[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20463-20464]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0048]

California Meal and Rest Break Rules; Petition for Determination
of Preemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for determination of preemption; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests comments on a petition submitted by the
American Bus Association, Inc. (ABA) requesting a determination that
the State of California's Meal and Rest Break Rules (MRB Rules), as
applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) subject to FMCSA's hours of service (HOS) regulations, are
preempted by Federal law. FMCSA requests comments in response to this
petition.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0048 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy M. White, Enforcement and
Litigation Division; FMCSA Office of Chief Counsel; Telephone: (202)
493-0349; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0048), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
materials online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency

can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0048'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform
its preemption determinations. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 21, 2018, FMCSA granted petitions filed by the American
Trucking Associations, Inc. and the Specialized Carriers and Rigging
Association, and determined that the California MRB Rules, as applied
to property-carrying CMV drivers subject to FMCSA's HOS regulations,
are preempted under 49 U.S.C. 31141. (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0304; 83 FR
67470 (December 28, 2018)). On January 10, 2019, the ABA submitted a
petition to FMCSA seeking a determination that the same provisions of
the California MRB Rules, as applied to passenger-carrying CMV drivers
subject to FMCSA's HOS regulations, are also preempted under 49 U.S.C.
31141.
    The ABA's petition states that the California Labor Code requires
employers to ``provide employees with a meal break of not less than 30
minutes for every five hours worked.'' Petition at 2 (citing Cal. Lab.
Code Sec.  512(a); California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section
11090(11)). In addition, the petition states that ``every employer is
required to `authorize and permit' all employees to take rest periods,
which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work
period, at the rate of ten minutes net rest time per four hours or
major fraction thereof.'' Id. (quoting 8 CCR 11090(12)). This
authorized rest period time must be ``counted as hours worked for which
there shall be no deduction from wages.'' Id. The petition further
states, ``[S]ection 226.7(b) of the California Labor Code states `[a]n
employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or
recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or
applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare
Commission . . ..''' Id. (quoting Cal. Lab. Code Sec.  226.7(b)).
    In its petition, the ABA alleges that the California MRB Rules
undermine existing Federal fatigue management rules for passenger
carriers and that they conflict with driver attendance needs. Petition
at 5-11. The petition also contends that it is difficult for drivers of
passenger-carrying CMVs to comply with the MRB Rules due to the lack of
adequate parking and due to Federal service and security requirements.
Id. at 8-10. Lastly, the petition argues that the cost of complying
with the MRB Rules creates an unreasonable burden on interstate
commerce. Id. at 10-11.

Applicable Law

    Section 31141 of title 49, United States Code, prohibits States
from enforcing a law or regulation on CMV safety that the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) has determined to be preempted. To determine
whether a State law or regulation is preempted, the Secretary must
decide whether a State law or regulation: (1) has the same effect as a
regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, which is the authority for
much of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs); (2) is
less stringent than such a regulation; or (3) is additional to or more
stringent than such a regulation 49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(1).
    If the Secretary decides that a State law or regulation has the
same effect as a regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, the State
law or regulation may be enforced. 49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(2). If the
Secretary decides that a State law or regulation is less stringent than
a regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, the State law or
regulation may not be enforced. Id. Sec.  31141(c)(3). If the Secretary
decides that a State law or regulation is additional to or more
stringent than a regulation prescribed by the Secretary under 49 U.S.C.
31136, the State law or regulation may be enforced unless the Secretary
decides that the State law or regulation (1) has no safety benefit; (2)
is incompatible with the regulation prescribed by the Secretary; or (3)
would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Id. Sec.
31141(c)(4). In deciding whether a State law or regulation will cause
an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Secretary may
consider the cumulative effect that the State's law or regulation and
all similar laws and regulations of other States will have on
interstate commerce. Id. Sec.  31141(c)(5). The Secretary's authority
under 49 U.S.C. 31141 is delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR
1.87(f).

Request for Comments

    Although preemption under 49 U.S.C. 31141 is a legal determination
reserved to the judgment of the Agency, FMCSA seeks comments on any
issues raised in the ABA's petition or otherwise relevant. The Agency
has placed the petition in the docket.

    Issued on: May 3, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-09548 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8408-8410]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02227]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0029; FRL-10005-05-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Approval of a Single Source
Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New
Hampshire. The revision approves a single source order for PSI Molded
Plastics. The intended effect of this action is to approve this item
into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken in accordance
with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 14, 2020, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by March 16, 2020. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0029 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include

discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 05-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    CAA section 182(b)(2)(A) requires ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or above to revise their SIPs to include
provisions to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT).
CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) extends the RACT obligation to all areas of
states within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Pursuant to CAA section
184(a), New Hampshire is a member state of the OTR. States subject to
RACT are required to adopt air pollution emission controls for major
sources and for sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
document issued by the agency either via the adoption or regulations,
of by issuance of single source Orders or Permits that outline what the
source is required to do to meet RACT.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On December 10, 2019, New Hampshire submitted RACT Order RO-0005,
dated November 20, 2019, which it issued to PSI Plastic Moldings
located in Wolfeboro. The facility produces custom molded products and
uses metal and plastic parts coatings in its operation. The facility is
subject to New Hampshire regulation Env-A 1212, which contains VOC
content limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings. Some
of the coatings used by the facility exceed the VOC content limit of
Env-A 1212, but others are below those limits. RACT Order RO-0005
allows the facility to demonstrate compliance with Env-A 1212 using a
weighted averaging technique that demonstrates that total emissions
from all coatings are equal to or less than what emissions would be if
all of the coatings met the emission limits within Env-A 1212. The
facility is required to demonstrate compliance using this weighted
averaging technique, referred to as a ``bubble calculation'' described
within the Order, on a monthly basis. We agree that this compliance
method described within Order RO-0005 is an acceptable, enforceable
approach, and are approving the Order into the New Hampshire SIP.

III. Final Action

    We are approving a single source order establishing VOC RACT for
PSI Molded Plastics in Wolfeboro, into the New Hampshire SIP.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April
14, 2020 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by March 16, 2020.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on April 14, 2020 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of New
Hampshire RACT Order RO-0005, dated November 20, 2019, described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is

not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 14, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart EE--New Hampshire

0
2. In Sec.  52.1520, amend the table in paragraph (d) by adding the
entry ``PSI Molded Plastics'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                             EPA-Approved New Hampshire Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
         Name of source                 Permit No.             State       EPA approval date   explanations/Sec.
                                                          effective date                        52.1535 citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
PSI Molded Plastics.............  RO-0005...............      11/20/2019  2/14/2020 [Insert   VOC RACT Order.
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02227 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13660]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05984]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 17a-5(c).
    SEC File No. 270-199, OMB Control No. 3235-0199.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-
5(c), (17 CFR 240.17a-5(c)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-5(c) generally requires broker-dealers who carry customer
accounts to provide statements of the broker-dealer's financial
condition to their customers. Paragraph (5) of Rule 17a-5(c) provides a
conditional exemption from this requirement. A broker-dealer that
elects to take advantage of the exemption must publish its statements
on its Web site in a prescribed manner, and must maintain a toll-free
number that customers can call to request a copy of the statements.
    The purpose of the Rule is to ensure that customers of broker-
dealers are provided with information concerning the financial
condition of the firm that may be holding the customers' cash and
securities. The Commission, when adopting the Rule in 1972, stated that
the goal was to ``directly'' send a customer essential information so
that the customer could ``judge whether his broker or dealer is
financially sound.'' The Commission adopted the Rule in response to the
failure of several broker-dealers holding customer funds and securities
in the period between 1968 and 1971.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 213 broker-dealer
respondents carrying approximately 115 million public customer accounts
incur an average burden of 142,424 hours per year to comply with the
Rule.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05984 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56581-56585]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A
helicopter, which proposed revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM),
Operating Limitations section, to prohibit Class D external load
operations, including human external cargo (HEC), because this model
helicopter was not certificated to one-engine inoperative performance
standards for carrying Class D external loads. This Supplemental NPRM
is prompted by a recent design approval, which allows Class D external
load operations if the appropriate operating limitations are included
in the RFM. This proposed AD is intended to require appropriate
operating limitations to allow operators to perform Class D external
load-combination operations, including HEC, in this model helicopter
that now meets the Category A performance standard.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    On October 23, 2009, we issued a proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39
to include an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters.
That NPRM was published in the Federal

Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65496). The NPRM proposed revising
the RFM SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section 1, Operating Limitations,
Types of Operation, by removing the statement ``RESCUE HOIST: category
`A' only External load operations with Class `D' external loads.'' The
NPRM proposed replacing that statement with ``HOIST: Class D external
loads PROHIBITED.''
    That NPRM was prompted by a mistake in the RFM, which allowed
``Class D'' rotorcraft load combinations for HEC operations for this
model helicopter. The Model S-92A RFM did not include the required one-
engine inoperative (OEI) hover performance and procedures.
    Also, the NPRM proposed replacing the words ``RESCUE HOIST'' in the
RFM with ``HOIST.''

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since issuing the previous NPRM, a recent design approval for HEC
operations has been issued for this helicopter. Therefore, we no longer
need to prohibit rotorcraft load combinations for HEC operations for
this model helicopter, but rather we need to correct the RFM to apply
the appropriate limitations.
    Because this change expands the scope of the originally proposed
rule, the FAA will reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for public comment.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 90 days, revising the
Operating Limitations section of the RFM S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section
1, by inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making pen and ink
changes to several sections of the RFM Operating Limitations. The
changes required by this AD are complied with if RFM S92A-RFM-003,
Revision 12, has been incorporated into the RFM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 65 helicopters in
the U.S. registry. The costs for inserting a correction to the RFM are
expected to be minimal.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2009-1088;
Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an inaccurate Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM) provision, which was approved without
appropriate limitations for this model helicopter for carrying Class
D external rotorcraft-load combinations, including Human External
Cargo (HEC), when this model helicopter was not certificated to
Category A one-engine inoperative (OEI) performance standards,
including fly away capabilities after an engine failure, which is
required for carrying HEC.

(c) Compliance

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

(d) Required Actions

    Within 90 days, revise the Operating Limitations section of
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section 1, by
inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making pen and ink
changes, as follows:

    Note to paragraph (d):  The changes required by this AD are
complied with if RFM S92A-RFM-003, Revision 12, has been
incorporated into the RFM.

    (1) In the Types of Operation section, beneath Hoist, add the
following:
    ``The hoist equipment certification installation approval does
not constitute approval to conduct hoist operations. Operational
approval for hoist operations must be granted by the Federal
Aviation Administration. No cabin seats may be installed in front of
station 317 when conducting Human External Cargo hoist operations,
which requires Category A performance capabilities.''
    (2) In the Flight Limits section, add the following:
    ``HOIST When conducting Human External Cargo operations, which
require category `A' performance capabilities, the minimum hover
height is 20 feet AGL and the maximum hover height is 80 feet AGL.
    HOIST The collective axis must remain uncoupled when conducting
Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance
capabilities, for the period of time that the person is off the
ground or water and not in the aircraft. This can be

accomplished by either uncoupling the collective axis or by the
pilot depressing the collective trim switch during the pertinent
portion of the maneuver.''
    (3) In the Weight Limits section:
    (i) Remove this note: ``NOTE: The 150 pound hoist decrement does
not preclude Cat A operations at a gross weight of 26,500 pounds
with a hoist installed. If conditions permit, the pilot may go to
the right of the 26,500 line on figure 1-2 to determine a maximum
gross weight up to 26,650 and then subtract 150 pounds.''
    (ii) Add this paragraph and figure: ``HOIST Maximum gross weight
for Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance
capabilities, is limited to the gross weight determined in
accordance with the following Figure 1-2A to Paragraph (d) of this
AD for your altitude and temperature with the air-conditioner, anti-
ice, and bleed air turned off.''
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13SE12.000

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: John Coffey, Flight Test
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(781) 238-7170; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203)
383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of this information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510: Flight
Compartment Equipment.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 5, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-22525 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17049-17050]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0563]

Odalys Fernandez: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) debarring Odalys Fernandez from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application for a period of 6 years. FDA bases this order on a finding
that Ms. Fernandez was convicted of five felony counts under Federal
law for conduct involving health care fraud, and one count of
conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and that this pattern of
conduct is sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may
violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. Ms.
Fernandez was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity
to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms.
Fernandez failed to request a hearing. Ms. Fernandez's failure to
request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing
concerning this action.

DATES: This order is effective March 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement,
Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr. (ELEM-4144),
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) permits debarment of an individual if FDA finds
that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law
for conduct which involves bribery, payment of illegal gratuities,
fraud, perjury, false statement, racketeering, blackmail, extortion,
falsification or destruction of records, or interference with,
obstruction of an investigation into, or prosecution of any criminal
offense, and FDA finds, on the basis of the conviction and other
information, that such individual has demonstrated a pattern of conduct
sufficient to find that there is reason to believe the individual may
violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products.
    On November 9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida entered judgment against Ms. Fernandez after a jury
found her guilty of five counts of health care fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. 1347, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
convictions referenced herein. The factual basis for these convictions
is as follows: Ms. Fernandez was a registered nurse working for Ideal
Home Health Inc. (Ideal), which was a business in Miami-Dade County,
FL. Ideal purportedly provided skilled nursing services to Medicare
beneficiaries who required home health services. As a

registered nurse in the home health field, it was Ms. Fernandez's duty
to provide skilled nursing services to patients and maintain proper
documentation of all treatments provided to patients.
    From on or about August 17, 2007, through on or about March 19,
2009, Ms. Fernandez conspired with others to defraud Medicare.
    Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators submitted, and caused the
submission of, false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, and concealed
the submission of these false and fraudulent claims.
    Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators falsified and caused Medicare
beneficiaries to falsify weekly visit/time record sheets, and falsified
skilled nursing progress notes representing that she had administered
insulin injections and provided other medical services to Medicare
beneficiaries. She caused Ideal to submit false and fraudulent claims
to Medicare for home health benefits by falsely representing that she
had provided these health services. As a result of these fraudulent
claims, she caused Medicare to make payments to Ideal of approximately
$82,040. Ms. Fernandez engaged in this criminal conduct repeatedly over
a period of approximately 19 months.
    As a result of her convictions, on September 8, 2014, FDA sent Ms.
Fernandez a notice by certified mail proposing to debar her for 6 years
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
the finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, that
Ms. Fernandez was convicted of felonies under Federal law for conduct
involving health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud,
and the Agency found, on the basis of the conviction and other
information, that Ms. Fernandez had demonstrated a pattern of conduct
sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate
requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. This
conclusion was based on the fact that Ms. Fernandez had legal and
professional obligations to ensure that she submitted accurate medical
claims for services she provided. Instead, Ms. Fernandez submitted, and
caused the submission of, false weekly visit/time records and false
daily blood sugar/insulin log sheets. She engaged in this conduct
repeatedly over a period of almost 2 years. Her convictions indicate
that she knowingly and willfully disregarded her legal and professional
obligations to keep accurate medical records and to submit accurate
claims for the services she provided. Having considered the conduct
that forms the basis of her conviction and the fact that this conduct
occurred in the course of her profession and showed a disregard for the
obligations of her profession and the law, FDA found that Ms. Fernandez
has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is
reason to believe that, if she were to provide services to a person
that has an approved or pending drug application, she may violate
requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. The proposal
offered Ms. Fernandez an opportunity to request a hearing, providing
her with 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to
file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing
constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any
contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on
September 12, 2014. Ms. Fernandez failed to respond within the
timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her
opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her
debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import
Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section
306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the
Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Odalys Fernandez has
been convicted of five counts of a felony and one count of conspiracy
to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct involving health care
fraud and, on the basis of the conviction and other information, finds
that Ms. Fernandez has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to
find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under
the FD&C Act relating to drug products.
    Based on the factors under section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C
Act, FDA finds that each offense be accorded a debarment period of 3
years. In the case of a person debarred for multiple offenses, FDA
shall determine whether the periods of debarment shall run concurrently
or consecutively (section 306(c)(2)(A)). FDA has concluded that the 3-
year periods of debarment for the five counts of health care fraud
shall run concurrently. The 3-year period of debarment for the
conspiracy conviction shall run consecutively to the periods of
debarment for health care fraud convictions, resulting in a total
debarment period of 6 years.
    As a result of the foregoing findings, Odalys Fernandez is debarred
for 6 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512,
or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
DATES)(see sections 201(dd), 306(c)(1)(B), and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the
FD&C Act, (21 U.S.C. 321(dd), 335a(c)(1)(B), and 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)).
Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Ms. Fernandez in any capacity during her
debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Fernandez provides
services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug
product application during her period of debarment she will be subject
to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In
addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug
applications submitted by or with the assistance of Odalys Fernandez
during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act).
    Any application by Ms. Fernandez for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2014-N-0563 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 24, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07267 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10636-10638]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59510; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC To
Temporarily Suspend Its Price Continued Listing Standard and Extend the
Period of the Temporary Lowering of Its Average Global Market
Capitalization Continued Listing Standard

March 4, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on February 26, 2009, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (the
``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal eligible for immediate
effectiveness pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \3\ under the Exchange Act.
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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to (i) suspend until June 30, 2009, the
application of its price criteria for capital and common stock set
forth in Section 802.01C of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the
``Manual''), and (ii) extend until the same date the temporary lowering
of the average market capitalization requirement of Section 802.01B of
the Manual. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of
the Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 NYSE 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
    In recent months, the U.S. and global equities markets have
experienced extreme volatility and a precipitous decline in trading
prices of many securities. As a consequence of these market conditions,
the Exchange has experienced an unusually high number (as compared to
historical levels) of listed companies having stock prices that have
either fallen below the Exchange's $1.00 price requirement for capital
and common stock set forth in Section 802.01C of the Manual (i.e., the
average closing price of their stock has fallen below $1.00 over a
consecutive 30 trading day period) \4\ or having an average closing
stock price that is below $2.00. In response, the Exchange proposes to
suspend the application of the stock price requirement of Section
802.01C until June 30, 2009. This proposed suspension will provide
temporary relief to companies in response to the extreme volatility and
a precipitous decline in trading prices of many securities experienced
in the U.S. and global equities markets, which the Commission had
acknowledged constituted a threat to the fair and orderly functioning
of the securities markets and could lead to a crisis of confidence
among investors regarding the viability of companies whose stock prices
have declined significantly.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 802.01C provides that a company will be considered
to be below compliance standards if the average closing price of a
security as reported on the consolidated tape is less than $1.00
over a consecutive 30 trading day period. Once notified, the company
must bring its share price and average share price back above $1.00
by six months following receipt of the notification. A company is
not eligible to follow the cure procedures outlined in Sections
802.02 and 802.03 with respect to this criteria. The company must,
however, notify the Exchange, within 10 business days of receipt of
the notification, of its intent to cure this deficiency or be
subject to suspension and delisting procedures. In the event that at
the expiration of the six-month cure period, both a $1.00 share
price and a $1.00 average share price over the preceding 30 trading
days are not attained, the Exchange will commence suspension and
delisting procedures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a company
determines that, if necessary, it will cure the price condition by
taking an action that will require approval of its shareholders, it
must so inform the Exchange in the above referenced notification,
must obtain the shareholder approval by no later than its next
annual meeting, and must implement the action promptly thereafter.
The price condition will be deemed cured if the price promptly
exceeds $1.00 per share, and the price remains above the level for
at least the following 30 trading days.
    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58588
(September 18, 2008), 73 FR 55174 (September 24, 2008) (``The
Commission is aware of the continued potential of sudden and
excessive fluctuations of securities prices and disruption in the
functioning of the securities markets that could threaten fair and
orderly markets. Given the importance of confidence in our financial
markets as a whole, we have also become concerned about sudden and
unexplained declines in the prices of securities. Such price
declines can give rise to questions about the underlying financial
condition of an issuer, which in turn can create a crisis of
confidence without a fundamental underlying basis. This crisis of
confidence can impair the liquidity and ultimate viability of an
issuer, with potentially broad market consequences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed suspension of the Exchange's stock price
continued listing standard, companies will not be notified of new
events of noncompliance with the price requirement during the
suspension period. Companies that are in a compliance period at the
time of commencement of the suspension \6\ will still be deemed to have
regained compliance during the rule suspension period if, at the
expiration of their respective six-month cure periods established prior
to the commencement of the rule suspension, they have a $1.00 closing
share price on the last trading day of the period and a $1.00 average
share price based on the preceding 30 trading days. In addition, any
company that is in a compliance period at the time of commencement of
the rule suspension can return to compliance during the suspension if
at the end of any calendar month during the suspension such company has
a $1.00 closing share price on the last

trading day of such month and a $1.00 average share price based on the
30 trading days preceding the end of such month.\7\ Any company that is
in a compliance period at the time of commencement of the rule
suspension that does not regain compliance during the suspension period
will recommence its compliance period upon reinstitution of the stock
price continued listing standard and receive the remaining balance of
its compliance period.\8\ Following the temporary rule suspension, any
new events of noncompliance with the Exchange's stock price continued
listing standard would be determined based on a consecutive 30 trading-
day period commencing on June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that there are not currently any
companies in the Exchange's delisting appeal process that have been
sent a delisting notification for noncompliance with the dollar
price continued listing requirement. The Exchange also notes that it
would continue to identify companies in a compliance period as below
compliance for price, including by continuing to append an indicator
to the company's stock ticker to identify it as being below
compliance for price and including the company on a list of
companies that are below compliance for price posted to the
Exchange's Web site, unless the company regains compliance during
the suspension. A company would continue to be subject to delisting
for failure to comply with other listing requirements.
    \7\ A company would continue to be subject to delisting for
failure to comply with other listing requirements.
    \8\ For example, if a company is four months into its compliance
period for noncompliance with the price continued listing standard
when the suspension starts and the company does not regain
compliance during the suspension, the company would have an
additional two months starting on June 30, 2009, to regain
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the current unusual market conditions, the Exchange
previously adopted a policy (by means of an immediately effective rule
filing \9\) providing that, through April 22, 2009, its average global
market capitalization continued listing requirement will apply only to
companies (including limited partnerships and real estate investment
trusts (``REITs'')) whose average global market capitalization over a
consecutive 30 trading-day period falls below $15 million.\10\ The
Exchange notes that it remains the case that an unusually high number
(as compared to historical levels) of listed companies have market
capitalizations close to or below $25 million over a consecutive 30
trading-day period. The Exchange considers it unlikely that the market
conditions giving rise to this phenomenon will pass prior to April 22,
2009, the current end date of the temporary lowering of the Exchange's
market capitalization requirements. Consequently, the Exchange proposes
to extend the period for which its market capitalization continued
listing standard is lowered until June 30, 2009. This will also have
the benefit of conforming the end dates of the suspension of the dollar
stock price continued listing requirement and the easing of the market
capitalization continued listing requirement, avoiding confusion in
communicating these policies to listed companies and facilitating any
extension of both policies in a single filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59299 (January 27,
2009), 74 FR 5709 (January 30, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-06).
    \10\ Section 802.01B of the Manual provides that the Exchange
will promptly delist any company (including limited partnerships and
REITs) if it is determined that the company has an average global
market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period of
less than $25 million, regardless of the original listing standard
under which it listed. A company is not eligible to utilize the cure
procedures set forth in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 with respect to
this criterion and instead is immediately subject to the Exchange's
delisting procedures set forth in Section 804 of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed suspension of the Exchange's price continued listing
requirement and the proposed extension of the period of application of
the temporary lower market capitalization requirement will each enable
companies to remain listed in the current difficult market conditions
with the prospect of a future recovery in their stock prices enabling
them to comply with the applicable listing requirements upon the
standards' reinstatement. During the period between now and June 30,
2009, the Exchange will consider whether it is appropriate to propose
further revisions to these requirements.
    The Exchange notes that this filing is based in part on a NASDAQ
filing, pursuant to which NASDAQ responded to the current market
conditions by temporarily suspending its bid price and market value of
publicly held shares continued listing requirements through April 19,
2009.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 58809 (October 17,
2008), 73 FR 63222 (October 23, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-082) for the
suspension of NASDAQ's bid price and market value of publicly held
shares through January 16, 2009. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release 59219 (January 8, 2009), 74 FR 2640 (January 15, 2009),
extending the suspension of these requirements to April 19, 2009.
NASDAQ's continued listing requirements relating to bid price are
set forth in NASAQ Marketplace Rules 4310(c)(4), 4320(e)(2)(E)(ii),
4450(a)(5), 4450(b)(4), and 4450(h)(3) and the related compliance
periods are set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rules 4310(c)(8)(D),
4320(e)(2)(E)(ii), and 4450(e)(2). NASDAQ's continued listing
requirements relating to market value of publicly held shares are
set forth in NASDAQ Marketplace Rules 4310(c)(7), 4320(e)(5),
450(a)(2), 4450(b)(3) and 4450(h)(2) and the related compliance
periods are set forth in Rules 4310(c)(8)(B) and 4450(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \12\ of the Exchange Act, in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \13\ in
particular in that it is designed 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. The proposed rule change is
designed to remove uncertainty regarding the ability of certain
companies to remain listed on the NYSE during the current highly
unusual market conditions, thereby protecting investors, facilitating
transactions in securities, and removing an impediment to a free and
open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange 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 proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not 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 has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its 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 Commission has determined to waive this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

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

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow NYSE to immediately implement a temporary
measure, until June 30, 2009, to suspend its $1.00 price continued
listing requirement for capital and common stock to respond to recent
market volatility and conditions. The Commission notes that this will
provide certain companies with immediate relief from receiving a non-
compliance or delisting notification, or from being delisted, as a
result of the current market conditions. The Commission notes that this
action is temporary in nature, and that following the suspension,
companies currently in the compliance period will resume at the same
stage and receive the remaining balance of its compliance period if
they remain non-compliant with these standards. This will ensure that
the temporary suspension addresses the concerns to companies and
investors caused by the current market conditions, and that may result
in a company's securities becoming non-compliant with the $1.00 price
requirement, or unable to cure such a deficiency, due to these market
conditions. The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change is
substantially similar to a recent Nasdaq filing to suspend its bid
price test, and thus, raises no new regulatory issues.\18\ In addition,
the Commission believes that waiving the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because it
will allow NYSE to immediately conform the end dates of the suspension
of the $1.00 price requirement and the temporary lowering of the
average market capitalization requirement of Section 802.01B of the
Manual,\19\ preventing any confusion over the end dates of these
temporary modifications to the continued listing standards due to
market conditions. For these reasons, the Commission designates that
the proposed rule change become operative immediately upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 11.
    \19\ See supra note 9.
    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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 Exchange 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-NYSE-2009-21 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-NYSE-2009-21. 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, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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-
NYSE-2009-21 and should be submitted on or before April 1, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5209 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67502-67503]
[DOCID:fr14no08-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2088-068]

South Feather Water and Power Agency, California; Notice of
Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South
Feather Power Project and Intention To Hold Public Meetings

November 7, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
South Feather Water and Power Agency's 104-megawatt South Feather Power
Project (Project No. 2088), located on the South Fork Feather River
(SFFR), Lost Creek, and Slate Creek, in Butte, Yuba, and Plumas
counties, California and has prepared a draft Environmental Impact
Statement (draft EIS) for the project. The project occupies about 1,977
acres of federal lands administered by the Plumas National Forest and
11 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management.
    South Feather's existing project includes two storage reservoirs,
three smaller reservoirs, two diversion dams, four powerhouses and
various conveyance facilities and electrical transmission lines. South
Feather proposes no major changes in project facilities or operations,
but proposes numerous measures including increased minimum flows and
improvements to recreation facilities. The project generates an average
of about 498,972 megawatt-hours of energy annually.
    The draft EIS contains staff's evaluations of the applicant's
proposal and alternatives for relicensing the South Feather Power
Project. The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the
license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the draft EIS is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The draft EIS also may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    We invite your comments on staff's analysis contained in the draft
EIS. Comments should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by January 6, 2009 and
should reference Project No. 2088-068. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the eLibrary link.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are
invited to attend one or both of two public meetings that will be held
to receive comments on the draft EIS. The time and location of the
meeting is as follows:
    Date: December 9, 2008.
    Time: 7 p.m.
    Place: South Feather Water and Power Agency Boardroom.
    Address: 2310 Oro-Quincy Highway, Oroville, California.

    Date: December 10, 2008.
    Time: 10 a.m.
    Place: South Feather Water and Power Agency Boardroom.
    Address: 2310 Oro-Quincy Highway, Oroville, California.
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meeting will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (oral and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx, along with other related
information.
    For further information, contact John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27066 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3155-3156]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01874]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0530; FRL-9989-14-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Metal Furniture Coating (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Metal Furniture Coating
(EPA ICR Number 0649.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0106), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2019. Public
comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on June
29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may neither conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a
currently-valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 13,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0530, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Metal
Furniture Coating apply to each metal furniture surface coating
operation in which organic coatings are applied (greater than 3,842
liters of coating per year), commencing construction, modification or
reconstruction after November 28, 1980. In general, all NSPS standards
require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports
by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart EE.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Metal furniture surface coating
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart EE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 400 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 56,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $7,280,000 (per year), which includes
$840,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the burden in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:
(1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are
not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there
is no significant change in the overall burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-01874 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P