[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2603-2604]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-714) Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-714, (Annual Electric Balancing Authority
Area and Planning Area Report).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due March 21,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC22-
6-000) by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-714, Annual Electric Balancing Authority Area and
Planning Area Report.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0140.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-714 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the FERC-714 data to analyze power
system operations. These analyses estimate the effect of changes in
power system operations resulting from the installation of a new
generating unit or plant, transmission facilities, energy transfers
between systems, and/or new points of interconnections. The FERC-714
data assists in providing a broad picture of interconnected balancing
authority area operations including: Comprehensive information of
balancing authority area generation, actual and scheduled inter-
balancing authority area power transfers, and net energy for load,
summer and winter generation peaks and system lambda. The Commission
also uses the data to prepare status reports on the electric utility
industry including a review of inter-balancing authority area bulk
power trade information. The Commission uses the collected data

from planning areas to monitor forecasted demands by electric utilities
with fundamental demand responsibilities and to develop hourly demand
characteristics.
    Type of Respondent: Electric utility balancing authorities and
planning areas in the United States.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \2\ (rounded) for the information
collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \2\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2021, for the listed
reporting requirements. These figures include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:
    Management (Code 11-0000), $97.89/hr.
    Computer and mathematical (Code 15-0000), $65.73/hr.
    Electrical Engineers (Code 17-2071), $72.15/hr.
    Economist (Code 19-3011), $75.75/hr.
    Computer and Information Systems Managers (Code 11-3021),
$103.61/hr.
    Accountants and Auditors (Code 13-2011), $57.41/hr.
    Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers (Code 11-
3071), $86.80/hr.
    Power Distributors and Dispatchers (Code 51-8012), $63.74/hr.
    The average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) for the above
wages is $77.89/hour (rounded to $78.00/hour).

                                                    FERC-714
                       [Annual Electric Balancing Authority Area and Planning Area Report]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Annual number                                       Total annual burden
 Number of respondents   of responses    Total number     Average burden &      hours & total        Cost per
                        per respondent   of responses    cost per response       annual cost      respondent ($)
(1)                                (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)................  (3) * (4) = (5)....       (5) / (1)
                                                   (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176...................               1             176  93.33 hrs.;          16,426.67 hrs.;           $7,279.74
                                                         $7,279.74.           $1,281,280.26.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00813 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56462]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3339-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-3339-EM), dated August 29, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 30, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his
declaration of August 29, 2011.

    The counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, Luzerne,
Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Pike, Sullivan,
Wayne, and Wyoming for emergency protective measures (Category B),
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program (already designated for emergency protective measures
[Category B], limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23353 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6072-6077]
[DOCID:fr05fe10-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61446; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-077]

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

January 29, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 17, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify the length of certain compliance periods
in Nasdaq's continued listing requirements and to modify the time
available for a company to provide a plan to regain compliance with
certain listing requirements.\3\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on September 8, 2009.\4\ The
Commission received three comment letters on the proposal.\5\ On
December 28, 2009 the Exchange filed a response to the comment
letter.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 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).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46267 (September 2,
2009), 74 FR 46267 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See letter from Barbara Roper, Director of Investor
Protection, Consumer Federation of America, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 28, 2009 (``CFA Comment
Letter''); letter from Alan F. Eisenberg, Executive Vice President,
Biotechnology Industry Organization (``BIO'') to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 29, 2009 (``BIO
Comment Letter''); and letter from Jason S. Frankl, Senior Managing
Director, FTI Consulting (``FTI''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated October 5, 2009 (``FTI Comment
Letter'').
    \6\ See letter from Arnold Golub, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated December 28, 2009 (``Nasdaq Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

Price Related Criteria

    Under Nasdaq's current continued listing requirements relating to
market value of listed securities, a company is considered to be non-
compliant after falling below the standard for 10 consecutive trading
days.\7\ Thereafter, the company is provided 90 calendar days to regain
compliance with the market value of listed securities requirement.
Further, Nasdaq's current continued listing rules relating to market
value of publicly held shares provide that a company is deficient if it
is below the standard for 30 consecutive trading days. Upon such
failure, the company is provided with 90 calendar days to regain
compliance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nasdaq Rule 5810(b)(3)(C). NASDAQ changed the period to
regain compliance with the market value of listed securities
requirement from 30 to 90 days in January of last year. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59291 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5197
(January 29, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-002).
    \8\ Nasdaq Rule 5810(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the length of time required to trigger
non-compliance with the market value of listed securities requirement
and to modify the compliance periods associated with the Exchange's
market value of listed securities and market value of publicly held
shares continued listing requirements. Nasdaq notes that, under its bid
price continued listing standard, if a company's security has a closing
bid price below $1.00 for 30 consecutive trading days, it no longer
meets the bid price requirement and is automatically provided 180
calendar days to regain compliance.\9\ Nasdaq asserts that because
compliance with each of these rules is directly related to the price of
an issuer's security, the length of time to trigger non-compliance, and
the amount of time afforded as a compliance period, should be
consistent. As such, Nasdaq proposes to lengthen the period that a
company would need to be below the market

value of listed securities requirement before being considered non-
compliant from 10 to 30 consecutive trading days. 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.\10\ Nasdaq notes that it believes that the existing 90-day
time frames do not provide sufficient time for a company to regain
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Nasdaq Rule 5810(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ In its filing, Nasdaq noted that it could apply its
authority described in Nasdaq 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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; (ii) the company appealed to a
Hearings Panel; and (iii) the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review
Council (``Listing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements With Respect to Compliance Plans

    Nasdaq also proposes to modify the periods applicable in cases
where a company can provide Nasdaq 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.\12\ Currently, companies are
provided 15 calendar days to submit a plan to regain compliance.
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 proposes to increase the
number of calendar days a company has to present its plan from 15 to
45, and to permit staff to grant up to a 5-day extension of this period
upon good cause shown.\13\ Nasdaq asserts that 15 days is often
insufficient for a company to formulate a meaningful plan, particularly
in the current market and economic conditions. Further, Nasdaq proposes
to increase from 105 to 180 the number of calendar days for which staff
can grant an extension of time to regain compliance from its initial
notification of non-compliance.\14\ Nasdaq states that this additional
time will better allow companies to implement a plan to regain
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nasdaq 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.
    \13\ Nasdaq anticipates 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.
    \14\ Nasdaq states that 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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; (ii) the company failed to comply
within the time allowed by staff and appealed to a Hearings Panel;
and (iii) the Nasdaq Listing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation

    Nasdaq states that any company that had not yet been notified that
it was non-compliant with the market value of listed securities
requirement upon Commission approval of the proposed rule change will
not be notified until they are below the requirement for 30 consecutive
trading days.\16\ Any company that has 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 is still in the 90 calendar day compliance period for such failure
will have their compliance period extended until 180 calendar days from
the date they were originally notified of the deficiency.\17\ No
additional time will 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
    \17\ 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.
    \18\ 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 Nasdaq
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
will be extended until 45 days from the date of staff's notification of
the deficiency. If the company has 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
will 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,\19\ 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.\20\ No
additional time will be provided to a company that has already received
a Staff Delisting Determination at the time the proposed rule change is
approved.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(2)(B)(i).
    \20\ 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 Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(2)(B)(i).
    \21\ Such companies would continue through the Hearings and
Appeals process, however, and could receive additional time as
provided for in Nasdaq Rules 5815(c)(1)(A) and 5820(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

    In its comment letter, CFA raises several concerns regarding the
Exchange's proposal.\22\ First, CFA argues that the Exchange's proposal
will lead to a proliferation of lengthy automatic compliance periods
for companies that fall below listing standards, potentially allowing
large numbers of non-compliant companies to

remain listed for extended periods of time with little or no
oversight.\23\ In response, the Exchange states that it continuously
monitors each listed company for compliance with the listing rules and
determines whether any public interest concerns exist that may make
continued listing inappropriate.\24\ In particular, the Exchange notes
that notwithstanding the automatic compliance periods, Nasdaq staff has
the authority to apply additional and more stringent criteria to
shorten a compliance period or delist a company before the end of the
compliance period if it believes that the continued listing of a
company would be contrary to the public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ The Exchange notes that such monitoring includes staff
review of virtually every SEC filing made by listing companies,
including proxies and annual and quarterly financial reports. See
Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
    \25\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CFA notes that while Nasdaq has stated that the
proposed rule change is intended to harmonize and ensure consistency in
the compliance periods across its continued listing rules, Nasdaq has
chosen to apply its least restrictive compliance period (i.e., its
longest compliance period of 180 days).\26\ The CFA asserts that if
harmonization is needed, Nasdaq should instead ``harmonize up, not
down'' and apply its shorter compliance periods consistently across its
rules.\27\ In the Nasdaq Response Letter, the Exchange asserts that its
experience has shown that many of the current compliance periods are
too short, particularly given the extraordinary volatility in the
securities markets over the past decade.\28\ Specifically, the Exchange
notes that in its experience, and as also noted in the BIO Comment
Letter, the existing time periods do not sufficiently account for daily
market fluctuations, and given the changes that have taken place in the
financial markets, the existing time periods are unreasonably
short.\29\ Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed longer
compliance periods are in line with the compliance periods afforded by
other exchanges.\30\ For example, Nasdaq states that the NYSE Amex
rules provide that staff can grant a company up to 18 months to regain
compliance with its market value of publicly held shares requirement,
and the NYSE rules allow staff to provide a company with up to 18
months to regain compliance with its market capitalization
requirement.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 1 and 3.
    \29\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
    \30\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
    \31\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CFA also argues that the proposal to allow an automatic 180-day
grace period for the market value of publicly held shares and market
value of listed securities requirements raises particular concerns.\32\
Specifically, CFA states that the market value standard is an
alternative to the stockholders' equity requirement, and thus companies
listing under this standard are companies that fail to meet the minimum
stockholders' equity requirement.\33\ Further, CFA notes that Nasdaq
recently extended the period to regain compliance with the market value
of listed securities requirement from 30 to 90 days, and that this
proposed rule change would now allow a company a total of 210 days of
non-compliance before a hearing.\34\ CFA also questions why the 180-day
automatic grace period is preferable to a case-by-case review.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ In arriving at this figure, CFA is including in its
calculation the 30-day period required to trigger non-compliance.
    \35\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange responds that these revised time periods are
consistent with the Exchange's current bid price rule.\36\
Specifically, like the bid price rule, a company would be found to be
non-compliant only after it falls below the current threshold for 30
days and would thereafter be afforded 180 days to regain
compliance.\37\ Nasdaq also notes that the maximum total time period
that a company that failed to meet the market value of listed
securities or market value of publicly held shares requirements could
remain listed would be 18 months, which is consistent with the
compliance periods available at other markets.\38\ With regard to CFA's
suggestion that Nasdaq should consider a case-by-case review of
companies below the requirements rather than granting an automatic 180-
day compliance period, Nasdaq states that for price-related listing
requirements, automatic periods provide a transparent, objective
process, which is more appropriate than subjective reviews.\39\
Further, it notes that such a process provides clear guidance to
companies and their investors.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
    \37\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
    \38\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 2 (citing
Section 802.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual). Nasdaq notes
that, as described in the notice of the proposed rule change, a
company that receives a delisting letter after the 180-day
compliance period may appeal the delisting decision to the Hearings
Panel, which can grant up to an additional 180 day to regain
compliance. Thereafter, the company could remain listed for an
additional 180 days if the Nasdaq Listing Council were to call the
matter for review, stay the company's delisting, and determine to
grant additional time. In the Nasdaq Response Letter, the Exchange
states that it would be highly unusual for the Listing Council to
take such action and noted that it does not believe that the Listing
Council has ever exercised its discretion to stay a delisting to
allow a company additional time to regain compliance with a price-
based listing requirement.
    \39\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 4.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CFA also asserts that Nasdaq should be required to provide a
variety of additional information to support its proposal.\41\ For
example, CFA suggests that Nasdaq should provide further data regarding
its discretionary authority to delist a security during a compliance
period; \42\ supplementary information regarding compliance plans and
compliance periods granted by staff; and statistics on the 180-day plan
process that was adopted last fall for companies that are late in
filing their periodic reports.\43\ The FTI Comment Letter expressed
support for this portion of CTA's comment letter asserting that Nasdaq
should be required to provide additional information and rationale in
support of its proposal.\44\ In response, the Exchange states that the
request for additional information is not appropriate or necessary for
consideration of the proposed rule change. Rather, Nasdaq asserts that
the proposed rule change satisfies the relevant statutory standards,
and data concerning Nasdaq's historic enforcement of listing standards
is already disclosed in Nasdaq OMX's public filings with the Commission
and is not necessary for consideration of this proposal.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \42\ See supra note 10.
    \43\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \44\ See FTI Comment letter, supra note 5.
    \45\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the CFA Comment Letter suggests that the Commission should
review the economic impact of the proposed rule change on the exchange
and should require greater independence in Nasdaq's delisting process
if such rule changes are found to benefit Nasdaq's financial
position.\46\

FTI also expressed support for this portion of the CFA Comment
Letter.\47\ In its response, Nasdaq states that it has a transparent,
independent enforcement process in place to support its listing
standards.\48\ Specifically, Nasdaq notes that its staff has very
limited discretion to grant an extension to a company that does not
comply with a listing requirement, and many rules provide for automatic
compliance periods rather than compliance periods determined by Nasdaq
staff.\49\ The Nasdaq Response Letter also describes the independence
of the delisting process with regard to price-based listing
requirements.\50\ In particular, Nasdaq notes that after the 180-day
automatic compliance periods runs, Nasdaq staff has no discretion to
allow the company to continue trading and must issue a delisting
letter.\51\ A company may appeal that delisting letter to a Hearings
Panel, which is independent of Nasdaq and includes no Nasdaq
employees.\52\ Thereafter, another independent body, the Nasdaq Listing
and Hearing Review Council (``Listing Council''), would be the only
body with the ability to call the matter for review and determine to
grant additional time to the company.\53\ Nasdaq also states that its
Listing Qualifications Department is housed in a regulation group that
is organizationally and institutionally separate than its business
lines and is directly accountable to the Regulatory Oversight Committee
of the Nasdaq Board.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See CFA Comment Letter, supra note 5. The CFA Comment
Letter also provides an additional recommendation that is not aimed
at this particular rule proposal. Specifically, CFA argues that more
should be done to require exchanges to identify and alert investors
of noncompliant companies. Nasdaq responded to this assertion in its
Response Letter by noting that companies are required to make public
disclosure that they are non-compliant with listing standards, and
Nasdaq includes the company on the list of non-compliant companies
on its Web site and displays such information to investors viewing
the company's quotation. Further, Nasdaq has a display requirement
for vendors that display Nasdaq's data feed, which requires them to
show the company's noncompliance. Nasdaq did acknowledge that
vendors that do not obtain quotation information from Nasdaq may not
display this information. See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6,
at footnote 4.
    \47\ See FTI Comment Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \48\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 1.
    \49\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 1.
    \50\ See id. at 2.
    \51\ See id.
    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id. Nasdaq notes, however, that it would be highly
unusual for the Listing Council to take such action.
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BIO Comment Letter generally supported the Exchange's
proposal.\55\ In particular, the BIO Comment Letter stated that
extending the number of days from 10 to 30 to trigger non-compliance
with the market value of listed securities requirement would allow
biotechnology companies to regain some stability during daily market
fluctuations that persist for emerging biotechnology companies.\56\ The
BIO Comment Letter also expressed support for the portion of the
proposal providing companies 45 days to submit a plan to regain
compliance, noting that this increase will provide companies the
necessary time to work with their investors to secure a long-term plan
that will bring them back into compliance with listing standards.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See BIO Comment Letter, supra note 5.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id. In addition, the BIO Comment Letter provided requests
for Nasdaq to further modify certain of its continued listing
standards and compliance periods. Because those requests do not
relate to the current proposed rule change before the Commission,
they will not be discussed in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\58\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \59\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the development and enforcement of
adequate standards governing the initial and continued listing of
securities on an exchange is an activity of critical importance to
financial markets and the investing public. The Commission continues to
believe that enforcement of continued listing standards are important
to ensure that only companies suitable for listing remain trading on
national securities exchanges. While the Commission would be concerned
about any national securities exchange's proposal that would allow
companies falling below continued listing standards to remain listed
for an extended period of time, the Commission has determined to
approve the Nasdaq's proposal for the reasons discussed below.
    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to extend from
90 to 180 days the 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, will better align the
compliance period for these continued listing standards with the
automatic 180 day compliance period already provided in Nasdaq's rules
for noncompliance with the bid price requirement, as well as the rules
of other markets. As such, the Commission believes that the proposal
should reduce investor confusion over the compliance periods available
under Nasdaq's price-related continued listing requirements.\60\
Further, the change should provide companies with additional time to
take actions that may be necessary to regain compliance, such as
obtaining shareholder approval and registering shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Under Nasdaq's current rules, if a company's security has a
closing bid price below $1 for 30 consecutive trading days, it is
deemed to be non-compliant with the bid price requirement and is
automatically provided 180 calendar days to regain compliance. See
Nasdaq Rule 5810(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFA Comment Letter takes issue with the extension of the
automatic compliance period for these continued listing standards to
180 days, expressing concern about non-compliant companies remaining
listed on the Exchange for extended periods of time. However, as the
Exchange has represented in the Notice and in the Nasdaq Response
Letter, the maximum amount of time that could be afforded to a company
that falls out of compliance with the market value of listed securities
or market value of publicly held shares requirements would be 18
months.\61\ The Exchange further stated in its Response Letter that it
is highly unusual for the Listing Council to stay a company's delisting
and grant additional time to regain compliance and that it does not
believe that the Listing Council has ever exercised its discretion to
take such action for a price-based delisting decision.\62\ The
Commission also notes that this maximum length of time of 18 months
\63\ is consistent with the maximum amount of time that the NYSE and
NYSE Amex can provide for a listed company to regain compliance with
its similar continued listing standards.\64\ Further, the Exchange has
represented that it has the authority under Nasdaq 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.
Notwithstanding the lengthened automatic compliance periods afforded to
issuers under the proposed rule change, the Commission expects Nasdaq
to use its authority to delist issuers in a prompt, efficient and fair
manner where necessary and appropriate in accordance with Nasdaq Rule
5100, especially in those situations where the market value of a
company's stock is so low as to make continued trading unwarranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ As noted, this maximum 18 month compliance time only exists
assuming every maximum compliance period is granted and an appeal
was called for review by Nasdaq's Listing Council. See supra note
11.
    \62\ See supra note 38.
    \63\ See supra note 11.
    \64\ See Section 802.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual and
Section 1009 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that Nasdaq's proposal to extend the
period that a company would need to be below the minimum market value
of listed securities requirement before being deemed non-compliant from
10 to 30 consecutive trading days is appropriate and consistent with
the Act. The Commission notes that this change will further harmonize
Nasdaq's price-related continued listing requirements, as the bid price
and market value of publicly held shares requirements currently provide
that a company is not deficient until it falls below the respective
standard for 30 consecutive trading days. Further, as noted in the
Nasdaq Response Letter, this time period is consistent with, and in
some cases more stringent than, the threshold time periods on other
exchanges. Specifically, on NYSE Amex, a company is deemed to be non-
compliant with the market value of publicly held shares requirement
only after it has been below the standard for 90 consecutive days.\65\
In addition, a company is considered non-compliant with the NYSE's
market capitalization requirement after the company falls below the
standard for 30 consecutive trading days.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
    \66\ See Nasdaq Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to deficiencies for which a company can provide staff
with a plan to regain compliance,\67\ the Commission believes that
increasing from 105 to 180 the maximum number of calendar days for
which staff can grant an extension of time from its initial
notification of non-compliance will provide companies with additional
time that may be necessary to implement a plan to regain compliance
where appropriate. The Commission notes that the maximum time period of
180 days is not an automatic grace period, but rather each company's
compliance period will be determined by Nasdaq staff after review of
the company's compliance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(2) and IM-5812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission expects Nasdaq staff to conduct a
thorough case-by-case review of each company's plan of compliance, and
make an individualized determination as to the extension of time that
is appropriate for a particular company. In addition, even with this
change, the Commission notes that the total maximum amount of time that
could be afforded to a company that failed to meet a listing
requirement that allows for the submission of a plan to regain
compliance would be 18 months, and this maximum 18 months assumes all
compliance periods are extended to the permissible maximum during the
appeal process by the Hearings Panel and Listing Council.\68\ As
discussed above, this time period is consistent with the maximum amount
of time a company is permitted to regain compliance with similar
continued listing standards under NYSE's rules.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra note 15.
    \69\ See supra note 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposal to increase from 15
to 45 days the length of time a company has to submit a plan to regain
compliance should provide companies with additional time to devise a
meaningful and workable plan to regain compliance. Further, the
Commission notes that this revised time period is consistent with the
NYSE's rules, which generally provide a company with 45 days from
receipt of a letter of non-compliance to submit a plan to regain
compliance.\70\ We further note that the 45 days does not extend the
maximum time period the staff can allow for compliance.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Section 802.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
    \71\ For example, if the plan is submitted 45 days after
notification of non-compliance, staff could only grant an additional
135 days to regain compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that while the additional, specific
information that the CFA argued should be provided by Nasdaq on issues
such as the historic enforcement of Nasdaq's listing standards might be
useful for many purposes, it agrees with Nasdaq that such data and
information is not required in order for the Commission to find that
the current proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.\72\ In
addition, the Commission believes that the CFA's call for greater
independence in Nasdaq's delisting process is not an issue that is
directly before the Commission in this proposed rule change. The rules
governing and outlining the current delisting process of the Exchange
have been reviewed by the Commission and approved as being consistent
with the Act. As noted above, many of the changes proposed in the
current rule filing involve the lengthening of automatic threshold or
compliance periods that are not subject to the discretion of Nasdaq
staff. While Nasdaq is lengthening from 105 to 180 the maximum number
of calendar days for which staff can grant an extension of time for
compliance with regard to those deficiencies for which a company can
provide staff with a plan to regain compliance, the Commission does not
believe that this changes the independence of the Hearings Panel and
Listing Council. Although we recognize that the staff will have more
discretion in setting the initial length of the compliance period for
certain deficiencies, upon appeal, any delisting for non-compliance
will continue to be reviewed by independent panels. In addition, as
noted, the maximum length of time permitted under the proposed rule
change is consistent with other markets' rules.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Commission notes that as a registered national
securities exchange, the Commission has oversight over Nasdaq's
enforcement of its rules, including the delisting rules and process.
    \73\ See supra note 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, as noted above, the Commission believes that
enforcement of continued listing standards is of critical importance to
our financial markets and investing public and, among other things
helps to ensure that exchange traded securities have adequate depth and
liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets. While the
Nasdaq's rule proposal does extend the time frames a company can
continue to trade while out of compliance with certain continued
listing standards, the changes are consistent with that of other
national securities exchanges and do provide transparency to the
delisting process. We also continue to expect Nasdaq, as they have
represented, to monitor companies that are out of compliance and delist
them promptly should there be public interest or other concerns that
make continued trading unwarranted.
    For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonable and consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\74\ that the

proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-077) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to delegated authority.\75\

    \75\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2500 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21921-21922]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9909-69-Region-4; EPA-R04-OW-2013-0745]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of
Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Alabama is revising
its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Alabama has
adopted the following rule: Ground Water Rule. The EPA has determined
that Alabama's rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal
regulation. Therefore, the EPA is tentatively approving this revision
to the State of Alabama's Public Water System Supervision Program.

DATES: Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by May 19, 2014, to the Regional
Administrator at the EPA Region 4 address shown below. The Regional
Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a
hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made
by May 19, 2014, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and
appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional
Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on her own motion, this
tentative approval shall become final and effective on May 19, 2014.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement
of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and a brief statement of the information that the
requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature
of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on
behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following offices: Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Water Division, 1400 Coliseum Boulevard,
Montgomery, Alabama 36110; and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,

Region 4, Safe Drinking Water Branch, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Burns, EPA Region 4, Safe
Drinking Water Branch, by mail at the Atlanta address given above, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    EPA Analysis: On February 5, 2013, the State of Alabama submitted a
request that the Region approve a revision to the State's Safe Drinking
Water Act Public Water System Supervision Program to include the
authority to implement and enforce the Ground Water Rule. For the
revision to be approved, the EPA must find the State Rules, contained
within ADEM Administrative Code Division 335-7, to be no less stringent
than the Federal Rules, codified at 40 CFR part 141, Subpart S--Ground
Water Rule. The EPA reviewed the application using the Federal
statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act),
Federal regulations (at 40 CFR part 142), State regulations, rule
crosswalks, and the EPA regulatory guidance to determine whether the
request for revision is approvable. The EPA determined that the Alabama
revision is no less stringent than the corresponding Federal
regulation.
    EPA Action: The EPA is tentatively approving this revision. If the
EPA does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and
the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on her own
motion, this tentative approval will become final and effective on May
19, 2014.

    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.

    Dated: March 26, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-08889 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19975-19977]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0014; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-249-AD;
Amendment 39-15456; AD 2008-08-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections for
cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of both main
landing gear (MLG), and repair if necessary. The existing AD also
provides optional terminating actions for certain airplanes, as well as
other optional methods for complying with the inspection requirements
of the existing AD. This new AD continues to require repetitive
inspections for cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5
fitting of the left and right MLG at new repetitive intervals in
accordance with new service information, and repair or replacement of
any cracked MLG fitting if necessary. This new AD also requires
modification of the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, which would
end the repetitive inspections. This AD results from cracks found in
the forward lug of the MLG support rib 5 fitting. We are issuing this
AD to prevent cracking in the forward lug of the MLG, which could
result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG during
takeoff or landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-11-04, amendment
39-14608 (71 FR 29578, May 23, 2006). The existing AD applies to
certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2200).
That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for
cracking in the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left
and right main landing gear (MLG) at new repetitive intervals in
accordance with new service information, and repair or replacement of
any cracked MLG fitting if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to
require modification of the rib bushings of the left and right MLG,
which would end the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    This AD affects about 466 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-11-04 and retained in this
AD take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of
$80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new required inspections take between 3 and 4 work hours per
airplane, depending on the type of inspection accomplished, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this AD for U.S.
operators is between $111,840 and $149,120, or between $240 and $320
per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new required modification takes about 73 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
cost $3,850 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of
the new modification specified in this AD for U.S. operators is
$4,515,540, or $9,690 per airplane.

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14608 (71 FR 29578, May 23, 2006) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-08-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-15456. Docket No. FAA-2008-0014;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-249-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective May 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-04.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
airplanes, certificated in any category, except airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 32025 has been accomplished in production.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from cracks found in the forward lug of the
main landing gear (MLG) support rib 5 fitting. We are issuing this
AD to prevent cracking in the forward lug of the MLG, which could
result in failure of the lug and consequent collapse of the MLG
during takeoff or landing.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-11-04

Repetitive Detailed Inspections

    (f) Within 8 days after June 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD
2006-11-04), or before further flight after a hard landing,
whichever is first: Perform a detailed inspection for cracking in
the forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-
hand MLG, and, if any crack is found, replace the MLG fitting with a
new fitting before further flight, in accordance with a method
approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated
agent). Accomplishing the actions specified in the Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 Nondestructive Testing Manual, Chapter 51-90-00, Revision
dated February 1, 2003, is one approved method for performing the
detailed inspection. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 8 days, or before further flight after a hard landing,
whichever is first. As of the effective date of this AD, the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD must be
accomplished in lieu of the repetitive inspections required by this
paragraph.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Optional Inspection Method

    (g) Performing an ultrasonic inspection for cracking in the
forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-hand
MLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent;
is an acceptable alternative method of compliance for the initial
and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
Doing the actions specified in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Nondestructive Testing Manual, Chapter 57-29-03, Revision dated
February 1, 2005 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 airplanes), or
Chapter 57-29-04, Revision dated May 1, 2005 (for Model A321
airplanes), as applicable, is one approved method for performing the
ultrasonic inspection.

Optional Terminating Action

    (h) For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Repair of the
forward lugs of the support rib 5 fitting of the left- and right-
hand MLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent);
constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
Doing the repair in accordance with Airbus A319 Structural Repair
Manual (SRM), Chapter 5.C., 57-26-13, Revision dated November 1,
2004; Airbus A320 SRM, Chapter 5.D., 57-26-13, Revision dated
November 1, 2004; or Airbus A321 SRM, Chapter 5.D., 57-26-13,
Revision dated February 1, 2005; as applicable; is one approved
method.

New Requirements of This AD

New Repetitive Inspections

    (i) At the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this AD, or
before further flight after a hard landing, whichever is first: Do a
visual inspection or ultrasonic inspection for cracking in the
forward lug of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right MLG,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-57-1138, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in
Table 1 of this AD or before further flight after a hard landing,
whichever is first, until the modification required by paragraph (k)
of this AD has been accomplished. Accomplishing the initial
inspection terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

                                           Table 1.--Compliance Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Airplanes                           Initial inspection                   Repetitive interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A318, A319, and A320 airplanes..  If the most recent inspection is a        Within 150 flight cycles after
                                         detailed inspection done in accordance    a visual inspection.
                                         with paragraph (f) of this AD, inspect
                                         within 150 flight cycles after the most
                                         recent detailed inspection.
                                        If the most recent inspection is an       Within 940 flight cycles after
                                         ultrasonic inspection done in             an ultrasonic inspection.
                                         accordance with paragraph (g) of this
                                         AD, inspect within 940 flight cycles
                                         after the most recent ultrasonic
                                         inspection.
Model A321 airplanes..................  If the most recent inspection is a        Within 100 flight cycles after
                                         detailed inspection done in accordance    a visual inspection.
                                         with paragraph (f) of this AD, inspect
                                         within 100 flight cycles after the most
                                         recent detailed inspection.
                                        If the most recent inspection is an       Within 630 flight cycles after
                                         ultrasonic inspection done in             an ultrasonic inspection.
                                         accordance with paragraph (g) of this
                                         AD, inspect within 630 flight cycles
                                         after the most recent ultrasonic
                                         inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrective Action

    (j) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, repair or replace
the cracked MLG fitting using a method approved by either the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, or the EASA (or its delegated agent).

Terminating Action

    (k) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the rib bushings of the left and right MLG, by accomplishing all of
the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision 03, dated April
23, 2007. Accomplishing the modification terminates the requirements
of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (l) For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, modifying the lugs
of the support rib 5 fitting of the left and right MLG is acceptable
for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD if
done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of
the following service bulletins: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-
1118, dated September 5, 2002; Revision 01, dated August 28, 2003;
or Revision 02, dated August 2, 2006.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance
with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-11-04
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Related Information

    (n) EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0213, dated August 7,
2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1118, Revision
03, dated April 23, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1138,
Revision 01, dated October 27, 2006; as applicable; to perform the
actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this
service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-7182 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
"Ford, Luke"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:42:27
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Cokenergy 114 Request Report
The final report for the stack testing completed at Cokenergy in response to the CAA 114 request is attached.  Due to the size of the file, we have broken the document into five separate files.  If you would prefer the report as a single file, please provide a link to allow for the transfer.  We will submit the ERT and the spreadsheet with the data not supported by the ERT separately.

If there are any questions, please let me know.

Regards,

Luke Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312
Desk  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><<TRC Report 508369-Cokenergy Information Study-FINAL 04-21-2023_Part1.pdf>>


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26098-26100]
[DOCID:fr11my10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0168]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Under Water Clean Up of Copper Canyon, Lake Havasu,
AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of Lake Havasu in the Copper Canyon in support of the
underwater cleanup of Copper Canyon. This temporary 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 temporary safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on June 1,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0168 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0168 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 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
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Krista Stacey, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA at telephone 619-278-
7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory 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 the logistical details of the event
were not finalized or presented to the Coast Guard in enough time to
draft and publish an NPRM. As such, issuing an NPRM would be
impracticable because the event would occur before the rulemaking
process was complete.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 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 expose the divers to danger from transiting vessels.

Basis and Purpose

    The Lake Havasu Divers Association is sponsoring the Under Water
Copper Canyon Clean up, which will involve 40 divers cleaning the river
bottom in Lake Havasu. The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone,
which will be a 500 foot radius around the divers as they move along
the river bottom.
    This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the divers and
equipment from potential damage and injury.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on June 1, 2010. The limits of the safety zone
will include all waters of Copper Canyon extending from the surface to
the river bottom, within 500 feet of the divers. 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 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.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is
unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of
the safety zone. This safety zone will last for only four hours, and
occupies a relatively small area; vessels and persons will be able to
transit around the safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 portion of Lake Havasu between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. on June
1, 2010.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective
period, the coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM)
and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine
channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

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).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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
(adjusted for inflation) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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 concluded
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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226, 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.T11-179 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-179  Safety zone; Copper Canyon Clean Up, Lake Havasu,
AZ.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include all waters
of Copper Canyon extending from the surface to the river bottom, within
500 feet of the divers.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on June 1, 2010. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and 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 on-scene representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard 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: 4/27/2010.
T. H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-11086 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P