[Federal Register: February 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10839-10844]
[DOCID:fr28fe08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57365; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
Adopting Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds Based on
International or Global Indexes or Portfolios, or Indexes or Portfolios
Described in Exchange Rules Previously Approved by the Commission as
Underlying Benchmarks for Derivative Securities

February 21, 2008.
    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 September 10, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. On February 19, 2008, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. This order provides notice of the proposal, as
amended, and approves the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise its listing standards, adopted
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act, in CBOE Rules 31.5(L) and
31.5(M) to include generic listing standards for Index Portfolio
Receipts (``IPRs'') and Index Portfolio Shares (``IPSs,'' together with
IPRs, referred to herein with as ``exchange-traded funds'' or ``ETFs'')
that are based on international or global indexes or portfolios, or on
indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules that have been
previously approved by the Commission for the trading of ETFs or other
specified index-based securities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), 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 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to list and trade ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-
4(e) under the Act \3\ if each of the conditions set forth in CBOE
Rules 31.5(L) or (M) is satisfied. Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the
listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') shall not be deemed a proposed rule
change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, 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 derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a
surveillance program for the product class.\4\ This proposed rule
change is based on SR-Phlx-2007-20, which was approved by the
Commission on July 11, 2007.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \4\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form 19b-
4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the exchange
begins trading the new derivative securities products. See 17 CFR
240.19b-4(e)(2)(ii).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56049 (July 11,
2007), 72 FR 39121 (July 17, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Background
    CBOE Rules 31.5(L) and (M) provide standards for listing Index
Portfolio Receipts and Index Portfolio Shares, respectively, on CBOE.
An Index Portfolio Receipt is a security that represent an interest in
a unit investment trust that holds securities that comprise a stock
index on which a series of IPR is based.\6\ An Index Portfolio Share is
a security that is issued by an open-end management investment company
and based on a portfolio of stocks or fixed income

securities designed to provide investment results that correspond
generally to the price and yield performance of a specified foreign or
domestic stock index or fixed income securities index.\7\ Pursuant to
CBOE Rule 1.1.02, IPRs must be issued in a specified aggregate minimum
number in return for a deposit of specified numbers of shares of stock
plus a cash amount. Pursuant to CBOE Rule 1.1.03, IPSs must be issued
in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of
specified numbers of shares of stock and/or a cash amount, or a
specified portfolio of fixed income securities and/or a cash amount,
with a value equal to the next determined net asset value (``NAV'').
When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, the ETFs must be
redeemable by the issuer for stock and/or cash, with a value equal to
the next determined NAV. The NAV is calculated once a day after the
close of the regular trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The complete definition of IPRs is set forth in CBOE Rule
1.1.02.
    \7\ The complete definition of IPSs is set forth in CBOE Rule
1.1.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the investment objective of providing investment returns
that correspond to the price and the 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.\8\ An ETF using a replication strategy will invest in each
stock of the underlying index in about the same proportion as that
stock is represented in the index itself. An ETF using a representative
sampling strategy will generally invest in a significant number, but
not all of the component securities of the underlying index, and will
hold stocks that, in the aggregate, are intended to approximate the
full index in terms of key characteristics, such as price/earnings
ratio, earnings growth, and dividend yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In either case, an ETF, by its terms, may be considered
invested in the securities of the underlying index to the extent the
ETF invests in sponsored American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''),
Global Depositary Receipts (``GDRs''), or European Depositary
Receipts (``EDRs'') that trade on exchanges with last-sale reporting
representing securities in the underlying index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'').
b. Generic Listing Standards For Exchange-Traded Funds
    The Commission has previously approved generic listing standards
for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S.
exchanges.\9\ In general, the proposed criteria for the underlying
component securities in the international and global indexes are
similar to those for the domestic indexes, but with modifications for
the issues and risks associated with non-U.S. securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44046 (March
7, 2001), 66 FR 15152 (March 15, 2001) (SR-CBOE-00-51); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 45178 (December 20, 2001), 66 FR 67610
(December 31, 2001) (SR-Phlx-00-68); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 43912 (January 31, 2001), 66 FR 9401 (February 7, 2001) (SR-
Phlx-00-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission has previously approved generic listing
standards of exchanges governing the listing and trading of ETFs based
on indexes or portfolios composed of Non-U.S. Component Stocks, as well
as indexes or portfolios based on both non-U.S. Component Stocks and
U.S. Component Stocks.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR
7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-50); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 55113 (January 17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (SR-NYSE-2006-
101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has also approved generic listing standards for
index-based derivative securities products based on indexes or
portfolios described in exchange rules that have been previously
approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for the
trading of other index-based securities on the condition that all of
the standards set forth in those orders, including surveillance sharing
agreements, continue to be satisfied.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51563 (April
15, 2005) 70 FR 21257 (April 25, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-001);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR
46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting generic listing standards 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 a public comment
period and 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
under Rule 19b-4(e) would not, however, preclude the Exchange from
submitting a separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) requesting
Commission approval to list and trade a particular ETF.
c. Proposed Requirements for Listing and Trading ETFs Based on
International and Global Indexes or Portfolios
    ETFs listed pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards or
that are traded pursuant to UTP 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 ETFs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(g) and (M).01(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards
for an international or global index or portfolio, the index or
portfolio would have to satisfy all the conditions contained in
proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(2) or 31.5(M).01(a)(2). As with the
existing generic standards for ETFs based on domestic indexes or
portfolios, these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that
stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume
account for a substantial portion of the weight of the index or
portfolio. While the standards in this proposal are based on the
standards contained in the current generic listing standards for ETFs
based on domestic indexes or portfolios, they have been adapted as
appropriate to apply to international and global indexes or portfolios.
    As proposed, CBOE 31.5(L)(e) and 31.5(M)(c) would provide
definitions of the terms U.S. Component Stock and Non-U.S. Component
Stock. These new definitions would provide the basis for the standards
for indexes or portfolios with either domestic or international stocks,
or a combination of both. A ``Non-U.S. Component Stock'' would mean an
equity security that is not registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of
the Act,\13\ and that is issued by an entity that (1) is not organized,
domiciled, or incorporated in the United States; and (2) is an
operating company (including a real estate investment trust or income
trust, but excluding an investment trust, unit trust, mutual fund, or
derivative). This definition is designed to create a category of
component stocks that are issued by companies that are not based in the
United States, are not subject to oversight through Commission
registration, and would include sponsored GDRs and EDRs. A ``U.S.
Component Stock'' would mean an equity security that is registered
under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act or an ADR the underlying equity
security of which is registered under Section 12(b)

or 12(g) of the Act. An ADR with an underlying equity security that is
registered pursuant to the Act is considered a U.S. Component Stock
because the issuer of that security is subject to Commission
jurisdiction and must comply with Commission rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b) or (g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, to list an IPR or IPS based on an
international or global index or portfolio pursuant to the generic
listing standards, such index or portfolio must meet the following
criteria:
     Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at
least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a
minimum market value of at least $100 million (proposed CBOE Rules
31.5(L).01(a)(2)(A) and 31.5(M).01(a)(2)(A));
     Component stocks representing at least 90% of the weight
of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum worldwide monthly
trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000
shares (proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(2)(B) and
31.5(M).01(a)(2)(B));
     The most heavily weighted component stock may not exceed
25% of the weight of the index or portfolio and the five most heavily
weighted component stocks may not exceed 60% of the weight of the index
or portfolio (proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(2)(C) and
31.5(M).01(a)(2)(C));
     The index or portfolio shall include a minimum of 20
component stocks (proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(2)(D) and
31.5(M).01(a)(2)(D)); and
     Each U.S. Component Stock must be listed on a national
securities exchange and an NMS stock as defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS under the Act, and each Non-U.S. Component Stock must be
listed on an exchange that has last-sale reporting (proposed CBOE Rules
31.5(L).01(a)(2)(E) and 31.5(M).01(a)(2)(E)).
    The Exchange believes that these proposed standards are reasonable
for international and global indexes or portfolios, and, when applied
in conjunction with the other listing requirements, would result in the
listing and trading of ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope
and not readily susceptible to manipulation. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed standards would result in ETFs that are adequately
diversified in weighting for any single security or small group of
securities to significantly reduce concerns that trading in an ETF
based on an international or global index could become a surrogate for
the trading in of securities not registered in the United States.
    The Exchange further notes that, while these standards are similar
to those for indexes or portfolios that include only U.S. Component
Stocks, they differ in certain important respects and are generally
more restrictive, reflecting greater concerns over portfolio
diversification with respect to ETFs investing in components that are
not individually registered with the Commission. First, in the proposed
standards, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least
90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a minimum
market value of at least $100 million, compared to a minimum market
value of at least $75 million for indexes or portfolios with only U.S.
Component Stocks. (Market value is calculated by multiplying the total
shares outstanding by the price per share of the component stock.)
Second, in the proposed standards, the most heavily weighted component
stock cannot exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio, in
contrast to a proposed 30% standard for an index or portfolio comprised
of only U.S. Component Stocks.\14\ Third, in the proposed standards,
the five most heavily weighted component stocks shall not exceed 60% of
the weight of the index or portfolio, compared to a 65% standard for
indexes or portfolios comprised of only U.S. Component Stocks. Fourth,
the minimum number of stocks in the proposed standards is 20, in
contrast to a minimum of 13 in the standards for an index or portfolio
with only U.S. Component Stocks. Finally, the proposed standards
require that each Non-U.S. Component Stock included in the index or
portfolio be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(1)(C),
31.5(L).01(a)(2)(C), 31.5(M).01(a)(1)(C), and 31.5(M).01(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(b)(ii)
and 31.5(M).01(b)(ii) to require that the index value for an ETF listed
pursuant to this proposal be widely disseminated by one or more major
market data vendors at least every 60 seconds 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. In contrast, the index
value for an ETF listed pursuant to the existing standards for domestic
indexes must be disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the
trading day. This modification reflects limitations, in some instances,
on the frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to Non-
U.S. Component Stocks and that, in many cases, trading hours for
overseas markets overlap only in part, or not at all, with Exchange
trading hours.
    In addition, CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(c) and 31.5(M).01(c) would be
modified to define the term ``Intraday Indicative Value'' (``IIV'') as
the estimate of the value of a share of each ETF that is updated at
least every 15 seconds during Normal Market Hours.\15\ CBOE also
proposes to clarify in these rules that the IIV would be updated at
least every 15 seconds during trading in the ETF on the Exchange to
reflect changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the
currency in which any component stock is denominated. If the IIV does
not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring
on the CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX''), CBOE's equity trading platform,
then the last official calculated IIV must remain available throughout
CBSX's trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Normal Market Hours are defined in proposed CBOE Rule
52.3(c)(2) as the time period from 8:30 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. Central
Time (``CT'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is proposing that it may designate an ETF for trading during
the trading hours specified in CBOE Rule 51.2(d) \16\ for IPRs and IPSs
as long as the index value and IIV dissemination requirements of CBOE
Rules 31.5(L).01(b)(ii), 31.5(L).01(c), 31.5(M).01(b)(ii), and
31.5(M).01(c) are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CBOE Rule 51.2(d) provides that the hours during which IPR
transactions may be made on CBSX are 8:15 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. CT,
and that the hours during which IPS transactions may be made on CBSX
are 8:15 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. or 3:15 p.m. CT for each series of
IPSs, as specified by CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(g) and
31.5(M).01(g) to specify that CBOE will implement written surveillance
procedures for ETFs. The Exchange also proposes to add new CBOE Rules
31.5(L).01(h) and 31.5(M).01(h) regarding the creation and redemption
process for ETFs and compliance with federal securities laws for ETFs
listed pursuant to the new generic listing standards. These new
subsections would apply to ETFs listed pursuant to CBOE Rules 31.5(L)
and (M), respectively. They would require that the statutory prospectus
or the application for exemption from provisions of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 \17\ for the ETF state that the ETF must comply
with the federal

securities laws in accepting securities for deposits and satisfying
redemptions with redemption securities, including that the securities
accepted for deposits and the securities used to satisfy redemption
requests are sold in transactions that would be exempt from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has approved generic listing standards providing for
the listing, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), of other derivative securities
products based on indexes or portfolios described in rules previously
approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\19\ The
Exchange proposes to include in the generic listing standards for the
listing of ETFs based on indexes or portfolios that have been approved
by the Commission in connection with the listing of options, Index
Portfolio Receipts, Index Portfolio Shares, index-linked securities, or
Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes. The Exchange believes that the
application of this standard to ETFs is appropriate because the
underlying index would have been subject to detailed and specific
Commission review in the context of the approval of listing of those
other derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This new generic standard would be limited to stock indexes or
portfolios, and would require that each component stock be either: (1)
A U.S. Component Stock that is listed on a national securities exchange
and is an NMS stock as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS; or (2) a
Non-U.S. Component Stock that is listed and traded on an exchange that
has last-sale reporting.
    The Exchange is also proposing to include additional continued
listing standards relating to ETFs. The Exchange would commence
delisting proceedings if the value of the index or portfolio of
securities on which the ETF is based is no longer calculated or
disseminated.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt CBOE Rules 31.5(L)(f) and 31.5(M)(d)
to formalize in the rules existing best practices for providing equal
access to material information about the value of ETFs. Prior to
approving an ETF for listing, the Exchange would obtain a
representation from the ETF issuer that the NAV per share would be
calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the
same time.
    Proposed CBOE Rule 52.3(b) provides that the Exchange would halt
trading in a Derivative Securities Product \20\ if the circuit breaker
parameter of CBOE Rule 6.3B has been reached. In exercising its
discretion to halt or suspend trading in a Derivative Securities
Product, the Exchange could consider factors such as the extent to
which trading in the underlying securities is not occurring or whether
other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present, in addition to
other relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Proposed Rule 52.3(c)(5)(i) defines ``Derivative Securities
Product'' as a series of Equity-Linked Term Notes, Index-Linked
Exchangeable Notes, Index Portfolio Receipts, Index Portfolio
Shares, or Trust Issued Receipts that is based on an underlying
security or index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed CBOE Rule 52.3(c) sets forth the trading halt rules that
apply to a Derivative Securities Product that is traded on the Exchange
on a UTP basis. The rule provides that, during the hours for trading of
Derivative Securities Products on the Exchange, if a temporary
interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination of the
Required Value \21\ by a major market data vendor and the listing
market halts trading in the Derivative Securities Product, the
Exchange, upon notification by the listing market of such halt due to
such temporary interruption, also shall immediately halt trading in the
series of Derivative Securities Product. If the Required Value
continues not to be calculated or widely available as of the
commencement of trading on the Exchange on the next business day, the
Exchange shall not commence trading of the series of Derivative
Securities Product that day. If an interruption in the calculation or
wide dissemination of the Required Value continues, the Exchange may
resume trading in the series of Derivative Securities Product only if
calculation and wide dissemination of the Required Value resumes or
trading in such series resumes in the listing market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Proposed Rule 52.3(c)(5)(ii) defines ``Required Value'' as
the value of any security or index underlying a Derivative
Securities Product, as well as the IIV, indicative optimized
portfolio value, or other comparable estimate of the value of a
share of a Derivative Securities Product, updated regularly during
the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 31.5 to stipulate that, as
provided by the Commission Rule 12f-5,\22\ the Exchange may extend UTP
to any security, such as an ETF, for which the Exchange has in effect
rules providing for transactions in such class or type of security.\23\
The provision of CBOE Rule 31.5(L) and (M) that governs surveillance
procedures, the provisions of CBOE Rule 54.1 and 54.2 that relate to
information circulars and prospectus delivery, and CBOE Rule 51.2(d)
that governs trading hours for transactions in IPRs and IPSs, would
apply to securities traded on a UTP basis (as does the applicable
proposed trading halt provision of CBOE Rule 52.3(b)). The Exchange
would not, however, apply quantitative listing standards to securities
traded on a UTP basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
    \23\ See proposed CBOE Rule 31.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing other minor and clarifying changes to
CBOE Rules 31.5(L) and (M). Current CBOE Rules 31.5L.01(b)(i) and
31.5M.01(b)(i) would be deleted, so that an index underlying a series
of IPRs or IPSs need not be calculated according to the methodologies
specified in those rules.\24\ CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(b)(ii) and
31.5(M).01(b)(ii) would be amended to ensure that an entity that
advises an index provider or calculator and related entities has in
place procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material non-public information regarding the index underlying the ETF.
CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(e) and 31.5(M).01(e) would be adopted to clarify
that the minimum increment for bids and offers is set in Rule 51.2(d).
CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(f) and 31.5(M).01(f) are being adopted to clarify
that the trading hours for IPRs and IPSs, respectively, are set in CBOE
Rule 51.2. CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(1)(C) and 31.5(M).01(a)(1)(C) would
be amended to change the maximum weighting requirement for the most
heavily weighted component stock from 25% to 30% of the weight of the
index or portfolio for IPRs and IPSs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is consistent with the rules of other national
securities exchanges. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3)
and 8.200.
    \25\ This is consistent with the rules of other SROs. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44532 (July 10, 2001), 66 FR
37078 (July 16, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will closely monitor activity in ETFs to identify and
deter any potential improper trading activity in ETFs. The Exchange
represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly
monitor the trading of ETFs that would be listed or traded pursuant to
UTP. Specifically, CBOE will rely on its existing surveillance
procedures governing equities, options, and ETFs. Additionally, the
Exchange states that it will develop procedures to closely monitor
activity in ETFs and related securities to identify and deter any
potential improper trading activity. In addition, the Exchange has a
general policy prohibiting the dissemination of material, non-public
information by its employees. Finally, the Exchange deems IPRs and IPSs
to be equity securities. Therefore, IPRs and IPSs are subject to

the Exchange's trading rules that apply to equity securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because the proposal would permit the Exchange
to more efficiently introduce products for trading on CBSX. In
addition, the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in
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 neither solicited nor received comments on the
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-CBOE-2007-109 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-CBOE-2007-109. 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 20549-1520 on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-109 and should be
submitted on or before March 20, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    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.\28\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange must file a proposed rule change with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \30\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder \31\ to list and trade any ETF based on an index comprised
of foreign securities. The Exchange also must file a proposed rule
change to list and trade any ETF based on an index or portfolio
described in a rule change that has previously been approved by the
Commission as an underlying benchmark for derivative securities.
However, Rule 19b-4(e) 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. CBOE's proposed rules,
which allow the listing and trading of ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)
based on certain indexes or portfolios with components that include
foreign securities or indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules
that have been previously approved by the Commission as underlying
benchmarks for derivative securities, fulfill these requirements. Use
of Rule 19b-4(e) by the Exchange 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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \32\ The Commission notes, however, that the failure of a
particular ETF to meet these generic listing standards would not
preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate proposed rule
change to list and trade the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has approved generic listing standards
for other exchanges that are substantially similar to those proposed
here by the Exchange.\33\ This proposal does not appear to raise any
novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds that CBOE's
proposal is consistent with the Act on the same basis that it approved
the other exchanges' generic listing standards for ETFs based on
international or global indexes or portfolios, or on indexes or
portfolios described in exchange rules that have been previously
approved by the

Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56049 (July
11, 2007), 72 FR 39121 (July 17, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-20); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 19571
(February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-50); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55113
(January 17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-
101); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54739 (November 9, 2006),
71 FR 66993 (November 17, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(a)(2) and 31.5(M).01(a)(2) establish
standards for the composition of indexes and portfolios underlying
international ETFs. These requirements are designed, among other
things, to require that components of an index or portfolio underlying
an ETF are adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no
one security dominates the index. The Commission believes that, taken
together, these standards are reasonably designed to ensure that
securities with substantial market capitalization and trading volume
account for a substantial portion of any underlying index or portfolio,
and that when applied in conjunction with the other applicable listing
requirements will permit the listing and trading of only 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 CBOE from listing and trading ETFs that
might be used as surrogate for trading in unregistered securities. The
requirement that each component security underlying an ETF be an NMS
Stock (in the case of a U.S. Component Stock) or listed on an exchange
and subject to last-sale reporting (in the case of a Non-U.S. Component
Stock) also should contribute to the transparency of the market for
these ETFs.
    The proposed generic listing standards also will permit the
Exchange to list and trade an ETF if the Commission has previously
approved an SRO rule change that contemplates listing and trading a
derivative product based on the same underlying index. CBOE would be
able to rely on that earlier approval order, provided that: (1) The
securities comprising the underlying index consist of U.S. Component
Stocks or Non-U.S. Component Stocks; and (2) CBOE complies with the
commitments undertaken by the other SRO set forth in the prior order,
including any surveillance-sharing arrangements with a foreign market.
    The Commission believes that CBOE's proposal is consistent with
Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\34\ 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. CBOE's proposal requires the value of the index or
portfolio underlying an ETF based on a global or international index to
be disseminated at least once every 60 seconds during the time when the
ETF shares trade on the Exchange.\35\ CBOE has represented that, if an
underlying index or portfolio value is no longer calculated or
available, it would commence delisting proceedings for the associated
ETF. In addition, an IIV, which represents an estimate of the value of
a share of each ETF, must be updated and disseminated at least once
every 15 seconds during CBOE Normal Market Hours trading session. The
IIV must reflect changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar
and the currency in which any index or portfolio component stock is
denominated. If the IIV does not change during some or all of the
period when trading is occurring on CBOE, then the last official
calculated IIV must remain available throughout CBOE's trading
hours.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    \35\ See proposed CBOE Rule 31.5(L).01(b)(ii) and
31.5(M).01(b)(ii).
    \36\ See proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L).01(c) and 31.5(M).01(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposal is reasonably designed to
preclude trading of ETFs when transparency is impaired. Proposed CBOE
Rule 52.3(b) provides that, when the Exchange is the listing market,
CBOE may halt trading during the day in which the interruption occurs
if the IIV or its equivalent or index value applicable to a Derivative
Securities Product is not disseminated as required. If the interruption
continues, CBOE will halt trading no later than the beginning of the
next trading day. In addition, proposed CBOE Rule 52.3(c) sets forth
trading halt procedures when the Exchange trades the Derivative
Securities Product pursuant to UTP. This proposed rule is substantially
similar to that recently adopted by other exchanges.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra note 33; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 54997 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78501 (December 29, 2006) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. These generic listing
standards provide that the issuer of an ETF must represent that it will
calculate the NAV and make it available daily to all market
participants at the same time.\38\ CBOE proposed to amend current CBOE
Rules 31.5(L).01(b)(ii) and 31.5(M).01(b)(ii) to make sure that an
entity that advises an index provider or calculator and related
entities has in place procedures designed to prevent the use and
dissemination of material non-public information regarding the index
underlying the ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed CBOE Rules 31.5(L)(f) and 31.5(M)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has represented that its surveillance procedures are adequate
to properly monitor the trading of the IPRs and IPSs listed pursuant to
the proposed new listing standards or traded on a UTP basis. This
approval is based on that representation.
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 CBOE's proposal is substantially similar to other proposals
that have been approved by the Commission.\39\ The Commission does not
believe that CBOE's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues and,
therefore, 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
CBOE, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Therefore, the
Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\40\ to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 33.
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\41\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-109), as amended,
be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3732 Filed 2-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37945-37947]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67214; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 921NY,
921.1NY, and 931NY Prescribing the Registered Proprietary Traders
Examination (Series 56) as the Qualifying Examination for Registered
Market Makers, Market Maker Authorized Traders, and Floor Brokers

June 19, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 13 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19
(b)(3)(A)(iii) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder \5\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 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 proposes to prescribe the Registered Proprietary
Traders Examination (Series 56) (the ``Series 56 Examination'') as the
qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, Market Maker
Authorized Traders (``MMATs''), and Floor Brokers. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to prescribe the Series 56 Examination as the
qualifying examination for registered Market Makers, MMATs, and Floor
Brokers.
    Exchange Rule 921NY specifies that an applicant must pass an
examination prescribed by the Exchange in order to register as a Market
Maker. Exchange Rule 921.1NY specifies that an applicant must pass an
examination conducted by the Exchange in order to register as a MMAT.
For the purposes of these rules, NYSE Amex Options has prescribed the
Series 48 as the qualifying exam for both Market Makers and MMATs.
Exchange Rule 931NY specifies that an applicant must pass an
examination prescribed by the Exchange in order to register as a Floor
Broker. For the purposes of this rule, NYSE Amex Options has prescribed
the Series 49 as the qualifying exam for Floor Brokers. NYSE Amex
Options proposes to change the prescribed examination for Market
Makers, MMATs, and Floor Brokers to the Series 56 Examination. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to add a parenthetical reference to the
Series 56 examination to Rules 921NY, 921.1NY and 931NY.
    The Series 56 Examination was developed by a committee comprised of
industry representatives, Exchange staff and staff from other SROs. The
Series 56 Examination tests a candidate's knowledge of proprietary
trading generally and the industry rules applicable to trading of
equity securities and listed options contracts. The Series 56
Examination covers, among other things, recordkeeping and recording
requirements; types and characteristics of securities and investments;
trading practices; and display, execution, and trading systems.\6\ As
such the Exchange believes that an applicant who has passed the Series
56 is proven to be qualified to act in the capacity of a Market Maker,
Floor Broker and/or MMAT on NYSE Amex Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange previously submitted detailed content outline
for the Series 56 examination to the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66482 (February 28, 2012), 77 FR 13170
(March 5, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NYSE Amex Options will no longer be offering the Series 48 or
Series 49 as qualifying exams to new applicants, the Exchange will
recognize any individual who has passed one of those exams as having
successfully completed a qualifying exam. An individual presently
registered as a Market Maker, MMAT or Floor Broker on NYSE Amex
Options, who has previously passed a qualifying exam as prescribed by
the Exchange, will not be required to take the Series 56 as a condition
of their continued registration.
    Following effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will issue a Regulatory Bulletin announcing the compliance date within
30 days of the operative date of the rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) \7\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') in general,
and furthers the objectives of (1) Section 6(c)(3)(B) \8\ of the Act,
pursuant to which a national securities exchange prescribes standards
of training, experience and competence for members and their associated
persons; and (2) Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that it is designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes that prescribing the Series 56
Examination for Market Makers, MMATs, and Floor Brokers is appropriate
because the Series 56 Examination addresses industry topics that
establish the foundation for the regulatory and procedural knowledge
necessary for individuals required to register as Market Makers, MMATs,
and Floor Brokers. In addition, the Series 56 Examination is shared by
other exchanges and has become the industry standard.\10\ Accordingly,
adopting the Series 56 Examination will help to promote consistency in
examination requirements and uniformity across markets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64699 (June 17,
2011), 76 FR 36945 (June 23, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-056). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65054 (August 8, 2011), 76 FR
50277 (August 12, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to educate its ATP Holders regarding the
requirements that are unique to the Exchange through its orientation
programs to ensure that all ATP Holders will continue to be properly
registered, trained, and qualified to perform their functions, which
will protect investors and the public interest.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if

consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ 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 that the proposal
may become operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\15\ Waiver of the 30-day operative delay will enable an
associated person of an Exchange firm to qualify as a Market Maker,
MMAT or Floor Broker on NYSE Amex Options by passing the Series 56
exam, which is shared by the other options exchanges. The Commission
hereby waives the operative delay making the filing effective and
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-09 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-NYSEMKT-2012-09. 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. Copies of the
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's
principal office and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-09 and should
be submitted on or before July 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15379 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1741-1743]
[DOCID:fr13ja09-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59212, File No. SR-MSRB-2008-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Relating to MSRB Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue
Requirements, to Establish a Transparency System for Municipal Auction
Rate Securities and Municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations

January 7, 2009.
    On November 18, 2008, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), 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 MSRB Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers
and New Issue Requirements, to establish a transparency system for
municipal auction rate securities and municipal variable rate demand
obligations. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2008.\3\ The Commission received three
comment letters about the proposed rule change.\4\ On January 2, 2009,
the MSRB filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58998 (Nov. 21,
2008), 73 FR 72540 (Nov. 28, 2008) (``Commission's Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Jeffrey A. Schuh, Vice President, Chief
Compliance Officer, Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC (``WFBS''),
dated December 18, 2008; letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated December 19, 2008;
and letter from Michael Decker and Mike Nicholas, Co-Chief Executive
Officers, Regional Bond Dealers Association (``RBDA''), dated
December 29, 2008.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB responded to the three comment
letters and, in response to the comment letters, postponed the
effective date of the proposed amendments to Rule G-34 that relate
to Variable Rate Demand Obligations from January 30, 2009 to April
1, 2009. The proposed January 30, 2009 effective date for the
proposed amendments to Rule G-34 that relate to Auction Rate
Securities remains unchanged. This is a technical amendment and is
not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would establish a transparency system for
municipal Auction Rate Securities (``ARS'') and municipal Variable Rate
Demand Obligations (``VRDO''). The proposed rule change would: (i)
Implement an electronic system that would collect and disseminate ARS
and VRDO information (the ``Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency
System Proposal''); (ii) provide free public access to information
disseminated from the Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency
(``SHORT'') System through the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market
Access (EMMA) system (the ``EMMA short-term obligation rate
transparency service''); and (iii) amend Rule G-34, on CUSIP numbers
and new issue requirements, to require brokers, dealers and municipal
securities dealers (collectively ``dealers'') to report, or ensure the
reporting of, interest rate and descriptive information to the SHORT
System about ARS and VRDO following an ARS auction or VRDO interest
rate reset. A full description of the proposal is contained in the
Commission's Notice.
    As previously noted, the Commission received three comment letters
relating to the proposed rule change.\6\ The commenters generally
supported the concept of the proposal, but raised concerns about the
timing of its implementation and certain data points required to be
collected. WFBS commented only with respect to the proposed effective
date of the proposal. WFBS requested that the implementation date of
the proposal be extended to four months from the date of publication of
the final rule so that changes needed to support the SHORT proposal
could be designed, thoroughly tested and implemented prior to the
proposed implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA supported the concept of collection and display of auction
rate reset and remarketing rate reset information, and focused its
comments on the timing of implementation and certain data points
proposed to be collected. SIFMA stated that its members feel strongly
that January 30, 2009 is an unrealistically short timeframe for
implementing the new regulatory requirement. SIFMA noted that this year
has been a historic year for technological and operational issues due
to the market dislocation, and that this as well as other issues have
resulted in many urgent technology and operation projects queued at
broker dealer firms. SIFMA requested that the proposal be delayed until
the later of April 1, 2009 or 90 days after the final rule is approved
by the SEC.
    SIFMA also recommended that maximum and minimum VRDO rates not be
required by the SHORT system. SIFMA stated that the terms of VRDO
securities, by and large, have been negotiated on a bespoke basis for
each transaction, that maximum rate formulas are not standardized, and
that the administrative burden of calculating and reporting the maximum
rate for every reset period is in excess of the theoretical benefits it
provides. SIFMA also found no evidence of minimum rates in any VRDO
transaction and stated that this is a superfluous field which should be
eliminated.
    SIFMA stated that the broker dealers regulated by the MSRB do not
have control over all of the ARS data points being requested in the
proposal because broker dealers merely receive the auction information
from the auction agent. Therefore SIFMA believes that there should be
an acknowledgement in Rule G-34(c)(i) that the broker dealer is only
responsible for forwarding the information it has received from the
auction agent and not be responsible for the accuracy of that data.
    RBDA stated in its letter that they support the implementation of
the proposal as early as is practical, but believe the intended
effective date of January 30, 2009 will not give market participants
sufficient time to implement and thoroughly test automated systems that
will facilitate compliance with rules associated with the new system.
RBDA requested that the effective date for full

implementation of the proposal be moved to April 1, 2009.
    In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB responded to the three comment letters
and, in response to the comment letters, postponed the effective date
of the proposed amendments to Rule G-34 that relate to Variable Rate
Demand Obligations from January 30, 2009 to April 1, 2009. The proposed
January 30, 2009 effective date for the proposed amendments to Rule G-
34 that relate to Auction Rate Securities remains unchanged.
    The MSRB noted in response to the comments from SIFMA with respect
to the data points to be collected that the SHORT System has been
designed to accept reports of VRDO in which the minimum rate is
unspecified by allowing a dealer to not include a value for the minimum
rate. SIFMA also stated that some VRDO maximum rates are not stated in
official documents for the VRDO or are set pursuant to a formula for
which some VRDO maximum rates are not able to be calculated on the day
that an interest rate reset occurs. The MSRB stated that the purpose of
the requirement in the proposed amendments to Rule G-34 to report the
current maximum rate is to improve the availability of important
characteristics of a VRDO that have been set by drafters of official
documents for VRDO. Therefore, dealers would be required to report
under the proposed amendments to Rule G-34 VRDO maximum rates that are
stated in official documents either as absolute values or that are able
to be calculated pursuant to formulas on the day of an interest rate
reset. For VRDO maximum rates that are not able to be calculated on the
day an interest rate reset occurs, the SHORT System has been designed
to accept a value of ``not calculable.'' In addition, the SHORT System
also has been designed to accept reports of VRDO in which the maximum
rate is unspecified by allowing a dealer to not include a value for the
maximum rate.
    The MSRB acknowledged that many of the items of information about
ARS that would be required to be reported to the MSRB under the
proposed amendments to Rule G-34 are produced by ARS auction agents and
that dealers may not always be able to verify the accuracy of such
information. Accordingly, the MSRB stated that it has designed the
SHORT System to accept submissions of information directly from ARS
auction agents and has incorporated into the proposed amendments to
Rule G-34 that dealers ``may rely on the accuracy of such information
if the [dealer] makes a good faith and reasonable effort to cause the
Auction Agent to correct any inaccuracies known to the [dealer].'' In
the event that an ARS auction agent does not submit information
directly to the SHORT System but instead a dealer reports to the SHORT
System information it receives from the ARS auction agent, the
reporting dealer would have a similar responsibility for correcting any
inaccuracies known to the dealer in the data provided to it by an ARS
auction agent. Therefore, so long as the dealer reports the information
about the auction as provided by the ARS auction agent and fulfills its
responsibility to correct known inaccuracies, and the dealer does not
itself introduce any inaccuracies to the data submitted, the dealer
would be entitled to the same reliance as in the case of a direct
submission to the SHORT System by the ARS auction agent. The Commission
believes that the MSRB has adequately addressed the concerns raised by
SIFMA about the collection of data points for VRDO and ARS.
    The MSRB filed Amendment No. 1 in response to concerns raised by
all three commenters about the effective date of the proposal. The
proposed January 30, 2009 effective date for the proposed amendments to
Rule G-34 that relate to Auction Rate Securities remains unchanged.
While the MSRB acknowledged that some dealers may need additional time
to perform and test system changes to report data to the MSRB using an
automated system, the MSRB believes that dealers will be able to report
information about ARS to the MSRB manually using the SHORT System Web
User Interface if those system changes are not able to be fully
implemented by January 30, 2009, particularly since the number of ARS
issues is relatively small. In addition, since ARS are primarily a
retail product, the MSRB believes it is important to provide
transparency of ARS as early as practicable. Accordingly, the MSRB does
not believe that a change to the proposed January 30, 2009 effective
date for ARS is warranted. The Commission agrees that a change to the
proposed January 30, 2009 effective date for ARS is not warranted
because the dislocations in the ARS market necessitate the improvement
of price transparency for ARS as soon as possible.
    Amendment No. 1 postpones the effective date of the proposed
amendments to Rule G-34 that relate to Variable Rate Demand Obligations
from January 30, 2009 to April 1, 2009. While the SHORT System allows
data to be reported manually using the SHORT System Web User Interface,
the MSRB agrees with commenters that manual submission of data for VRDO
would be impractical in many cases due to the high number of VRDO
securities and the frequency with which VRDO interest rates reset.
Therefore, the MSRB believes that a revised effective date of April 1,
2009 would allow additional time for dealers to implement automated
systems to submit data about VRDO to the SHORT System and should
address commenters concerns. The Commission believes that this
extension provides a reasonable accommodation to dealers.
    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letters received, and the MSRB's response to the comment
letters and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB \7\ and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among other
things, that the MSRB's rules 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 municipal
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\9\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act because it would serve as an additional mechanism by which the MSRB
works toward removing impediments to and helping to perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market in municipal securities by
providing a centralized venue for free public access to information
about ARS and VRDO. The proposed rule change would provide greater
access to information about ARS and VRDO to all participants in the
municipal securities market on an equal basis thereby removing
potential barriers to obtaining such information and will allow the
municipal securities industry to produce more accurate trade reporting
and transparency. These factors serve to promote the statutory

mandate of the MSRB to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2008-07), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-441 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29568-29569]
[DOCID:fr29my07-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55789; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Trading
a Class of Options Without Designating a Lead Market Maker

May 21, 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 3, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On May 2, 2007,
NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed
rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Arca is proposing to modify Exchange Rules 6.35, 6.38, 6.92,
and 6.93 to allow an option issue to trade without designating a Lead
Market Maker (``LMM''). In those options without an LMM, the Exchange
will designate a Market Maker as the sender of a Principal Acting as
Agent (``P/A'') Order \3\ through the Options Intermarket Linkage
(``Linkage'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 2(16)(a) of the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and
Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage Plan'') defines a
P/A Order as an order for the principal account of a market maker
that is authorized to represent customer orders, reflecting the
terms of a related unexecuted customer order for which the market
maker is acting as agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 proposed rule changes would allow the Exchange to trade a class
of options without designating an LMM, yet still meet the requirements
of the Linkage Plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved Linkage proposed
by Amex, CBOE, and ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently,
Phlx, Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), and BSE joined the
Linkage Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573
(November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574
(November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850 (November 28, 2000); and 49198
(February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029 (February 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An LMM designation on the Exchange obligates a Market Maker to a
99% quoting requirement in all appointed series of an underlying
class,\5\ in return for up to a 40% guaranteed allocation on trades
executed on the Exchange when the LMM is quoting at the national best
bid or offer (``NBBO'').\6\ The Exchange states that, in large part,
LMMs are designated in option classes to foster liquidity. The Exchange
believes that certain highly liquid, highly active options classes,
however, have sufficient participation by OTP Holders \7\ that there is
no need for an LMM. In not designating an LMM in certain option issues,
orders would be processed in price/time priority, meaning any market
participant, regardless of status, may gain priority by improving the
market. The Exchange believes that this change to price/time order
execution will create more competition and liquidity in the selected
option issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B(b).
    \6\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.76B(a)(1)(A)(i).
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(q) for the definition of ``OTP
Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate the Linkage Plan, the Exchange proposes
modifications to its Rules 6.35, 6.38, 6.92, and 6.93 to allow for the
designation of an Exchange Market Maker, assigned on a rotating basis,
as the responsible Intermarket Linkage Market Maker (``IMM'') on
outbound P/A Orders.\8\ Under the terms of the Linkage Plan as applied
in the NYSE Arca rules,\9\ the LMM currently is the responsible party
on outbound P/A Orders sent through the Linkage. Although the Exchange
intends to rely solely on the use of its outbound routing broker to
access away markets when the Exchange is not at the NBBO, there may be
instances when the Exchange's routing broker is not available because
of system malfunctions. As a result, the Exchange proposes that
designated IMMs be responsible for outbound P/A Orders sent through the
Linkage. The IMM would be required to submit prior written instructions
to the Exchange for routing of any P/A Orders the IMM may send through
the Exchange to the Linkage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMM will be selected from the pool of all Market Makers
who have been appointed in the particular class. Market Makers
requesting appointment in the underlying class will need to agree to
participate in the rotation of IMM assignment.
    \9\ Telephone conversation between Peter Armstrong, Managing
Director, Options, Office of the General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc.,
and Timothy C. Fox, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation,
Commission, on May 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 2(16)(a) of the Linkage Plan, however, a P/A Order
may be routed to another exchange only through the principal account of
a market maker that is authorized to represent customer orders,
``reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Customer order for which
the Market Maker is acting as agent.'' Market Makers on the Exchange
other than LMMs, however, are not permitted to act as an agent on
behalf of an order submitted to the Exchange, so as to avoid any
appearance of a conflict of interest.\10\ In order to comply with the
Linkage Plan, therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule
6.38(a) to provide an exception for Market Makers acting as an IMM for
the purpose of settling P/A Orders sent to away markets pursuant to
Exchange Rules 6.92 and 6.93. This proposed exception is limited to
Market Makers acting in the capacity of an IMM strictly for the purpose
of settling P/A Orders sent over the Linkage. The proposed exception
does not confer any other rights or create any other obligations to any
Market Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.38(b)(1), which provides that Market
Makers other than LMMs are restricted from acting as a principal and
an agent in the same issue on the same business day. See also
Exchange Rule 6.38(b)(5), which provides Market Makers are
restricted from acting as a floor broker in options covering the
same underlying security to which its primary appointment extends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 6.93 to clarify
that the Exchange will be responsible for the receipt, processing, and
execution of inbound Linkage orders received from other Participant
exchanges. Inbound Linkage orders sent to NYSE Arca are routed directly
to the trading system for immediate automatic execution; any remaining
unexecuted portion, or any order not executable because a quote is no
longer available, will be immediately

returned by the Exchange to the originating away market.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\11\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \12\ 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-2007-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-34. 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 will also 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-NYSEArca-2007-34 and should be submitted on or before
June 19, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10208 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36777-36778]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14482]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0676; FRL-9532-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request, NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0676, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Office of Compliance,
Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12.

On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813) EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0676, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizers Production (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1790.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0361
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA
and BB. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit
initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and
results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at
a minimum.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production facilities
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,765
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $181,581, which includes $170,949 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $10,632 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in burden for both
the respondents and the Agency due to an adjustment. The previous ICR
assumed the per-respondent burden hour for each activity is inclusive
of all technical, managerial, and clerical hours. This ICR assumes the
per-respondent burden hour includes technical hours only, and that
managerial and clerical hours are additional 5 and 10 percent of
technical hours, respectively. In addition, this ICR uses updated
labors rates available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate
burden costs, which results in an adjustment increase in both labor
hours and costs.
    Additionally, there is a decrease in the estimated number of
responses due to a correction. The previous ICR assumed that each
respondent would have to submit annual, semiannual, and quarterly
reports, or a total of seven reports per year, which is inconsistent
with the assumptions used to calculate respondent reporting burden.
This ICR corrects the number of responses and clarifies that quarterly
reports are only required if there are excess emissions.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-14482 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24668]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-4852-000]

Harry J. Pearce; Notice of Filing

April 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 12, 2006, Harry J. Pearce filed an
application requesting authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act and part 45 of the
Commission's Regulations, as a director of MDU Resources Group, Inc.,
Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on May 3, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6237 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P