[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 75144-75148]
[DOCID:fr10de08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59050; File No. SR-Amex-2008-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
To Revise Its Initial Listing Process To Eliminate the Current Appeal
Process for Initial Listing Decisions, Add a New Confidential Pre-
Application Eligibility Review Process, and Upgrade Its Listing
Requirements by Eliminating the Alternative Listing Standards

December 3, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On September 4, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex,'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the procedures for initial listing of
securities on Amex. On September 17, 2008, Amex filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 24, 2008.\3\ Initially one
comment was received opposing the proposed rule change.\4\ NYSE
Alternext

U.S. LLC \5\ filed a response on October 22, 2008.\6\ Subsequently, an
additional comment letter was received in response to Alternext's
letter.\7\ This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58570 (September 17,
2008), 73 FR 55185 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Brendan E. Cryan, Managing Member Brendan E.
Cyran & Company, LLC, and Jonathan Q. Frey, Chief Operating Officer
of J. Streicher & Co. L.L.C., dated October 10, 2008 (``Specialist
Letter 1'').
    \5\ NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC (``Alternext'') is the successor to
the Amex, after being acquired by the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'').
    \6\ See letter from Janet Kissane, Corporate Secretary, NYSE
Alternext U.S. LLC, dated October 22, 2008 (``Alternext Response
Letter'').
    \7\ See letter from Jonathan Q. Frey, Chief Operating Officer of
J. Streicher & Co. L.L.C., dated October 30, 2008 (``Specialist
Letter 2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Sections 101(e) and 1203(c) of the Amex Company Guide currently
provide that the securities of certain issuers which do not satisfy any
of the Exchange's regular initial listing standards may nonetheless be
eligible for initial listing on the Exchange pursuant to the Exchange's
appeal procedures, which include authorization of approval of the
listing by a Listing Qualifications Panel of the Exchange's Committee
on Securities, if (a) the issuer satisfies one of two minimum numerical
alternative listing standards, and (b) the Listing Qualifications Panel
makes an affirmative finding that there are mitigating factors that
warrant listing pursuant to these alternative listing standards.\8\ The
Exchange proposes to eliminate the two alternative listing
standards.\9\ In addition, to align its initial listing process with
the process in place at the NYSE, the Exchange proposes to amend
Sections 101 and 1201-1206 of the Amex Company Guide to eliminate the
current appeal process for initial listing decisions by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that requiring listing applicants to meet the
requirements of the Exchange's regular initial listing standards will
strengthen and enhance its listing standards. Further, the Exchange's
experience with its existing initial listing appeal process is that it
has almost never been utilized, and never successfully, to appeal a
staff determination on the basis that such determination was erroneous.
According to Amex, the few appeals made have been by issuers seeking
listing under the two aforementioned alternative listing standards
(which can only be achieved through the appeal processes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The issuer is also required to make an announcement through
the news media that it has been approved for listing pursuant to the
alternative listing standards. See Section 1203(c)(iii) of the Amex
Company Guide.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that a relatively small number of
companies are listed on the Exchange each year under the two
alternative listing standards that are being eliminated under the
proposed rule change. See infra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add a new mandatory confidential pre-
application eligibility review process for companies considering an
initial listing on the Exchange. Pursuant to this process, company
officials seeking a listing on the Exchange would be required to
undertake preliminary confidential discussions with the Exchange, prior
to submitting a formal listing application, to determine whether its
securities are eligible for listing approval. Only after a company has
cleared the confidential pre-application eligibility review and has
been authorized by the Exchange to proceed may it file an original
listing application and complete the other formal steps in the original
listing process pursuant to Section 202 of the Amex Company Guide.\10\
The information needed for the purpose of conducting a confidential
pre-application eligibility review is set forth in current Sections
210-222 of the Amex Company Guide.\11\ There will be no charge to the
company in connection with the confidential pre-application eligibility
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The confidential pre-application eligibility review process
would be comparable to the process in place at the NYSE as described
in Sections 101, 104 and 701 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
    \11\ Sections 210-220 of the Amex Company Guide currently
contain requirements for original listing applications. With the
adoption of the pre-application eligibility review, these same
criteria will be required for that process as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates that the proposed new confidential pre-
application eligibility review process will enable it to provide an
issuer with guidance and clarification on whether or not it is eligible
for listing on a more expeditious basis. The Exchange believes that the
new confidential pre-application eligibility review process will
provide a fair procedure, consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the
Act,\12\ for all issuers seeking listing, including those that receive
an adverse determination. Specifically, consistent with the Exchange's
current review process, initial listing eligibility determinations must
be made in accordance with the criteria specified in the Exchange's
listing standards, following a rigorous staff analysis and managerial
oversight. The Exchange asserts that this structured review process,
based on transparent standards, mitigates against erroneous
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it has considered how to transition
the proposed rule change and proposes the following treatment for
issuers that have applications currently in process for an initial
listing on the Exchange. Any initial listing applications that are
already filed and in process with the Exchange as of the date of
effectiveness of this proposed rule change (``Legacy Applications'')
will be treated as if they were still governed by the initial listing
procedures in the Amex Company Guide as in effect immediately prior to
such date of effectiveness, which effective date will be the date of
approval of the rule change by the Commission. Consequently, companies
with Legacy Applications would have the right to appeal the initial
listing decision and to be evaluated for listing under the alternative
initial listing standards that are being eliminated by this filing. To
this end, the Exchange proposes the addition of a temporary Section
1212T to the Amex Company Guide. Temporary Section 1212T will contain
the current initial listing provisions of the Amex Company Guide that
reference the alternative listing standards and other provisions of
Part 12 that are applicable to such alternative standards, which are
otherwise being proposed for deletion from the Amex Company Guide. The
temporary provisions of Rule 1212T will apply solely to the Legacy
Applications and will otherwise be of no force or effect.
    In addition to the changes discussed above, the Exchange is also
proposing three other minor changes of a ``housekeeping'' nature to the
text of the Amex Company Guide. Section 206, containing an outdated and
non-substantive reference to listing day, would be eliminated. An
outdated reference in Section 1202 to the Listing Investigations
Department (which no longer exists) would be deleted under the proposed
rule change. Finally, language in Section 1201(d) listing a number of
non-quantitative factors that the Exchange will consider in evaluating
an initial listing application would be eliminated under the proposal,
because those factors (and certain others) are already set forth in
Section 101.
    Amex filed the proposed rule change to implement a NYSE Euronext
business plan for the Amex after the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement dated January 17, 2008 among the
Exchange, the Amex Membership Corporation, NYSE Euronext and certain
other entities, whereby a successor to the Exchange will become an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext (the
``Acquisition''). The Acquisition was completed on October

1, 2008, so pursuant to the implementation schedule set forth by the
Exchange, the proposal will take effect upon Commission approval.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September
29, 2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 1, 2008); see Notice, supra 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    Specialist Letter 1 objects to the Exchange's elimination of the
alternative listing standards and states that, at a minimum, Amex
should be required to more fully explain its concerns with the
alternative standards so that the commenters and the public can
adequately analyze the proposal.\14\ In this regard, Specialist Letter
1 raised several issues or requests for additional clarification.\15\
First, Specialist Letter 1 is skeptical of the Exchange's proposition
that the elimination of the two alternative listing standards will
strengthen and enhance the initial listing standards.\16\ The Exchange
responded that this is adequately addressed in the Notice and that the
Exchange made a business determination to eliminate the alternative
listing standards which impose a less stringent standard than the
regular initial listing standards. The Exchange noted that elimination
of the alternative listing standards will require that all companies
seeking listing on the Exchange to satisfy the more stringent regular
listing standards, which in the Exchange's view will strengthen and
enhance its initial listing standards.\17\ The Exchange further noted
that in each full year since 2002, the number of companies approved for
listing under the alternative listing standards was minimal and that
due to these small numbers, the process was disproportionately
cumbersome and resource intensive.\18\ Therefore, the Exchange
concludes elimination of the alternative listing standards will have a
relatively minimal impact on listings on the Exchange or Exchange
equity specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Specialist Letter 1, supra note 4.
    \15\ See Specialist Letter 1, supra note 4.
    \16\ See Specialist Letter 1, supra note 4, at 2.
    \17\ See Response Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2.
    \18\ Since 2003, only 16 companies were approved under the
alternative standards in comparison with 455 under the regular
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Specialist Letter 1 argues that the Exchange fails to offer
any analysis or facts to support its proposal. Such analysis,
Specialist Letter 1 states, will help determine whether alternatives
that are less detrimental may exist. In response, the Exchange states
that it is not required to demonstrate that companies listed under the
alternate standards have performed worse than other listed companies,
and that a decision to reasonably increase its listing standards is a
business decision within its purview.
    Third, Specialist Letter 1 raises the concern that the proposed
rule change will have a negative impact on the companies that will not
otherwise qualify for listing on the Exchange if the alternative
initial listing standards are eliminated.\19\ The Exchange believes
that adequate trading venues, such as the Over the Counter (``OTC'')
Bulletin Board exist for those companies that cannot meet the
Exchange's regular initial listing standards.\20\ The Exchange further
notes that as these companies grow in other markets, they may later
become eligible for listing under the Exchange's regular initial
listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Specialist Letter 1, supra note 4, at 2. In particular,
the commenters note that elimination of the standards will result in
more companies trading in less regulated, less liquid, and more
expensive markets and will impact capital formation for such
companies.
    \20\ See Response Letter, supra note 6, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Specialist Letter 1 questions whether NYSE Euronext
supports the proposed rule change.\21\ The Exchange noted in the Notice
that the proposed changes to the initial listing process were part of
its strategic business planning in anticipation of its acquisition by
NYSE Euronext and was aimed at more closely aligning its listing
process with the NYSE.\22\ The Response Letter confirms that NYSE
supports the Exchange's proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Specialist Letter 1, supra note 4, at 2-3.
    \22\ See Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialist Letter 2 \24\ argues, among other things, that it is not
consistent with Section 6 of the Act for the Exchange to simply justify
its proposal as a business decision entirely within its purview.
Specialist Letter 2 also states that the Exchange failed to answer
questions on whether companies listed under the alternative standards
performed poorly as compared to other listed companies, and that this
information should be a matter of public record. The commenter argues
that it is difficult to understand why the Exchange would want to
reduce its ability to list companies at a time it is losing its top
tier companies to NYSE which could raise questions about the ``future
health and well being of the Exchange.'' \25\ The commenter also
reiterates its position that relegating these companies to alternate
markets does not seem to be in the public interest. Finally, the
commenter notes, among other things, that the Exchange still has not
been able to show any harm from listing companies under the alternative
standards, and that the Exchange should be required to provide facts
and analysis to support a finding that elimination of the alternative
standards is in the public interest.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Specialist Letter 2 was submitted by one of the two
commenters who submitted Specialist Letter 1. See supra note 7.
    \25\ See Specialist Letter 2, supra note 7 at 2.
    \26\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange \27\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\28\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\29\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the appeal procedures for
initial listing decisions. The Exchange further proposes to eliminate
the alternative listing standards on which almost all of such initial
listing appeals are based. As a result of the proposed rule change, all
companies that list on the Exchange must meet the requirements of the
Exchange's regular initial listing standards which are higher than the
alternative initial listing standards.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Amex Company Guide Sections 210-222 for current initial
listing standards. See also Response Letter, supra note 6 at Exhibit
A which contains a comparison of regular initial listing standards
versus alternative listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has carefully considered both of the comments. The
commenters argue that Amex has not justified elimination of the
alternative listing standards and should be required to provide facts
and analysis to support

a finding that the proposal is in the public interest. They further
note that to do otherwise would accede to the Exchange's view that they
are not required to show that companies listed under the alternative
standards have performed more poorly than other companies and that the
decision to eliminate the alternative standards is totally a business
decision that is within its purview. The commenters believe this
analysis ignores the requirements of Section 6 of the Act that requires
proposals of the Exchange to only be approved if they are in the public
interest.
    After carefully considering these comments, the Commission believes
that the proposal as to the elimination of the alternative listing
standards is reasonable and consistent with the Act, and furthers
investor protection and the public interest. In making this finding,
the Commission notes at the outset that the development and enforcement
of adequate standards governing the initial and continued listing of
securities on an exchange is an activity of critical importance to
financial markets and the investing public. Listing standards serve as
a means for an exchange to screen issuers and to provide listed status
only to bona fide companies that have, or in the case of an initial
public offering, will have sufficient public float, investor base, and
trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to
promote fair and orderly markets. Adequate standards are especially
important given the expectations of investors regarding exchange
trading and the imprimatur of listing on a particular market.
    Based on the above analysis, the Commission would find it difficult
to justify denying an exchange the ability to eliminate lower listing
standards under the Act, assuming the elimination of such standards are
done on a fair and equitable basis, does not unfairly discriminate
between issuers as required under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, and there
remain sufficient listing and regulatory requirements to ensure
adequate depth and liquidity for listed companies, and the protection
of investors and the public interest. Where all of these factors exist,
as the Commission finds in the Amex's proposal, the Commission believes
that it is within the Exchange's business judgment to determine it no
longer wants to qualify for listing these types of smaller companies
under its rules.\31\ The Commission emphasizes that its approval of the
Amex's proposal is not being based solely on the business judgment of
the Exchange. While the Exchange's determination to eliminate the
alternative initial listing standards may indeed be motivated by its
business judgment, the Commission nevertheless believes that fact does
not preclude us from finding, as we do for the reasons discussed
herein, that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and Section 6(b)(5) in particular.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Commission notes that under the Exchange's rules, the
approval of an application for listing of securities is a matter
solely within the discretion of the Exchange. Further, the
Commission notes that the rule permits the Exchange to deny listing
even if the company meets the listing standards. See Amex Company
Guide Section 101.
    \32\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56606 (October
3, 2007), 72 FR 57982 (October 11, 2007) (approving proposed rule
change by NYSE Arca, Inc. to amend initial listing standards that
would have the effect of excluding from qualification some companies
that previously qualified for initial listing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this finding the Commission notes that Amex has provided
for Legacy Applications so that any issuer that was currently being
considered under the Amex's initial listing standards up to the date of
approval of this rule filing could still avail itself of the
alternative listing standards if it so qualified. This helps to ensure
that issuers currently in the process of applying for initial listing
on Amex would not suddenly find the alternative standards unavailable
due to the approval of this rule proposal. Further, companies that
initially listed on the Exchange under the alternative listing
standards will remain listed and not be affected by the proposal, which
is on a going forward basis. In this regard, Amex's regular initial
listing and continued listing standards remain the same for all listed
companies.
    The Commission notes that in terms of potential harm to issuers who
no longer will be able to avail themselves of the Amex alternative
initial listing standards, alternative trading venues exist for these
companies as noted in the Exchange's Response Letter.\33\ As discussed
above, existing listed companies and Legacy Applicants will not be
adversely affected in any way by the Exchange's proposal. The
Commission does not believe the Exchange is required to maintain lower
listing standards to accommodate the potential for listings in the
future, especially when alternative markets exist and all companies
have an equal opportunity to apply under regular initial listing
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ While the commenters argue that such alternative markets
will provide less protection for shareholders, the Commission need
not make a qualitative judgment about such markets to address this
concern. Rather, the Commission believes that it is sufficient to
determine that given the importance of listing standards and the
expectations of investors in terms of the types of companies listed
on a national securities exchange as discussed above, it will
further the public interest by eliminating the Exchange's lower
listing standards and requiring all listed companies to meet the
existing higher regular initial listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission recognizes that the commenters, as
specialists on the Exchange, may potentially be losing the ability to
make a market in securities of companies that could have qualified for
listing under the alternative standards. However, as provided in the
Amex Response Letter, the majority of companies are listed on the
Exchange under the regular initial listing standards, while listing
under the alternative standards has only represented a small percentage
of the overall listings on the Amex. For example, in 2007 of 109 new
listings, 2 were under the alternative standards. Further, those
companies that no longer qualify for initial listing could, as noted by
Amex, apply in the future for an Amex listing after developing a
trading market in an alternative market place. The Act does not dictate
that Amex continue to list companies that cannot qualify under the
regular listing standards because of the potential loss of business.
Indeed, to require Amex to retain its alternative listing standards for
that reason would, in itself, be a business decision. For all the
reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the proposal to
eliminate the alternative initial listing standards is reasonable and
should continue to provide only for the listing of securities with a
sufficient investor base to maintain fair and orderly markets and
adequately protect investors and the public interest.
    The Commission also believes that the establishment of a mandatory
confidential pre-application review is reasonable and consistent with
the Act.\34\ The Commission notes that the new confidential pre-
application eligibility review criteria are set forth in the Amex
Company Guide.\35\ The pre-application review process will enable the
Exchange to obtain information from companies seeking a listing and
provide the issuer with guidance and clarification on whether or not it
is eligible for listing. The proposal should therefore make the listing
process more efficient for both the Exchange and potential listed
companies. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the

changes adequately protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The NYSE currently has a similar process in place; see
Sections 101, 104 and 701 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
    \35\ See proposed Section 201 of the Amex Company Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the elimination of the outdated
and redundant provisions is consistent with the Act and should make the
Company Manuel easier and clearer to use.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and in particular Section 6 of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change, as amended (File No. SR-Amex-2008-70) is
approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29154 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43932]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8698-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0461]

Draft Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene): In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of listening session.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a listening session to be held on August 18,
2008, during the public comment period for the external review draft
document entitled, ``Draft Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene): In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).'' This listening session is
a new step in EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for
development of human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The
purpose of the listening session is to allow interested parties to
present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS health
assessments to EPA and other interested parties during the public
comment period and prior to the external peer review meeting. EPA
welcomes the scientific and technical comments that will be provided to
the Agency by the listening session participants. The comments will be
considered by the Agency as it revises the draft assessment in response
to the independent external peer review and public comments. All
presentations will become part of the official and public record.
    The EPA's draft assessment and peer review charge are available via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's
(NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and the Data and
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

DATES: The listening session on the tetrachloroethylene draft IRIS
health assessment will be held on August 18, 2008, beginning at 9 a.m.
and ending at 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. All participants should
register by August 11, 2008. At the time of registration, participants
wishing to make oral comments should indicate their intention to speak,
the length of the intended presentation, and if audio-visual aid (e.g.,
computer and projector) will be required. Each oral presentation should
be no more than 15 minutes in length. If, however, the total time of
presentations exceeds the allotted session time, the time limit for
each presentation will be adjusted accordingly. An agenda for the
listening session will be made available at the meeting. If no speakers
have registered by August 11, 2008, the listening session will be
cancelled and EPA will notify those registered of the cancellation.
    The public comment period for review of this draft assessment was
announced previously in the Federal Register (FR) (73 FR 36321) on June
26, 2008. As stated in that FR notice, the public comment period began
on June 26, 2008, and ends September 24, 2008. Listening session
participants who wish to have their comments available to the external
peer reviewers should also submit written comments during the public
comment period according to the procedures included in the
aforementioned FR notice (June 26, 2008). Comments submitted to the
docket prior to the end of the public comment period will be submitted
to the external peer reviewers and considered by EPA.

ADDRESSES: The listening session on the draft tetrachloroethylene
assessment will be held at the EPA offices at Two Potomac Yard (North
Building), 4th Floor, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia,
22202. To attend the listening session, register by August 11, 2008 by
providing your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact
information via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line:
``Tetrachloroethylene listening session''), by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
(please reference ``Tetrachloroetheylene listening session'') or by
phone to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please note that in order to gain access to the
meeting site, attendees must present government-issued photo
identification and must register at the guard's desk in the building
lobby. The guard will retain your photo identification, issue a
visitor's badge, and contact an EPA employee to meet you in the
reception area and escort you to the meeting room. Your photo
identification will be returned when you exit the building.
    A teleconference line will also be available for registered
attendees/speakers beginning at 8:45 a.m. on August 18, 2008. The
teleconference number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the access code is
1068186199. All teleconference participants will be asked to
provide their name, title and affiliation at the beginning of the
teleconference.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Christine Ross at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,
please notify EPA at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public
listening session or the draft tetrachloroethylene assessment, contact
Christine Ross at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This listening session is a new step in
EPA's revised process, announced on April 10, 2008, for development of
human health assessments for inclusion on IRIS. The new process is
posted on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions menu at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea. Two listening sessions are scheduled under the new
IRIS process. The first is during the public review of the draft
assessment that includes only qualitative discussion. The second
session is during the public review of the externally peer-reviewed
draft assessment; if feasible, this draft will include both qualitative
and quantitation elements (i.e., a ``complete draft''). All IRIS
assessments that are at the document development stage will follow the
revised process, which includes the two listening sessions. However,
when EPA initiated the new IRIS process, the tetrachloroethylene draft
assessment had already completed document development and been through
multiple rounds of internal review. Therefore, EPA will only hold one
listening session during the public review and comment period.

    Dated: July 21, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E8-17345 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P