Docket #:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0797

<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson[James Tompkins, 703
703-305-5761097]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Interregional Research Project Number 4Canyon Group LLC, c/o Gowan
Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma, Arizona 85364]>

<[PP9E7577xxxxxx]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([PP9E7577xxxxxx]) from the
Interregional Research Project Number 4(IR-4)[C in cooperation with
Canyon Group LLC], [c/o Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma,
Arizona 85364] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.479 >

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for>

<	[halosulfuron-methyl] in or on the raw agricultural commodities [pea
and bean, succulent shelled (subgroup 6B); pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean (subgroup 6C);, vegetables, tuberous and corm (subgroup
1C); bushberry (subgroup 13-07B);, apple; ,  and rhubarb; and okra at
[0.05 ] parts per million (ppm).  It has also been requested that the
existing tolerance for vegetables, fruiting (except cucurbits) group
(group 8) be redefined as “vegetables, fruiting (except cucurbits)
group plus okra (group 8).  EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism . [The metabolism of halosulfuron-methyl as well
as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for the
purposes of these tolerances.  Metabolism studies were conducted with
three crops, vis.; field corn, sugarcane and soybeans.  Metabolism
depends on the mode of application.  Preemergent applications result in
rapid soil degradation of halosulfuron-methyl followed by crop uptake of
the resulting pyrazole moiety.  The pyrimidine ring binds tightly to
soil and is eventually converted to carbon dioxide by microbial
degradation.  In postemergent applications, little metabolism and
translocation take place, resulting in unmetabolized parent compound as
the major residue on the directly treated foliar surfaces.  Very low
residue levels of the metabolite
3-chloro-1-methyl-5-sulfamoylpyrazole-4-carboxylic acid (3-CSA) are
found in grain.]>

<	2. Analytical method. [A practical analytical method, gas
chromatography with a nitrogen-specific detector, is available for
enforcement purposes.  The limit of detection is 0.003 ppm.]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [Samples from 13 apple trials, 6 blueberry
trials, 4 rhubarb trials, 9 potato trials, 12 dry bean trials and 12
succulent pea trials were analyzed for halosulfuron and its metabolites.
 Samples from an additional apple trial treated a 5X the proposed rate
were also analyzed.  Combined residues were below 0.05 ppm in every
sample.]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Acute toxicological studies placed
technical-grade halosulfuron-methyl in Toxicity Category III.  The
Agency has derived an acute PAD of 0.17 mg/kg based upon a rabbit
developmental toxicity study.  The NOAEL was 50 mg/kg, and the Agency
applied an Uncertainty Factor of 300 (10X for interspecies
extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variability and 3X due to the lack
of a developmental neurotoxicity study.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Bacterial and mammalian microsomal mutagenicity
assays showed halosulfuron-methyl not to be mutagenic.  Gene mutation
and chromosomal aberration studies were negative.  An unscheduled DNA
test in primary rat hepatocytes was negative.  An in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay did not cause a significant increase in the frequency
of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow cells.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [A developmental toxicity
study in rats resulted in a developmental LOAEL of 750 mg/kg/day, based
on decreases in mean litter size and fetal body weight and increases in
resorptions, resorptions per dam, post-implantation loss and in fetal
and litter incidences of soft tissue and skeletal variations.  The
developmental NOAEL in this study was 250 mg/kg/day.  The maternal LOAEL
was 750 mg/kg/day, based on increased incidence of clinical
observations, reduced body weight gains, and reduced food consumption
and food efficiency.  The maternal NOAEL was 250 mg/kg/day.

A developmental toxicity study in rabbits resulted in a developmental
LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day, based on decreased mean litter size and
increases in resorptions, resorptions per dam and post-implantation
loss.  The developmental NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day.  The maternal LOAEL was
150 mg/kg/day, based on reduced body weight gain and reduced food
consumption and food efficiency, and the maternal NOAEL was 50
mg/kg/day.

A dietary 2-generation reproduction study in rats resulted in parental
toxicity at 223 mg/kg/day in males and 261 mg/kg/day in females, based
on decreased body weights, decreased body weight gains, and reduced food
consumption during the premating period.  Very light effects were noted
in body weight of the offspring at this dose.  This effect was
considered to be developmental toxicity (developmental delay) rather
than a reproductive effect.  No effects were noted on reproductive or
other developmental toxicity parameters.  The systemic/developmental
toxicity LOAEL was 223 mg/kg/day in males and 261 mg/kg/day in females;
the systemic/developmental toxicity NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day in males and
59 mg/kg/day in females.  The reproductive NOAEL was greater than or
equal to 223 mg/kg/day for males and 261 mg/kg/day for females.]>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [A 90-day feeding study in rats resulted in a
NOAEL of 116 mg/kg/day in males and 147 mg/kg/day in females.  The LOAEL
was 497 mg/kg/day for males and 640 mg/kg/day in females.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [A 1-year chronic oral toxicity study in dogs
resulted in a LOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day based on decreased weight gain and a
NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day.  In a 78-week carcinogenicity study in mice, a
LOAEL of 972 mg/kg/day was based upon decreased body weight gains and an
increased incidence of microconcretion/mineralization in the testis and
epididymis in males.  No treatment-related effects were observed in
females.  The systemic NOAEL was 410 mg/kg/day, and the study showed no
evidence of carcinogenicity.  A combined chronic and carcinogenicity
study in rats resulted in a LOAEL of 108 mg/kg/day on males and 56
mg/kg/day in females.  The study showed no evidence of carcinogenicity.
The Agency has derived a chronic PAD of 0.03 mg/kg/day based upon a
NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day in the dog study and an Uncertainty Factor of
300.]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [The Agency has determined that the nature of
the residue in ruminants is adequately understood.  In the tissues and
milk of goats, the major extractable residue was the unmetabolized
parent compound.  The Agency has not required tolerances for residues in
poultry.  In the rat metabolism study, parent compound was absorbed
rapidly but incompletely.  Excretion was relatively rapid at all doses
tested, and the majority of the radioactivity was eliminated in the
urine and feces within 72 hours.  Fecal elimination was the result of
unabsorbed parent compound.]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Various toxicity studies have shown that
the metabolite 3-CSA is of lower toxicity than the parent compound, and
the Agency has concluded that it should not be included in the tolerance
expression.  However, in the residue analytical method for animal
products, halosulfuron-methyl and all of its metabolites are hydrolyzed
to 3-CSA, which is analyzed and the results expressed as parent
equivalents.  The tolerance expression for plant commodities consists of
only parent compound.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [No specific tests have been conducted with
halosulfuron-methyl to determine whether the chemical may have an effect
in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen, or other endocrine effects.  However, there were no
significant findings in relevant toxicology studies,;  e.g., teratology
and reproduction studies, which suggest that halosulfuron-methyl
produces effects characteristic of the estrogen disruption.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [Tolerances have previously been established for
residues in a variety of raw agricultural commodities (40 CFR 180.479).
Additionally, tolerances have been established for halosulfuron-methyl
and its metabolites in the meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs,
horses and sheep.   The Agency’s exposure and risk assessments for
these commodities were discussed in FR 70 (168) 51615 – 51623 (August
31, 2005).]>

<	i. Food. [No detectable residues were observed in soybeans treated
even at an exaggerated use rate.  Therefore, the proposed use of
halosulfuron-methyl on soybeans does not alter the Agency’s previous
conclusions regarding risk resulting from dietary exposure.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [The Agency has not conducted a comprehensive
dietary exposure analysis of halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water.  The
Agency, however, has estimated concentrations in surface water using the
First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone
Model / Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS).  Concentrations
in ground water were estimated using the Screening Concentration in
Ground Water Modeling System (SCI-GROW).  None of these models includes
consideration of the impact of processing (dilution and treatment) of
raw water.  The Agency conservatively estimated maximum residues of
0.105 ppm in surface water and 0.000065 ppm in ground water.  The use of
halosulfuron-methyl on soybeans proposed here does not alter the
Agency’s previous calculations.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure.  [Halosulfuron-methyl is registered for use
on residential turfgrass and landscaped areas.  The short-term aggregate
risk assessment estimates risks that are likely to result from exposures
up to 30 days.  The same toxicological effect upon which endpoints were
defined (decreased bodyweight gain) was observed across all routes of
exposure.   The Agency’s level of concern is a short-term aggregate
(food + water + residential) MOE of less than 300.  However, the Agency
has previously calculated aggregate MOEs of 3,100 or greater.  The
proposed use of halosulfuron-methyl on soybeans does not alter the
Agency’s previous calculations.

Similarly, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment evaluates
risks that are likely to result from exposures of 1 to 6 months.  Again
the same effect upon which endpoints were defined (decreased bodyweight
gain) was observed across all routes of exposure, and the Agency’s
level of concern for intermediate-term aggregate exposure is an MOE of
less than 300.  The Agency has previously calculated an
intermediate-term aggregate risk of 819 for the most highly exposed
subgroup.  Therefore, short-term and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure is not of concern.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding regarding
halosulfuron-methyl and any other substance.  Halosulfuron-methyl does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite that is produced by any other
substance.  Therefore, for the purposes of this tolerance action, EPA
has not assumed that halosulfuron-methyl has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [The Agency has evaluated acute aggregate risk
assessment only for females 13 – 50 years old.  The Agency has
calculated that exposure to this subpopulation occupies 1% of the aPAD.
There is no indication that halosulfuron-methyl could cause adverse
effects to the general population from a single dose.  EPA previously
concluded that chronic exposure occupies 3% of the cPAD for the general
U.S. population, 8% for infants <1 year old and 4% for children 1-5.
EPA previously concluded that intermediate-term aggregate exposure
results in MOEs greater than 480 for all population subgroups, whereas
the Agency’s Level of Concern is MOEs below 300.  Halosulfuron-methyl
is not carcinogenic.

]>

<	2. Infants and children. [The Agency has not set a special FQPA safety
factor for infants and children.  The Agency has concluded that an acute
risk assessment for infants and children is not required.  Short-term,
intermediate-term and chronic exposure assessments for infants and
children indicate that risk is below the Agency’s level of concern.
Therefore, based on these risk assessments, the Agency has concluded
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
general population and to infants and children from aggregate exposure
to halosulfuron-methyl residues.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	Mexico and Japan each has a Maximum Residue Level (MRL) of 0.05 ppm
for halosulfuron-methyl on dry beans.]  Japan has also set provisional
MRLs for halosulfuron-methyl of 0.02 ppm on apples, blueberries, peas
and potatoes.  There  are no Canadian, Codex or EU MRLs for these
commodities.  >

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7436-7437]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01816]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No. 3235-0626]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17g-3

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-3 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).\1\ The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-3 contains certain reporting requirements for NRSROs
including financial statements and information concerning its financial
condition that the Commission, by rule, may prescribe as necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Currently, there are 9 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with
the Commission. The Commission estimates that the total burden for
respondents to comply with Rule 17g-3 is 3,285 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the

Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden
of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Dave Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 22, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01816 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4652-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

New Mexico; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of New Mexico (FEMA-4652-DR), dated May 4, 2022, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 9, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 9, 2022, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements
regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Mexico resulting from wildfires and straight-line winds
beginning on April 5, 2022, and continuing, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are
warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of May 4, 2022, to authorize
Federal funds for debris removal and emergency protective measures,
including direct Federal assistance, at 100 percent of the total
eligible costs for the first 90 days of the incident period.
    This adjustment to state and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for
such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section
408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These
funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible
costs.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-15876 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/05/2008 10:02:45 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23323]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0064; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-95]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bridgton, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 9440) that establishes Class E
Airspace at Bridgton, ME to support a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Bridgton
Hospital.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 0636,
Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9440),
Docket No. FAA-2008-0064; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-95. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 7, 2008.
Kathy Swann,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-9038 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64554-64556]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA-8047]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    Previously, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Alabama: Grove Hill, Town of,          010039  June 3, 1976,      Oct. 16, 2008.........  Oct. 16, 2008.
 Clarke County.                                 Emerg; September
                                                4, 1985, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
Mississippi:
     George County,                    280223  May 2, 1975,       ......*do.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; August
                                                16, 1988, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Lucedale, City of, George          280056  April 24, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 15,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Tunica County,                     280236  September 5,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1974, Emerg;
                                                July 3, 1990,
                                                Reg; October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Tunica, Town of, Tunica            280196  January 28, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; January
                                                5, 1978, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
Kentucky:
    Lee County, Unincorporated         210135  July 9, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Areas.                                     Emerg; September
                                                27, 1985, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Beattyville, City of, Lee          210136  September 17,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1973, Emerg;
                                                July 3, 1978,
                                                Reg; October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
Tennessee:
    Dyer County, Unincorporated        470284  February 18,       ......do..............   Do.
     Areas.                                     1975, Emerg;
                                                March 1, 1982,
                                                Reg; October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Dyersburg, City of, Dyer           470047  May 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 1,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Trimble, Town of, Dyer             470223  May 30, 1986,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 4,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Lavergne, City of,                 470167  September 8,       ......do..............   Do.
     Rutherford County.                         1975, Emerg;
                                                June 15, 1984,
                                                Reg; October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Rutherford County,                 470165  January 30, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; June 15,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Smyrna, Town of, Rutherford        470169  November 7, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; March 16,
                                                1983, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
North Carolina:
    Bald Head Island, Village          370442  February 26,       ......do..............   Do.
     of, Brunswick County.                      1986, Emerg; May
                                                15, 1986, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Chowan County,                     370301  August 25, 1977,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; July 3,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Edenton, Town of, Chowan           370062  November 14,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1973, Emerg;
                                                September 15,
                                                1977, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Indian Trail, Town of,             370235  June 14, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Union County.                              Emerg; March 21,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Lake Park, Village of,             370520  August 17, 1999,   ......do..............   Do.
     Union County.                              Emerg; August
                                                17, 1999, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Martin County,                     370155  December 18,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1975, Emerg;
                                                July 16, 1991,
                                                Reg; October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Marvin, Village of, Union          370514  December 28,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1998, Emerg;
                                                December 28,
                                                1998, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Mineral Springs, Town of,          370529  May 17, 2000,      ......do..............   Do.
     Union County.                              Emerg; May 17,
                                                2000, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Monroe, City of, Union             370236  April 21, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; January
                                                19, 1983, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Stallings, Town of, Union          370472  April 5, 1994,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 5,
                                                1994, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Union County,                      370234  August 9, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; July 18,
                                                1983, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Waxhaw, Town of, Union             370473  December 28,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1998, Emerg;
                                                December 28,
                                                1998, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Weddington, Town of, Union         370518  May 3, 1999,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 3,
                                                1999, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Wesley Chapel, Village of,         370525  March 12, 2000,    ......do..............   Do.
     Union County.                              Emerg; March 12,
                                                2000, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Williamston, Town of,              370157  October 2, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     Martin County.                             Emerg; August
                                                19, 1987, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Wingate, Town of, Union            370365  February 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1982, Emerg;
                                                February 12,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                October 16,
                                                2008, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg--Emergency; Reg--Regular; Susp--Suspension.

    Dated: October 17, 2008.
Edward L. Connor,
Acting Federal Insurance Administrator, National Flood Insurance
Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-25879 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71413]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28253]

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

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:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-182-000.
    Applicants: Gulf States Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Housekeeping on
11-18-14 to be effective 12/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141118-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-183-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 11/18/14
Negotiatied Rates--NJR Energy Services Company (RTS) 2890-14 to be
effective 11/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20141118-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/14.

    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 Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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: November 19, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28253 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

The Honorable Luke Duncan, Chairman
Tribal Business Committee
Ute Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 190
Fort Duchesne, Utah  84026-0190

Re:	Response to Request for Hearing and Objections to Renewed Title V Permit for the Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Bonanza Power Plant

Dear Chairman Duncan:

I am writing to respond to your October 14, 2020 letter, which requested a public hearing regarding the Bonanza Power Plant proposed Title V operating permit renewal and raised objections to the renewal. With respect to your request for a hearing, we tentatively propose to hold a virtual hearing in February 2021, at a time that is acceptable for the Tribal Business Committee, Ute Indian Tribal members and the general public. In preparation for the hearing, the EPA plans to issue a proposed permit renewal and start a public comment period on the proposed permit in January 2021.

Regarding your concerns about Bonanza's past Clean Air Act (CAA) violations, the EPA is the air permitting authority and our review indicates that Bonanza is currently in compliance with the federally enforceable requirements of their applicable air permit conditions and the CAA. The CAA Title V permit renewal process does not provide the EPA authority to add permit conditions for a facility without additional applicability of federally enforceable requirements or as determined on a case-by-case basis if the facility commences physical or operational changes that might affect their potential air emissions. To our knowledge, Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative made no changes to the Bonanza Power Plant to trigger further regulatory or alternative air permitting requirements; therefore, we believe that no substantive changes to the proposed renewal permit, as compared to the prior Title V permit, are required. We believe that the proposed Title V permit renewal will continue to address CAA requirements, including but not limited to, federal requirements for acid rain prevention, electric generating units, coal-fired boilers, engines, and the existing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) permits with their associated limits on air emissions and operations at Bonanza. We welcome your comments on these issues at the hearing and during the public comment period and will consider them in our final action.

We note that the February 11, 2016 NSR permit, which will be incorporated into the proposed Title V permit renewal in its entirety, contains a provision for the power plant to either convert to natural gas, add expensive emissions controls, or cease operations by approximately the year 2030. As you noted, the EPA entered into a settlement agreement with Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians which limited air emissions at Bonanza including establishing a coal consumption cap as specified in the NSR permit. The settlement agreement did not, however, grant the EPA broad authority to address other potential media concerns or mitigation measures such as a trust fund, though we understand that you continue to advocate for more action along these lines. We have referred the issues you raised regarding solid waste and water quality impacts to other appropriate media programs within Region 8.

Regarding your concerns that the Ute Indian Tribe bears a disproportionate share of the Bonanza Plant's adverse environmental impacts, environmental justice is one of the EPA's highest priorities. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy of environmental justice and directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA defines environmental justice as providing fair treatment and meaningful participation in environmental decision making. We believe that our ongoing consultation and the public hearing and comment process for proposed Title V permit renewal will provide the Tribe opportunity for meaningful participation in environmental decision making.

Additionally, we note that to address the EPA's obligations under Executive Order 12898 for the NSR permit, the EPA reviewed the potential environmental justice concerns near Bonanza with EJSCREEN. EJSCREEN is EPA's environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides nationally consistent datasets to help meet Executive Order 12898 requirements for the EPA to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects. For the NSR permit, the EPA used EJSCREEN to conclude that Bonanza is located in a sparsely populated area of Uintah County and that there are no persons living within 5 miles of the facility. The EPA also determined that the NSR permit would result in emission reductions and would not contribute to national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) violations or have potentially adverse effects on ambient air quality. Thus, at the time of issuance, the EPA determined that the NSR permit would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Because we are not aware of any changes to the facility since the NSR permit was issued in 2016, we believe this analysis remains accurate. However, we welcome comments on this issue and will consider them in our final permitting decision.

We would like to continue this discussion in a virtual public hearing regarding the proposed Bonanza Title V permit as you requested. We will also work on coordination with other programs within    Region 8 to address your concerns about water quality and solid waste disposal at Bonanza.

Please provide your contact for public hearing arrangements to Gail Fallon at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>by January 15, 2021. Ms. Fallon is also available to respond to questions on this matter. We look forward to additional consultation with the Tribal Business Committee after the public hearing, before we take final action on the Part 71 permit.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Carl Daly
                                    Acting Director
                                    Air and Radiation Division

cc: 	Tony Small, Vice-Chairman, UBC
      Shaun Chapoose, Council Member
      Edred Secakuku, Council Member
      Ron Wopsock, Council Member
      Sal Wopsock, Council Member
      Kirby Arrive
      Mike Natchees, Director, Air Quality Program, Energy and Minerals Division
      Jeremy Patterson, Attorney, Patterson, Earnhart, Real Bird & Wilson, LLP


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49522-49525]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20242]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65033; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change 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

August 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 22, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 101 of the NYSE Amex Company
Guide (the ``Company Guide'') to adopt additional initial listing
requirements for companies applying to list after consummation of a
``reverse merger'' with a shell company. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Amex proposes to adopt more stringent listing requirements for
operating companies that become Exchange Act reporting companies by
combining with a shell company which is an Exchange Act reporting
company. The proposed listing requirements would apply to combinations
with a shell company which is an Exchange Act reporting company,
through a reverse merger, exchange offer or otherwise (a ``reverse
merger transaction'').
    In a reverse merger transaction, an existing public shell company
merges with a private operating company in a transaction in which the
shell company is the surviving legal entity.\4\ While the public shell
company survives the merger, the shareholders of the private operating
company typically hold a large majority of the shares of the public
company after the merger and the management and board of the private
company will assume those roles in the post-merger public company. The
assets and business operations of the post- merger surviving public
company are primarily, if not solely, those of the former private
operating company. The Exchange understands that private operating
companies generally enter into reverse merger transactions to enable
the company and its shareholders to sell shares in the public equity
markets. By becoming a public reporting company via a reverse merger, a
private operating company can access the public markets quickly and
avoid the generally more expensive and lengthy process of going public
by way of an initial public offering. While the public shell company is
required to report the reverse merger in a Form 8-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), generally
there are no registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933
(the ``Securities Act'') \5\ at that point in time, as there would be
for an IPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In some cases a private company effects an exchange offer or
other transaction pursuant to which it combines with a public shell
company.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 77a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant regulatory concerns, including accounting fraud
allegations, have arisen with respect to a number of reverse merger
companies in recent times. The Commission has taken direct action
against reverse merger companies. During 2011, the Commission has
suspended trading in the securities of a number of reverse merger
companies and has revoked the securities registration of a number of
reverse merger companies.\6\ The Commission also recently brought an
enforcement proceeding against an audit firm relating to its work for
reverse merger companies.\7\ In addition, the Commission issued a
bulletin on the risks of investing in reverse merger companies, noting
potential market and regulatory risks related to investing in reverse
merger companies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Mary L. Schapiro to Hon. Patrick T. McHenry,
dated April 27, 2011 (``Schapiro Letter''), at pages 3-4.
    \7\ See Schapiro Letter at page 4.
    \8\ See ``Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers'' 2011-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these concerns, NYSE Regulation staff has been
conducting heightened, risk-informed reviews of reverse merger
companies seeking to list on the NYSE or NYSE Amex to consider factors
other than the enumerated initial listing criteria in making listing
determinations. In this regard, Commentary .01 to Section 101 of the
Exchange's Company Guide, provides that the Exchange has ``broad
discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of
securities in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in
its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect
investors and the public interest.'' Thus, pursuant to Section 101 of
the Company Guide, ``[t]he Exchange may use such discretion to deny
initial inclusion, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the
initial or continued inclusion of particular securities, or suspend or
terminate the inclusion of particular securities based on any event,
condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or
continued inclusion of the securities on the Exchange inadvisable or
unwarranted in the opinion of the Exchange, even though the securities
meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing.''
    In light of the well-documented concerns related to some reverse
merger companies described above, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to codify in its rules specific requirements with respect
to the initial listing qualification of reverse merger companies. As
proposed, a reverse merger company would not be eligible for listing
unless the combined entity had, immediately preceding the filing of the
initial listing application:
    (1) Traded for at least one year in the U.S. over-the-counter
market, on another national securities exchange or on a regulated
foreign exchange following the consummation of the reverse merger and
(i) In the case of a domestic issuer, filed with the Commission a Form
8-K including all of the information required by Item 2.01(f) of Form
8-K, including all required audited financial statements, or (ii) in
the case of a foreign private issuer, filed the information described
in (i) above on Form 20-F;
    (2) Maintained on both an absolute and an average basis for a
sustained period a minimum closing stock price equal to the stock price
requirement, including all requirements based on stock price,
applicable to the initial listing standard under which the Reverse
Merger Company was qualifying to list; and
    (3) Timely filed 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 the filing described in (1) above.
    In addition, a reverse merger company would be required to maintain
through listing, on both an absolute and an average basis, a minimum
closing stock price equal to the stock price requirement, including all
requirements based on stock price, applicable to the

initial listing standard under which the reverse merger company was
qualifying to list.
    The Exchange believes that requiring a ``seasoning period'' prior
to listing for reverse merger companies 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.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will increase transparency to issuers and market participants with
respect to the factors considered by NYSE Regulation in assessing
reverse merger companies for listing, and generally should reduce the
risk of regulatory concerns with respect to these companies being
discovered after listing. However, the Exchange notes that, while it
believes the proposed requirements would be a meaningful additional
safeguard, it is not possible to guarantee that a reverse merger
company (or any other listed company) is not engaged in undetected
accounting fraud or subject to other concealed and undisclosed legal or
regulatory problems.
    For purposes of proposed Section 101(e) of the Company Guide, a
``Reverse Merger'' would mean any transaction whereby an operating
company became an Exchange Act reporting company by combining with a
shell company that was an Exchange Act reporting company, whether
through a reverse merger, exchange offer, or otherwise. However, a
Reverse Merger would not include the acquisition of an operating
company by a listed company that qualified for initial listing under
Section 119 of the Company Guide (i.e., the Exchange's special purpose
acquisition company (``SPAC'') listing standard). In determining
whether a company was a shell company, the Exchange would consider,
among other factors: Whether the company was considered a ``shell
company'' as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act; what
percentage of the company's assets were active versus passive; whether
the company generated revenues, and if so, whether the revenues were
passively or actively generated; whether the company's expenses were
reasonably related to the revenues being generated; how many employees
worked in the company's revenue-generating business operations; how
long the company had been without material business operations; and
whether the company had publicly announced a plan to begin operating
activities or generate revenues, including through a near-term
acquisition or transaction.
    In order to qualify for initial listing, a company that was formed
by a Reverse Merger (a ``Reverse Merger Company'') would be required to
comply with one of the initial listing standards for operating
companies set forth in Section 101(a)-(d) of the Company Guide and the
applicable distribution, stock price and market value requirements of
Section 102 of the Company Guide.\9\ Proposed Section 101(e) would
supplement and not replace any applicable requirements of Sections 101
and 102. However, in addition to the otherwise applicable requirements
of Sections 101 and 102, a Reverse Merger Company would be eligible to
submit an application for initial listing only if it meets the
additional criteria specified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 110(a) of the Company Guide sets forth alternative
distribution requirements for foreign companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would have the discretion to impose more stringent
requirements than those set forth above if the Exchange believed it was
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 were not subject to transfer restrictions, if the Reverse
Merger Company had not had a Securities Act registration statement or
other filing subjected to a comprehensive review by the Commission, or
if the Reverse Merger Company had disclosed that it had material
weaknesses in its internal controls which had been identified by
management and/or the Reverse Merger Company's independent auditor and
had not yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.
    A Reverse Merger Company would not be subject to the requirements
of proposed Section 101(e) if it was listing in connection with a firm
commitment underwritten public offering where the proceeds to the
Reverse Merger Company were at least $40,000,000 and the offering was
occurring subsequent to or concurrently with the reverse merger.\10\ In
that case, the Reverse Merger Company would only need to meet the
requirements of one of the initial listing standards in Sections
101(a)-(d). The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to exempt
Reverse merger Companies from the proposed rule where they are listing
in conjunction with a sizable offering, as those companies would be
subject to the same Commission review and due diligence by underwriters
as a company listing in conjunction with its IPO, so it would be
inequitable to subject them to more stringent requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The prospectus and registration statement covering the
offering would thus need to relate to the combined financial
statements and operations of the Reverse Merger Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \11\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that, as discussed above under the
heading ``Purpose'', its purpose is to apply more stringent initial
listing requirements to a category of companies that have raised
regulatory concerns, thereby furthering the goal of protection of
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
August 31, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20242 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P