[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17207-17208]
[DOCID:fr06ap07-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27772; 812-13262]

First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund, et al.; Notice of Application

March 30, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application to amend a prior order under section
6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption
from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), 22(e), and 24(d) of the Act and
rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act
for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to amend a
prior order that permits (a) Open-end management investment companies
that include series (``Domestic Index Funds'') based on domestic equity
securities indexes to issue shares (``Shares'') that can be redeemed
only in large aggregations (``Creation Unit Aggregations''); (b)
secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated prices;
(c) dealers to sell Shares to purchasers in the secondary market
unaccompanied by a prospectus when prospectus delivery is not required
by the Securities Act of 1933; and (d) certain affiliated persons of
the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the
series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Unit
Aggregations (``Prior Order'').\1\ Applicants seek to amend the Prior
Order in order to offer two new series (the ``New Funds'') and future
series (``Future International Index Funds,'' and together with the New
Funds, the ``International Index Funds'') based on foreign equity
securities indexes.\2\ In addition the order would delete a condition
related to future relief in the Prior Order and amend condition 2 in
the Prior Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund, et al., Investment Company
Act Release Nos. 27051 (Aug. 26, 2005) (notice) and 27068 (Sept. 20,
2005) (order).
    \2\ International Index Funds and Domestic Index Funds are
referred to collectively as ``Funds.'' Future International Funds
and future Domestic Index Funds are referred to collectively as
``Future Index Funds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants: First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund (``Initial Trust''),
First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund II; First Trust Exchange-Traded
AlphaDEX Fund (collectively, the ``Trusts''), First Trust Advisors,
L.P. (``Advisor''), and First Trust Portfolios, L.P. (``Distributor'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 13, 2006, and
amended on March 30, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment
during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this
notice.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on April 24, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 1001 Warrenville
Road, Lisle, IL 60532.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Yoder, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6878, or Stacy L. Fuller, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trusts, Massachusetts business trusts, are each open-end
management investment companies registered under the Act. The Trusts
are organized as series funds with multiple series. The Initial Trust
currently offers twelve Funds. The Advisor, which is registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act''), or an entity controlling, controlled by or under
common control with the Advisor (included in the term ``Advisor''),
will serve as investment adviser to each Fund. The Advisor may in the
future retain one or more sub-advisers (``Sub-Advisors'') to manage
particular Funds'' portfolios. Any Sub-Advisor will be registered under
the Advisers Act or exempt from registration. The Distributor, a
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''), serves as the principal underwriter and distributor
for the Funds.
    2. The Trusts and other registered open-end management investment
companies (``Future Trusts,'' included in the term ``Trusts'') are
currently permitted to offer Funds based on domestic equity securities
indexes (``Domestic Underlying Indexes'') in reliance on the Prior
Order. Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order to permit the Trusts to
offer the International Index Funds, which are based on foreign equity
securities indexes (``International Underlying Indexes,'' and together
with Domestic Underlying Indexes, the ``Underlying Indexes''). The
International Index Funds would operate in a manner identical to the
existing Funds, except as described in the application (and summarized
in this notice).
    3. The New Funds will invest in portfolios of securities consisting
predominantly of the component securities of the Dow Jones STOXX Select
Dividend 30 Index and FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Global Real Estate Index (each
included in the term International Underlying Index). The Dow Jones
STOXX Select Dividend 30 Index is a dividend weighted index designed to
measure the performance of European companies, which pay dividends,
relative to their home markets. The FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Global Real Estate
Index is an index designed to track the performance of certain listed
real estate companies and real estate investment trusts in North
America, Europe and Asia. No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors,
or maintains an Underlying Index is or will be an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an
affiliated person, of a Trust, the Advisor, any Sub-Advisor, the
promoter or Distributor of a Fund.
    4. Under the Prior Order, each Fund is subject to the
representation that it will invest at least 90% of its assets in the
component securities of its Underlying Index (``Component
Securities''). Applicants request relief to permit each International
Index Fund, for purposes of satisfying this requirement, to count
certain depositary receipts (``Depositary Receipts'') that represent
Component Securities as well as Component Securities. Applicants
represent that each International Index Fund would thus invest at least
90% of its assets in the Component Securities of its International
Underlying Index and Depositary Receipts representing such

Component Securities.\3\ Applicants state that an International Index
Fund generally would only hold Depositary Receipts if the Advisor
believed that holding the Depositary Receipts, rather than holding the
Component Securities, would benefit the International Index Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants state that the Depositary Receipts will be listed
on a national securities exchange, as defined in section 2(a)(26) of
the Act (``Exchange'') or a foreign exchange. The Advisor, Sub-
Advisor and their affiliated persons will not serve as the
depositary bank for any Depositary Receipts held by an International
Index Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants state that all discussions contained in the
application for the Prior Order are equally applicable to the
International Index Funds, except as specifically noted by applicants
(as summarized in this notice). Applicants assert that the
International Index Funds will operate in a manner identical to the
Funds and will comply with all of the terms, provisions and conditions
of the Prior Order, as amended by the present application. Applicants
believe that the requested relief continues to meet the necessary
exemptive standards.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Section 22(e) of the Act

    1. In connection with applicants' request for relief to permit the
operations of International Index Funds, applicants seek to amend the
Prior Order to add relief from section 22(e) of the Act. Section 22(e)
generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the
right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption
proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for
redemption. The principal reason for the requested exemption is that
settlement of redemptions for the International Index Funds is
contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the United States
market, but also on currently practicable delivery cycles in local
markets for underlying foreign securities held by the International
Index Funds. Applicants state that local market delivery cycles for
transferring certain foreign securities to investors redeeming Creation
Unit Aggregations, together with local market holiday schedules, will
under certain circumstances require a delivery process in excess of
seven calendar days for the International Index Funds. Applicants
request relief under section 6(c) of the Act from section 22(e) in such
circumstances to allow the International Index Funds to pay redemption
proceeds up to 12 calendar days after the tender of any Creation Unit
Aggregation for redemption. At all other times and except as disclosed
in the relevant statement of additional information (``SAI''),
applicants expect that each International Index Fund will be able to
deliver redemption proceeds within seven days.\4\ With respect to
Future International Index Funds, applicants seek the same relief from
section 22(e) only to the extent that circumstances similar to those
described in the application exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 15c6-1 under the Exchange Act requires that most
securities transactions be settled within three business days of the
trade. Applicants acknowledge that no relief obtained from the
requirements of section 22(e) will affect any obligations applicants
may have under rule 15c6-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants state that section 22(e) was designed to prevent
unreasonable, undisclosed and unforeseen delays in the payment of
redemption proceeds. Applicants assert that the requested relief will
not lead to the problems that section 22(e) was designed to prevent.
Applicants state that the SAI for each International Index Fund will
disclose those local holidays (over the period of at least one year
following the date of the SAI), if any, that are expected to prevent
the delivery of redemption proceeds in seven calendar days, and the
maximum number of days needed to deliver the proceeds for the relevant
International Index Fund.

Future Relief

    3. Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Order to modify the
terms under which a Trust may offer Future Index Funds. The Prior Order
is currently subject to a condition that does not permit relief for
Future Index Funds unless applicants request and receive with respect
to such Future Index Fund, either exemptive relief from the Commission
or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the
Commission, or the Future Index Fund could be listed on an Exchange
without the need for a filing pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange
Act.
    4. The order would amend the Prior Order to delete this condition.
Any Future Index Funds will: (a) Be advised by the Advisor; (b) track
Underlying Indexes that are created, compiled, sponsored or maintained
by an entity that is not an affiliated person, as defined in section
2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of
the Advisor, the Distributor, a Trust or any Sub-Advisor or promoter of
a Fund; and (c) comply with the respective terms and conditions of the
Prior Order, as amended by the present application.
    5. Applicants believe that the modification of the future relief
available under the Prior Order would be consistent with sections 6(c)
and 17(b) of the Act and that granting the requested relief will
facilitate the timely creation of Future Index Funds by removing the
need to seek additional exemptive relief. Applicants submit that the
terms and conditions of the Prior Order have been appropriate for the
existing Funds and would remain appropriate for Future Index Funds.
Applicants also submit that tying exemptive relief under the Act to the
ability of a Future Index Fund to be listed on an Exchange without the
need for a rule 19b-4 filing under the Exchange Act is not necessary to
meet the standards under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act.

Condition to Prior Order

    6. Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Order by replacing
existing condition 2 to the Prior Order. Existing condition 2 to the
Prior Order currently provides that each Fund's prospectus
(``Prospectus'') and product description (``Product Description'') will
clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by
the Fund and the acquisition of Shares by investment companies is
subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act. Applicants
wish to replace this condition in the Prior Order with the condition
stated below.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the same conditions as the Prior Order, except for
condition 1 to the Prior Order, which will be deleted, and condition 2
to the Prior Order, which will be replaced with the following
condition:
    Each Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly
disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the Fund,
which is a registered investment company, and the acquisition of Shares
by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section
12(d)(1) of the Act, except as permitted by an exemptive order that
permits registered investment companies to invest in the Fund beyond
the limits of section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and
conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into
an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the investment.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6392 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48508]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Funding Opportunity for Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety Improvements; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity; extension of deadline on
solicitation for applications.

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

SUMMARY: Under a notice published in the Federal Register, the FRA
sought applications from eligible parties for the Fiscal Year 2018
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements program that
will improve intercity passenger and freight rail transportation
systems in terms of safety, efficiency, or reliability. Due to
Hurricane Florence, the FRA is extending the application deadline to
give applicants additional time to complete the application process and
submit applications.

DATES: The application deadline for the notice published July 19, 2018
(83 FR 34283), is extended. FRA will accept applications for the Fiscal
Year 2018 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
program until October 12, 2018 at 5 p.m. EDT. The application deadline
was Monday, September 17, 2018 at 5 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted electronically to http://www.grants.gov (``Grants.gov''). Grants.gov allows organizations
electronically to find and apply for competitive grant opportunities
from all Federal grant-making agencies. Any entity wishing to submit an
application pursuant to this notice should immediately initiate the
process of registering with Grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further project or program-related
information in this notice, please contact Ms. Frances Bourne, Office
of Policy and Planning, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W38-207, Washington, DC 20590; email:
[email protected]; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Grant application
submission and processing questions should be addressed to Ms. Amy
Houser, Office of Program Delivery, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W36-412, Washington, DC 20590; email:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice simply extends the application
deadline for the Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements program. The new application deadline is October
12, 2018 at 5 p.m. EDT. Interested applicants should consult the notice
published on July 19, 2018 in the Federal Register (83 FR 34283) for
additional details about the program and the application process.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2018-20833 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 55043]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21612]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93174; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of the Global X Bitcoin Trust Under BZX
Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares

September 29, 2021.
    On August 3, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Global X Bitcoin Trust under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 23, 2021.\3\ The Commission has received comments on the
proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92689 (Aug. 17,
2021), 86 FR 47176 (Aug. 23, 2021).
    \4\ Comments received on the proposed rule change are available
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2021-052/srcboebzx2021052.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may
designate 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 shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for
this proposed rule change is October 7, 2021. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
comments received. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ the Commission designates November 21, 2021, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21612 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See Attachment.  FAA-2007-28663.  Final Rule Grid.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 23351]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1950-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2020-04-21 Filing to Comply with
February 20, 2020 Order in Docket ER19-1950 to be effective 2/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1623-000.
    Applicants: Silver State Solar Power North, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Revisions Silver State (Docket ER12-1316-005) to be effective 4/22/
2020.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1624-000.
    Applicants: Crowned Ridge Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Crowned Ridge
Interconnection, LLC, CR1 & CR2 Shared Facilities Agreement to be
effective 7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1625-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Authorization of
Payment Pursuant to Section 7.5 of RMR Agreement to be effective 6/20/
2020.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 21, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08867 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 15041]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Public
Teleconference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
teleconference of the Space Transportation Operations Working Group
(STOWG) of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). The teleconference will take place on Tuesday, April 5,
2011, starting at 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Individuals who plan
to participate should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the Contact Person
listed below) by phone or e-mail for the teleconference call in number.
The proposed agenda for this teleconference is to review the issues
discussed at the February 17, 2011, STOWG teleconference. These issues
include Orbital Debris and the costs of compliance with orbital debris
standards, the Concept of Operations draft report on reentry debris,
Space Operations framework, and the International Code of Conduct being
drafted by the European Union. The working group will also finalize
plans for the May Working Group meetings to be held in Washington, DC.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written
statements for the COMSTAC working group members to consider under the
advisory process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items
mentioned above or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S.
commercial space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to
submit written statements should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the
Contact Person listed below) in writing (mail or e-mail) by March 30,
2011, so that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members
for their review and consideration before the April 5, 2011,
teleconference. Written statements should be supplied in the following
formats: One hard copy with original signature or one electronic copy
via e-mail.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/go/ast.
    Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance
should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lender (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Room 325, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Complete information regarding COMSTAC is
available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

     Issued in Washington, DC, March 11, 2011.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-6324 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34609-34611]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60261; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC in Connection With the Proposal
of NYSE Euronext To Require That at Least Three-Fourths of Its
Directors Satisfy Independence Requirements

July 8, 2009.
    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 23, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is submitting this rule filing in connection with the
proposal of its ultimate parent, NYSE Euronext (the
``Corporation''),\4\ to amend its bylaws and Director Independence
Policy to require that at least three-fourths of the members of its
Board of Directors shall satisfy the independence requirements for
directors of the Corporation. Currently the bylaws and Director
Independence Policy require that all members of the Board of Directors,
other than the Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Chief Executive
Officer, shall satisfy the independence requirements.\5\ The text of
the proposed rule change is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 [sic], and is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NYSE, a New York limited liability company, is an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext.
    \5\ See Section 3.4 of the ``Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE
Euronext.'' The provisions of any other internal policy documents of
the Corporation containing substantially equivalent language will be
modified to conform with the proposed Bylaw and Director
Independence Policy changes.

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

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
    Currently, the Bylaws of the Corporation, which is the ultimate
parent company of the Exchange, require that ``all members of the Board
of Directors, other than the Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy
Chief Executive Officer, shall satisfy the independence requirements
for directors of the Corporation, as modified and amended by the Board
of Directors from time to time.'' Similarly, the Director Independence
Policy of the Corporation states that ``[e]ach Director (other than the
Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer),
including the Chairman of the Board and the Deputy Chairman of the
Board if not also the Chief Executive Officer or the Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, shall be independent within the meaning of this
Policy.'' The Corporation desires to amend both documents to strike a
more appropriate balance between the independence requirements and
other qualifications of its directors. Specifically, the Corporation
proposes to revise the independence standard in the Bylaws to provide
that, ``At least three-fourths of the members of the Board of Directors
shall satisfy the independence requirements for directors of the
Corporation, as modified and amended by the Board of Directors from
time to time.'' \6\ The three-fourths requirement will still adequately
protect the independent judgment of the Board of Directors (``Board''),
which the Corporation believes is essential to the quality of Board
oversight, while permitting the Corporation to consider a broader range
of experienced and knowledgeable individuals as directors.\7\ The
current Bylaw provision eliminates from consideration as potential
directors of the Corporation a substantial number of individuals who
could contribute significantly to the deliberations of the
Corporation's Board by virtue of their knowledge, ability and
experience. For example, an executive of a U.S. company listed on NYSE
could not serve as a member of the Board. Such a restriction deprives
the Corporation of the proven judgment and valuable insights that such
individuals might contribute to the Board's decision-making process.
There are other categories of individuals who fail the independence
requirements for other reasons, yet who nonetheless could make
significant contributions as directors of the Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The corresponding revised language in the Director
Independence Policy would state, ``At least three-fourths of the
Directors shall be independent within the meaning of this Policy.''
    \7\ There are currently 18 directors on the Board, including the
Chief Executive Officer and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. The
Bylaws currently require 16 of the directors (i.e., all but the two
aforementioned employees) to be independent. The proposed amendment
to the Bylaws would require a minimum of 14 of the directors to be
independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed three-fourths standard for independence remains higher
than the majority standard that the Commission has accepted and
approved in comparable circumstances. For example, the ``Corporate
Governance Guidelines'' of the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., which is the
parent company of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, state, ``The Board of
NASDAQ OMX is comprised of a majority of directors, who qualify as
`independent directors' under the Marketplace Rules of The NASDAQ Stock
Market and Securities and Exchange Commission requirements.'' \8\ The
NYSE's own corporate governance standards for its listed companies
provide that, ``Listed companies must have a majority of independent
directors.'' \9\ Finally, the Commission's own 2004 release on ``Fair
Administration and Governance of Self-Regulatory Organizations''
proposed ``that the board of each exchange and association be composed
of a majority of independent directors.'' \10\ In the latter case,
there would be no justification for holding the governing board of the
ultimate parent of an exchange to a higher standard than the governing
board of the exchange itself. Consequently, there is adequate precedent
with respect to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. Corporate Governance
Guidelines,'' Section III.B. (Independence of Non-Employee
Directors).
    \9\ See ``NYSE Listed Company Manual,'' Section 303A.01
(Independent Directors).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50699 (November 18,
2004), 69 FR 71126 (December 8, 2004), Section II.B.2 (Board
Consisting of a Majority of Independent Directors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to the Bylaws and Director Independence
Policy will not alter or amend the standards by which the Corporation
makes a determination regarding whether an individual director is
independent. In addition, the proposed amendment will not affect in any
way the independence requirements of the Exchange with respect to its
directors or the director independence requirements of any of the other
self-regulatory organizations for which the Corporation is the ultimate
parent or of NYSE Group, Inc., the intermediate holding company,
including in each case the number of required independent
directors.\11\ The proposed amendment will also not affect in any way
the other director qualification requirements set out in the Bylaws of
the Corporation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In its 2006 release approving the NYSE's business
combination with Archipelago Holdings, Inc. (the ``Arca Approval
Release''), the Commission noted that it ``* * * does not believe
that there is only one method to satisfy the fair representation
requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, and reviews each SRO
proposal on its own terms to determine if it is consistent with the
Act.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (File No. SR-NYSE-2005-77),
11259, note 97. In this regard, the ``fair representation
candidate'' on the NYSE board is required by the NYSE's operating
agreement to be independent, and the Arca Approval Release notes
that even a fully independent board could be consistent with the Act
and the fair representation requirement, in which case ``the
candidate or candidates selected by members would have to be
independent.'' 71 FR at 11260. Among other things, the NYSE board
oversees NYSE Regulation, Inc., a not-for-profit independent
subsidiary that conducts the regulatory function of NYSE on its
behalf pursuant to contractual and other arrangements. Consequently,
the Commission stated its conclusion in the Arca Approval Release
that ``[t]he NYSE's proposed requirement that 20% of the directors
of the boards of directors of New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
Market, and NYSE Regulation be chosen by members and the means by
which they will be chosen satisfies the fair representation of
members in the selection of directors and the administration of the
exchange consistent with the requirements in Section 6(b)(3) of the
Act.'' 71 FR at 11259.
    \12\ E.g., Section 3.2 (Certain Qualifications for the Board of
Directors) of the Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \13\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
\14\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. More
specifically, the Exchange believes that, because the proposed rule
change will permit the Corporation to consider a broader range of
experienced and knowledgeable individuals to serve as directors of the
Corporation while also preserving the principle that effective boards
of directors exercise independent judgment in carrying out their
responsibilities, it will thereby contribute to perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and is
also consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 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 the 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-NYSE-2009-60 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-NYSE-2009-60. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-60 and should be
submitted on or before August 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16857 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39679-39681]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0064; Notice 2]

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30, 2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of Toyota's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Toyota has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Lexus motor
vehicles, do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). Toyota filed a noncompliance report for the motor
vehicles dated May 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Toyota's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 7, 2019, in the Federal Register (84
FR 60143). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0064.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 502,034 of the following MY 2013-2019 Lexus motor
vehicles, manufactured between July 19, 2011, and May 21, 2019, are
potentially involved:

 MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES350
 MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES300h
 MY 2013-2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350
 MY 2013-2018 Lexus GS450h
 MY 2016-2019 Lexus GS-F

III. Noncompliance

    Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are equipped with rear reflectors that do not meet the minimum
photometry requirements specified in paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a
of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector in the subject
vehicles may contain a photometry value 18 percent below the required
minimum.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each reflex reflector must be
designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table XVI-a, when
tested according to the procedure in paragraph S14.2.3 of FMVSS No.
108, for the reflex reflector.

V. Summary of Toyota's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of Toyota's petition, are the views and arguments provided by
Toyota. They do not reflect the views of the Agency.
    Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Toyota submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
    1. The extent of the noncompliance for the subject reflex
reflectors is such that the human eye is unable to differentiate the
reflected light of noncompliant reflectors from the reflected light of
those that are compliant.
    The technical cause of the noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day when reflectors were left in the
oven as the oven cooled down. An assessment was made of the maximum
deviation from the standard that could result from this circumstance.
Based on the 60 piece parts study using the worst-case annealing
process, Toyota calculated at 4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1 percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval calculation method, the worst
possible deviation from the standard would be - 18 percent.
    The NHTSA sponsored study ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209,
September 1994) and The University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997) found that a change in
luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most
drivers. The agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25
percent in luminous intensity is required before the human eye can
detect the difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the Agency stated that the same considerations can
be applied to reflectors as to lamps.
    To verify that a deviation of - 18 percent is not detectable to the
human eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted evaluations of the
reflected light from the noncompliant part that was produced in the 60-
piece study and another reflector that was approximately 20 percent
higher in reflectivity. The reflectors were mounted in a dark tunnel
and set up to simulate the FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2 degrees. Ten
panelists were instructed to stand at a specific location 100 feet from
the reflectors at a height approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to the
reflectors. They were asked if the reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed. This survey activity was then
repeated using two parts of equal reflectivity. In these surveys, none
of the panelists were able to identify the noncompliant part or
correctly identify differences in reflectivity.
    In addition, Toyota installed the same two parts that were checked
in the dark tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350. Using the headlamps from
another vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind the ES, Toyota members
visually observed the reflectivity between the two parts at night and
were unable to distinguish a difference between the two reflectors.
They looked the same.
    2. There are no known complaints related to the noncompliance.
    Toyota conducted a search of consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no report alleging that the rear
reflectors could not be seen or were not bright enough. This search is
current as of May 29, 2019.
    3. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the subject requirement of
FMVSS No. 108.
    NHTSA has previously granted at least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for a tail lamp and one for a side
reflex reflector assembly. A brief summary of the decisions is provided
below:

 Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12, 1990)

    In the petition, Hella argued that industry experience and
supporting studies have established that the human eye in the vast
majority of cases cannot detect a change in luminescence unless it is
more than a 25 percent increase or decrease. NHTSA stated that a
reduction of approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required
before the human eye can detect the difference between two lamps. Of
the noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest disparity reported between
a compliant

lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6 cd, which is a 20 percent higher
luminous intensity than compliant lamps. According to the SAE
Recommended Practice J576, this differential cannot be detected by the
human eye. For this reason, the Hella petition was granted.

 Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991)
    Subaru submitted a petition for inconsequential noncompliance in
1991 concerning the failures of luminous intensity on the side reflex
reflector. NHTSA considered the petitioner's statement that observers
could not differentiate between the reflected light of complying and
noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and 100m. As the
agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality petition
filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before the human eye can detect the
difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. The agency
applied the same considerations to reflectors as to lamps. The luminous
transmittance failures of the Subaru reflectors were all less than 20
percent of the minimum values specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the naked eye. For this reason,
the petition was granted.
    Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    Reflex reflectors make a vehicle conspicuous to drivers of other
vehicles at night and at other times when there is reduced ambient
light including dawn and dusk. The advance warning provided by the rear
reflex reflectors has the potential to enable drivers to avoid a
collision when approaching from the rear.
    Due to a production error, the reflex reflectors in the subject
vehicles may be at most 18% below the required minimum. This error has
been fixed in production, and Toyota has not had any complaints or
reports of incidents due to this noncompliance. Toyota has cited
multiple prior petitions where the Agency granted a petition for
decision of inconsequential noncompliance regarding noncompliant
photometric intensity. NHTSA concurs, particularly in the cases of the
Hella (55 FR 37601) and Subaru (56 FR 59971) petitions, where the
imperceptible difference in illumination makes this noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Toyota has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
of the affected reflex reflectors is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Toyota's petition is hereby granted and Toyota is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-14214 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT
                                EPA ICR 2183.05
                  RENEWAL DRUG TESTING FOR CONTRACT EMPLOYEES

1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      (a) Title of the Information Collection

      This information collection request is for new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Performance Work Statement entitled "Drug Testing for Contract Employees (Renewal)," EPA ICR Number 2183.05 and OMB Control Number 2030-0044. The Performance Work Statement applies to a contractor who performs response services at sensitive sites with serious security concerns where the Agency and public interest would best be protected through drug testing of contractor employees.  The Contracting Officer or On-Scene Coordinator will designate significant security concerns in the contractual tasking document when the situation warrants.  The Performance Work Statement requires the contractor to test employees for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  Only contractor employees who have been tested within the previous 90 calendar days and have passing drug test results may be directly engaged in on-site response work and/or on-site related activities at designated sites with significant security concerns.

      (b) Short Characterization

      The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation in response to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment.  Releases may be accidental, deliberate, or may be caused by natural disasters.  Contractors responding to any of these types of incidents may be responsible for testing their employees for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances. The testing for drugs must be completed prior to contract employee performance.  The contractor shall maintain records associated with all drug tests.

      (c) Terms of OMB Clearance

      EPA contractors performing emergency response services at non-Federal facilities are not subject to the requirements and standards of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), e.g., leased office buildings, emergency response sites, private residences, schools, sites of law enforcement activity.  This type of location is not covered under HSPD-12.
There are no requirements for drug testing of contractor employees working at either Federal or non-Federal facilities under HSPD-12.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      (a) Need/authority for the Collection

      The legal authority for this collection is Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 731, 732, and 736.  The EPA has a responsibility to protect the public and Agency and contractor employees working on an emergency response incident by ensuring employees are not under the influence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  This process is necessary to allow the EPA to meet its responsibilities and mitigate the threat to the public health, welfare and the environment.

      (b) Uses/users of the Data

      Information is collected by response contractors for performing drug tests on contract employees before the individual employees perform contractual services for the EPA.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

      (a) Nonduplication

      Information requested from a contractor's employee to determine suitability to perform on a response contract is unique to a specific individual; this information cannot be obtained from any other source.

      (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to Office of Management and Budget.

      This information collection request was published as a Notice in the Federal Register on June 10, 2005, and no comments were received. This information collection request has been published for renewal as a Notice in the Federal Register on November 13, 2008 and October 31, 2011.  No comments were received for either renewal.

      (c) Consultations

      To determine contractor burden associated with the information collection identified in this request, the following vendors were contacted:

      __Representative__		               Firm___________	          ____Phone___
      Lisa Friday		            Weston Solutions<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Jack Jemsek	  		Sovereign Consulting<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Joe Baer	  		Tech Law<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Chrystal Guthrie		Chenega<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Amy Clark			Tetra Tech<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Chuck Baker			URS Corp<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Franceska Parkman		G2<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Mark Ruck			Environmental Restoration<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Sherry Maule			Guardian Environmental<PHONE_NUMBER>
      John Mount			Kemron<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Greg Sulan			WRS<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Dhroov Shivjiani		Ecology & Environment<PHONE_NUMBER>

      Each individual consulted indicated that he/she understood the need for the information collection and did not find the collection excessively burdensome.  Many contractors indicated they perform drug testing as a normal course of business. Estimated time to complete the information collection is described in Section 6, "Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection."

      (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The information provided by the contractors' employees is collected once prior to the employee performing under a response contract work on-site for the EPA and generally every quarter to ensure employees can meet the requirement of having been tested every 90 days prior to starting work on a sensitive site.  The requirement for drug testing cannot be met with a less frequent collection.

      (e) General Guidelines

      The information contained in this ICR is in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's general guidelines for federal data collection, except that small entities have to follow the same collection procedures as other respondents.

      (f) Confidentiality

      The EPA contractor is responsible for collecting and maintaining information under this collection of information; therefore, each contractor will have his own procedures for ensuring confidentiality.

      The EPA contractor is responsible for having the drug testing performed, and for providing, for work at sensitive sites, only those individuals who have passed the test within the previous 90 days.

      (g) Sensitive Questions

      The contractor will collect and maintain employee information.  The EPA will not collect contractor employee information nor maintain it.  EPA is responsible for receiving only the notification from contractors of the passing status of proposed employees and the date of the testing.  Therefore, information being requested by EPA is commonly collected as a normal business practice and is not unduly sensitive.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED

      (a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System Codes

      Notification is provided from contractors of the passing status of proposed contractor and subcontractor employees who will perform services with regard to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment.  All contractor employees who will perform on response actions are subject to drug testing prior to contract performance.  Typically, these contractor respondents fall into the following North American Industry Classification System code: 562910 Remediation Services.

      (b) Information Requested

      EPA is only requesting information on the status of proposed employees' drug test and the date of the drug testing.

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED:  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      (a) Agency Activities

      The EPA contracting officers are responsible for ensuring that they have received notification from the contractor that all of its employees working under the contract at a response site with security concerns have passed the drug test for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.

      (b) Collection Methodology and Management

      The information is collected by each contractor from each employee who will be working on a sensitive response site.  Submissions are accepted in any format, as long as they provide a passing status of proposed employees and the date the test was given.  No other information is submitted to the Agency, but compliance is mandatory and no employee may work on a response site with security concerns without passing the drug test.  Only those contractor employees who have been tested within the previous 90 calendar days may be directly engaged in on-site response work and/or on-site related activities at designated sites with significant security concerns.

      (c) Small Entity Flexibility

      Separate or further simplified requirements for small entities are not practical because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives.  The requirements of the information collection apply to the awardees of the contract.  Reasonable expense associated with the Drug Testing is reimbursable; therefore, small businesses are not expected to experience financial difficulties in fulfilling these requirements.  There are numerous commercial sources that perform drug tests.

      (d) Collection Schedule

      Information on the passing status of proposed employees and the date the test was given will be collected periodically as individuals are requested to work on a response site location under new or existing contracts.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      (a) Estimation of Respondent Burden

      Respondent burden estimates for this collection are based upon interviews with the contractors identified in 3(b) above and discussions with Agency personnel.  The Agency anticipates that the contractor burden for complying with this requirement includes the time it takes for employees to provide the required information, the administrative time to manage a drug testing subcontract, the time to notify the Agency, and the effort to maintain the records for 4 years.

      (b) Estimation of Respondent Costs

            (i) Estimating Labor Costs

                           Respondent Cost Estimate
                                          Burden	 Loaded
Step	Collection Activity  		Labor Cat.	  Hours__	    Rate__	    Cost_
   1.  Time to provide sample		Employees	1.5   hours	$58.30		$  87.45
   2.  Cost of Drug Test								$  44.00
      (subcontract)
   3.  Manage Drug Test		HR Manager	.25   hour	$168.35	$  42.09
   subcontract & review results
   4.  Submit notification 		HR Manager	.25 hour	$168.35	$  42.09
   5.  Maintain files		       Admin. Support 	.25 hour        	$51.88		$  12.97
            				2.25 hours
            Estimated Respondent Cost per Drug Test                       $228.60

      Step 1 of the information collection is completed by a contractor employee working at a sensitive site. The one and a half hour estimate is based upon information provided by the contractors who were interviewed for this ICR.  The previous estimate was only 15 minutes; however, the contractors interviewed indicated that while this may be realistic for the time it takes the employee to physically provide a specimen, it does not take into account travelling to a lab, waiting to be called for the testing and returning to the job site.  The contractors interviewed indicated the total process takes from 1-2 hours.  The cost for Step 2, having a third party perform a drug test, is based upon market research and input from the vendors surveyed.  Vendors' costs for this ranged from $28-$85.  OHS Health and Safety Services, one of the largest drug testing companies in the United States, estimates average costs at $44 per test.  OHS' prices range from $25-$65 depending on the volume purchased.  This data can be found on the OHS website at www.ohsinc.com.  For estimating purposes for this ICR, the $44 average was used.  This is less than previous ICR estimates which were based on $65 per test.  Steps 3 and 4, reviewing suitability and notifying EPA, are performed by a human resource type manager responsible for personnel management and are estimated at .25 of an hour based on vendor input.  Administrative support personnel are responsible for completing step 5, which includes filing the background check in personnel records.  This was estimated at .25 of an hour based on vendor input.

      The cost associated with this effort was estimated using an hourly rate based upon the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2010 published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and represents the most current survey data available.  The categories used included the following: Hazardous Materials Removal Workers, Human Resource Manager, and Office and Admin Support.

      Since the labor rates used in this estimate are from 2010, an escalation factor of 3% was applied for each year to determine an average wage for the respective year.  The cost for each labor category was determined by multiplying the escalated hourly labor rate by an estimated loading factor of 2.95 to reflect industries' overhead, fringe benefits, and general and administrative costs for each year (2012-2014) that the ICR will be in effect.  The 2.95 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens experienced by EPA contractors.  The loaded labor costs for 2012 thru 2014 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) to arrive at an annualized labor cost for each labor category.

      The following are the loaded labor rates used in the calculations in the table above:

Employees:
2010 = $18.08
2011 = ($18.08 x 1.03) $18.62
2012 = ($18.62 x 1.03) $19.18 x 2.95 = $ 56.58
2013 = ($19.18 x 1.03) $19.76 x 2.95 = $ 58.29
2014 = ($19.76 x 1.03) $20.35 x 2.95 = $ 60.03
                                  $174.90/3 = $58.30

Human Resource Manager:
2010 = $52.21
2011 = ($52.21 x 1.03) $53.78
2012 = ($53.78 x 1.03) $55.39 x 2.95 = $ 163.40
2013 = ($55.39 x 1.03) $57.05 x 2.95 = $ 168.30
2014 = ($57.05 x 1.03) $58.76 x 2.95 = $ 173.34
                                  $ 505.04/3 = $168.35

Administrative Support:
2010 = $16.09
2011 = ($16.09 x 1.03) $16.57
2012 = ($16.57 x 1.03) $17.07 x 2.95 = $ 50.36
2013 = ($17.07 x 1.03) $17.58 x 2.95 = $ 51.86
2014 = ($17.58 x 1.03) $18.11 x 2.95 = $ 53.42
                                 $155.64/3 = $51.88

 (ii)  Capital/ Start-up Costs

      Respondents will not be required to acquire capital goods to provide the requested information; therefore, capital start-up costs have not been included in this estimate.

      (iii)  Operating and Maintenance Costs

      Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photocopying, and postage, will be nominal.

      (c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      Agency burden for responses to background check and suitability determinations.

                          Agency Burden Cost Estimate
                                 Labor			    Loaded
Step	Collection Activity		Category        Burden Hours	   _Rate_	Cost

   1.  Ensure Compliance and		GS-13		.25 hour	   $87.26	$21.82
        document file
				      Estimated Agency cost per background check $21.82

2009 = 		     33.84 x 2.16   = $73.09
2010 = ($33.84 x 3.0%) $34.86 x 2.16   = $75.98
2011 = ($34.86 x 3.0%) $35.91 x 2.16   = $77.57
                                       $226.64/3 = $75.55

      Drug testing is the responsibility of the EPA contractor.  The Agency is primarily responsible for ensuring that contractors notify the Agency that its employees have passed the drug test.  The Agency's current effort is estimated to be approximately 15 minutes and performed by an employee at the GS-13 level.  The GS-13 per hour salary for 2011 with a locality pay for "Rest of US" is $39.21.  Since government wages are frozen for 2012, an escalation factor has only been applied for 2013 and 2014 using a factor of 3.0% based upon historical cost of living increases for federal workers.  These wage rates were then multiplied by a factor of 2.16 to reflect Federal employee benefits. The 2.16 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens for government employees.  The loaded labor costs for 2012 thru 2014 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) for an annualized loaded rate of $87.26 for the three years the ICR is in effect.

2011 = 		   $39.21
2012 = 		   $39.21 x 2.16     =$84.69
2013 = ($39.21 x 1.03) $40.39 x 2.16     = $87.24
2014 = ($40.39 x 1.03) $41.60 x 2.16    =  $89.86
                                       $261.79/3 = $87.26

       (d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden

      All EPA contractor personnel performing at an EPA designated sensitive site with significant security concerns must be tested for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  A site with significant security concerns is determined by the Agency and could be sites that involve law enforcement activities, any indoor cleanups (including household residences), drug lab cleanups, and response actions at geographically sensitive locations such as military installations and government buildings.  The number of contractor employees expected to submit to drug testing is 1,350 for the life of this ICR (3 years).  This number was determined by input provided from the respondents estimating the number of drug tests that they provide in a year because they would be considered to have security concerns for the Agency.  Annually, the Agency responds to roughly 450 incidences with an estimated 5% of these responses, 23, that may be designated as having security concerns for the Agency.

      There are both small and large businesses working in the field with diverse response site situations that require large variations in the number of employees.  Contractors may be on-site for a few days or many years depending on the situation.  There are currently 44 contracts which require contractors to perform drug testing on employees working at sensitive sites.  The number of annual drug tests performed by the companies who responded ranged from 0 to 300, this takes into account multiple tests for employees who are being tested quarterly.  The government estimate is 450 tests for all contractors per year.

      (e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

            (i) Respondent Tally

      Total estimated annual cost per respondent for this request is 1,012.5 hours at a cost of $102,870.  The hours were calculated by multiplying the number of hours per occurrence, 2.25, by the estimated number of tests per year, 450.  The cost was derived by multiplying the respondent cost per collection, $228.60, but the estimated 450 occurrences per year. The total cost over the life of this ICR, three years, is $308,610.  The previous ICR estimated cost was $70,686.  The primary reason for the difference is because the previous ICR only estimated 15 minutes for the employee to provide a sample, which did not take into account time to travel to and from the testing laboratory.  Also, the rate used for a manager in the previous estimate was $50 less an hour than that used in today's calculations.  Interviews with contractors showed that the type of manager who performs work associated with background checks is a Human Resource Manager; therefore, an average rate for a Human Resource Manager was used for current calculations.

            (ii) The Agency Tally

      The total annual Agency burden hours for this collection request are 112.5 hours.  This is derived by taking the total number of contractor employees expected to submit to drug testing, 450 per year, by the estimated burden hours of .25 per occurrence. The total annual Agency burden cost is estimated at $9,819.00.  This is calculated by multiplying the estimated burden hours, .25, by the estimated hourly rate of $87.26 for a total of $21.82 for one collection request.  Then, the $21.82 is multiplied by the estimated number of annual occurrences, 450, for a total of $9,819.00.  The estimated Agency cost over the life of this ICR, three years, is $29,457.00

       (f) Reasons for Change in Burden

      As detailed above, there are a number of differences between the previous estimate and this one.  This estimate used a lower cost per sample, $44 versus $65.  This rate was based on information provided by the respondents as well as online market research.  Also, the rate for the manager in the previous ICR was substantially lower than the 2010 estimate for a human resource manager.  Lastly, the number of hours estimated for the employee to provide a sample increased from fifteen minutes to one and a half hours.  The previous ICR only estimated 15 minutes for the employee to provide a sample whereas the current estimate takes into account travel time.

      (g) Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.25 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.   An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0804 which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  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 Office of Environmental Information is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0804 and OMB Control Number 2030-0044 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: June 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 34971-34973]
[DOCID:fr16jn06-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53968; File No. SR-Amex-2006-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Adoption of an Options Licensing Fee in Connection With
Certain Russell Indexes

 June 9, 2006.
    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 May 26, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. Amex has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by
adopting a per contract licensing fee for the orders of specialists,
registered options traders (``ROTs''), firms, non-member market makers,
and broker-dealers in connection with options transactions on the
Russell 2000 Index (symbol: RUT) and shares of the following exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs''): (1) Rydex Russell Top 50 (symbol: XLG); (2)
iShares Russell 1000 (symbol: IWB); (3) iShares Russell 1000 Growth
(symbol:

IWF); (4) iShares Russell 1000 Value (symbol: IWD); (5) iShares Russell
2000 (symbol: IWM); (6) iShares Russell 2000 Growth (symbol: IWO); (7)
iShares Russell 2000 Value (symbol: IWN); and (8) iShares Russell 3000
(symbol: IWV) (collectively, the ``Russell ETFs'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the principal office of Amex, 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, Amex 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. Amex 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
    Amex proposes to adopt a per contract licensing fee for options on
the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') and the Russell ETFs. This fee change
will be assessed on members commencing May 26, 2006.
    The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various
index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain indexes
and ETFs, such as RUT and Russell ETFs. This requirement to pay an
index license fee to a third party is a condition to the listing and
trading of these index and ETF options. In many cases, the Exchange is
required to pay a significant licensing fee to the index provider that
may not be reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs associated with
certain index licenses, the Exchange has established a per contract
licensing fee for the orders of specialists, ROTs, firms, non-member
market makers and broker-dealers, which is collected on every option
transaction in designated products in which such market participant is
a party.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493
(September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposal is to charge an options licensing fee
in connection with options on RUT and Russell ETFs. Specifically, Amex
seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.10 per contract side for
the RUT options and Russell ETF options for specialist, ROT, firm, non-
member market maker, and broker-dealer orders executed on the Exchange.
In all cases, the fees will be charged only to the Exchange members
through whom the orders are placed.
    The proposed options licensing fee will allow the Exchange to
recoup its costs in connection with the index license fee for the
trading of the RUT options and Russell ETF options. The fees will be
collected on every order of a specialist, ROT, firm, non-member market
maker, and broker-dealer executed on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the proposal to require payment of a per contract
licensing fee in connection with the RUT options and Russell ETF
options by those market participants that are the beneficiaries of
Exchange index license agreements is justified and consistent with the
rules of the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that the Amex, in recent years, has revised a
number of fees to better align Exchange fees with the actual cost of
delivering services and reduce Exchange subsidies of such services.\6\
Amex believes that the implementation of this proposal is consistent
with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies. Amex believes
that these fees will help to allocate to those market participants
engaging in transactions in RUT options and Russell ETF options, a fair
share of the related costs of offering such options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45360
(January 29, 2002), 67 FR 5626 (February 6, 2002) and 44286 (May 9,
2001), 66 FR 27187 (May 16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\7\ In connection with the adoption of an
options licensing fee for RUT options and Russell ETF options, the
Exchange believes that charging an options licensing fee, where
applicable, to all market participant orders except for customer orders
is reasonable, given the competitive pressures in the industry.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this proposal, to better align
its transaction charges with the cost of providing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 6(b)(4) of the Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ regarding the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among exchange members and
other persons using exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\
because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the self-regulatory organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2006-56 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-Amex-2006-56. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-56 and should be submitted on or before July
7, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E6-9436 Filed 6-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P