[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64113-64114]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25669]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9742-7]

National Drinking Water Advisory Council: Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for Nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA invites nominations of qualified candidates to be
considered for a three-year appointment to the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (Council). The 15 member Council was established by
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to provide practical and independent
advice, consultation and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on
the activities, functions, policies, and regulations required by the
SDWA. This notice solicits nominations to fill four new vacancies
through December 15, 2015. To maintain the representation required by
statute, nominees will be selected to represent: State and local
agencies (two vacancies) and the general public (two vacancies).

DATES: Nominations should be submitted on or before November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to Roy Simon, Designated Federal Officer
(DFO), The National Drinking Water Advisory Council, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (Mail Code
4601-M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. You may
also email nominations with the subject line NDWACResume2012 to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Email your questions to Roy Simon or
call him at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or to Jacquelyn Springer, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call her at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National Drinking Water Advisory Council:
The Council was created by Congress on December 16, 1974, as part of
the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Public Law 93-523, 42 U.S.C. 300j-
5 and is operated in accordance with the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The Council consists of
15 members, including a Chairperson, appointed by EPA's Administrator.
Five members represent the general public; five members represent
appropriate State and local agencies concerned with water hygiene and
public water supply; and five members represent private organizations
or groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of water
hygiene and public water supply, of which two members shall represent
small, rural public water systems. The current list of members is
available on the EPA Web site at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/.
    The Council meets face-to-face at least once each year and likely a
second meeting by conference call/webinar, generally in the spring and
fall. Additionally, members may be asked to participate in ad hoc
workgroups to develop policy recommendations, advice letters and
reports to address specific program issues.
    Member Nominations: Any interested person and/or organization may
nominate qualified individuals for membership. The EPA values and
welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men of all
racial and ethnic groups.
    All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be
aware of the specific representation required by the SDWA for the
current vacancies: State and local agencies concerned with public water
supply (two vacancies), and the general public (two vacancies). Other
criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:
     Demonstrated experience with drinking water issues at the
national, State or local level;
     Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication
and consensus-building skills;
     Willingness to commit time to the Council and demonstrated
ability to work constructively on committees;
     Absence of financial conflicts of interest;

     Absence of appearance of a lack of impartiality; and
     Background and experiences that would help members
contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the Council, e.g.,
geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds,
professional affiliations, and other considerations.
    Nominations must include a resume, which provides the nominee's
background, experience and educational qualifications, as well as a
brief statement (one page or less) describing the nominee's interest in
serving on the Council and addressing the other criteria described
above. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position,
current business address, and email and telephone number. Interested
candidates may self-nominate.
    The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations. Nominees are
encouraged to provide any additional information that they feel would
be useful for consideration, such as: availability to participate as a
member of the Council; how the nominee's background, skills and
experience would contribute to the diversity of the Council; and any
concerns the nominee has regarding membership.
    Persons selected for membership will receive compensation for
travel and a nominal daily compensation (if appropriate) while
attending meetings. Additionally, selected candidates will be required
to fill out the ``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for EPA
Special Government Employees'' [EPA Form 3310-48]. This confidential
form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict
between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government
Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a
lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be
viewed and downloaded through the ``Ethics Requirements for Advisors''
link on the OGWDW NDWAC Web site, http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/fact.cfm.
    Other sources, in addition to this Federal Register notice, may
also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.
    To help the EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach
efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.

    Dated: October 11, 2012.
Pamela S. Barr,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2012-25669 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18278-18279]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08643]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0692, FRL-9992-87-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Generator Standards Applicable to
Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Entities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Generator Standards Applicable to
Laboratories Owned by Eligible Academic Entities (EPA ICR Number
2317.04, OMB Control Number 2050-0204) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2019. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on November 23, 2018
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0692, to (1) EPA, either online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Fitzgerald, (mail code 5304P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Subpart K within 40 CFR Part 262 provides a flexible and
protective set of regulations that address the specific nature of
hazardous waste generation and accumulation in laboratories owned by
colleges and universities, including teaching hospitals and non-profit
research institutes that are either owned by or formally affiliated
with a college or university. In addition, eligible academic entities
have the discretion to determine the most appropriate and effective
method of compliance with these requirements--by allowing them the
choice of either managing their hazardous wastes in accordance with the
alternative regulations as set forth in Subpart K, or remaining subject
to the existing generator regulations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business and other for-profit, as
well as State, Local, and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3004 of RCRA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 283.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 157,950 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $13,452,535 (per year), includes $255,365
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 122,137 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to an adjustment to the existing
estimates based on data gathered through industry consultations and
review of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
(RCRAInfo) national database, not due to program changes. For example,
following industry consultations, the estimated amount of

containers and labs per eligible academic entity increased
substantially relative to the previous ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-08643 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70928-70930]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 13 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted October 21, 2014. The exemptions
expire on October 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

II. Background

    On September 18, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments

from the public (79 FR 56099). That notice listed 13 applicants' case
histories. The 13 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 13 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 13
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including prosthetic eye, amblyopia, complete loss of vision,
branch retinal vein occlusion, retinal detachment, corneal transplant,
hyperopia, astigmatism, optic atrophy, macular scar, and retinal
damage. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Six of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The seven individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a range of six to 24 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 13 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 3 to 43
years. In the past three years, three of the drivers were involved in
crashes and one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the September 18, 2014
notice (79 FR 56099).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 13 applicants, three of the drivers were involved in crashes and
one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample

driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of
future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can
be projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 13 applicants listed in the notice of
September 18, 2014 (79 FR 56099).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 13 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Terry L. Allen (IL)
Wilfred J. Brinkman (OH)
Todd A. Carlson (MN)
Roderick L. Duvall (PA)
Ronald R. Gaines (FL)
Russel K. Gray (OH)
Billy R. Hampton (NC)
Raymond A. Holt (CA)
Christopher M. Keen (KS)
Julie A. Mabry (AZ)
William L. Moore (FL)
Benny R. Morris (WV)
Juan C. Puente (TX)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: November 17, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28070 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11745-11747]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0103]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorages; Lower Mississippi River, Above Head of Passes,
Convent, LA and Point Pleasant, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a new anchorage area on the
Lower Mississippi River, Above the Head of Passes (AHP), located at the
Belmont Light extending from Mile Marker (MM) 152.9 to 154 on the Left
Descending Bank (LDB) of the river. The anchorage will double the
available anchorage areas in this section of the river, which is
necessary to help accommodate increased vessel volume and improve
navigational safety for vessels transiting this river section. As
discussed below, the Coast Guard decided not to establish a second
anchorage at Bayou Goula, as had been proposed.

DATES: This rule is effective March 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0103. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. You
may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Brandon Sullivan, Sector New
Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On Thursday, November 8, 2012 the Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in the Federal Register (77 FR 66942).
There were 3 comments received. There were no public meetings requested
or held as a result of the NPRM; however the anchorage area was the
subject of a public Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory
Committee (LMRWSAC) meeting in December 2011, prior to the publication
of the NPRM. LMRWSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee operating in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the minutes of the December 2011
meeting are available in the docket.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is authorized under section 7 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1915 (33 U.S.C. 471) to establish anchorages in the
navigable waters of the United States through the regulations found in
33 CFR parts 109 and 110. At its December 2011 meeting, the LMRWSAC
recommended the establishment of the anchorage area in the Lower
Mississippi River (LMR), AHP. LMRWSAC is responsible for advising,
consulting with, and making recommendations to the Secretary of
Homeland Security on matters relating to the transit of vessels to and
from the ports of New Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, South
Louisiana, and Baton Rouge. Participants at the December 2011 meeting
noted that the anchorage is necessary to address navigation safety
concerns, in regards to the increased volume of vessels in the proposed
area.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    Three issues were raised by comments submitted to the docket. The
first comment received was from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service Office of Coast Survey.
The two concerns raised were the encroachment of the anchorage areas on
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) revetments and pipeline
crossings in the proposed areas.
    After collaboration with USACE and the Coast Guard, the NOAA
National Ocean Service Office of Coast Survey was able to update its
data on the exact locations of the revetments, which alleviated the
encroachment concern. This is noted in a second comment submitted by
the NOAA National Ocean Service Office of Coast Survey.
    Regarding the pipeline crossings noted in the NOAA comments,
specifically in the proposed Bayou Goula anchorage area, the Coast
Guard has determined the need for further investigation and will not be
going forward with that anchorage area as proposed. At this time, the
Coast Guard is establishing only the Belmont anchorage area, and not
the Bayou Goula anchorage area that had been proposed in the NPRM.
    Finally, the last concern was raised in the comment submitted by
the Department of Interior regarding the habitat of the Pallid
Sturgeon. The focus of the concern revolved around ``entrainment issues
associated with dredging operations in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya
Rivers and through diversion structures off the Mississippi River.''
The establishment of the Belmont anchorage area will not require
dredging and will not create a diversion. After consideration,
therefore, the Coast Guard did not modify the proposed Belmont
anchorage in response to this comment.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The impacts on routine
navigation are expected to be minimal because the anchorage area will
not unnecessarily restrict traffic as it is located outside of the
established navigation channel. Vessels will be able to maneuver in,
around, and through the anchorage. Operators who choose to maneuver
their vessels around the anchorage area would not be significantly
impacted because the total distance to transit around the anchorage
perimeter to the other side, does not exceed 1.1 miles.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect
the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners
or operators of vessels intending to transit through the Belmont
anchorage area.
    This anchorage will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
anchorage will double the anchorage area in this location thus allowing
greater vessel volume in order to meet the growing economic needs of
facilities along the river, and vessel traffic can pass safely around
the anchorage.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule does not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  110.195, add paragraph (a)(34) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.195  Mississippi River below Baton Rouge, LA, including South
and Southwest Passes.

    (a) * * *
    (34) Belmont Anchorage. An area 1.1 miles in length along the left
descending bank of the river extending from mile 152.9 (Belmont Light)
to mile 154.0 above Head of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 300
feet. The inner boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 400 feet from the water's edge into the river as measured
from the LWRP. The outer boundary of the anchorage is a line parallel
to the nearest bank 700 feet from the water's edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Roy A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-03827 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


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

Ref: 8ARD

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Approval of Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program Revisions; Negative Declaration of Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators; and Administrative Updates; South Dakota

DATE:	July 1, 2022

FROM:	Carson Coate, 	EPA, Region 8

TO: 		File

In accordance with the Clean Air Act, the EPA proposed full approval of revisions to South Dakota's Operating Permit Program; a Negative Declaration of Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators; and Administrative Updates. Concurrently, EPA also published a direct final rule approving the same revisions. These actions are supported by Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0732.

EPA's direct final rule stated that the approval would become effective on July 18, 2022, without further notice, unless EPA received relevant adverse written comments on the proposal on or before June 17, 2022.  EPA received the following comment on the proposed rule: "I dont like this shoude let people drill for gas here in america."  This comment is not relevant to the proposed rule, which does not involve drilling for gas in America. Therefore, EPA does not consider the comment a relevant adverse comment such that EPA must withdraw the direct final rule.


[Federal Register: August 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 42453-42455]
[DOCID:fr02au07-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56143; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NYSE Rules 342(c) (``Offices--Approval, Supervision and
Control'') and 343 (``Offices--Sole Tenancy, Hours, Display of
Membership Certificates'')

July 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE. On July
26, 2007, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE is filing with the Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
proposed amendments to NYSE Rules 342(c) (``Offices--Approval,
Supervision and Control'') to replace the prior consent requirement for
branch office approval with a notice requirement and 343 (``Offices--
Sole Tenancy, Hours, Display of Membership Certificates'') to eliminate
the requirement under Rule 343 that member organizations display an
Exchange-provided ``certificate of membership'' at all branch office
locations. The text of the proposal is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.nyse.com), at the principal office of the NYSE, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NYSE 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. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 342(c) and delete
paragraph (d) of Rule 343 as part of its continuing Self Regulatory
Organization (``SRO'') Rule Harmonization initiative.\5\ The proposed
amendment to Rule 342(c) will replace the prior consent requirement for
branch office approval with a notice requirement and make the provision
consistent with the definition of ``branch office'' set forth in Rule
342.10. The proposed amendment to Rule 343 will delete the Rule 343(d)
requirement that member organizations display an Exchange-provided
``certificate of membership'' at all branch offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-NYSE-2007-22 for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Rule 342(c) (``Offices--Approval, Supervision and Control'')
Background
    NYSE Rule 342.10 defines ``branch office'' as ``any location where
one or more associated persons of a member or member organization
regularly conduct the business of effecting any transactions in, or
inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any security,
or is held out as such * * *'' Rule 342(c) requires that member
organizations obtain the Exchange's prior consent or approval
(hereinafter referred to as the ``prior consent'' requirement) for each
office to be established, other than a main office.
    Currently, member organizations are required to submit requests for
approval of branch office locations via Form BR (Uniform Branch Office
Registration Form),\6\ filed with the Central Registration Depository
(``CRD''). All filings made with CRD, whether Exchange member
organizations or not, are subjected to numerous system completeness
checks.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Information Memo 05-75 (Approval of Form BR
(Uniform Branch Office Registration Form)).
    \7\ Completeness checks conducted on Form BR filings include,
for example, a review for proper registration, pursuant to National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') Rules, of
supervisory individuals. A Form BR would not be processed by CRD if
any completeness checks were not satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once filed with CRD, a branch office application is routed to the
NYSE via four daily feeds from the NASD, for review through the NYSE's
Branch Office System (``BOS'') application. BOS conducts a series of
data validation reviews in addition to the CRD completeness checks on
the filings received to determine whether to ``auto-approve'' the
application when a filing does not have any validation issues, or route
the filing to designated NYSE personnel for further review of the
application.

Current Rule 342(c) Standard

    Under the current prior consent requirement set forth by NYSE Rule
342(c), a vast majority of member organization branch offices are
approved. In the limited situations where such consent is not initially
given by the Exchange, a member organization may be required to amend
its request for branch office approval. Even in these situations,
however, such consent is nearly always granted by the Exchange,
rendering the prior consent requirement unnecessary.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ From November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006, NYSE
received 3,831 branch office applications, of which, slightly under
half, that is 1,913, were ``auto'' or ``managed'' approved
applications, requiring intervention only on a technical support
level in some instances. Of the remaining applications received,
1,918, the vast majority were manually reviewed and approved by NYSE
personnel. The 3,831 office applications received and reviewed
resulted in only 76 rejections, or roughly 2% of the total received.
These office applications were rejected for reasons such as
individuals designated as supervisors not being properly qualified
under NYSE requirements or incorrect designation of office type
(e.g., ``Small'' instead of ``Regular'' branch office).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current NASD Standard

    The NASD requires that any office other than the main office be
properly designated and registered, if required, with the NASD\9\
(hereinafter referred to as the ``notice'' requirement). The NASD rule
and a vast majority of the states'' laws and regulations do not require
prior consent to open a branch office. Since there is no corresponding
requirement for NASD members, the NYSE's prior consent requirement
results in disparate regulatory standards for dual NYSE/NASD member
organizations, and the utility of the NASD registration requirement is
limited, as dual members have to comply with the more stringent NYSE
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NASD Rule 3010(g)(2)(A) and NASD IM-1000-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to replace the Rule 342(c) prior consent
requirement for branch office approval with a notice requirement
consistent with the NASD notice requirement. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 342(c) to state that a ``member organization
shall provide, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, notice to the
Exchange of each branch office established by such member
organization.'' Under the proposed notice requirement, the Exchange
will continue to receive the same information it currently receives
under the prior consent requirement, which will still allow the
Exchange to monitor branch office applications. Thus the front-end
completeness checks in CRD, coupled with the continued receipt of
branch office profile information contained on Form BR, will afford the
Exchange the opportunity to thoroughly monitor branch office filings
submitted and take action where appropriate without unduly delaying the
initiation of business activities at such offices.
    The Exchange also proposes to conform Rule 342(c) with the
definition of ``branch office'' set forth in Rule 342.10. As noted
above, Rule 342(c) currently applies to ``each office * * * other than
a main office.'' The Exchange proposes to delete the phrase ``other
than a main office'' from Rule 342(c) because, based on the definition
of branch office in Rule 342.10, a branch office may include a main
office location, depending on the functions performed at that location.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete the term ``member''
from Rule 342(c) as part of an ongoing process to eliminate, where
appropriate, this designation from its rules. The proposed deletion of
the term reflects the fact that the Rule has been redefined in the
context of the NYSE/ARCA business model \10\ and no longer has
regulatory relevance in the context of Rule 342(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (order approving SR-NYSE-2005-77)
and SR-NYSE-2007-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Exchange proposes deleting the requirement under Rule
343(d) that member organizations display an Exchange-provided
``certificate of membership'' at all branch office locations. The
Exchange believes this practice has become outdated.
    The Exchange requests that the rule change be effective
immediately.

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \11\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of
the 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 national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Rule 342(c) will
provide greater harmonization between the Exchange and NASD rules by
eliminating the prior consent requirement for branch office approval
and replacing it with a notice requirement so that dual NYSE/NASD
member organizations must only comply with one standard.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act\12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that NYSE has satisfied the five-
day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that good cause exists to justify immediate
effectiveness because under the proposed amendments to Rule 342(c), the
Exchange will continue to receive the same information it currently
receives under the prior consent requirement and thus, will be able to
monitor branch office applications. Also, the front-end completeness
checks in CRD, coupled with the continued receipt of branch office
profile information contained on Form BR, will afford the Exchange the
opportunity to thoroughly monitor branch office filings submitted and
take action where appropriate without unduly delaying the initiation of
business activities at such offices.
    The Commission believes that for these reasons, and because the
proposed rule change more closely conforms NYSE and NASD regulatory
standards, waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on July 26, 2007, the date on which NYSE submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-59. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F. Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-59 and should be
submitted on or before August 23, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14914 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41464-41467]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17070]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30130; File No. 812-13957]

IndexIQ Advisors LLC and IndexIQ Active ETF Trust; Notice of
Application

July 9, 2012.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

Summary of the Application: Applicants, including an actively-managed
open-end exchange traded fund, request an order that would permit them
to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure
requirements.

Applicants: IndexIQ Advisors LLC (``Manager'') and IndexIQ Active ETF
Trust (``Trust'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 9, 2011, and
amended on March 6, 2012, March 27, 2012, and May 15, 2012.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 2, 2012, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o IndexIQ
Advisors LLC, 800 Westchester Avenue, Suite N-611, Rye Brook, New York
10573.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6868, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and will be
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Trust plans to offer series (``Funds'') that will operate as
actively-managed exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') in reliance on an
exemptive order,\1\ each with its own investment objective, policies
and restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Application for IndexIQ Advisors LLC, et al., filed with
the Commission on September 9, 2011, as amended (File No. 812-
13956).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. IndexIQ Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Manager will serve as the investment
adviser to each Fund. The Manager will have an investment advisory
agreement with each Fund (an ``Investment Advisory Agreement'')
approved by the board of trustees of the Trust (the ``Board''),\2\
including a majority of the trustees who are not ``interested
persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the ``Independent
Board Members''), and the shareholders of each Fund.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of future Funds.
    \3\ Applicants also request relief with respect to future Funds
and any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by IndexIQ
Advisors LLC or an entity person controlling, controlled by, or
under common control with IndexIQ Advisors LLC (any such entity,
included in the term ``Manager''); (b) uses the management structure
described in the application (``Multi-Manager Structure''); and (c)
complies with the terms and conditions contained in the application
(included in the term ``Funds''). The Trust is the only existing
investment company that currently intends to rely on the requested
order. If the name of any Fund contains the name of a Sub-Adviser
(as defined below), the name of the Manager, including the legal
name of the Manager and/or any ``doing business as'' or business
unit names used by the Manager, will precede the name of the Sub-
Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Under the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Manager will be
responsible for providing a program of continuous investment management
to each Fund in accordance with the investment objective, policies and
limitations of the Fund. The Investment Advisory Agreement permits the
Manager to enter into separate advisory agreements (``Sub-Advisory
Agreements'') with sub-advisers (``Sub-Advisers''). The specific
investment decisions for each Fund are made by the Manager based on
purchase and sale recommendations from one or more Sub-Advisers
selected by the Manager to focus on all or a portion of the assets of
the Fund or, at the discretion of the Manager, by the Sub-Advisers
themselves with respect to the portion of any Fund portfolio allocated
to them, subject to the general supervision by the Manager and the
Board. The Manager will select Sub-Advisers based on an evaluation of
the Sub-Adviser's performance, the Sub-Adviser's fees and services in
relation to other investment advisers performing similar services, the
nature of the advice provided by the Sub-Adviser and the Sub-Adviser's
reputation in the investment community. Sub-Advisers will be subject to
approval by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board
Members. The Manager will monitor and evaluate the performance of Sub-
Advisers and recommend to the Board their hiring, termination and
replacement. The Manager will compensate each Sub-Adviser out of the
advisory fees paid to the Manager by the Fund.
    4. Applicants request an order to permit the Manager, subject to
Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory
Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief
will not extend to any Sub-Adviser who is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund, the Trust or the
Manager, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or
more of the Funds (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure
provisions described below that may require the Funds to disclose fees
paid by the Manager to the Sub-Advisers. An exemption is requested to
permit a Fund to disclose (both as a dollar amount and as a percentage
of the Fund's net assets): (a) the aggregate fees paid to the Manager
and any Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and (b) the aggregate fees paid to
Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-Advisers (collectively,
``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). Any Fund that employs an Affiliated Sub-
Adviser will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the
Affiliated Sub-Adviser.
    6. Applicants state that the requested relief is unusual insofar as
the requested order seeks relief for an ETF. Applicants note, however,
that the requested relief is substantially identical to multimanager
relief already granted by the Commission for other ETFs. Applicants
believe that operations of the Funds under the requested order address
the concerns historically considered by the Commission when granting
identical relief to mutual funds. Applicants believe that similar to
shareholders of a mutual fund who may ``vote with their feet'' by
redeeming their individual shares at net asset value (``NAV'') if they
do not approve of a change in sub-adviser or sub-advisory agreement,
Fund shareholders will be able to sell shares in the secondary market
at negotiated prices that closely track the relevant Fund's NAV if they
do not approve of a change. Applicants state that the Funds will rely
on the same delivery mechanisms currently used by certain mutual funds
to ensure that shareholders who purchase shares in the secondary market
receive a prospectus and all of the information that would have been
provided with a proxy statement, except for the modifications discussed
below, under the Modified Notice and Access Procedures. Applicants note
that the requested relief is not broader in scope than the relief
previously granted to mutual funds.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by a vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve the matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.

    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require
that investment companies include in their financial statements
information about investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants seek the same relief previously granted to mutual
funds, and believe that the requested relief is equally appropriate for
ETFs. Applicants state that the requested relief meets the necessary
standards for the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders rely on the Manager to
select and monitor the Sub-Advisers best suited to achieve a Fund's
investment objectives. Applicants contend that, from the perspective of
the investor, the role of the Sub-Advisers is comparable to that of
individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment
advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of
each Sub-Advisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays
on the Funds, and may preclude the Manager from acting promptly in a
manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the
Investment Advisory Agreements and any Sub-Advisory Agreement with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act
and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    7. If a new Sub-Adviser is retained in reliance on the requested
order, the Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-
Adviser pursuant to the following procedures (``Modified Notice and
Access Procedures''): (a) Within 90 days after a new Sub-Advisor is
hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a
Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager
Information Statement;\4\ and (b) the Fund will make the Multi-manager
Information Statement available on the Web site identified in the
Multi-manager Notice no later than when the Multi-manager Notice (or
Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement) is first
sent to shareholders, and will maintain it on that Web site for at
least 90 days. In the circumstances described in the application, a
proxy solicitation to approve the appointment of new Sub-Advisers
provides no more meaningful information to shareholders than the
proposed Multi-manager Information Statement. Moreover, the applicable
Board would comply with the requirements of sections 15(a) and 15(c) of
the 1940 Act before entering into or amending Sub-Advisory Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Multi-manager Notice'' will be modeled on a Notice of
Internet Availability as defined in rule 14a-16 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and specifically will,
among other things: (a) Summarize the relevant information regarding
the new Sub-Adviser; (b) inform shareholders that the Multi-manager
Information Statement is available on a Web site; (c) provide the
Web site address; (d) state the time period during which the Multi-
manager Information Statement will remain available on that Web
site; (e) provide instructions for accessing and printing the Multi-
manager Information Statement; and (f) instruct the shareholder that
a paper or email copy of the Multi-manager Information Statement may
be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Funds.
    A ``Multi-manager Information Statement'' will meet the
requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule
14A under the Exchange Act for an information statement, except as
modified by the requested order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
Multi-manager Information Statements will be filed electronically
with the Commission via the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Applicants assert that many Sub-Advisers use a ``posted'' rate
schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that, while Sub-Advisers
are willing to negotiate fees lower than those posted in the schedule,
they are reluctant to do so when the fees are disclosed to other
prospective and existing customers. Applicants submit that the
requested relief will encourage potential Sub-Advisers to negotiate
lower subadvisory fees with the Manager.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in
the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before
offering the Fund's shares to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Fund relying on the requested order will
disclose the existence, substance and effect of the order. Each Fund
relying on the requested order will hold itself out to the public as
utilizing the Multi-Manager Structure. The prospectus will prominently
disclose that the Manager has ultimate responsibility (subject to
oversight by the Board) to oversee the Sub-Advisers and to recommend
their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-
Adviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Sub-Adviser pursuant
to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
    4. The Manager will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Board Members and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Board Members will be at the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Board Members.
    6. Whenever a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Board Members, will make a separate finding, reflected in
the applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests
of the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of
interest from which the Manager or the Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives
an inappropriate advantage.
    7. The Manager will provide general management services to each
Fund that is sub-advised, including overall supervisory responsibility
for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets and,
subject to review and approval by the Board, will: (a) Set each Fund's
overall investment strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Sub-
Advisers to provide purchase and sale recommendations to the Manager or
investment advice to all or a part of the Fund's assets; (c) when
appropriate, allocate and reallocate the Fund's assets among multiple
Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor and evaluate the Sub-Advisers' performance;
and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance
by the Sub-Advisers with the Fund's investment objective, policies and
restrictions.
    8. No director, trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or
director, manager or officer of the Manager, will own directly or
indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not
controlled by such person), any interest in a Sub-Adviser except for:
(a) ownership of interests in the Manager or

any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with the Manager; or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding
securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded
company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-Adviser.
    9. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    10. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, has been and will continue to be engaged to represent the
Independent Board Members. The selection of such counsel will be within
the discretion of the then-existing Independent Board Members.
    11. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.
    12. The Manager will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the Manager's profitability on a per
Fund basis. This information will reflect the impact on profitability
of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during the applicable
quarter.
    13. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Manager will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Manager.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17070 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32026-32027]
[FR Doc No: E9-15739]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60175; File No. SR-ISE-2009-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Linkage Fees

June 25, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 23, 2009, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to extend through July 31, 2010 the current
pilot program regarding transaction fees charged for trades executed
through the intermarket options linkage (``Linkage''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange.

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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend for one year
the pilot program establishing ISE fees for Principal Orders (``P
Orders'') and Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``P/A Orders'') sent
through Linkage and executed on the ISE. The fees currently are
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire on July 31, 2009.\3\
This filing would extend the pilot program for another year, through
July 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58143 (July 11,
2008), 73 FR 41388 (July 18, 2008) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Linkage Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISE fees affected by this filing are: The Linkage P Order fee
of $0.27 per contract; the Linkage P/A Order fee of $0.18 per contract
and a surcharge fee of between $0.02 and $0.16 per contract for trading
certain licensed products (collectively ``linkage fees'').\4\ These are
the same fees that all ISE Members pay for non-customer transactions
executed on the Exchange.\5\ The ISE does not charge for the execution
of Satisfaction Orders sent through Linkage and is not proposing to
charge for such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to other pilot programs, certain linkage fees may
not apply during the Linkage pilot program.
    \5\ The ISE charges these fees only to its Members, generally
firms who clear P Orders and P/A Orders for market makers on the
other linked exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge fees for P Orders
and P/A Orders executed through Linkage. Notably, while market makers
on competing exchanges always can match a better price on the ISE, they
never are obligated to send orders to the ISE through Linkage. However,
if such market makers do seek the ISE's liquidity, whether through
conventional orders or through the use of P Orders or P/A Orders, we
believe it is appropriate to charge our Members the same fees levied on
other non-customer orders. We appreciate that there has been limited
experience with Linkage and that the Commission is continuing to study
Linkage in general and the effect of fees on Linkage trading. Thus,
this filing would extend the status quo with Linkage fees for an
additional year. The Exchange is making no substantive changes to the
way the pilot is currently operating, other than to extend the date of
operation through July 31, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is
the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that

an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
As discussed above, the ISE believes that this proposed rule change
will equitably allocate fees by having all non-customer users of ISE
transaction services pay the same fees. If the ISE were not to charge
Linkage fees, the Exchange's fee would not be equitable, in that ISE
Members would be subsidizing the trading of their competitors, all of
whom access the same trading services.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. Moreover, failing to adopt the proposed rule change would
impose a burden on competition by requiring ISE Members to subsidize
the trading of their competitors.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days from the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the 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-ISE-2009-36 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-ISE-2009-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2009-36 and should be submitted on or before July 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15739 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P