[Federal Register: June 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 34728-34729]
[DOCID:fr18jn08-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0078; FRL-8581-2]

Agency Information Collection Activity; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Wastewater Operator Training and Technical
Assistance Program (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1977.03, OMB Control
Number 2040-0238

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2003-0078, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: Water
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gajindar Singh, Municipal Support
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, OWM Mail Code: 4204M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 501-2396; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On January 23, 2008, (73 FR 3956), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and
OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0078, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: National Wastewater Operator Training and Technical
Assistance Program (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1977.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0238.
    ICR Status: This ICR expires on June 30, 2008. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The Wastewater Operator Training Program, section
104(g)(1) of the Clean Water Act, provides on-site technical assistance
to municipal wastewater treatment plants. Information will be collected
from the network of forty-six states or the 104(g)(1) training centers
set up through out the United States. The information will be collected
to identify the facilities assisted, the different types of assistance
the program provides and the environmental outcomes and benefits of the
assistance provided by the program. The information will be collected
and submitted on either an annual or semi-annual basis. A Microsoft
Access database and an Excel spreadsheet have been developed for this
purpose. This ICR will be used by EPA for the technical and financial
management of the 104(g)(1) Program. The 104(g)(1) Program training
centers participate in the information collection in compliance with
the grant conditions. All information in the data system will be made
public upon request.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.333
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: States and training centers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 46.
    Frequency of Response: Three times a year.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 322 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $14,361, which is entirely for labor.
There are no annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden hours compared with that identified in the ICR
currently approved by OMB. EPA has not modified the requirements that
were included in the previous ICR.

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-13765 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70221-70222]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0416]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Dealer's
Aircraft Registration Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 23, 2020. The collection involves submission of an
AC Form 8050-5, Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application,
by companies or individuals to obtain a Dealer's Aircraft Registration
Certificate, which allows operation of an aircraft instead of obtaining
a permanent aircraft registration certificate. The information
collection is necessary for a dealer to operate an aircraft without a
permanent aircraft registration certificate and to comply with
statutory and regulatory requirements.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed
to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA,
and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed
to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library,
Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Lefko by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0024.
    Title: Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: AC Form 8050-5.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on April 23, 2020 (85 FR 22783). All aircraft must be
registered before being flown. Obtaining a dealer's registration
certificate allows the holder of that certificate to operate aircraft
in lieu of obtaining a permanent aircraft registration certificate. Any
individual or company engaged in manufacturing, distributing, or
selling aircraft who wants to operate aircraft with a dealer's
certificate may apply. Applicants complete the AC Form 8050-5, Dealer's
Aircraft Registration Certificate Application. A dealer's certificate
is valid for one year from the issuance date. A dealer must re-apply
annually to maintain their certificate.
    Respondents: Companies or individuals engaged in manufacturing,
distributing, or selling aircraft.
    Frequency: Annually to maintain a certificate.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: During FY 2019, the FAA received
3,670 applications for dealer's certificates for a total annual burden
of 2,753 hours.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, OK, on October 30, 2020.
Bonnie Lefko,
Program Analyst, Civil Aviation Registry, Aircraft Registration Branch,
AFB-711.
[FR Doc. 2020-24409 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73287-73290]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0034]

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program--COVID-19 Supplemental
Round 2 (AFG-S 2)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (``CARES Act'').
This bill provides $100 million for AFG-S to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. Specifically,
AFG-S funds shall be for the purchase of Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE) and related supplies, including reimbursements for previously
purchased PPE back to January 1, 2020. On May 12, 2020, FEMA published
a Notice of availability announcing the application period for the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 AFG-S Program which opened on April 28, 2020 and
closed on May 15, 2020. By law, at least 25 percent of available AFG-S
funds must be awarded to volunteer fire departments and at least
another 25 percent must be awarded to combination fire departments.
FEMA did not receive enough applications to award at least 25 percent
of the available AFG-S funds to volunteer or combination fire
departments under that initial application period. As a result, FEMA
has opened a second application period for the remaining $31 million
available. This second application--or AFG-S 2--is limited to volunteer
and combination fire departments to fulfill this requirement. Volunteer
and combination fire departments are eligible to apply in this round
even if they had a successful application in the first round of AFG-S
funding. However, such applications must support new or additional
needs or capabilities. Departments that applied in the first round of
AFG-S funding but were unsuccessful can reapply to be

considered for funding in this round. Applications from the first round
of AFG-S funding will not automatically carry forward to this round for
consideration. Pursuant to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act
of 1974, as amended, the Administrator of FEMA is publishing this
notice describing the AFG-S 2 application process, deadlines, and award
selection criteria. This notice explains the differences, if any,
between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of
the national fire service leadership during a Criteria Development
meeting, held April 20, 2020. The application period for the FY 2020
AFG-S Program opened on October 6, 2020, and closed on November 13,
2020, and was announced on the AFG website at https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/firefighters, as well as at http://www.grants.gov.

DATES: Grant applications for AFG-S 2 will be accepted electronically
at https://go.fema.gov, from October 6, 2020, at 8:00 a.m. Eastern
Daylight Time through November 13, 2020, at 5 p.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Branch, DHS/FEMA, 400 C
Street SW, 3N, Washington, DC 20472-3635.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Patterson, Branch Chief,
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Branch, 1-866-274-0960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FY 2020 AFG-S 2 is a modified
supplemental funding opportunity under the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant (AFG) Program. AFG is one of three grant programs that constitute
DHS/FEMA's focus on enhancing the safety of the public and firefighters
with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. AFG-S 2 accomplishes
this by providing financial assistance directly to eligible volunteer
and combination fire departments for critical PPE and supplies needed
to prevent, prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 public health
emergency. Applications for AFG-S 2 will be submitted and processed
online at https://go.fema.gov. Before the application period started,
the FY 2020 AFG-S 2 NOFO was published on the AFG website, which
provides additional information and materials useful to applicants
including Frequently Asked Questions. FEMA anticipates receiving 500 to
1,000 applications for AFG-S 2, and the ability to award approximately
500 grants.
    Congressional Appropriations: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act, Div. B (Pub. L. 116-136). The CARES Act provides
an additional amount of Federal assistance through the AFG Program to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or
internationally. Accordingly, the amount provided shall be for the
purchase of PPE and related supplies, including reimbursements.

Allocations and Restrictions of Available Grant Funds by Organization
Type

    Aggregate Cap: Awards are capped at 1 percent of the total
available grant funds for the entire FY 2020 AFG-S, or $1 million. FEMA
may waive this aggregate cap of $1 million in certain cases as
described in the AFG-S 2 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that is
published on the AFG website.
    Micro Grants: The selection of the voluntary Micro Grant option
(cumulative Federal funding of $3,000) for eligible activities does not
impact an applicant's request or Federal participation under regional
projects. Applicants who select Micro Grants as a funding opportunity
choice may still apply for a regional project. Further, at least
$150,000 of the available funds will be allocated toward this applicant
type.
    Regional Projects: A regional application is an opportunity for a
volunteer or combination fire department to act as a host and apply for
funding on behalf of itself and any number of other participating AFG-S
2 eligible organizations. Fire Departments that serve as host regional
applicants can apply on behalf of other eligible fire departments
within the same application. Career fire departments are not eligible
to apply under the Regional activity or be included in a Regional
award. Regional activities should achieve cost effectiveness, support
regional efficiency and resilience, and benefit more than one local
jurisdiction (county, parish, town, township, city, or village)
directly from the activities implemented with the grant funds.
    Application Evaluation Criteria: Prior to making a grant award,
FEMA is required by 31 U.S.C. 3321 note, 41 U.S.C. 2313, and 2 CFR part
200 to review information available through any Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) designated repositories of government-wide eligibility
qualification or financial integrity information. Therefore,
application evaluation criteria may include the following risk-based
considerations of the applicant: (1) Financial stability; (2) quality
of management systems and ability to meet management standards; (3)
history of performance in managing Federal awards; (4) reports and
findings from audits; and (5) ability to effectively implement
statutory, regulatory, or other requirements.
    Funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG-S 2 applications
are established by FEMA based on the recommendations from the Criteria
Development Panel (CDP). CDP is composed of fire service professionals
that make recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new or the
modification of previously established funding priorities, as well as
developing criteria for awarding grants. The content of the FY 2020
AFG-S 2 NOFO reflects implementation of CDP's recommendations with
respect to the priorities and evaluation criteria for awards.
    The nine major fire service organizations represented on the CDP
are:
     International Association of Fire Chiefs;
     International Association of Fire Fighters;
     National Volunteer Fire Council;
     National Fire Protection Association;
     National Association of State Fire Marshals;
     International Association of Arson Investigators;
     International Society of Fire Service Instructors;
     North American Fire Training Directors; and
     Congressional Fire Service Institute.

Review and Selection Process

    AFG-S 2 applications are reviewed through a multi-phase process.
All applications are electronically pre-scored and ranked based on how
well they align with the funding priorities outlined in the FY 2020
AFG-S 2 NOFO. Applications with the highest pre-score rankings are then
scored competitively by (no less than three) members of the Peer Review
Panel process. Applications will also be evaluated through a series of
internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to
programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, and anticipated
effectiveness of the proposed project(s). Below is the process by which
applications will be reviewed.

i. Pre-Scoring Process

    The application undergoes an electronic pre-scoring process based
on established program priorities listed within the FY 2020 AFG-S 2
NOFO and answers to activity-specific questions within the online
application. Application narratives are not reviewed during pre-
scoring. Request details and

budget information should comply with program guidance and statutory
funding limitations. The pre-score is 50 percent of the total
application score.

ii. Peer Review Panel Process

    Applications with the highest pre-score will undergo peer review.
The peer review panel is comprised of fire service representatives
recommended by CDP national organizations. The panelists assess the
merits of each application based on the narrative section of the
application, including the evaluation elements listed in the Narrative
Evaluation Criteria below. Panelists will independently score each
project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings
of the application with his or her peers, and document the findings. A
consensus is not required. The panel score is 50 percent of the total
application score.

iii. Technical Evaluation Process

    The highest ranked applications are considered within the fundable
range. Applications that are in the fundable range undergo both a
technical review by a subject matter expert, as well as a FEMA AFG
Branch review prior to being recommended for an award. The FEMA AFG
Branch will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities,
feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to
recommending an application for award. During this review, priority for
award will be given to applications that did not receive funding in the
first round of AFG S application.
    Once the technical evaluation process is complete, the cumulative
score for each application will be determined and FEMA will generate a
final application ranking. FEMA will award grants based on this final
ranking and the statutorily required funding limitations listed in this
notice and the FY 2020 AFG-S 2 NOFO.

Narrative Evaluation Criteria

1. Financial Need (25 Percent)

    Applicants should describe their financial need and how consistent
it is with the intent of the AFG-S 2 Program. This statement should
include details describing the applicant's financial distress, such as
summarized budget constraints, unsuccessful attempts to secure other
funding, and proving that the financial distress is out of their
control.

2. Project Description and Budget (25 Percent)

    The Project Description and Budget statement should clearly explain
the applicant's project objectives and its relationship to the
applicant's budget and risk analysis. Applicants should link the
proposed expenses to operations and safety, as well as to the
completion of the project's goals. Applicants should describe how their
current response capabilities are impacted by COVID-19 as well as the
overall rate of COVID-19 in their community. Applicants can reference
data supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
through referencing state level data from the website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. This
data will be considered when prioritizing funding.

3. Cost Benefit (25 Percent)

    Applicants should describe how they plan to address the operations
and personal safety needs of their organization, including cost
effectiveness and sharing assets. This statement should also include
details about gaining the maximum benefits from grant funding by citing
reasonable or required costs, such as specific overhead and
administrative costs. The applicant's request should also be consistent
with their mission and identify how funding will benefit their
organization and personnel.

4. Statement of Effect on Daily Operations (25 Percent)

    The Statement of Effect on Operations should explain how this
funding request will enhance an organization's overall effectiveness.
It should address how an award will impact the daily operations and
reduce an organization's risk(s). Applicants should include how
frequently the requested item(s) will be used and in what capacity.
Applicants should detail whether award funding will seek reimbursement
of pre-award expenses related to the acquisition of eligible PPE,
acquire PPE for immediate use, or acquire PPE resources to strengthen
future response capabilities. Applicants will be evaluated on the
current inventory of supplies, response usage of requested supplies,
and anticipated future needs (i.e., actual or anticipated burn rate
percentage of PPE resources).

Eligible Applicants

    Volunteer and Combination Fire Departments: Volunteer and
Combination fire departments operating in any of the 50 States, as well
as fire departments in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any federally-recognized
Indian Tribe or Tribal organization.
    A fire department is an agency or organization having a formally
recognized arrangement with a state, local, tribal or territorial
authority (city, county, parish, fire district, township, town, or
other governing body) to provide fire suppression to a population
within a geographically fixed primary first due response area.
    Combination Fire Department, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2229, means a
fire department that has paid firefighting personnel and volunteer
firefighting personnel. Departments that pay fees or stipends to
firefighting personnel for each event to which they respond (paid on
call) are also considered under this category.
    Volunteer Fire Department, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2229, means a
fire department that has an all-volunteer force of firefighting
personnel.

Eligible Activities

    Activities under this solicitation are limited to the purchase of
PPE and supplies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19
public health emergency. This includes reimbursement for expenditures
made since January 1, 2020.

Cost Sharing and Maintenance of Effort

    Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded
under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in
accordance with applicable Federal regulations at 2 CFR part 200, but
they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application
nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA will
contact potential awardees to determine whether the grant recipient has
the funding in hand or if the grant recipient has a viable plan to
obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
    In general, an eligible applicant seeking a grant shall agree to
make available non-Federal funds equal to not less than 15 percent of
the grant awarded. However, the cost share will vary as follows based
on the size of the population served by the organization, with
exceptions to this general requirement for entities serving smaller
communities:
     Applicants that serve populations of 20,000 or less shall
agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not
less than 5 percent of the grant awarded.
     Applicants serving areas with populations above 20,000,
but not more than 1 million, shall agree to make available non-Federal
funds in an

amount equal to not less than 10 percent of the grant awarded.
    Cost share of non-Federal cash is the only allowable recipient
contribution for AFG-S 2 activity. On a case-by-case basis, FEMA may
allow recipients already owning assets acquired with non-Federal cash,
to use the trade-in allowance/credit value of those assets as cash for
the purpose of meeting the cost-share obligation.
    For FEMA to consider a trade-in allowance/credit value as cash, the
allowance amount must be reasonable, and the allowance amount must be a
separate entity clearly identified in the acquisition documents.
    In-kind cost share is not allowable for AFG-S 2.
    In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and at the request of
the grant recipient, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce
certain recipients' AFG-S 2 cost-share requirement or maintenance of
expenditure requirement. FY 2020 AFG-S 2 applicants must indicate at
the time of application whether they are requesting a waiver and
whether the waiver is for the cost-share requirement, maintenance of
effort requirement, or both. The FEMA Administrator is required by
statute to establish guidelines for determining what constitutes
economic hardship. FEMA has published these guidelines at https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1518026897046-483d76a37022b8a581ffb7d42fa9b17e/Eco_Hardship_Waiver_FPS_SAFER_AFG_IB_FINAL.pdf.
    Before the start of the FY 2020 AFG-S 2 application period, FEMA
conducted applicant workshops/internet webinars to inform potential
applicants AFG-S 2. In addition, FEMA provided applicants with
information at the AFG website: https://www.fema.gov/welcome-assistance-firefighters-grant-program to help them prepare quality
grant applications. The AFG Help Desk is staffed throughout the
application period to assist applicants with the automated application
process as well as assistance with any questions.
    Applicants can reach the AFG Help Desk through a toll-free
telephone number during normal business hours (1-866-274-0960) or
electronic mail (firegrants@fema.dhs.gov).

Application Process

    Organizations may submit one application per application period in
each of the three AFG program activities (e.g., one application for
Operations and Safety, and/or a separate application to be a Joint/
Regional Project host). If an organization submits more than one
application for any single AFG program activity (e.g., two applications
for Operations and Safety, two for Joint/Regional Project, etc.),
either intentionally or unintentionally, both applications may be
disqualified.
    Applicants can access the grant application electronically at
https://portal.fema.gov. The application is also accessible from the
U.S. Fire Administration's website http://www.usfa.fema.gov and http://www.grants.gov. New applicants must register and establish a username
and password for secure access to the grant application. Previous AFG
grant applicants must use their previously established username and
passwords.
    Applicants must answer questions about their grant request that
reflect the AFG-S 2 funding priorities described above. In addition,
each applicant must complete a separate narrative for each project or
grant activity requested. Grant applicants will also provide relevant
information about their organization's characteristics, call volume,
and existing organizational capabilities.

System for Award Management (SAM)

    Per 2 CFR part 25, all Federal grant applicants and recipients must
register in https://SAM.gov. SAM is the Federal Government's System for
Awards Management, and registration is free of charge. Applicants must
maintain current information in SAM that is consistent with the data
provided in their AFG-S 2 grant application and in the Dun & Bradstreet
(DUNS) database. FEMA may not accept any application, process any
awards, and consider any payment or amendment requests, unless the
applicant or grant recipient has complied with the requirements to
provide a valid DUNS number and an active SAM registration. The grant
applicant's banking information, EIN, organization/entity name,
address, and DUNS number must match the same information provided in
SAM. Further guidance is provided in the FY 2020 AFG-S 2 NOFO.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-25330 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-64-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41340-41341]
[DOCID:fr17au09-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0521; FRL-8946-2]

Interim Final Determination To Stay and Defer Sanctions, Pinal
County, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay and defer
imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to
the Pinal County portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP)
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The revisions concern
Pinal County Rules 2-8-320, 4-2-020, 4-2-030, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, and 4-9.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on August 17,
2009. However, comments will be accepted until September 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0521, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On August 1, 2007 (see 72 FR 48196), we published a limited
approval and limited disapproval of Pinal County Rules 4-2-020, 4-2-
030, 4-2-040, and 4-2-050 as adopted locally on June 29, 1993 and
submitted by the State on November 27, 1995. We based our limited
disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. This
disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset
sanctions 18 months after August 31, 2007 and highway sanctions 6
months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31.
    To correct the deficiencies identified in our August 1, 2007 final
rule, Pinal County made the following changes to their regulations: On
December 4, 2002, Pinal County amended Rules 4-2-020 and 4-2-030 and
codified these changes on January 7, 2009; on January 7, 2009, Pinal
County adopted Rule 2-8-320; and, on June 3, 2009, Pinal County adopted
Rules 4-4, 4-7, 4-9 and amendments to Rule 4-5. On June 12, 2009, the
State submitted these revisions to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section
of today's Federal Register, we have proposed approval of this
submittal because we believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in
our August 1, 2007 disapproval action. Based on today's proposed
approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on
publication, to stay and defer imposition of sanctions that were
triggered by our August 1, 2007 limited disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this
stay and deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change
our assessment described in this final determination and the proposed
full approval of new and revised Pinal County rules, we intend to take
subsequent final action to reimpose

sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). If no comments are submitted
that change our assessment, then all sanctions and sanction clocks will
be permanently terminated on the effective date of a final rule
approval.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to stay and defer CAA
section 179 sanctions associated with our August 1, 2007 limited
disapproval based on our concurrent proposal to approve the State's SIP
revision as correcting deficiencies that initiated sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has
corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval
action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However,
by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on
EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through
its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that
the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions
clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose
sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most
likely done all it can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the
sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through
notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected
the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's
submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the
interim final rulemaking process to stay and defer sanctions while EPA
completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's
submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action,
EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice
requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve
a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action stays and defers federal sanctions and imposes no
additional requirements.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action.
    The administrator certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    This rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to
this rule because it imposes no standards.
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to Congress and the Comptroller
General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the
issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the
rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective
date of August 17, 2009. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
regulations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

     Dated: August 4, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-19654 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 25429]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-726-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: 2018-2019 Cashout Report of East Tennessee Natural
Gas, LLC under RP20-726.
    Filed Date: 3/30/20.
    Accession Number: 20200330-5447.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1126-004.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing RP18-1126 Stipulation and Agreement
Tariff Record Filing to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200423-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-800-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Abandon Transco X-Rate Schedules
Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200423-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 27, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09318 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ExxonMobil Chemical Company Intermediates Americas 13501 Katy Freeway, WL3  1474 Houston, TX 77063 281 870 6146 Telephone 281 588 2507 Facsimile January 22, 2004 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania NW Mail Code 6205J Washington, DC 20460 Suzanne Kocchi U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 ExxonMobil Chemical Company wishes to comment on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to implement a use ban for HCFC 141b in insulation foam in 2005. Our comments are directed to the EPA Significant New Alternative Policy ( SNAP) program rule published on July 22, 2002 ( 67 FR 47703). We believe the EPA should move forward with a final phase out of HCFC 141b given the availability of viable nonozone depleting alternatives in virtually all industry sectors.

ExxonMobil Chemical Company has developed a range of products and invested in facilities that provide the manufacturing sector ( e. g. appliance, construction, commercial refrigeration, water heater, rigid spray) with technically viable and commercially attractive alternatives that are cost competitive. Alternative non ozone depleting blowing agents being developed for all end use applications and manufacturers have or soon will convert to alternative technologies such as Exxsol   Blowing Agents.

Rigid Spray This sector has been relatively slow in the transition to alternatives. However great strides have been made in the past year to utilize non ozone depleting options.

  Rigid spray foam systems utilizing Exxsol   Blowing Agents and other non ODS options have been commercially available in the market place since 2003.   These non ODS formulated rigid spray foam systems have achieved the necessary ASTM E84 and UL 790 approval listings.   Spray foam equipment designed for non ozone depleting alternatives such as Exxsol   Blowing Agents have been commercially available since 4Q' 03. Endysis and Gusmer both offer appropriate machines for this end use application.   Several leading urethane system suppliers have completed blending facilities which offer customers non ozone depleting alternative systems. Additional facilities are under development.   Extensive safety data and training materials are available supporting the transition to Exxsol   Blowing Agents for both exterior and more challenging interior spray applications such as stud wall cavities.

Water Heater The industry selected hydrocarbon in 2002  2003 as their preferred non ozone depleting blowing agent alternative.

  Several manufacturing facilities will have converted to Exxsol   Blowing Agents by early 2Q' 04 with the majority of the others transitioned during late 3Q' 04.

Metal Panel Several metal panel manufacturers have converted to hydrocarbons in 2003. This transition included both continuous and discontinuous applications. They include cold storage, industrial, and architectural panels as well as entry doors.

  Urethane foam systems using Exxsol   Blowing Agents have achieved industry required Class I and II fire ratings where appropriate.   Additional insulated panel manufacturers are transitioning to non ozone depleting Exxsol   Blowing Agents in 2004.

We believe a real need exists for the EPA to address the importation issues of HCFC 141b blended polyol systems from countries like Mexico, which continues to have a negative impact on U. S. industry development and investment in alternatives. Importation of these " HCFC 141b blends" encourages many companies both large and small to further defer their transition to acceptable alternatives. Failure to address this ongoing issue will continue to undermine those U. S. companies that have developed alternatives, made the investments, and are in a position to offer a significant reduction in ODS emissions.

Please contact me at ( 281) 870 6146 with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Begbie Jr ExxonMobil Chemical Company Fluids Market Development c: D. C. Kaczor N. J. Sarginson


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70790-70795]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29440]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65710; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2, Amending Section 101 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide To
Adopt Additional Listing Requirements for Companies Applying To List
After Consummation of a ``Reverse Merger'' With a Shell Company,
November 8, 2011

I. Introduction

    On July 22, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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
adopting additional listing requirements for a company that has become
an Act reporting company by combining with a public shell, whether
through a reverse merger, exchange offer, or otherwise (a ``Reverse
Merger''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2011.\3\ On September 21, 2011, the
Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved to November 8, 2011.\4\ The Commission received two comment
letters on the proposal.\5\ NYSE Amex filed

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 4, 2011, which
was later withdrawn.\6\ NYSE Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change on November 8, 2011.\7\ This order approves the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65033 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49522 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65369 (September 21,
2011), 76 FR 59763 (September 27, 2011).
    \5\ See Letter from David Feldman, Partner, Richardson and Patel
LLP dated August 29, 2011 (``Feldman Letter'') and Letter to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from WestPark Capital,
Inc. dated August 31, 2011 (``WestPark Letter''). In addition, the
Commission received five comment letters on a substantially similar
proposal by Nasdaq, three of which were filed by parties that did
not specifically comment on the NYSE Amex filing. (See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64633 (June 8, 2011), 76 FR 34781 (June 14,
2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-073)). The comment letters received on the
Nasdaq filing, for which a counterpart was not received on the NYSE
Amex filing are: Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, from Locke Lord LLP dated October 17, 2011 (``Locke Lord
Letter''); Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from James N. Baxter, Chairman and General Counsel, New York Global
Group dated October 17, 2011 (``New York Global Group Letter''); and
Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from David A.
Donohoe, Jr., Donohoe Advisory Associates LLC dated October 18, 2011
(``Donohoe Letter''). Two of the comment letters submitted on the
Nasdaq filing specifically referenced this proposal by NYSE Amex.
However, the Commission believes all of the filings submitted on the
Nasdaq filing are applicable to this filing. Since the comment
letters received on the Nasdaq filing either specifically reference
the NYSE Amex filing, or discuss issues directly related to this
filing, the Commission has included them in its discussions of this
filing.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1, dated November 4, 2011, was withdrawn on
November 8, 2011.
    \7\ See Amendment No. 2, dated November 8, 2011. Amendment No. 2
replaces Amendment No. 1 in its entirety. In Amendment No. 2, NYSE
Amex made several changes to the proposed rule change. The changes
proposed by NYSE Amex include: (i) Amending the proposed price
requirement to make is applicable for a sustained period of time,
but in no event for less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days;
(ii) added a new exception from certain requirements contained in
the rule for companies that conducted their reverse merger a
substantial length of time before applying to list; and (iii) other
additional changes to clarify the rule and harmonize it with a
similar proposal by Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Original Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt more stringent listing requirements
for companies that become public through a Reverse Merger, to address
significant regulatory concerns including accounting fraud allegations
that have arisen with respect to Reverse Merger companies. In its
filing, the Exchange noted that the Commission has taken direct action
against Reverse Merger companies. In addition, the Exchange noted that
the Commission has suspended trading in, and revoked the securities
registration of, a number of Reverse Merger companies.\8\ The Exchange
also stated that the Commission recently brought an enforcement
proceeding against an audit firm relating to its work for Reverse
Merger companies \9\ and issued a bulletin on the risks of investing in
Reverse Merger companies, noting potential market and regulatory risks
related to investing in such companies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter from Mary L. Schapiro to Hon. Patrick T. McHenry,
dated April 27, 2011 (``Schapiro Letter''), at pages 3-4.
    \9\ See Schapiro Letter at page 4.
    \10\ See ``Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers'' 2011-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the concerns noted above, the Exchange proposed to
adopt additional listing requirements for Reverse Merger companies.\11\
Specifically, NYSE Amex proposed to prohibit a Reverse Merger company
from applying to list until the combined entity has traded in the U.S.
over-the-counter market, on another national securities exchange, or on
a regulated foreign exchange, for at least one year following the
filing of all required information about the Reverse Merger
transaction, including audited financial statements, with the
Commission. The Reverse Merger company would also be required to timely
file with the Commission all required reports since the consummation of
the Reverse Merger, including the filing of at least one annual report
containing audited financial statements for a full fiscal year
commencing on a date after the date of filing with the Commission of
all required information about the Reverse Merger transaction and
satisfying the one-year trading requirement. Further, NYSE Amex
proposed to require that the Reverse Merger company maintain on both an
absolute and an average basis for a sustained period a minimum stock
price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial
listing standard under which the Reverse Merger company is qualifying
to list. Finally, the Exchange proposed an exception from the
requirements of the rule if the Reverse Merger company is listing in
connection with an initial firm commitment underwritten public offering
where the proceeds to the company will be at least $40 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition to the specific additional listing requirements
contained in the proposal, the Exchange included language in the
proposed rule that states that the Exchange may ``in its discretion
impose more stringent requirements than those set forth above if the
Exchange believes it is warranted in the case of a particular
Reverse Merger Company based on, among other things, an inactive
trading market in the Reverse Merger Company's securities, the
existence of a low number of publicly held shares that are not
subject to transfer restrictions, if the Reverse Merger Company has
not had a Securities Act registration statement or other filing
subjected to a comprehensive review by the Commission, or if the
Reverse Merger Company has disclosed that it has material weaknesses
in its internal controls which have been identified by management
and/or the Reverse Merger Company's independent auditor and has not
yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

    As stated previously, the Commission received two comment letters
on the proposal.\12\ However, a related proposal by Nasdaq received
five comment letters.\13\ The Commission is treating the thee comment
letters submitted on the Nasdaq filing, for which a comparable letter
was not submitted on the NYSE Amex filing, as also being applicable to
the NYSE Amex filing since the NYSE Amex and Nasdaq filings address the
same substantive issues.\14\ Two of the commenters objected broadly to
the proposed additional listing requirements for Reverse Merger
companies,\15\ while three commenters suggested discrete changes to the
proposal.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Feldman Letter and WestPark Letter.
    \13\ As is stated above in note 5, two of the comment letters
submitted on the Nasdaq proposal are substantially similar to
comment letters received on the NYSE Amex proposal. See Feldman
Letter and WestPark Letter. Three of the comment letters submitted
on the Nasdaq proposal were not also submitted on the NYSE Amex
proposal. See Locke Lord Letter; New York Global Group Letter; and
Donohoe Letter. Two of the comment letters submitted on the Nasdaq
filing specifically reference the NYSE Amex filing. See Locke Lord
Letter and Donohoe Letter.
    \14\ In instituting disapproval proceedings for the Nasdaq
proposal, the Commission stated that the NYSE and NYSE Amex had
filed similar proposals designed to address the same concerns as the
Nasdaq proposal.
    \15\ See Feldman Letter and New York Global Group Letter.
    \16\ See WestPark Letter; Donohoe Letter; and Locke Lord Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter who objected broadly to NYSE Amex's proposal
expressed the view that it could have a ``chilling effect of
discouraging exciting growth companies from pursuing all available
techniques to obtain the benefits of a public listed stock and greater
access to capital.'' \17\ The commenter further noted, in response to
Nasdaq's justifications for the proposed rule change, that virtually
all of the suggestions of wrongdoing involve Chinese companies that
completed reverse mergers, but that a number of other Chinese companies
that completed full traditional initial public offerings face the very
same allegations, so that focusing on the manner in which these
companies went public may not be appropriate. Rather than imposing a
seasoning requirement, the commenter suggests the Exchange review
regulatory histories and financial arrangements with promoters, and
refrain from listing companies where the issues are great. In any
event, the commenter recommends an exception from the seasoning
requirement for a company coming to the Exchange with a firm commitment
underwritten public offering. In addition, the commenter expressed
concern that the requirement to maintain a $4 trading price for 30 days

prior to the listing application is unfair, and unrealistic to expect
companies to achieve in the over-the-counter markets, and suggested it
be eliminated.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Feldman Letter.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter that objected broadly to the proposal believed
that the proposal would harm capital formation and hinder small
companies' access to the capital markets.\19\ The commenter expressed
the view that no objective research or hard data has been published
that supports the notion that Reverse Merger companies bear additional
scrutiny, and that the Commission should not approve the proposal until
an independent and comprehensive study concludes that (i) Exchange
listed reverse merger companies tend to fail more often than IPO
companies, thus necessitating the additional scrutiny, (ii) the
proposed six to twelve month ``seasoning'' for reverse merger companies
will indeed deter corporate frauds, and (iii) the exchanges do not
already have sufficient rules in place to discourage corporate frauds
in both reverse merger and IPO companies.\20\ Based on its research,
the commenter believes that more Chinese companies have been delisted
that have gone public through an IPO than through a Reverse Merger, and
that they were delisted more than three years after they became public,
which is well beyond the seasoning period.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See New York Global Group Letter.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third commenter expressed support for the proposed rule change's
objective to protect investors from potential accounting fraud,
manipulative trading, abusive practices or other inappropriate behavior
on the part of companies, promoters and others.\22\ The commenter,
however, recommended that, in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on
smaller capitalization issuers, the proposed rule change be modified to
exclude Form 10 share exchange transactions from the reverse merger
definition, or provide an exception for a reverse merger company
listing in connection with a firm commitment underwritten public
offering.\23\ This commenter also recommended that NYSE Amex consider
requiring companies listing on the Exchange to engage a recognized
independent diligence firm to conduct a forensic audit and issue a
forensic diligence report prior to approval of the listing
application.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See WestPark Letter.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter, while it did not believe the Exchange had
presented a sufficient rationale or data to support the need for a
Reverse Merger seasoning period, agreed that a reasonable seasoning
period for Reverse Merger companies could be beneficial, and was of the
view that the six-month seasoning period proposed by Nasdaq was
preferable to the one-year seasoning period proposed by NYSE and NYSE
Amex.\25\ The commenter also believed that Nasdaq's proposed
requirement that a Reverse Merger company maintain the requisite stock
price for at least 30 of the 60 trading days immediately preceding the
filing of the listing application was lacking because, among other
things, it would not apply to the period during which the listing
application was under review.\26\ In addition, this commenter expressed
support for an underwritten public offering exception, regardless of
size, from the proposed rule's additional listing requirement.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Donohoe Letter.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fifth commenter also expressed the view that there should be an
exception where the securities issued in the Reverse Merger were
registered with the Commission, so that the additional listing
standards would be directed toward those transactions that have not
been subjected to full Commission review.\28\ This commenter also
suggested that, if a Reverse Merger company is controlled by a non-U.S.
person, the control person should be required to execute a consent to
service of process in the U.S.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Locke Lord Letter.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NYSE Amex Amendment No. 2 and Response to Comments

    In Amendment No. 2, NYSE Amex proposed several changes to more
effectively align its proposal with that of Nasdaq. NYSE Amex amended
its proposal to require that a Reverse Merger company ``maintain a
closing stock price equal to the stock price requirement applicable to
the initial listing standard under which the Reverse Merger Company is
qualifying to list for a sustained period of time, but in no event for
less than 30 of the most recent 60 trading days prior to the filing of
the initial listing application'' and prior to listing. In addition,
NYSE Amex amended the requirement that a Reverse Merger company provide
all required reports to clarify that such reports must include ``all
required'' audited financial statements.
    Amendment No. 2 also proposes a new exception to the Reverse Merger
rules and clarifies that all other listing requirements are applicable
to all Reverse Merger companies, even those Reverse Merger companies
that can take advantage of either of the two exceptions being proposed
under the new rules. As noted above, as proposed, the rule provides
that a Reverse Merger company would not be subject to the requirements
of the rule if, in connection with the listing, it completes a firm
commitment underwritten public offering where the proceeds to the
company will be at least $40 million and the offering is occurring
subsequent to or concurrently with the Reverse Merger. Amendment No. 2
additionally proposes that the Reverse Merger company would not be
subject to the requirement that it maintain a closing stock price equal
to the stock price requirement applicable to the initial listing
standard under which the Reverse Merger company is qualifying to list
for at least 30 of the most recent 60 days prior to each of the filing
of the initial listing application and the date of the Reverse Merger
company's listing, if it has satisfied the one-year trading requirement
and has filed at least four annual reports with the Commission which
each contain all required audited financial statements for a full
fiscal year commencing after filing the required information.\30\ The
amended rule language states that a Reverse Merger company must comply
with all applicable listing requirements. Applicable listing standards
include, but are not limited to, the corporate governance requirements
set forth in Chapter 8 of the NYSE Amex Company Guide (``Guide'') and
the applicable distribution, stock price and market value requirements
of Sections 102(a) and 102(b) of the Guide. In either case, the
language makes clear that companies that fall under the exceptions must
also comply with all other listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Amendment No. 2 also proposes that, to be eligible for this
exception, such companies be required to (i) Comply with the stock
price requirement of Section 102(b) of the Guide at the time of the
filing of the initial listing application and the date of the
Reverse Merger company's listing and (ii) not be delinquent in its
filing obligations with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NYSE Amex made several technical changes in Amendment No.
2, including those to conform its language more closely to that of the
Nasdaq proposal.
    On November 7, 2011, NYSE Amex responded to the comments received
on

the proposal.\31\ One commenter expressed concern, in commenting on the
similar NYSE proposal, that the proposal might not provide investors
with sufficient protections in relation to listed Reverse Merger
companies and noted and welcomed the NYSE's ability to exercise its
discretion to apply additional or more stringent criteria to a Reverse
Merger company. In response, NYSE Amex noted that the same discretion
is included in the NYSE Amex proposal. The NYSE Amex further noted that
it does not believe that it is necessary at this time to adopt any
additional general requirements for all companies that would be
considered for listing under the proposed rules. The Exchange also
stated that the proposed approach, in its belief, strikes an
appropriate balance by providing discretionary authority to the
Exchange to apply additional or more stringent criteria,\32\ while also
providing transparency as to the factors that would prompt the
imposition of such criteria. NYSE Amex believes that it is appropriate
to apply those new requirements for a period of time, while closely
monitoring the performance of Reverse Merger companies that list under
the new rules. If at any time it becomes apparent that there are
significant continuing investor protection or regulatory concerns
associated with the listing of Reverse Merger companies, NYSE Amex will
consider the desirability of adopting additional more stringent
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Email from John Carey, Chief Counsel, NYSE Regulation
Inc., to Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission and David
Michehl, Special Counsel, Commission dated November 7, 2011.
    \32\ See supra, note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex noted that the Commission received two negative comment
letters in relation to its filing. Both commenters supported the
proposed rule's exception for Reverse Merger companies listing in
conjunction with an underwritten public offering, but argued that the
transaction size requirement should either be eliminated from the
proposal or set at a far lower level. The Exchange believes that the
substantial offering size requirement provides a significant regulatory
benefit. One of the commenters argued that the requirement that a
Reverse Merger Company must trade in another market for at least a year
prior to listing is unnecessary. As noted in the filing, significant
regulatory concerns have arisen with respect to a number of reverse
merger companies in recent times. NYSE Amex believes that a
``seasoning'' period prior to listing should provide greater assurance
that the company's operations and financial reporting are reliable, and
will also provide time for its independent auditor to detect any
potential irregularities, as well as for the company to identify and
implement enhancements to address any internal control weaknesses. The
seasoning period will also provide time for regulatory and market
scrutiny of the company, and for any concerns that would preclude
listing eligibility to be identified. NYSE Amex believes that the
elimination of the one year trading requirement would significantly
weaken the value of the seasoning period in that less scrutiny would
generally be present. The other commenter argued that the rule should
not apply to a Reverse Merger company which resulted from a merger
between an operating company and a new shell company with no prior
business operations. Based on the Exchange's experience with the
listing of Reverse Merger companies, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to apply the proposed rules to all Reverse Merger
companies, regardless of whether the shell company into which the
operating company merged had ever had any previous business operations.

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing and whether Amendment No. 2 is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55 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-NYSEAmex-2011-55. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room 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 NYSE Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55, and should be submitted on or before
December 6, 2011.

VI. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2, and finds that it is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rule and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange,\33\ and, in particular,
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\34\ which, among other things, requires
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 foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards for
an exchange is of substantial importance to financial markets and the
investing public. Among other things, listing standards provide the
means for an exchange to screen issuers that seek to become listed, and
to provide listed status only to those that are bona fide companies
with sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest
likely to generate depth and liquidity sufficient to promote fair and
orderly

markets. Meaningful listing standards also are important given investor
expectations regarding the nature of securities that have achieved an
exchange listing, and the role of an exchange in overseeing its market
and assuring compliance with its listing standards.
    NYSE Amex proposed to make more rigorous its listing standards for
Reverse Merger companies, given the significant regulatory concerns,
including accounting fraud allegations, that have recently arisen with
respect to these companies. As noted above, Nasdaq and NYSE filed
similar proposals for the same reasons.\35\ Among other things, the
proposals seek to improve the reliability of the reported financial
results of Reverse Merger companies by requiring a pre-listing
``seasoning period'' during which the post-merger public company would
have produced financial and other information in connection with its
required Commission filings. The proposals also seek to address
concerns that some might attempt to meet the minimum price test
required for exchange listing through a quick manipulative scheme in
the securities of a Reverse Merger company, by requiring that minimum
price to be sustained for a meaningful period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64633 (June 8,
2011), 76 FR 34781 (June 14, 2011) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65034 (August 4, 2011), 76 FR 49513 (August 10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposed one-year seasoning requirement
for Reverse Merger companies that seek to list on the Exchange is
reasonably designed to address concerns that the potential for
accounting fraud and other regulatory issues is more pronounced for
this type of issuer. As discussed above, these additional listing
requirements will assure that a Reverse Merger company has produced and
has filed with the Commission at least one full year of all required
audited financial statements following the Reverse Merger transaction
before it is eligible to list on NYSE Amex. The Reverse Merger company
also must have filed all required Commission reports since the
consummation of the Reverse Merger, which should help assure that
material information about the issuer has been filed with the
Commission and that the issuer has a demonstrated track record of
meeting its Commission filing and disclosure obligations. In addition,
the requirement that the Reverse Merger company has traded for at least
one year in the over-the-counter market or on another exchange could
make it more likely that analysts have followed the company for a
sufficient period of time to provide an additional check on the
validity of the financial and other information made available to the
public.
    Although certain commenters expressed concern that the proposal
might inhibit capital formation and access by small companies to the
markets, the Commission notes that the enhanced listing standards apply
only to the relatively small group of Reverse Merger companies--where
there have been numerous instances of fraud and other violations of the
federal securities laws--and merely requires those entities to wait
until their first annual audited financial statements are produced
before they become eligible to apply for listing on the Exchange. While
fraud and other illegal activity may occur with other types of issuers,
as noted by certain commenters, the Commission does not believe this
should preclude NYSE Amex from taking reasonable steps to address these
concerns with Reverse Merger companies.
    The Commission also believes the proposed requirement for a Reverse
Merger company to maintain the specified minimum share price for a
sustained period, and for at least 30 of the most recent 60 trading
days, prior to the date of the initial listing application and the date
of listing, is reasonably designed to address concerns that the
potential for manipulation of the security to meet the minimum price
requirements is more pronounced for this type of issuer. By requiring
that minimum price to be maintained for a meaningful period of time,
the proposal should make it more difficult for a manipulative scheme to
be successfully used to meet the Exchange's minimum share price
requirements.
    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed exceptions
to the enhanced listing requirements for Reverse Merger companies that
(1) Complete a substantial firm commitment underwritten public offering
in connection with its listing,\36\ or (2) have filed at least four
annual reports containing all required audited financial statements
with the Commission following the filing of all required information
about the Reverse Merger transaction, and satisfying the one-year
trading requirement, reasonably accommodate issuers that may present a
lower risk of fraud or other illegal activity. The Commission believes
it is reasonable for the Exchange to conclude that, although formed
through a Reverse Merger, an issuer that (1) Undergoes the due
diligence and vetting required in connection with a sizeable
underwritten public offering, or (2) has prepared and filed with the
Commission four years of all required audited financial statements
following the Reverse Merger, presents less risk and warrants the same
treatment as issuers that were not formed through a Reverse Merger.
Nevertheless, the Commission expects the Exchange to monitor any
issuers that qualify for these exceptions and, if fraud or other abuses
are detected, to propose appropriate changes to its listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission notes that several commenters supported an
exception for issuers with underwritten public offerings. See
WestPark Letter; Donohoe Letter; and Locke Lord Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that certain commenters suggested the Exchange
impose specific additional requirements on Reverse Merger companies
that seek an exchange listing, such as the completion of an independent
forensic diligence report on the issuer, the execution of a consent to
service of process in the U.S. by foreign controlling persons, and
additional more stringent standards in addition to the proposed
seasoning period. Although there may be merit in these or other
potential ways to enhance listing standards for Reverse Merger
companies, the Commission believes that the additional listing
standards proposed by the Exchange should help prevent fraud and
manipulation, protect investors and the public interest, and are
otherwise consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also notes that several of the changes proposed by
the Exchange in Amendment No. 2 were clarifying in nature and designed
to make its proposal consistent with the proposals submitted by Nasdaq
and NYSE.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that NYSE
Amex's proposal will further the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
by, among other things, helping prevent fraud and manipulation
associated with Reverse Merger companies, and protecting investors and
the public interest.
    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\37\ for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of
notice in the Federal Register. As noted above, the changes made in
Amendment No. 2 harmonize the proposed rule change with similar
proposals by Nasdaq and NYSE that have been subject to public comment,
in addition to providing clarifying language consistent with the

intent of the original rule proposal. In addition, the Commission
believes it is in the public interest for NYSE Amex to begin applying
its enhanced listing standards as soon as practicable, in light of the
serious concerns that have arisen with respect to the listing of
Reverse Merger companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55), as amended, be,
and hereby is, approved, on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29440 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P