[Federal Register: May 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29194-29200]
[DOCID:fr24my07-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55783; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Establish
Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds Based on Fixed
Income Indexes and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule
Change as Amended

May 17, 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 April 4, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities'' or the ``Corporation''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared
substantially by the Exchange. On May 17, 2007, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1.\3\ This order provides notice of the proposed rule
change as modified by Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposed rule
change as amended on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing
in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange, through NYSE Arca Equities, proposes to amend its
rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC, the equities trading facility of NYSE
Arca Equities. The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules
5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 to include generic listing and trading standards
for series of Investment Company Units (``Units'') and Portfolio
Depositary Receipts (``PDRs'') that are based on indexes or portfolios
consisting of fixed income securities (``Fixed Income Indexes'') or on
composite indexes consisting of equity and fixed income indexes or
indexes or portfolios consisting of both equity and fixed income
securities (collectively, ``Combination Indexes'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the NYSE Arca,
at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the Exchange's Web
site at 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, NYSE Arca 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 III 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3)
and 8.100 to include generic listing standards for series of Units and
PDRs (together referred to herein as ``exchange-traded funds'' or
``ETFs'') that are based on Fixed Income Indexes or on Combination
Indexes. These generic listing standards would be applicable to Fixed
Income Indexes and Combination Indexes that the Commission has yet to
review as well as those Fixed Income Indexes described in exchange rule
changes that have previously been approved by the Commission under
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for the trading of ETFs, options, or other
index-based securities. This proposal will enable the Exchange to list
and trade ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act \4\ if each of
the conditions in Commentaries .02 or .03 to Rule 5.2(j)(3) or 8.100,
as applicable, is satisfied. Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing
and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory
organization shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4,\5\ if the Commission has approved,
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act,\6\ the self-regulatory
organization's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the
product class that would include the new derivatives securities
product, and the self-regulatory organization has a surveillance
program for the product class.\7\ A similar proposal by the

American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'') has been approved by the
Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \7\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the exchange must submit Form
19b-4(e) to the Commission within five business days after it begins
trading the new derivative securities product. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(e)(2)(ii).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55437 (March 9,
2007), 72 FR 12233 (March 15, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-118) (approving
generic listing standards for series of ETFs based on Fixed Income
and Combination Indexes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange-Traded Funds

    NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) provide standards
for initial and continued listing of Units, which are securities
representing interests in a registered investment company that could be
organized as a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment
company, or a similar entity. The investment company must hold
securities comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an
interest in, an index or portfolio of securities, or the investment
company must hold securities in another registered investment company
that holds securities in such a manner.\9\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.100 allows for the listing and trading on the Exchange of PDRs. PDRs
are securities based on a unit investment trust that holds the
securities that comprise an index or portfolio underlying a series of
PDRs. Pursuant to Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100, Units and PDRs must be
issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit
of specified securities and/or a cash amount. When aggregated in the
same specified minimum number, Units and PDRs may be redeemed by the
issuer for the securities and/or cash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the investment objective of providing investment returns
that correspond to the price, dividend, and yield performance of the
underlying index, an ETF may use a ``replication'' strategy or a
``representative sampling'' strategy with respect to the ETF portfolio.
An ETF using a replication strategy would invest in each security found
in the underlying index in about the same proportion as that security
is represented in the index itself. An ETF using a representative
sampling strategy would generally invest in a significant number, but
perhaps not all, of the component securities of the underlying index,
and would hold securities that, in the aggregate, are intended to
approximate the full index in terms of certain key characteristics. In
the context of a Fixed Income Index, such characteristics may include
liquidity, duration, maturity, and yield.
    In addition, an ETF portfolio may be adjusted in accordance with
changes in the composition of the underlying index or to maintain
compliance with requirements applicable to a regulated investment
company under the Internal Revenue Code (``IRC'').\10\

Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For an ETF to qualify for tax treatment as a regulated
investment company, it must meet several requirements under the IRC,
including requirements with respect to the nature and the value of
the ETF's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved
generic listing standards for ETFs based on indexes that consist of
stocks listed on U.S. and non-U.S exchanges.\11\ This proposal seeks to
adopt generic listing standards ETFs based on Fixed Income and
Combination Indexes that generally reflect existing generic listing
standards for equities, but are tailored for the fixed income markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3),
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100; Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001)
(SR-PCX-2001-14) (approving generic listing standards for Units and
PDRs); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April 12, 2007),
72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca 2006-86) (approving
foreign generic listing standards for Units and PDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously approved listing and trading of ETFs
based on certain fixed income indexes.\12\ The Commission has also
approved generic listing standards for other index-based derivatives
that permit the listing--pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)--of such securities
where the Commission had previously approved the trading of specified
index-based derivatives on the same index, on the condition that all of
the standards set forth in the original order are satisfied by the
exchange employing generic listing standards.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48662
(October 20, 2003), 68 FR 61535 (October 28, 2003) (SR-PCX-2003-41)
(approving the listing and trading pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP'') of fixed income funds and the UTP trading of
certain iShares fixed income funds).
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10,
2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63) (approving generic listing standards for
index-linked securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting additional generic listing
standards for ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes and Combination
Indexes and applying Rule 19b-4(e) should fulfill the intended
objective of that rule by allowing those ETFs that satisfy the proposed
generic listing standards to commence trading, without the need for
individualized Commission approval. The proposed rules have the
potential to reduce the time frame for bringing ETFs to market, thereby
reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants. The
failure of a particular ETF to comply with the proposed generic listing
standards would not, however, preclude the Exchange from submitting a
separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) requesting Commission
approval to list and trade that ETF.
    The Exchange represents that any securities listed pursuant to this
proposal will be deemed equity securities, and subject to existing NYSE
Arca rules governing the trading of equity securities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See an e-mail from Tim J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group,
Inc., to Natasha Cowen, Special Counsel, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission, dated May 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements for Listing and Trading ETFs Based on Fixed Income Indexes

    Exchange-traded funds listed pursuant to these generic standards
would be traded in all other respects under the Exchange's existing
trading rules and procedures that apply to ETFs, and would be covered
under the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative
products.\15\ The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures
are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Units and PDRs
listed and/or traded pursuant to the proposed new listing and trading
standards. The Exchange stated that it may obtain information via the
Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') from exchanges that are
members or affiliates of the ISG. In addition, the Exchange also has a
general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public
information by its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3), 5.5(g)(2), and
8.100. The Exchange notes that its current trading surveillance
focuses on detecting securities trading outside their normal
patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis
follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review
the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading
violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards
for Fixed Income Indexes, the index underlying the ETF would have to
satisfy all the conditions contained in proposed Commentary .02 to Rule
5.2(j)(3) (for Units) or Rule 8.100 (for PDRs). However, for Units
traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the provisions of
paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of Commentary .02 to Rule
5.2(j)(3)--regarding disseminated information, minimum price variation,
hours of trading, written surveillance procedures, and disclosures--
would apply. For PDRs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the
provisions set

forth in Rule 8.100(c) and paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) and of
Commentary .02 to Rule 8.100--regarding disclosures, disseminated
information, minimum price variation, hours of trading, and written
surveillance procedures--would apply.
    As with existing generic listing standards for ETFs based on
domestic and international or global indexes, the proposed generic
listing standards are intended to ensure that fixed income securities
with substantial market distribution and liquidity account for a
substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio. While the
standards in this proposal are loosely based on the standards contained
in Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') rules
regarding the application of the definition of narrow-based security
index to debt security indexes \16\ as well as existing fixed income
ETFs, they have been adapted as appropriate to apply generally to Fixed
Income Indexes for ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54106 (July 6,
2006), 71 FR 39534 (July 13, 2006) (File No. S7-07-06) (the ``Joint
Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed Income Securities

    As proposed, Commentary .02 to each Rule 5.2(j)(3) or Rule 8.100
define the term ``Fixed Income Securities'' to include notes, bonds
(including convertible bonds), debentures, or evidence of indebtedness
that include, but are not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury
securities (``Treasury Securities''), government-sponsored-entity
securities (``GSE Securities''), municipal securities, trust-preferred
securities,\17\ supranational debt,\18\ and debt of a foreign country
or subdivision thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Trust-preferred securities are undated cumulative
securities issued from a special purpose trust in which a bank or
bank holding company owns all of the common securities. The trust's
sole asset is a subordinated note issued by the bank or bank holding
company. Trust-preferred securities are treated as debt for tax
purposes so that the distributions or dividends paid are a tax-
deductible interest expense.
    \18\ Supranational debt represents the debt of international
organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, regional multilateral development banks, and multilateral
financial institutions. Examples of regional multilateral
development banks include the African Development Bank, Asian
Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
and the Inter-American Development Bank. In addition, examples of
multilateral financial institutions include the European Investment
Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the proposed definition, a convertible bond is
deemed to be a Fixed Income Security until the time that it is
converted into its underlying common or preferred stock.\19\ Once
converted, the equity security may no longer continue as a component of
a Fixed Income Index under the proposed rules, and accordingly, would
be removed from such index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 19 The Exchange notes that, under the Section 3(a)(11) of
the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11), a convertible security is defined as
an equity security. However, for the purpose of the proposed generic
listing criteria, NYSE Arca believes that defining a convertible
security (prior to its conversion) as a Fixed Income Security is
consistent with the objectives and intention of the generic listing
standards for fixed-income-based ETFs as well as the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, to list a Unit or PDR based on a Fixed
Income Index pursuant to the generic standards, the index must meet the
following criteria:
     The index or portfolio must consist of Fixed Income
Securities;
     Components that in aggregate account for at least 75% of
the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum original
principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more;
     No component Fixed Income Security (excluding Treasury
Securities or GSE Securities) represents more than 30% of the weight of
the index, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed income
securities in the index do not in the aggregate account for more than
65% of the weight of the index;
     An underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting
entirely of exempted securities) must include a minimum of 13 non-
affiliated issuers; and
     Component securities that in aggregate account for at
least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio must be either:
     From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to
Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78m and 78o(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From issuers that have a worldwide market value of its
outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or
more;
     From issuers that have outstanding securities that are
notes, bonds, debentures, or evidences of indebtedness having a total
remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion;
     Exempted securities, as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the
Act; \21\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From issuers that are governments of foreign countries or
political subdivisions of foreign countries.
    The Exchange believes that these proposed component criteria
standards are reasonable for Fixed Income Indexes, and, when applied in
conjunction with the other listing requirements, would result in ETFs
that are sufficiently broad-based in scope.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed standards are similar to the
standards set forth by the Commission and the CFTC in the Joint Rules
as well as existing fixed-income-based ETFs. For example, in the
proposed standards, the most heavily weighted component security cannot
exceed 30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, which is consistent
with the standard for U.S. equity ETFs set forth in Commentary
.01(a)(A) to each of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100. In
addition, this standard is identical to the standard set forth by the
Commission and the CFTC in the Joint Rules.\22\ In addition, in the
proposed standards, the five most heavily weighted component securities
could not exceed 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio,
consistent with the standard for U.S. equity ETFs set forth in
Commentary .01(a)(A) to each of Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 as well as
the Joint Rules. Also, the minimum number of fixed income securities
(except for portfolios consisting entirely of exempted securities, such
as Treasury Securities or GSE Securities) from unaffiliated \23\
issuers in the proposed standards is consistent with the standard for
U.S. equity ETFs set forth in Commentary .01(a)(A) to each of Rule
5.2(j)(3) and Rule 8.100 and the Joint Rules. This requirement together
with the diversification standards set forth above would provide
assurance that the fixed income securities comprising an index on which
an overlying ETF may be listed pursuant to this proposal would not be
overly dependent on the price behavior of a single component or small
group of components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 16 supra.
    \23\ Rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR 230.405,
defines an affiliate as a person that directly, or indirectly
through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or
is under common control with, such person. Control, for this
purpose, is the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to
direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a
person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by
contract, or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed standards would require that at least 90% of
the weight of the index or portfolio must be either (i) From issuers
that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of
the Act; \24\ (ii) from issuers that each have a worldwide market value
of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million
or more; (iii) from issuers that have outstanding securities that are
notes, bonds, debentures, or evidences of indebtedness having a total
remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion;

(iv) exempted securities, as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act;
\25\ or (v) from issuers that are governments of foreign countries or
political subdivisions of foreign countries. This proposed standard is
consistent with a similar standard in the Joint Rules and is designed
to ensure that the component fixed income securities have sufficient
publicly available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78m and 78o(d).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed generic listing requirements for fixed income ETFs
would not require that component securities in an underlying index have
an investment-grade rating.\26\ In addition, the proposed requirements
would not require a minimum trading volume, due to the lower trading
volume that generally occurs in the fixed income markets as compared to
the equity markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Cf. Joint Rules, 71 FR at 30538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed standards would also provide that the Exchange could
not approve a series of fixed income ETFs under the proposed generic
listing requirements if such series seeks to provide investment results
that either exceed the performance of a specified index by a specified
multiple (``Multiple ETF'') or that correspond to the inverse
(opposite) of the performance of a specified index by a specified
multiple (``Inverse ETF''), pursuant to Rule 5.2(j)(3).

Requirements for Listing and Trading ETFs Based on Combination Indexes

    The Exchange also seeks to list and trade ETFs based on Combination
Indexes. An ETF listed pursuant to the generic standards for
Combination Indexes would be traded, in all other respects, under the
Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to ETFs,
and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance program for
derivative products.
    To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards
for Combination Indexes, an index underlying a Unit or PDR must satisfy
all the conditions contained in proposed Commentary .03 to each of Rule
5.2(j)(3) (for Units) and Rule 8.100 (for PDRs). However, for Units
traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the provisions of
paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of Commentary .01 to Rule
5.2(j)(3)--regarding disseminated information, minimum price variation,
hours of trading, written surveillance procedures and disclosures--
would apply. For PDRs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the
provisions set forth in Rule 8.100(c) and paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and
(g) and of Commentary .01 to Rule 8.100--regarding disclosures,
disseminated information, minimum price variation, hours of trading,
and written surveillance procedures--would apply.
    These generic listing standards are intended to ensure that
securities with substantial market distribution and liquidity account
for a substantial portion of the weight of both the equity and fixed
income portions of an index or portfolio.
    Proposed Commentary .03 to each of Rule 5.2(j)(3) (for Units) and
Rule 8.100 (for PDRs) would provide that the Exchange may approve
series of Units and PDRs--based on a combination of indexes or a series
of component securities representing the U.S. or domestic equity
market, the international equity market, and the fixed income market--
for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. The
standards that an ETF would have to comply with are as follows: (i)
Such portfolio or combination of indexes has been described in an
exchange rule for the trading of options, Units, PDRs, Index-Linked
Exchangeable Notes, or Index-Linked Securities that has been approved
by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, and all of the
standards set forth in the original order are satisfied; or (ii) the
equity portion and fixed income portion of the component securities
separately meet the criteria set forth in Commentary .01(a) (equities)
and proposed Commentary .02(a) (fixed income) for Units and PDRs. In
all cases, Multiple or Inverse ETFs listed pursuant to Rule 5.2(j)(3)
may not be the subject of these proposed generic listing standards.
    Index Methodology and Dissemination. The Exchange proposes to adopt
Commentary .02(b) to each of Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Rule 8.100 to establish
requirements for index methodology and dissemination in connection with
Fixed Income and Combination Indexes.
    If a broker-dealer or fund advisor is responsible for maintaining
(or has a role in maintaining) the underlying index, such broker-dealer
or fund advisor would be required to erect and maintain a ``firewall,''
in a form satisfactory to the Exchange, to prevent the flow of non-
public information regarding the underlying index from the personnel
involved in the development and maintenance of such index to others
such as sales and trading personnel.
    With respect to dissemination of the index value, the Exchange
proposes to adopt Commentary .02(b)(ii) to each of Rule 5.2(j)(3) and
Rule 8.100 to require that the index value for an ETF listed pursuant
to the proposed standards for fixed income ETFs be widely disseminated
by one or more major market data vendors at least once a day during the
time when the ETF shares trade on the Exchange. If the index value does
not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring
on the Exchange, the last official calculated index value must remain
available throughout Exchange trading hours. This reflects the nature
of the fixed income markets as well as the frequency of intra-day
trading information with respect to Fixed Income Indexes. If an ETF is
based on a Combination Index, the index would have to be widely
disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15
seconds during the time when the ETF shares trade on the Exchange to
reflect updates for the prices of the equity securities included in the
Combination Index. The non-U.S. component stock portion of the
combination index will be updated at least every 60 seconds, and the
fixed income portion of the Combination Index will be updated at least
daily. If the index value does not change during some or all of the
period when trading is occurring on the Exchange, the last official
calculated index value must remain available throughout Exchange
trading hours.
    The Corporation may designate each series of Units or PDRs for
trading during the Opening Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.34) and/or Late Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.34); provided, however that the Corporation will not
designate a series of Units or PDRs for trading in the Opening Session
or Late Trading Session unless the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(2)
and (c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) or Commentary .01(b)(3)
and (c) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 are satisfied for Units or
PDRs, respectively. If there is no overlap with the trading hours of
the primary market(s) trading the underlying components of a series of
Units, the Corporation may designate such series for trading in the
Opening Session as long as the last official calculated Intraday
Indicative Value remains available.
    Application of General Rules. Commentaries .02(c)-(h) and .03(b) to
Rule 5.2(j)(3) and Commentaries .02(c)-(g) and .3(b) to Rule 8.100
would be added to identify those requirements for ETFs that would apply
to all series of Units and PDRs based on Fixed Income or Combination
Indexes. This would include the dissemination of the Intraday
Indicative Value, an estimate of the value of a share of each ETF,
updated at least every 15 seconds. In

addition, proposed Commentaries .02(c)-(h) and .03(b) to Rule 5.2(j)(3)
and Commentaries .02(c)-(g) and .3(b) to Rule 8.100 set forth the
requirements for Units or PDRs relating to initial shares outstanding,
minimum price variation, and written surveillance procedures.
    The Exchange states that the Commission has approved generic
standards providing for the listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of other
derivative products based on indexes described in rule changes
previously approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act. The Exchange proposes to include in the generic standards for the
listing of Units and PDRs based on Fixed Income and Combination
Indexes, in new Commentary .02 and .03 to each of Rule 5.2(j)(3) and
Rule 8.100, indexes described in exchange rules approved by the
Commission in connection with the listing of options, Investment
Company Units, Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Index-Linked Exchangeable
Notes, or Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange believes that the
application of that standard to ETFs is appropriate because the
underlying index would have been subject to Commission review in the
context of the approval of listing of other derivatives.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra notes 12 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that existing Rules 5.5(g)(2) and 8.100 provide
continued listing standards for all Units and PDRs. For example, where
the value of the underlying index or portfolio of securities on which
the ETF is based is no longer calculated or available, the Exchange
would commence delisting proceedings. The Exchange notes that Rules
5.2(j)(3)(A)(v) and 8.100(e)(1)(ii) provide that, before approving an
ETF for listing, the Exchange will obtain a representation from the ETF
issuer that the net asset value (``NAV'') per share will be calculated
daily and made available to all market participants at the same time.
    The trading halt requirements for existing ETFs will similarly
apply to fixed income and combination index ETFs. In particular, Rules
5.5(g)(2)(b) and 8.100(e)(2)(ii) provide that, if the Intraday
Indicative Value or the index value applicable to that series of ETFs
is not being disseminated as required when the Exchange is the listing
market, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the
interruption to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value or
the index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the
Intraday Indicative Value or the index value persists past the trading
day in which it occurred, the Exchange would halt trading no later than
the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ If an ETF is traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, the
Exchange will halt trading if the primary listing market halts
trading in such ETF because the Intraday Indicative Value and/or the
index value is not being disseminated. See NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \29\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \30\ in particular, in that it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would impose no
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 comments on this
proposal.

III. 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-NYSEArca-2007-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-36. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE Arca. 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-NYSEArca-2007-36 and should be submitted on or before
June 14, 2007.

IV. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\31\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \32\ in that it
is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange would have to file a proposed rule change
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \33\ and
Rule 19b-4

thereunder \34\ to list or trade any ETF based on a Fixed Income Index
or on a Combination Index. The Exchange also would have to file a
proposed rule change to list or trade an ETF based on a Fixed Income or
Combination Index described in an exchange rule previously approved by
the Commission as an underlying benchmark for a derivative security.
Rule 19b-4(e), however, provides that the listing and trading of a new
derivative securities product by an SRO will not be deemed a proposed
rule change pursuant to Rule 19b 4(c)(1) if the Commission has
approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading
rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that
would include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a
surveillance program for the product class. The Exchange's proposed
rules for the listing and trading of ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b 4(e)
based on (1) Certain indexes with components that include Fixed Income
Securities or (2) indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules
previously approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for
derivative securities fulfill these requirements. Use of Rule 19b 4(e)
by NYSE Arca to list and trade such ETFs should promote competition,
reduce burdens on issuers and other market participants, and make such
ETFs available to investors more quickly.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \35\ The Commission notes that failure of a particular ETF to
satisfy the Exchange's generic listing standards does not preclude
the Exchange from submitting a separate proposal under Rule 19b-4 to
list and trade such ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has approved generic listing standards
for another exchange, Amex, that are substantially similar to those
proposed here by NYSE Arca.\36\ This proposal does not appear to raise
any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds that NYSE
Arca's proposal is consistent with the Act on the same basis that it
approved Amex's generic listing standards for ETFs based on Fixed
Income or Combination Indexes or on indexes or portfolios described in
exchange rules that have previously been approved by the Commission and
underlie derivative securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Commentaries .02 and .03 to each of NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 8.100 establish the standards for the composition
of a Fixed Income Index or Combination Index underlying an ETF. The
Commission believes that these standards are reasonably designed to
ensure that a substantial portion of any underlying index or portfolio
consists of securities about which information is publicly available,
and that when applied in conjunction with the other applicable listing
requirements, will permit the listing and trading only of ETFs that are
sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize potential manipulation.
The Commission further believes that the proposed listing standards are
reasonably designed to preclude NYSE Arca from listing and trading ETFs
that might be used as a surrogate for trading in unregistered
securities.
    The proposed generic listing standards also will permit NYSE Arca
to list and trade an ETF if the Commission previously has approved an
exchange rule that contemplates listing and trading a derivative
security based on the same underlying index. NYSE Arca would be able to
rely on that earlier approval order, provided that NYSE Arca complies
with the commitments undertaken by the other SRO set forth in the prior
order, including any surveillance-sharing arrangements.
    The Commission believes that NYSE Arca's proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\37\ which sets forth
Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for
the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. The value of a Fixed Income Index underlying underlying an
ETF listed pursuant to this proposal is required to be widely
disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once a
day. Likewise, the value of an underlying Combination Index is required
to be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at
least once every 15 seconds during the time when the corresponding ETF
trades on the Exchange, provided that, with respect to the fixed income
components of the Combination Index, the impact on the index is
required to be updated only once each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed rules are
reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may
be necessary to price an ETF appropriately. If a broker-dealer or fund
advisor is responsible for maintaining (or has a role in maintaining)
the underlying index, such broker-dealer or fund advisor would be
required to erect and maintain a ``firewall,'' in a form satisfactory
to the Exchange, to prevent the flow of non-public information
regarding the underlying index from the personnel involved in the
development and maintenance of such index to others such as sales and
trading personnel. The Commission also notes that current NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3)(A)(v) and 8.100(e)(1)(ii) provide that, in
connection with approving an ETF issuer for listing on the Exchange,
the Exchange will obtain a representation from the ETF issuer that the
NAV per share will be calculated each business day and made available
to all market participants at the same time.
    The Commission also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules
are reasonably designed to prevent trading in an ETF when transparency
is impaired. NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.5(g)(2)(b) and 8.100(e)(2)(ii)
provide that, when the Exchange is the listing market, if the IIV or
index value applicable to an ETF is not disseminated as required, the
Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption
occurs. If the interruption continues, then the Exchange will halt
trading no later than the beginning of the next trading day. Also, the
Exchange may commence delisting proceedings in the event that the value
of the underlying index is no longer calculated or available.
    The Commission further believes that the trading rules and
procedures to which ETFs will be subject pursuant to this proposal are
consistent with the Act. NYSE Arca has represented that any securities
listed pursuant to this proposal will be deemed equity securities, and
subject to existing NYSE Arca rules governing the trading of equity
securities.
    The Exchange will implement written surveillance procedures for
ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes or Combination Indexes.\38\ In
approving this proposal, the Commission relied on NYSE's representation
that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the
trading of Units listed pursuant to this proposal. This approval is
conditioned on the continuing accuracy of that representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed Commentary .02 to Rule 5.2(j)(3) (for Units)
or Rule 8.100 (for PDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceleration

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication
of the notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission
notes that NYSE Arca's proposal is substantially similar to an Amex
proposal that has been approved

by the Commission.\39\ The Commission does not believe that NYSE Arca's
proposal raises any novel regulatory issues and, therefore, believes
that good cause exists for approving the filing before the conclusion
of a notice-and-comment period. Accelerated approval of the proposal
will expedite the listing and trading of additional ETFs by the
Exchange, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Therefore,
the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act,\40\ to approve the proposed rule change, as amended,
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 8.
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\41\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-36),
as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10034 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12209-12211]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74403; File No. SR-BATS-2015-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.22 To Update the Names of Certain Market Data Products

March 2, 2015.
    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 February 18, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products,
to update the names of certain products to align with recent changes
made to the names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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, the Exchange 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 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to update
the names of certain products to align with recent changes made to the
names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule. On February
3, 2015, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change with the Commission
that, among other things, amended the Exchange's fee schedule to rename
``BZX Exchange PITCH Feed'' as the ``BZX Depth'',

``BZX Exchange Top Feed'' as ``BZX Top'', ``BZX Exchange Historical
TOP'' as ``BZX Historical Top'', and ``Historical PITCH'' as
``Historical Depth.'' \5\ The Exchange now proposes to rename the
following data products under Rule 11.22 to align with these changes:
(i) ``TCP PITCH'' under subparagraph (a) would be renamed ``TCP
Depth''; (ii) ``Multicast PITCH'' under subparagraph (c) would be
renamed ``Multicast Depth''; and (iii) ``TOP'' under subparagraph (d)
would be renamed ``Top''. The Exchange does not propose to amend the
content or any other aspect of these market data products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74285 (February 18,
2015) (SR-BATS-2015-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in 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 does not
believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers because it will apply to all Users. The
proposed rule change does not propose to amend the content or any other
aspect of these market data products. Rather, it simply proposes to
align the naming convention of the Exchange's market data products
across its rules and fee schedule, making the Exchange's rules clearer
and less confusing for investors. Therefore, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by
providing consistency amongst the naming conventions used for the
Exchange market data products.

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: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so the Exchange may
clarify its rules by making them consistent throughout by reflecting a
change in naming conventions used for Exchange market data products.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to provide consistency within their
rules and avoid potential investor confusion. Therefore, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-BATS-2015-15 and should be submitted on
or before March 27, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05158 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

			WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

						OFFICE OF

						PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC

						 SUBSTANCES

04-Sptember-2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Desmedipham PC Code: 104801, Agency Test Method Review of
Proposed Tolerance Enforcement Method for Desmedipham on Spinach, Garden
Beet, Roots and Tops (PP#6E7027), Tolerance Reassessment Decision Number
364160.

DP Barcodes	343117,327443	MRID Numbers	46734101, 46734102

45942202, 45942201

47212301

From:		P. Yvonne Barnes

		Reregistration Branch II/Health Effects Division (7509P)

Through:		Alan P. Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch II/Health Effects Division (7509P)

To:	Richard F. Griffin, Risk Assessor

	Reregistration Branch II/Health Effects Division (7509P)

		and

	Daniel Rosenblatt

	Sidney C. Jackson

	Minor Use Emergency Response Branch/Registration Division (7505P)

This document serves as an addendum to HED’s 01-February-2007 human
health risk assessment (D327443). The ACB, BEAD has reviewed the
enforcement method submitted (PP#6E7027) in support of the request for
Tolerances for the phenyl-carbamate herbicide Desmedipham. The ACB
Project # B07-22 report is attached to this summary document.

BACKGROUND

Interregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4) has submitted a petition
supporting the use of desmedipham, EPA Reg. No. 264-620, on garden beets
and spinach.  A LC/MS/MS method (AL/01/02, MRID Number 459422-02,
24-March-2003) was submitted as a tolerance enforcement method by Bayer
CropScience for desmedipham on spinach and garden beet, roots and tops
(PP#6E7027) referencing the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
OPPTS guideline 860.1340 - Residue Analytical Method.  Accordingly, the
test method was forwarded to the Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB) for
review on 19-July-2007. The ACB has completed the review of the food
tolerance enforcement method.

An analytical reference standard for desmedipham has been submitted to
the EPA National Pesticide Standard Repository.

recommendation

(ACB Project # B07-22, Charles J. Stafford dated 27-August-2007).

The original submitted method (AL/01/02, MRID Number 459422-02,
24-March-2003) described only one LC/MS/MS ion transition and therefore
did not meet our current requirements as a confirmatory method.  Bayer
CropScience has submitted a method addendum-1 (AL/01/02, MRID 472123-01,
10-August-2007) which provides data describing a secondary ion
transition for confirmation. The method now satisfies our OPPTS 860.1340
guideline requirements as a confirmatory method.

COMMENTs

(ACB Project # B07-22, Charles J. Stafford dated 27-August-2007).

Analysis is by LC - MS/MS. The OPPTS 860.1340 guideline requires either
a confirmatory method or an interference study to eliminate the
possibility of false positives while using the primary enforcement
method. When mass spectrometry is used for detection in the primary
enforcement method a confirmatory method is waived as long as the
detector provides enough selectivity to eliminate false positives. While
MS/MS provides excellent selectivity, expert opinion has changed over
the past several years as mass spectrometrists have gained more
experience with the instrumentation. A single MS/MS ion transition used
to be considered sufficient for positive confirmation of analyte
residue.  However, instances of false positive interferences have led
towards consensus that two ion transitions are needed to provide
confirmation of residues.

For this reason   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 we now recommend that petitioners
provide information for two MS/MS ion transitions. When two transitions
are not available, we recommend providing an alternate chromatographic
column and/or mobile-phase combination to further reduce the possibility
of false positive residues.

Attachment 1: Memorandum dated 27-August-2007 from Charles J. Stafford
(ACB), to P. Yvonne Barnes (HED), “Review of Proposed Tolerance
Enforcement Method for desmedipham, ACB Project # B07-22” p. 3-5.

RDI: George J. Herndon (28-Aug-2007), Alan P. Nielsen (28-Aug-2007)

ATTACHMENT 1

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

Analytical Chemistry Branch

701 Maples Road

Ft. Meade, Maryland  20755-5350

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

August 27, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Review of Proposed Tolerance Enforcement Method for
desmedipham.

                        ACB Project # B07-22.

FROM:	Charles J. Stafford, Team Leader

		Analytical Chemistry Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Branch (7503P)

THRU:	Frederic L. Siegelman, Ph.D., Chief

		Analytical Chemistry Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Branch (7503P)

TO:		P. Yvonne Barnes, Chemist

		Registration Review Branch 2 (RRB 2)

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

INTRODUCTION

	The Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB) was requested to review the food
tolerance enforcement method submitted by Bayer CropScience to support
tolerances for the herbicide desmedipham.  The ACB method review was
requested in a teleconference 7/19/07 attended by G. Herndon (HED),
Yvonne Barnes (HED) and Susan Stanton (RD).  ACB has reviewed the
proposed enforcement method data without a laboratory validation.

ANALYTICAL METHOD(S) AND DOCUMENTATION

MRID# 45942202:  Title:  “Desmedipham:  Analytical Method for the
Determination of Desmedipham (AE B038107) in Sugar Beet Tops and Roots
Using LC/MS/MS (Amended)”.  Authors:  D.J. Netzband, A.B. Wilkins.
Completion Date:  March 24, 2003.  Sponsor:  Bayer CropScience, Research
Triangle Park, NC.  Report Number:  AL/01/02.

MRID# 45942201:  Study Title:  “Independent Laboratory Validation of
the Residue Method for Desmedipham (AE B038107) in Sugar Beet Tops Using
LC/MS/MS”.  Author:  Jeff Mollica.  Study Completion Date:  March 12,
2003.  Performing Laboratory:  Pyxant Labs Inc, Colorado Springs, CO.
Submitting Laboratory:  Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Report Number:  03RADPY001.  Laboratory Study ID:  Bayer-1447.

MRID# 47212301:  Report Title:  “Desmedipham:  Analytical Method for
the Determination of Desmedipham (AE B038107) in Sugar Beet Tops and
Roots Using LC/MS/MS-Addendum 1”.  Author D.J.  Netzband.  Completion
Date:  10 August, 2007.  Sponsor:  Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle
Park, NC.  Report Number:  AL/01/01-Addendum 1.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The ACB recommends that based on our review of
the proposed enforcement method, without ACB laboratory trial, Bayer
method AL/01/02 with addendum AL/01/02-Addendum 1 appears to meet the
OPPTS 860.1340 Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines for an acceptable
tolerance enforcement method.

2.  The ACB recommends that an Agency laboratory validation is not
necessary for the following reasons:

a. The method appears well-written and includes detailed instructions.

b. The method appears quick and efficient.

c. The recovery data show acceptable recoveries for all tested
commodities.

	d. The Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) data submitted for the
method are 		acceptable and indicate that method performance is
reproducible.

3.  The original submitted method (AL/01/02) described only one LC-MS/MS
ion transition and therefore did not meet our current requirements as a
confirmatory method.  Bayer CropScience has submitted a method addendum
(AL/01/02) which provides data describing a secondary ion transition for
confirmation.  The method now satisfies our requirements as a
confirmatory method.

COMMENTS

1.  Analysis is by LC-MS/MS.  The OPP guidelines require either a
confirmatory method or an interference study to eliminate the
possibility of false positives while using the primary enforcement
method.  When mass spectrometry is used for detection in the primary
enforcement method a confirmatory method is waived as long as the
detector provides enough selectivity to eliminate false positives.
While MS/MS provides excellent selectivity, expert opinion has changed
over the past several years as mass spectrometrists have gained more
experience with the instrumentation.  A single MS/MS ion transition used
to be considered sufficient for positive confirmation of analyte
residue.  However, instances of false positive interferences have led
towards consensus that two ion transitions are needed to provide
confirmation of residues.  References include:

Commission Decision 2002/657/EC, Official Journal of the European
Communities, August 12, 2002.

Guidance for Industry:  Mass Spectrometry for Confirmation of the
Identity of Animal Drug Residues, US FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine,
May 1, 2003.

Bethem, et al, Establishing the Fitness for Purpose of Mass
Spectrometric Methods, J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2003, 14, 523-541.

	For this reason   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 we now recommend that petitioners
provide information for two MS/MS ion transitions.  When two transitions
are not available, we recommend providing an alternate chromatographic
column and/or mobile-phase combination to further reduce the possibility
of false positive residues.

2.  An analytical reference standard for desmedipham has been submitted
to the EPA National Pesticide Standard Repository for distribution to
State and Federal regulatory labs.

Desmedipham (104801) DP Barcode: D343117		Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES
5


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51038]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20862]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0068; formerly Docket No. 2007D-0290]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Cell Selection Devices for Point of
Care Production of Minimally Manipulated Autologous Peripheral Blood
Stem Cells; Withdrawal of Draft Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of a draft guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry:
Cell Selection Devices for Point of Care Production of Minimally
Manipulated Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cells (PBSCs)'' dated July
2007.

DATES: August 17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration (HFM-17), 1401
Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of July 26, 2007 (72 FR 41080), FDA announced the availability
of a draft guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Cell
Selection Devices for Point of Care Production of Minimally Manipulated
Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cells (PBSCs).''
    FDA has carefully considered the comments received on the draft
guidance and, since that document issued in 2007, has gained additional
experience with point of care devices and the autologous cells selected
by them. Based on these comments and experience, FDA believes that the
draft guidance would not, if finalized in current form, reflect FDA's
current thinking. For these reasons, FDA is withdrawing the draft
guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Cell Selection Devices
for Point of Care Production of Minimally Manipulated Autologous
Peripheral Blood Stem Cells (PBSCs).''

    Dated: August 10, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-20862 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Ya'ateeh', my name is Daryl Junes Joe, I am Dine woman from the Navajo Nation in Shiprock, New Mexico, commonly referred to as the Four Corners.  I also am a member of the United Methodist Women organization on which I serve as one of the many Directors.  I serve as the Chair for the Governance Committee.
I am grateful and appreciative for allowing me to speak on this important matter.   I come before you in strong support of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed methane rules and I am urging to strengthen those rules which will maximize the benefits for public health and our environment, the environment which we, Indigenous Native people, refer to as Mother Earth.  She has suffered enough, we can revive her waters, her air and her lands by taking action now.  I speak of the harmful methane emissions stemming from the oil and gas facilities within our Native communities.  Toxic methane pollutions coming out of leaking and nonlit flaring wellsites.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes the Clean Air Act rule which is an important step in reducing methane and other damaging air pollutants from new and existing sources in the oil and gas industry with the proposed Clean Air Act rule.  However, the proposal does not go far enough to address pollution from unlit flares or require frequent enough inspections of covered sources.  These proposed rules must include a ban on routine flaring and potential loopholes that allow certain wells to forgo any regular inspections, also it should incorporate a third-party community monitoring.  These are critical gaps that must be addressed to ensure that public health is prioritized, frontline communities are protected, that our precious Mother Earth is protected and preserved - AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOLD THE OIL AND GAS COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE.    EPA, in its fiduciary responsibility to our nation, must act now and strengthen the proposal for stronger federal methane safeguards to cut methane.
I'm a great grandmother, speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak, my elders, children and other relatives including four-legged relatives, those in the waters and those flying above us.  I see many of our native communities have well sites installed near their residences, many of our Navajo elders do not understand the English language nor do they understand the complexities of the industry regulations.  What they do understand is that their failing health was caused by the heavy smog of health-harming pollutants from flaring and leaking methane spewing from the oil and gas operations equipment. It is said that we are in a sacrifice zone with the nation's largest methane hotspot hovering overhead, and we have had to live with the pollution from oil and gas development for many decades.  The carbon and gases including methane spewing from these developments are killing the flowers, the rains and the snows and possibly our future.
As Indigenous people, we are taught that everything has a spirit.  If you are not spiritually connected to Mother Earth and understand the spiritual reality of how to live on earth, it's likely you will not make it.  Everything is spiritual given to  us from our Creator.
 Our native culture and traditions are affected by the unhealthy pollutions which spread far from the facility sites.  These well sites are set near residences, schools and businesses, it has affected our elders suffering from asthma or cancer, our children play in their yards at home and schools inhaling the toxic chemicals causing them to miss school.  Unborn babies are affected as well.  Their futures are bleak and will continue unless EPA takes a strong stand to address it.  Our sacred mountains are affected as well.  The mountains provide plants which are used for healing ceremonies, plants used for nutritional foods that Natives make, they are tasty and have healing properties like vitamins.  Roots of some plants also are used for personal cleaning use, hair brushes are made from long stemmed reeds.  The mountains provide timber with which to build homes and fires in homes for warmth and cooking.  These pollutants are dangerous to our culture and traditional way of life.
I believe that strong and strict methane pollution standards for oil and gas production are among the most meaningful steps that can be taken to slow climate change. I am angered at energy developments for destabilizing the life of the earth and at politicians and bureaucrats who allow this.  But as a woman of faith, I believe that climate change is not a political issue but a moral and biblical responsibility because we are supposed to be caretakers of God's creation, we are failing in that responsibility.  As United Methodist Women, we have spoken out, supporting efforts to create awareness and stand in solidarity with all Native Tribes to protect our environment through our climate justice campaigns.
We may all have different backgrounds, histories and cultures, but we all drink from the same stream of consciousness, we're all connected in that stream, we're all related to each other, what we do to others we do to ourselves. Our elders, traditional healers, tell us that because we are no longer living in harmony, we're out of balance with nature and have a lack of love and understanding of one another.  Actions are critical now, not only for us but for our children and their children's future.
The Environmental Protection Agency must understand that the need for oil and gas should not take priority over the health and safety of their people, the revised rules must be strengthened before they are finalized to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is using the full force of the Clean Air Act to meet this climate crisis and ensure protection for our communities' health.  Anything less is a missed opportunity that will have dire consequences on public health and Mother Earth.
I would like to thank you for this time to voice our concern and add to everyone else's comments in solidarity.  Ahe'hee'.
Daryl Junes Joe
Shiprock, New Mexico


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36792-36794]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60333; File No. SR-ISE-2009-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Extension of the Price Improvement Mechanism
Pilot Program

July 17, 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 July 13, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE. The
ISE has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial''
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the

Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \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 Exchange is proposing to extend two pilot programs related to
its Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''). The text of the proposed
rule amendment is as follows, with proposed deletions in [brackets],
and proposed additions in italics:
Rule 723. Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions
* * * * *
Supplementary Material to Rule 723
    .01-.02 No Change.
    .03 Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July 17,
2010 [July 18, 2009], there will be no minimum size requirements for
orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement Mechanism. During the
Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data, periodically as
required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among
other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders
within the Price Improvement Mechanism, that there is significant price
improvement for all orders executed through the Price Improvement
Mechanism, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on
the Exchange outside of the Price Improvement Mechanism. Any data which
is submitted to the Commission will be provided on a confidential
basis.
    .04 No Change.
    .05 Paragraphs (c)(5), (d)(5) and (d)(6) will be effective for a
Pilot Period expiring on July 17, 2010 [July 18, 2009]. During the
Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data relating to the
frequency with which the exposure period is terminated by unrelated
orders. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be provided
on a confidential basis.
    .06-.07 No Change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of 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 self-regulatory organization
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 currently has two pilot programs related to its
PIM.\5\ The current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of
the Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18,
2009.\6\ Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size
requirement for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement
Mechanism. Paragraph .05 concerns the termination of the exposure
period by unrelated orders. In accordance with the Approval Order, the
Exchange has continually submitted certain data in support of extending
the current pilot programs. The Exchange proposes to extend these pilot
programs in their present form, through July 17, 2010, to give the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to evaluate the effects of
these pilot programs before requesting permanent approval of the rules.
To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIM Functionality, ISE
will also continue to provide additional PIM-related data as requested
by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (Approving the PIM Pilot (the
``Approval Order'')); 52027 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41804 (July 20,
2005) Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a One-Year Pilot Extension for the Price
Improvement Mechanism); 54146 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41490 (July 21,
2006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a One-Year Pilot Extension Until July 18, 2007
for the Price Improvement Mechanism); 56106 (July 19, 2007), 72 FR
40914 (July 25, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a One-Week Extension for the
Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program); and 56156 (July 27,
2007), 72 FR 43305 (August 3, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Extension for
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58197 (July 18,
2008), 73 FR 43810 (July 28, 2008) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. Since the Price
Improvement Mechanism has been operating for a relatively short period
of time, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the pilot
periods to provide the Exchange and Commission more data upon which to
evaluate the rules.

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.

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 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, as amended: (1) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with 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 deems this requirement to have been met.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-

4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if
such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The ISE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ which would
make the rule change operative upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will allow the pilot periods to continue without interruption.\12\
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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.

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-2009-52 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-2009-52. 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 the 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-2009-52 and should be
submitted on or before August 14, 2009.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17634 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 30, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-6954

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  British Midland Airways Limited d/b/a bmi				Date Filed:
June 1, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Manchester, England, and the coterminal points Washington, D.C.
(Dulles), and Chicago, Illinois.  British Midland asks that we renew its
request for a two-year period consistent with our prior grant of
authority in this docket.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 5, 2002, in this
docket

Applicant representative:  Marshall S. Sinick<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  June 30, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 30, 2004-June 30, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Services
Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the 1995 U.S.-U.K. Memorandum of
Consultations

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		       Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Attachment

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

														05/2004