the facility specific audit plan with the auditor and give guidance and support as needed; provide access to the facility's environmental files; provide the auditor with his/ her own work space; make appropriate facility personnel available for interviews during the audit; and plan to operate the facility under normal conditions during the audit.

4. The auditor should review all available information on the facility, confirm the applicable environmental requirements, and develop a facility specific audit plan based on the information received from the facility's environmental manager. A comprehensive audit plan would probably include the applicable environmental requirements at the facility; the scope and schedule of the audit; and a detailed, site specific audit protocol or inspection checklist. The auditor may provide the facility with a copy of the plan approximately thirty ( 30) days prior to the scheduled audit.

5. The auditor should make any other pre audit preparations s/ he deems necessary, such as confirming arrangements with the facility's environmental manager for the opening meeting; making arrangements for safety briefings and security clearances; and preparing a list of required safety equipment.

Specific Provisions for Conducting the Audit 1. An opening meeting chaired by the auditor and attended by the facility's environmental manager and other appropriate personnel may be held to begin the audit. At that meeting, the facility's environmental manager may provide the auditor with an overview of operations and environmental issues. The auditor may outline the audit process, addressing the objectives and 3 scope of the audit; audit agenda; arrangements for staff interviews ( as necessary); document control; and arrangements for the closing meeting.

3. After the opening meeting, the auditor may confirm arrangements for safety equipment, any additional safety training ( if necessary), and work space.

4. This guidance recommends that the facility's environmental manager provide the auditor with a site plot plan and an initial tour of the facility. If the facility is spread out, the initial tour may serve as the main inspection.

5. In conducting the audit, the auditor should take all necessary action to determine the facility's compliance with 40 CFR part 267. Such actions may include examining records; interviewing employees; taking samples; examining control equipment; observing the operation of the facility; identifying all historical and existing waste streams, sources of emissions, and emission points; and revisiting areas of the facility, as necessary. It is recommended that the auditor keep good notes on what is discovered, source( s) of information, and sampling strategies used in conducting the audit.

6. If at any time during the audit the auditor identifies an imminent threat to health or the environment at the facility, s/ he shall immediately notify the owner or operator of the facility and provide all available information on the nature of the threat. As required by § 270.30( l)( 6), the facility shall notify the permitting authority within twenty four ( 24) hours of becoming aware of any such noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment.

7. In preparation for the closing meeting, the auditor may prepare written Audit Findings. Each Audit Finding should be factually accurate and adequately supported by evidence. If when reviewing the Audit Findings the auditor determines that multiple findings relate to a basic problem, such findings may be grouped into one finding that identifies the more common underlying problem.

8. At the end of the audit, the auditor may meet with the facility's environmental manager and other appropriate personnel to share his/ her findings and observations. The purpose of this meeting should be to give the facility an opportunity to hear the Audit Findings and to clarify any facts concerning them.

9. If the auditor determines that additional information is needed from the facility or other sources in order to prepare the Audit Report, s/ he should request such information. The facility should make all reasonable efforts to assist the auditor in obtaining the additional information.

10. As required by § 270.280( c)( 3), the auditor shall issue a written Audit Report. The Audit Report should document all instances of compliance, as well as noncompliance, with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 267. The Audit Report shall be signed and certified by the auditor as accurate.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21003-21004]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision
(ROD) for Issuing Launch and Reentry Licenses to Space Exploration
Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Commercial
Launch Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the FONSI and ROD.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), Council on
Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal
Regulations parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, the FAA is announcing
the availability of a FONSI/ROD, based on the analysis and findings of
the U.S. Air Force's (USAF's) March 2011 Final Environmental Assessment
for Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy Launch Vehicle Programs from Space
Launch Complex 4 East (the EA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Room 325, Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA participated as a cooperating agency
with USAF in the preparation of the EA, which evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of operating the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch
vehicle programs from Space Launch Complex-4 East (SLC-4E) at VAFB. As
the Proposed Action would require Federal actions (as defined in 40 CFR
Sec.  1508.18) involving USAF and the FAA, the EA was prepared to
satisfy the NEPA obligations of both agencies. USAF was the lead
agency, and the FAA served as a cooperating agency because of its role
in issuing licenses or permits to operate commercial launch and reentry
vehicles. USAF issued a FONSI on July 11, 2011, which stated that the
potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action
would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment, and therefore the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. The FAA has
formally adopted the EA and is using the FONSI/ROD to support the
issuance of launch and reentry licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 and
Falcon Heavy commercial launch operations at VAFB.
    The Proposed Action analyzed in the EA consists of SpaceX operating
its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle programs to provide
government and commercial space operations from SLC-4E at VAFB. The
Proposed Action in the EA also includes modifications and new
construction at SLC-4E to support SpaceX's launch operations.
Modification and construction activities have been initiated since the
EA was

published. SLC-4E was previously used for the Titan IV program and has
been non-operational since 2005. The FAA's Proposed Action is to issue
launch and reentry licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy
commercial launch operations at VAFB. Alternatives analyzed as part of
the FONSI/ROD include (1) the Proposed Action and (2) No Action
Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue
launch or reentry licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy
commercial launch operations at VAFB.
    Based on its independent review and consideration, the FAA issued a
FONSI/ROD concurring with the analysis of impacts and findings in the
EA and formally adopting the EA to support the issuance of launch and
reentry licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy commercial
launch operations at VAFB. After reviewing and analyzing available data
and information on existing conditions, potential impacts, and measures
to mitigate those impacts, the FAA has determined that issuing launch
and reentry licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy commercial
launch operations at VAFB is a Federal action that would not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an EIS is not required,
and the FAA has issued a FONSI/ROD. The FAA made this determination in
accordance with all applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations.
    The FAA has posted the EA and FONSI/ROD on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 26, 2013.
Daniel P. Murray,
Deputy Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-08083 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 105 (Monday, June 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 33163]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1262]

Notice of Approval of Product Under Voucher: Rare Pediatric
Disease Priority Review Voucher

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of approval of a product redeeming a priority review voucher.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA),
authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of
approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain
criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of vouchers
as well as the approval of products redeeming a voucher. FDA has
determined that NURTEC ODT (rimegepant), approved February 27, 2020,
meets the redemption criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Althea Cuff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-
796-9858, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will report the issuance of rare
pediatric disease priority review vouchers and the approval of products
for which a voucher was redeemed. FDA has determined that NURTEC ODT
(rimegepant), approved February 27, 2020, meets the redemption
criteria.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about NURTEC ODT (rimegepant), approved February 27, 2020,
go to the ``[email protected]'' website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: May 26, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-11681 Filed 5-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 54984-54985]
[DOCID:fr20se06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 13, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC06-160-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc.; Duquesne Light Company;
Duquesne Power, LLC; Duquesne, Keystone LLC; Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC;
Monmouth energy, Inc., DQE Holdings, LLC; DQE Merger Sub, Inc.; DUET
Investment Holding; GIF2-MFIT United Pty. Limited; Industry Funds
Management (Nominees) Limited, as trustee of the IFM (International
Infrastructure) Wholesale Trust; CLH Holdings, GP.
    Description: Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. et al. submits an
application requesting authorization for merger of Merger Sub with and
into DL Holdings, which will result in the Duquesne Companies becoming
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Holdings.
    Filed Date: 09/06/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0387.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 10, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER05-1418-002.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC submits its
refund report pursuant to FERC's 7/20/06 order.
    Filed Date: 08/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0376.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1508-002.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an amendment to its 6/21/06 compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-451-009; ER06-1467-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits an errata to its 9/
1/06 filing of proposed revisions to its OAT Tariff relating to its
real-time energy imbalance service market etc.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 22, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-785-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
Midwest ISO Transmission Owners.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
and Midwest ISO submit revisions to the Midwest ISO Agreement pursuant
to Commission's 8/11/06 order.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0378.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1476-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits its Generator
Special Facilities Agreement and a Generator Interconnection Agreement
with The County of Sonoma.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0447.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1482-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits an amended
Interconnection Facilities Agreement with Oasis Power Partners, Service
Agreement 25, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 6.
    Filed Date: 09/11/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0375.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 02, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1485-000.

    Applicants: Xcel Energy Operating Companies.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf Southwestern Public
Service Company submits First Revised Sheet 8 et al. to FERC Electric
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 11/1/06.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 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. 06-7980 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74206-74208]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29385]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70985; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-145]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Acceptable Trade Range

December 4, 2013.
    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 November 21, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend rule text related to Acceptable Trade
Range.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 amend rule text in
Chapter VI, Section 10 entitled ``Book

Processing'' to add additional rule text regarding Acceptable Trade
Range. The Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism to prevent the system
\3\ [sic] from experiencing dramatic price swings by creating a level
of protection that prevents the market from moving beyond set
thresholds. The thresholds consist of a Reference Price plus (minus)
set dollar amounts based on the nature of the option and the premium of
the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System'' shall mean the automated system for
order execution and trade reporting owned and operated by The Nasdaq
Options Market LLC. See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the rule provides that the system will calculate an
Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order
will be allowed to execute. The Acceptable Trade Range is calculated by
taking the reference price, plus or minus a value to be determined by
the Exchange (i.e., the reference price-(x) for sell orders and the
reference price + (x) for buy orders).\4\ Upon receipt of a new order,
the reference price is the National Best Bid (NBB) for sell orders and
the National Best Offer (NBO) for buy orders or the last price at which
the order is posted whichever is higher for a buy order or lower for a
sell order. If an order reaches the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade
Range (the ``Threshold Price'') without being fully executed, it will
be posted at the Threshold Price for a brief period, not to exceed one
second (``Posting Period''), to allow more liquidity to be collected.
Upon posting, either the current Threshold Price of the order or an
updated NBB for buy orders or the NBO for sell orders (whichever is
higher for a buy order/lower for a sell order) then becomes the
reference price for calculating a new Acceptable Trade Range. If the
order remains unexecuted, a New [sic] Acceptable Trade Range will be
calculated and the order will execute, route, or post up to the new
Acceptable Trade Range Threshold Price. Today, this process will repeat
until the order is executed, cancelled, or posted at its limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Acceptable Trade Range settings are tied to the option
premium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to provide that this
process will repeat until either (i) the order/quote is executed,
cancelled, or posted at its limit price or (ii) the order has been
subject to a configurable number of instances of the Acceptable Trade
Range as determined by the Exchange.\5\ Once the maximum number of
instances has been reached, the order is returned. The Exchange will
establish a maximum number of Acceptable Trade Range iterations, until
the order is cancelled. The Exchange will update the Trading System
Settings page located on the NASDAQTrader.com Web site to display the
maximum number of Acceptable Trade Range iterations and will provide
updates to the table via an Options Trader Alert, generally the prior
day, to its membership via Options Trader Alerts. The Exchange will
provide sufficient advanced notice of changes. This is the same process
which currently exists on NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NOM Participants may elect to have their orders cancelled by
the System after the first iteration.
    \6\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with these requirements in
that it will continue to reduce the negative impacts of sudden,
unanticipated volatility in individual options, and serve to preserve
an orderly market in a transparent and uniform manner, enhance the
price-discovery process, increase overall market confidence, and
promote fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. This
functionality should continue to result in greater continuity in prices
as it is designed to prevent immediate or rapid executions at far away
prices; thereby protecting investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the addition of [sic] configurable number of
iterations when the Acceptable Trade Range would apply will provide NOM
Participants with more certainty as to the application of the Rule.
Overall the Acceptable Trade Range Rule should reduce the negative
impacts of sudden, unanticipated volatility in and enhance the price-
discovery process.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change would provide
NOM Participants greater certainty when transacting orders on the
Exchange and continue to reduce the negative impacts of sudden,
unanticipated volatility in and enhance the price-discovery process.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\ Because
the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and 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. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-145 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-145. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-145 and should
be submitted on or before December 31, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29385 Filed 12-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P