[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 33757-33759]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2007-0369; FRL-8328-4]

Adequacy of California Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Tentative Determination of Adequacy and Opportunity
to Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX is proposing to
approve a modification to California's municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF) permit program to allow the State to issue research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits for new and existing
MSWLF units and lateral expansions. The modification will allow the
Director of the approved state program to provide a variance from
certain MSWLF criteria, provided that the MSWLF owner/operator
demonstrates that compliance with the RD&D permit will not increase
risk to human heath and the environment. The Director may provide a
variance from existing requirements of MSWLF criteria for run-on
control systems, liquids restrictions, and final cover. EPA is seeking
public comment on its tentative determination of adequacy of
California's RD&D modification to its MSWLF permit program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007. EPA will
hold a public hearing on August 13, 2007 in the first floor conference
room of EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California,
if sufficient public interest is expressed. If by August 1, 2007, EPA
does not receive sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA
may cancel the public hearing with no further notice. If you are
interested in attending the public hearing, contact Karen Ueno at (415)
972-3317 to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2007-0369 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Karen Ueno (WST-7), Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-
2007-0369. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as the State's prior applications for MSWLF permit program
approval, are available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
This Docket facility is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Thursday, excluding legal holidays. It is located in a secured
building. To review docket materials at the Docket facility, it is
recommended that the public make an appointment by calling the Docket
facility at<PHONE_NUMBER> during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Ueno, Waste Management Division,
WST-7, Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(415) 947-3530; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the municipal
solid waste landfill criteria at 40 CFR 258.4 to allow for RD&D
permits. (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified
criteria for a limited period of time. Specifically, the rule allows
the Director of an approved State to issue a time-limited RD&D permit
for a new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF unit, or lateral expansion, for
which the owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods
which vary from either or both of the following: (1) The run-on control
systems at 40 CFR 258.26, and/or (2) the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR
258.28(a), provided that the MSWLF unit has a leachate collection
system designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of
leachate on liner. The rule also allows the Director of an approved
State to issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a MSWLF unit for which
the owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods that
vary from the final cover criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and
(b)(1), provided that the owner or operator demonstrates that the
alternative cover system will not contaminate groundwater or surface
water, or cause leachate depth on the liner to exceed 30 cm. An RD&D
permit cannot exceed three years and a renewal of an RD&D permit cannot
exceed three years. Although multiple renewals of an RD&D permit can be
issued, the total term for an RD&D permit including renewals cannot
exceed twelve years.
    RD&D permits are only available in states with approved MSWLF
permit programs that have been modified to incorporate the RD&D permit
authority. Although a state is not required to seek approval for the
RD&D permit provision, a state must obtain EPA approval before it may
issue such a permit. Requirements for state program determination of
adequacy and approval procedures are contained in 40 CFR part 239.
    In 1993, EPA Region IX approved the State of California's MSWLF
permit program pursuant to Subtitle D of the Federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). With its application, dated March
28, 2006, and revised on February 21, 2007, the State of California is
seeking EPA approval for a modification to the State's existing MSWLF
permit program to incorporate RD&D permits.

II. EPA's Action

A. Tentative Determination

    After completing a thorough review, EPA is proposing to tentatively
approve California's RD&D permit program modification. California has
lawfully promulgated and fully enacted regulations for the RD&D permit
program, and these regulations are adequate to ensure compliance with
the federal criteria at 40 CFR 258.4. In conformance with the federal
regulations, and in addition to California-specific requirements, an
owner or operator is required to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of
leachate on liner and demonstrate that compliance with the RD&D permit
will not increase risk to human heath and the environment over
compliance with a standard MSWLF permit.
    Following the close of the public comment period and in
consideration of comments received, EPA will issue a final
determination. If approved, California will be able to issue variances
for run-on control systems, liquid restrictions, and final cover
criteria to allow for innovative and new methods, such as bioreactor
landfills.

B. Submitting Comments on EPA's Tentative Determination

    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit
this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly

mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI

must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Docket Copying Costs. Copying arrangements will be made through the
Docket Facility and billed directly to the recipient. Copying costs may
be waived depending on the total number of pages copied.

    Authority: Sections 2002, 4005, and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945, and 6949(a).
Delegation 8-46. State/Tribal Permit Programs for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills.

    Dated: June 6, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-11773 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 29207]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558; FRL-8421-1]

Coppers Amendment to the Reregistration Eligibility Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's decision to modify certain
provisions that were specified in the 2006 Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) for the copper pesticides. EPA conducted this
reassessment of the Coppers RED in response to public comments received
during the comment period, and updated information that would impact
product labeling. Based on the new information received, and in a
continuing effort to mitigate risk, the Agency has made certain
modifications in the Coppers RED.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosanna Louie, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0558. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action Is the Agency Taking?

    Section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) directs EPA to reevaluate existing pesticides to ensure
that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. In 2006,
EPA issued a RED for coppers under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. In
response to a notice of availability published in the Federal Register
of August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45550) (FRL-8085-4), the Agency received
substantive comments and information from commenters. The amended
Coppers RED reflects changes resulting from Agency consideration of
these comments received on the RED, as well as efforts by the Agency to
appropriately mitigate overall risk. The RED amendment for coppers
concludes EPA's reregistration eligibility decision-making process for
this pesticide.
    A total of 46 submissions were received, which included comments
from various growers that use copper products, university extension
services, registrants, and publicly-owned treatment works facilities.
Comments received during the public comment period included information
on application rates, copper use in aquatic areas and water treatment
facilities, and human health exposures. In consideration of these
comments, and other decisions that occurred after the RED was
published, the RED has been updated to reflect current product labeling
requirements. Appendix A, which is a summary of the use sites and
application rates eligible for reregistration, has been updated based
on input received from stakeholders. The label table has also been
revised to include modifications to some of the restricted entry
intervals after copper pesticide applications, labeling language for
spray drift management requirements, and personal protective equipment
requirements for workers who handle and apply copper pesticides.

B. What Is the Agency's Authority for Taking This Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Coppers.

    Dated: June 6, 2009.
 Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-14336 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22020-22023]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0153]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lucas Oil Drag Boat Racing Series; Thompson Bay,
Lake Havasu City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the navigable waters of Thompson Bay in Lake Havasu City, Arizona in
support of the Lucas Oil Drag Boat Racing Series high speed drag boat
race. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on May 2, 2014
through May 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0153]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the

Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable.
Logistical details did not present the Coast Guard enough time to
draft, publish, and receive public comment on an NPRM. As such, the
event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Immediate
action is needed to help protect the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, and participating vessels from other vessels during this
three day event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay
in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public
interest, because immediate action is necessary to protect the safety
of the participates from the dangers associated with other vessels
transiting this area while the race occurs.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones. The I-10 Race Promotions is sponsoring
the Lucas Oil Drag Boat Racing Series, which will involve 150 drag
boats, 10 to 50 feet in length from across the United States and
Canada. The safety zone will cover the majority of Thompson Bay. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, other vessels, and
users of the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on May 2, 2014 through May 4, 2014. The limits of
the safety zone will include all the navigable waters of Thompson Bay
encompassed by drawing a line from point to point along the following
coordinates:
    Northern Zone line:

34[deg]27'57.96'' N, 114[deg]20'48.49'' W
34[deg]27'57.71'' N, 114[deg]20'49.75'' W

    North West Zone Line:

34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W
34[deg]26'51.99'' N, 114[deg]21'03.83'' W

    South Zone Line:

34[deg]27'07.99'' N, 114[deg]21'09.93'' W
34[deg]26'51.99'' N, 114[deg]21'03.83'' W

    The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew,
spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The three day
event will include official racing on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local
notice to mariners (LNM).

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location, and
the limited duration of the safety zone. Additionally, to the maximum
extent practicable, the event sponsor will assist with boaters wishing
to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three
days.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of Lake Havasu
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on May 2, 2014 through May 4, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the majority of Thompson Bay,
traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission
of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The event
sponsor will also to their maximum extent assist boaters wishing to
transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three
days. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local
Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-625 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-625  Safety zone; Lucas Oil Drag Boat Racing Series;
Thompson Bay, Lake Havasu City, AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include all the
navigable waters of Thompson Bay encompassed by drawing a line from
point to point along the following coordinates:
    (1) Northern Zone line:

(i) 34[deg] 27' 57.96' N, 114[deg] 20' 48.49' W
(ii) 34[deg] 27' 57.71' N, 114[deg] 20' 49.75' W

    (2) North West Zone Line:

(i) 34[deg] 27' 07.99' N, 114[deg] 21' 09.93' W
(ii) 34[deg] 26' 51.99' N, 114[deg] 21' 03.83' W

    (3) South Zone Line:

(i) 34[deg] 27' 07.99' N, 114[deg] 21' 09.93' W
(ii) 34[deg] 26' 51.99' N, 114[deg] 21' 03.83' W

    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced on May 2,
2014 through May 4, 2014. It will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
each day (May 2, 3, and 4, 2014).
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.

    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-08928 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16846-16847]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-88-000]

Notice of Application; Equitrans, L.P.

    Take notice that on March 1, 2013, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 625
Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, filed in
Docket No. CP13-88-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting the Commission authorize the
abandonment, by transfer from Equitrans to Equitable Gas Company, LLC
(EQC), of certain gathering facilities. Specifically, the gathering
facilities consists of six pipeline laterals (M-23, M-25, M-30, M-31,
M-32, and M-71), all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Paul
W. Diehl, Senior Counsel-Midstream, EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty
Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 at (412)-395-540 or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either complete
its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's
public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of

this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2013.

    Dated: March 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06203 Filed 3-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 46267-46270]
[DOCID:fr08se09-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60611; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Procedures
Followed When a Listed Company Falls Below Certain Listing Requirements

September 2, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 1919b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 17, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.1919b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the procedures followed when a listed
company falls below certain listing requirements. Nasdaq will implement
the proposed rule upon approval.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5810. Notification of Deficiency by the Listing Qualifications
Department
    When the Listing Qualifications Department determines that a
Company does not meet a listing standard set forth in the Rule 5000
Series, it will immediately notify the Company of the deficiency. As
explained in more detail below, deficiency notifications are of four
types:
    (1)-(4) No change.
    Notifications of deficiencies that allow for submission of a
compliance plan or an automatic cure or compliance period may result,
after review of the compliance plan or expiration of the cure or
compliance period, in issuance of a Staff Delisting Determination or a
Public Reprimand Letter.
    (a)-(b) No change.
    IM-5810-1. No change.
    (c) Types of Deficiencies and Notifications.
    The type of deficiency at issue determines whether the Company will
be immediately suspended and delisted, or whether it may submit a
compliance plan for review or is entitled to an automatic cure or
compliance period before a Staff Delisting Determination is issued. In
the case of a deficiency not specified below, Staff will issue the
Company a Staff Delisting Determination or a Public Reprimand Letter.
    (1) No change.
    (2) Deficiencies for which a Company may Submit a Plan of
Compliance for Staff Review.
    (A) Unless the Company is currently under review by an Adjudicatory
Body for a Staff Delisting Determination, the Listing Qualifications
Department may accept and review a plan to regain compliance when a
Company is deficient with respect to one of the standards listed in
subsections (i) through (iv) below. In accordance with Rule
5810(c)(2)(C), plans provided pursuant to subsections (i) through (iii)
below must be provided generally within [15] 45 calendar days, and in
accordance with Rule 5810(c)(2)(F), plans provided pursuant to
subsection (iv) must be provided generally within 60 calendar days.
    (i)-(iv) No change.
    IM-5810-2. No change.

    (B) Staff Alternatives Upon Review of Plan Staff may request such
additional information from the Company as is necessary to make a
determination, as described below. In cases other than filing
delinquencies, which are governed by Rule 5810(c)(2)(F) below, upon
review of a plan of compliance, Staff may either:
    (i) Grant an extension of time to regain compliance not greater
than [105] 180 calendar days from the date of Staff's initial
notification, unless the Company is currently under review by an
Adjudicatory Body for a Staff Delisting Determination. If Staff grants
an extension, it will inform the Company in writing of the basis for
granting the extension and the terms of the extension;
    (ii)-(iii) No change.
    (C) Timeline for Submission of Compliance Plans
    Except for deficiencies from the standards of Rule 5250(c)(1) or
(2), Staff's notification of deficiencies that allow for compliance
plan review will inform the Company that it has [15] 45 calendar days
to submit a plan to regain compliance with Nasdaq's listing
standard(s). [Within the restrictions of paragraph (B),] Staff may
extend this deadline for up to an additional 5 calendar days upon good
cause shown and may request such additional information from the
Company as is necessary to make a determination regarding whether to
grant such an extension.[, and upon receipt of the Company's plan, may
request additional information from the Company to help it determine
the Company's ability to regain compliance.]
    (D)-(F) No change.
    (3) Deficiencies for which the Rules Provide a Specified Cure or
Compliance Period
    With respect to deficiencies related to the standards listed in
(A)-(E) below, Staff's notification will inform the Company of the
applicable cure or compliance period provided by these Rules and
discussed below. If the Company does not regain compliance within the
specified cure or compliance period, the Listing Qualifications
Department will immediately issue a Staff Delisting Determination
letter.
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (C) Market Value of Listed Securities [(MVLS)]
    A failure to meet the continued listing requirements for [MVLS]
Market Value of Listed Securities shall be determined to exist only if
the deficiency continues for a period of [10] 30 consecutive business
days. Upon such failure, the Company shall be notified promptly and
shall have a period of [90] 180 calendar days from such notification to
achieve compliance [with the applicable continued listing standard].
Compliance can be achieved by meeting the applicable standard for a
minimum of 10 consecutive business days during the [90] 180 day
compliance period.
    (D) Market Value of Publicly Held Shares [(MVPHS)]
    A failure to meet the continued listing requirement for Market
Value of Publicly Held Shares shall be determined to exist only if the
deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. Upon
such failure, the Company shall be notified promptly and shall have a
period of [90] 180 calendar days from such notification to achieve
compliance. [
    ]Compliance can be achieved by meeting the applicable standard for
a minimum of 10 consecutive business days during the [90] 180 day
compliance period.
    (E)-(F) No change.
    (4) No change.
    (d) No change.
* * * * *
5840. Adjudicatory Process: General Information
    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Computation and Adjustment of Time
    (1) No change.
    (2) When Staff determines whether a deficiency has occurred with
respect to [bid price, market value of listed securities] the Bid
Price, Market Value of Listed Securities or [market value of publicly
held shares] Market Value of Publicly Held Shares requirements, the
first trading day that the [bid price or market value] Bid Price or
Market Value is below required standards is included in computing the
total number of consecutive trading days of default. Similarly, when
Staff determines whether a Company has regained compliance with the
[bid price, MVLS or MVPHS] Bid Price, Market Value of Listed
Securities, or Market Value of Publicly Held Shares requirements, the
first trading day that the [bid price or market value] Bid Price or
Market Value is at or above required standards is included in computing
the total number of consecutive trading days.
    (3)-(4) No change.
    (f)-(k) No change.
* * * * *

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 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 is proposing to modify certain of the listing rules that
provide the compliance periods associated with Nasdaq's continued
listing rules to make them more consistent and, in some cases, to
provide additional time to companies to regain compliance. In addition,
Nasdaq is proposing to modify the time available to a company to
provide a plan to regain compliance with certain listing requirements
and the length of the extension that Nasdaq staff can allow a company
to regain compliance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nasdaq is also proposing to eliminate certain abbreviations
that are used inconsistently and utilize defined terms, as
appropriate, in Rules 5810 and 5840, and to remove authority in Rule
5810(c)(2)(C) that is duplicated in Rule 5810(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Related Criteria
    Under Nasdaq rules, if a company's security has a closing bid price
below $1 for 30 consecutive trading days, it no longer meets the bid
price requirement and is automatically provided 180 calendar days to
regain compliance.\5\ However, under other requirements that are
derived, in part, from the company's price, the company may be found
non-compliant based on fewer days below the applicable threshold or
have less time to regain compliance. Specifically, under the current
rules related to market value of listed securities, a company is non-
compliant after being below the standard for 10 consecutive trading
days and, thereafter, is provided only 90 calendar days to regain
compliance.\6\ Similarly, while the rules for market value of publicly
held shares provide that a company is not deficient until it is below
the standard for 30 consecutive trading days, the company is only
provided with 90 calendar days to regain compliance.\7\ Because

compliance with each of these rules is directly related to the price of
an issuer's security, Nasdaq believes that the length of time to
trigger non-compliance, and the amount of time afforded as a compliance
period, should be consistent with each other and with the periods
applicable under the bid price rules. Therefore Nasdaq proposes to
extend the period that a company would need to be below the minimum
market value of listed securities requirement before being considered
non-compliant from 10 to 30 consecutive trading days. In addition to
providing consistency among the price-related tests, Nasdaq believes
that this longer period will prevent a short-term market-wide decline
from causing a company to become non-compliant. Nasdaq also proposes to
extend from 90 to 180 days the compliance period in which companies
that are non-compliant with the market value of listed securities and
market value of publicly held shares requirements can regain
compliance.\8\ Nasdaq believes that the existing 90-day time frames do
not provide sufficient time for a company to regain compliance. For
example, if a company chooses to issue additional shares to evidence
compliance, 90 calendar days is often an insufficient time to allow a
company to obtain any necessary shareholder approval, register the
shares, and demonstrate compliance for 10 business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 5810(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ Rule 5810(b)(3)(C). NASDAQ recently changed the period to
regain compliance with the market value of listed securities
requirement from 30 to 90 days. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59291 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5197 (January 29, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-
2009-002).
    \7\ Rule 5810(b)(3)(D).
    \8\ Nasdaq could apply its authority described in Rule 5100 to
delist a security during a compliance period if the market value of
listed securities or market value of publicly held shares was so low
that delisting is necessary to maintain the quality of and public
confidence in the market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, and to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As revised, the maximum amount of time that could be afforded to a
company that failed to meet the market value of listed securities or
market value of publicly held shares requirements would be 18 months. A
company could only receive an extension up to this 18-month maximum
length if: (i) It failed to comply during the automatic 180-day
compliance period; \9\ (ii) the company appealed to a Hearings Panel;
\10\ and (iii) the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council determined
to call the matter for review, stay the company's delisting,\11\ and,
after reviewing the company's compliance plan,\12\ provide the company
with the maximum 360-day period from the date of the Staff Delisting
Determination to regain compliance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed Rules 5810(c)(3)(C) and 5810(c)(3)(D).
    \10\ An appeal to the Hearings Panel stays the securities
delisting. Rule 5815(a)(1). The company can submit a plan to regain
compliance and request that the Hearings Panel grant an exception to
the listing standards for a limited time period. Rule 5815(a)(5).
Based on its review of that plan, the Hearings Panel can grant the
company a maximum of 180 days from the date of the staff's delisting
determination to regain compliance. Rule 5815(c)(1)(A).
    \11\ Rule 5820(a) provides that an appeal to the Nasdaq Listing
and Hearings Review Council does not operate to stay a Hearings
Panel's decision to delist a company. In order for a Panel decision
to be stayed, the Listing Council must call the matter for review
pursuant to Rule 5820(b) and affirmatively determine to stay the
Panel's decision.
    \12\ When the Listing Council calls a matter for review it
provides the company with a deadline to submit a written submission.
Rule 5820(b). The Listing Council's review is based on the written
record, including that submission. Rule 5820(e)(1).
    \13\ Rule 5820(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements with Respect to Compliance Plans
    Nasdaq also proposes to modify the periods applicable in cases
where a company can provide staff with a plan to regain compliance,
such as when a company fails to meet the minimum requirements for
stockholders' equity, the number of publicly held shares, or the number
of shareholders.\14\ Currently, companies are provided 15 calendar days
to submit a plan to regain compliance and, following a review of the
plan, staff can grant the company a period of up to 105 calendar days
from the initial notification of non-compliance for the company to
regain compliance. Nasdaq's experience has been that 15 days is often
insufficient for a company to formulate a meaningful plan, especially
given current market and economic conditions, and accordingly proposes
to increase from 15 to 45 the number of calendar days a company has to
present its plan. Staff would be permitted to grant up to a 5-day
extension of this period upon good cause shown.\15\ Further, Nasdaq
proposes to increase from 105 to 180 the number of calendar days for
which staff can grant an extension of time from its initial
notification of non-compliance.\16\ Nasdaq believes that this
additional time will better allow companies to implement a plan to
regain compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 5810(c)(2) and IM-5810-2 provide the procedures
governing deficiencies for which a company may submit a plan of
compliance to Nasdaq staff. Nasdaq has posted frequently asked
questions at http://www.nasdaq.com/about/faqs-listing-information-
questions.stm#continued, which discuss the information a company
should consider in preparing its plan of compliance.
    \15\ It is anticipated that this authority would be used to
address cases where the company could not timely submit its plan due
to events outside the control of the company, such as when severe
weather interferes with the company's ability to provide the
necessary information before the deadline.
    \16\ Nasdaq staff will determine whether to allow the company
additional time, and if so how much time to allow, based on a review
of the company's plan of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As revised, the maximum amount of time that could be afforded to a
company that failed to meet a listing requirement that allows the
submission of a plan to regain compliance would be 18 months. A company
could only receive an extension up to this 18-month maximum length if:
(i) After reviewing the company's compliance plan, Nasdaq staff granted
the company the maximum 180-day period to regain compliance; \17\ (ii)
the company failed to comply within the time allowed by staff and
appealed to a Hearings Panel;\18\ and (iii) the Nasdaq Listing and
Hearing Review Council determined to call the matter for review, stay
the company's delisting, and, after reviewing the company's compliance
plan, provide the company with the maximum 360-day period from the date
of the Staff Delisting Determination to regain compliance.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed Rule 5810(c)(2)(B)(i).
    \18\ See footnote 10, supra.
    \19\ See footnotes 11-13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    Any company that had not yet been notified that is was non-
compliant with the market value of listed securities requirement upon
Commission approval of the proposed rule change would not be notified
until they were below the requirement for 30 consecutive trading
days.\20\ Any company that had already been notified that it was non-
compliant with either the market value of listed securities requirement
or the market value of publicly held shares requirement and that was
still in the 90 calendar day compliance period for such failure would
have their compliance period extended until 180 calendar days from the
date they were originally notified of the deficiency.\21\ No additional
time would be provided to a company that has received a Staff Delisting
Determination for failure to

meet either of those requirements before the proposed rule change is
approved.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, if a security is below the market value of
listed securities requirement for 7 consecutive trading days when
the proposed rule is approved, the company would not be notified
that it is deficient unless and until the security remains below the
requirement for another 23 consecutive trading days, such that it
remained below for a total of 30 consecutive trading days.
    \21\ For example, if a company had been notified that its
security was below either the market value of listed securities or
market value of publicly held shares requirement 30 days before the
proposed rule is approved, such that it had 60 days remaining in its
compliance period, that compliance period would be extended by 90
days so that the company would have 150 days remaining in the
compliance period.
    \22\ For example, if a company had been notified that its
security was below either the market value of listed securities or
market value of publicly held shares requirement 95 days before the
proposed rule is approved, the company would not receive any
additional time as a result of the proposed rule change. Such
companies would continue through the Hearings and Appeals process,
however, and could receive additional time as provided for in Rules
5815(c)(1)(A) and 5820(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to the compliance plan
process, if a company has not yet submitted its plan of compliance when
the proposed rule change is approved, the deadline to submit that plan
would be extended until 45 days from the date of staff's notification
of the deficiency. If the company had submitted its plan of compliance
when the proposed rule change is approved, but staff has not yet made a
determination with respect to whether to grant additional time, staff
would be permitted to grant the company up to 180 days from staff's
notification of the deficiency to regain compliance. If the company has
already received an extension of time to regain compliance from staff
when the proposed rule change is approved,\23\ at the end of that
exception staff could, based on a review of the company at the time,
grant additional time for the company to regain compliance, up to 180
days from staff's original notification of the deficiency.\24\ No
additional time would be provided to a company that had already
received a Staff Delisting Determination at the time the proposed rule
change is approved.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 5810(c)(2)(B)(i).
    \24\ The proposal to allow a company additional time at the end
of its extension based on staff's further review of the company is
consistent with Nasdaq's current practice of potentially allowing a
company additional time if it was not initially granted the full 105
days allowed by current Rule 5810(c)(2)(B)(i).
    \25\ Such companies would continue through the Hearings and
Appeals process, however, and could receive additional time as
provided for in Rules 5815(c)(1)(A) and 5820(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\26\ in general and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ in particular, which requires, among
other things, that a national securities exchange's rules must be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with these requirements in that it
would enhance consistency within Nasdaq's rules and between Nasdaq and
other markets, thereby reducing investor confusion and facilitating
capital formation, while permitting reasonable periods of time for
companies to address instances of non-compliance with Nasdaq rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \27\ 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 will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-077 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-077. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-077 and should
be submitted on or before September 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21644 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P