[Federal Register: November 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 66998-66999]
[DOCID:fr17no06-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54732; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Modify the Rules of the Nasdaq Global
Select Market

November 9, 2006.
    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 October 10, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has filed this proposal pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder
\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission. On November 2, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq, among other things, added the
requirement of $80 million market value of listed securities for
business development companies exempt from registration pursuant to
the Investment Company Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the rules related to closed-end funds
listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market to clarify the treatment of
business development companies. The text of the proposed rule change,
as amended, is below. Proposed new language is italicized.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://www.complinet.com/nasdaq
.

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

* * * * *
4426. Nasdaq Global Select Market Listing Requirements
    (a) No change.
    (b) Liquidity Requirements
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) The publicly held shares must have either:
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (C) a market value of at least $70 million in the case of: (i) An
issuer listing in connection with its initial public offering; (ii) an
issuer that is affiliated with, or a spin-off from, another company
listed on the Global Select Market; and (iii) a closed end management
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
or exempt from registration as a business development company as
defined in Section 2 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
    (c)-(d) No change.
    (e) Closed End Management Investment Companies.
    (1)-(2) No change.
    (3) A closed end management investment company that is exempt from
registration as a business development company as defined in Section 2
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 shall not be required to meet
paragraph (c) of this Rule 4426 but must have a market value of listed
securities of at least $80 million.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as
amended, 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq recently amended the listing standards for the Nasdaq Global
Select Market, in part, to clarify the treatment of closed-end
management investment companies.\7\ In that filing, Nasdaq
inadvertently failed to describe the rules applicable to closed end
management investment companies that elect to be treated as business
development companies. This filing clarifies that, like other closed-
end funds, business development companies do not have to meet the
financial requirements of Nasdaq Rule 4426(c). However, such companies
must have a market value of

listed securities of at least $80 million to be eligible for initial
listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54274 (August 3,
2006), 71 FR 45878 (August 10, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general,
and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the
proposal 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
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.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, clarifies
Nasdaq's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change, as amended, has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act, Nasdaq provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
period under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\12\ The Commission believes that it
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
to waive the 30-day operative delay,\13\ because the proposal is
consistent with the treatment afforded business development companies
by other markets.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ See Section 102.04 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed
Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, as amended, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 2, 2006, the date Nasdaq filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-044. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-2006-044 and should be submitted on or before
December 8, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19424 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57461-57463]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0402; FRL-9951-18-OAR]

Extension of Deadline for Action on the July 2016 Section 126
Petition From Delaware

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
determining that 60 days is insufficient time to complete the technical
and other analyses and public notice-and-comment process required for
our review of a petition submitted by the state of Delaware pursuant to
section 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petition requests that the
EPA make a finding that the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station
located in York County, Pennsylvania, emit air pollution that
significantly contributes to nonattainment and interferes with
maintenance of the 2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in state of Delaware. Under section 307(d)(10) of
CAA, the EPA is authorized to grant a time extension for responding to
a petition if the EPA determines that the extension is necessary to
afford the public, and the agency, adequate opportunity to carry out
the purposes of the section 307(d)'s notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements. By this action, the EPA is making that determination. The
EPA is therefore extending the deadline for acting on the petition to
no later than March 5, 2017.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0402. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gobeail McKinley, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27709, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Legal Requirements for Interstate Air Pollution

    This is a procedural action to extend the deadline for the EPA to
respond to a petition from the state of Delaware filed pursuant to CAA
section 126(b). The EPA received the petition on July 7, 2016. The
petition requests that the EPA make a finding under section 126(b) of
the CAA that the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station located in York
County, Pennsylvania, is operating in a manner that emits air
pollutants in violation of the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA with respect to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Section 126(b) of the CAA authorizes states to petition the EPA to
find that a major source or group of stationary sources in upwind
states emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the
prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) \1\ by contributing

significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in downwind
states. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibits emissions of
any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with respect to any NAAQS. The petition asserts that emissions from the
Brunner Island's three major boiler units significantly contribute to
Delaware's nonattainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, set at 0.075
parts per million (ppm), and the revised 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, set
at 0.070 ppm.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The text of CAA section 126 codified in the United States
Code cross references CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) instead of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that this is a
scrivener's error and the correct cross reference is to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032,
1040-44 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \2\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level
ozone NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's
effects on public health and welfare. See 80 FR 65291 (October 26,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 126(b), the EPA must make the finding
requested in the petition, or must deny the petition within 60 days of
its receipt. Under CAA section 126(c), any existing sources for which
the EPA makes the requested finding must cease operations within 3
months of the finding, except that the source may continue to operate
if it complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules
(containing increments of progress) that the EPA may provide to bring
about compliance with the applicable requirements as expeditiously as
practical but no later than 3 years from the date of the finding.
    CAA section 126(b) further provides that the EPA must hold a public
hearing on the petition. The EPA's action under section 126 is also
subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d). See CAA
section 307(d)(1)(N). One of these requirements is notice-and-comment
rulemaking, under section 307(d)(3)-(6).
    In addition, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides for a time extension,
under certain circumstances, for a rulemaking subject to CAA section
307(d). Specifically, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides:

    Each statutory deadline for promulgation of rules to which this
subsection applies which requires promulgation less than six months
after date of proposal may be extended to not more than six months
after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a determination
that such extension is necessary to afford the public, and the
agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of the
subsection.

    CAA section 307(d)(10) may be applied to section 126 rulemakings
because the 60-day time limit under CAA section 126(b) necessarily
limits the period for promulgation of a final rule after proposal to
less than 6 months.

II. Final Rule

A. Rule

    In accordance with CAA section 307(d)(10), the EPA is determining
that the 60-day period afforded by CAA section 126(b) for responding to
the petition from the state of Delaware is not adequate to allow the
public and the agency the opportunity to carry out the purposes of CAA
section 307(d). Specifically, the 60-day period is insufficient for the
EPA to complete the necessary technical review, develop an adequate
proposal, and allow time for notice and comment, including an
opportunity for public hearing, on a proposed finding regarding whether
the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station identified in the CAA section
126 petition contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
Delaware. Moreover, the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to
review and develop response to any public comments on a proposed
finding, or testimony supplied at a public hearing, and to develop and
promulgate a final finding in response to the petition. The EPA is in
the process of determining an appropriate schedule for action on the
CAA section 126 petition. This schedule must afford the EPA adequate
time to prepare a proposal that clearly elucidates the issues to
facilitate public comment, and must provide adequate time for the
public to comment and for the EPA to review and develop responses to
those comments prior to issuing the final rule. As a result of this
extension, the deadline for the EPA to act on the petition is March 5,
2017.

B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

    This document is a final agency action, but may not be subject to
the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The
EPA believes that, because of the limited time provided to make a
determination, the deadline for action on the CAA section 126 petition
should be extended. Congress may not have intended such a determination
to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent
that this determination otherwise would require notice and opportunity
for public comment, there is good cause within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) not to apply those requirements here. Providing for notice
and comment would be impracticable because of the limited time provided
for making this determination, and would be contrary to the public
interest because it would divert agency resources from the substantive
review of the CAA section 126 petition.

C. Effective Date Under the APA

    This action is effective on August 23, 2016. Under the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has
good cause to mandate an earlier effective date. This action--a
deadline extension--must take effect immediately because its purpose is
to extend by 6 months the deadline for action on the petition. As
discussed earlier, the EPA intends to use the 6-month extension period
to develop a proposal on the petition and provide time for public
comment before issuing the final rule. It would not be possible for the
EPA to complete the required notice and comment and public hearing
process within the original 60-day period noted in the statute. These
reasons support an immediate effective date.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the
EPA to take action on a petition and does not impose any new
obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA
``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This good cause final action simply extends the
date for the EPA to take action on a petition. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This good cause final action
simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition and
does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as
discussed in Section II.B of this document, including the basis for
that finding.

IV. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
110, 126 and 307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426 and 7607).

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 24, 2016.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the
subject of this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone.

    Dated: August 15, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-20140 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24493-24494]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

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

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted

below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. The ICR described the nature of the information collection
and its expected burden. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting public comments on the following information
collection was published on December 26, 2013 (Federal Register/Vol.
78, No. 248/pp. 78504-78505).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before May 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kathy Sifrit, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2127--New.
    Title: Mild Cognitive Impairment and Driving Performance.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1240.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: Drivers age 60 and older who have responded to a
solicitation for participation in a study of aging, cognition, and
driving safety and have provided a phone number and/or email for
contact.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: It is estimated that 90 telephone
conversations will be conducted with respondents to descriptive
solicitations, to yield 60 participants.
    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time to respond to
questions in the telephone conversations is 10 minutes for each
telephone conversation with a respondent. If an Optional Task is
funded, up to 30 of the initial 60 participants would be contacted
monthly by phone for one year, at an estimated 10 minutes per call.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 15 hours (without the Optional
Task). The Optional Task total estimated annual burden is 60 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Without the Optional Task, the questions
will be presented a single time. The Optional Task will add 12 contacts
per participant in which questions are presented.

Abstract

    Older adults comprise an increasing proportion of the (driving)
population and there is concern about the effects of mild cognitive
impairment (MCI) on driver performance and safety. MCI becomes more
prevalent with advancing age. The objective of this project is to
document differences in driving performance and exposure between
participants with MCI and a comparison group of cognitively normal
drivers of similar age. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information from licensed
older drivers about their driving habits in order to determine whether
they are eligible to participate in a study of the effects of mild
cognitive impairment on driving performance. Drivers will volunteer for
the study by responding to a mailed or individually delivered
solicitation. Researchers will ask drivers a brief (<10 minutes) series
of questions to determine eligibility to participate in the study, then
describe the proposed study to respondents who qualify. Each driver who
meets study inclusion criteria will then be asked if he or she wishes
to participate. If yes, a project assistant will ask for a description
of the car in order to identify it and install a data collection system
that will collect all remaining data necessary for the study. The
questions will allow research staff to ensure that prospective
participants meet study inclusion criteria and facilitate installing
data collection instruments in each participant's vehicle. The findings
from this study will help clinicians to identify and intervene when a
client with dementia begins to exhibit potentially risky driving
behaviors. NHTSA will use the information to develop recommendations to
health care providers and to the public regarding when the progression
of a condition causing cognitive impairment results in the need to
transition from driving, with the ultimate goal of reducing injuries
and loss of life on the highway.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 25, 2014.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-09839 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P