42709 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 138 / Friday, July 18, 2003 / Notices List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: July 9, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   18304 Filed 7   17   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0197; FRL   7311   4]

Issuance of Experimental Use Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted experimental use permits ( EUPs) to the following pesticide applicants. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact the designated contact person for the EUP listed in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0197. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

C. Contact Persons For additional information contact the designated contact person for the EUP listed in the table below:

Contact person Telephone number/ e mail address Mailing address EUP number Dani Daniel ( 703) 305   5409; daniel. dani@ epa. gov Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460 100   EUP   110 John Hebert ( 703) 308   6249; hebert. john@ epa. gov Do. 71715   EUP   2 Dan Kenny ( 703) 305   7546; kenny. dan@ epa. gov Do. 352   EUP   167 Susan L. Stanton ( 703) 305   5218; stanton. susan@ epa. gov Do. 70341   EUP   2 70341   EUP   3 Joseph Tavano ( 703) 305   6411; tavano. joseph@ epa. gov Do. 100   EUP   112 100   EUP   113 II. EUPs EPA has issued the following EUPs: 1. 100   EUP   110. Amendment. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P. O. Box 18300, Greenboro, NC 27419   8300. In the Federal Register of February 15, 2002 ( 67 FR 7163) ( FRL   6823   5), EPA issued an EUP for thiamethoxam to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. The original issuance allowed 120.8 pounds of the insecticide thiamethoxam to be used on 1,230 sq. ft. around 615 structures over a period of 3 years to evaluate the control of termites and other nuisance pests in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This amendment will allow for additional use sites, lower the count to 128 structures on 2,000 sq. ft. using 160 pounds of the insecticide. The program is now authorized in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The EUP is effective from April 30, 2002 to October 30, 2005.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 43 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYN1. SGM 18JYN1 42710 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 138 / Friday, July 18, 2003 / Notices 2. 100   EUP   112. Issuance. Syngenta Crop Protection, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27419   8300. This EUP allows the use of 74 pounds active ingredient of the insecticide Lufenuron around 125 structures to be used as an outdoor in ground termite bait. The program is authorized in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The EUP is effective from April 3, 2003 to April 3, 2006. 3. 100   EUP   113. Issuance. Syngenta Crop Protection, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27419   8300. This EUP allows the use of 1 pound active ingredient of the insecticide Lufenuron around 25 structures to be used as an above ground termite bait. The program is authorized only in the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. The EUP is effective from May 7, 2003 to May 7, 2006. 4. 352   EUP   167. Issuance. E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, P. O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714. This EUP allows the use of 450 pounds of the insecticide Dupont Avaunt, containing 135 pounds of the active ingredient indoxacarb on 300 acres of peaches to evaluate the control of the Oriental fruit moth and plum curculio. The program is authorized only in the States of Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The EUP is effective from May 2, 2003 to May 2, 2005. 5. 70341   EUP   2. Issuance. IPM Technologies, Inc., 4134 North Vancouver Avenue # 105, Portland, OR 97217. This EUP allows the use of 300 pounds of the insecticide Last Call PLR, containing 18 pounds of the active ingredient permethrin and 4.8 pounds of a pheromone blend on 68 acres of apples to evaluate the control of Pandemis leafroller moth. The program is authorized only in the State of Washington. The EUP is effective from May 15, 2003 to May 14, 2004. 6. 70341   EUP   3. Issuance. IPM Technologies, Inc., 4134 North Vancouver Avenue # 105, Portland, OR 97217. This EUP allows the use of 300 pounds of the insecticide Last Call OBLR, containing 18 pounds of the active ingredient permethrin and 4.8 pounds of a pheromone blend on 68 acres of apples to evaluate the control of Oblique banded leafroller moth. The program is authorized only in the State of Washington. The EUP is effective from May 15, 2003 to May 14, 2004. 7. 71715   EUP   2. Issuance. Tonnie L. C. Casey, Kamehameha Schools, 78   6831 Alii Drive, Suite 232, Kailua Kona, HI 96740. This EUP allows the use of 16,000 pounds of the rodenticide Eaton's Bait Pellet Rodenticide with Fish Flavorizer, containing 80 pounds of the active ingredient diphacinone on 800 acres of forested ranchland to evaluate the control of invasive rodents and mongooses. The program is authorized only in the State of Hawaii. The EUP is effective from May 6, 2003 to May 6, 2004.

Authority: 7 U. S. C. 136c.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

Dated: July 1, 2003. Debra Edwards Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   18318 Filed 7   17   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPT   2002   0027; FRL   7189   8]

National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels ( AEGLs) for Hazardous Substances; Proposed AEGL Values AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ( NAC/ AEGL Committee) is developing AEGLs on an ongoing basis to provide Federal, State, and local agencies with information on short term exposures to hazardous chemicals. This notice provides AEGL values and executive summaries for 10 chemicals for public review and comment. Comments are welcome on both the AEGL values in this notice and the technical support documents placed in the public version of the official docket for these 10 chemicals. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPPT   2002   0027, must be received on or before August 18, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division ( 7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 554   1404; e mail address: TSCA Hotline@ epa. gov. For technical information contact: Paul S. Tobin, Designated Federal Officer ( DFO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7406M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   8557; e mail address: tobin. paul@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the general public to provide an opportunity for review and comment on `` Proposed'' AEGL values and their supporting scientific rationale. This action may be of particular interest to anyone who may be affected if the AEGL values are adopted by government agencies for emergency planning, prevention, or response programs, such as EPA's Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act and Amendments Section 112r. It is possible that other Federal agencies besides EPA, as well as State and local agencies and private organizations, may adopt the AEGL values for their programs. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPPT   2002   0027. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102 Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 43 Jul 17, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18JYN1. SGM 18JYN1


[Slide]
Of 383 of those donors that were identified as
NAT positive and antibody negative, 23 of the study
participants were negative for all tests upon follow-up.
This could be assumed to be due to false-positive NAT, but

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
the more likely reason is low level contamination during
collection, processing or testing.  In 1997, when that
screening began at Bayer, at about that same time we
changed to an open tube drain and drip method for sample
collection.
[Slide]
So, we got wise to that; that wasn't the way to
go.  So, we reinstituted closed sample collection in
November of last year.  Also, early on we changed lab
processes so that multiple positives from a single minipool
are always confirmed from a backup sample.  So, since
February of '99 all HCV and HIV positives are confirmed by
backup samples if they are not the sole positive in the
minipool of '96.  So, four of the 93 were collected prior
to February of '99 and one, perhaps two, were collected
after the implementation of closed sampling.  There is some
conflicting information from the plasma centers on that.
Unfortunately, we stopped enrolling -- well, fortunately or
unfortunately, we stopped enrolling donors in the following
January.  So, in the time frame to collect it -- there is
no data -- is quite short.
[Slide]
Switching to HIV now, we also use the Roche
AmpliScreen HIV microwell plate method.  The testing began
in September of 1999, and we ended follow-up study

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
enrollment in April of this year.  During that time we
screened about four million samples, representing 200,000
donors.
[Slide]
During that follow-up study period we identified
23 donors that were positive by HIV NAT only and seven
donors that were positive for both NAT and p24.  This is
how it falls out as far as applicant and qualified as
defined by ABRA, three of the NAT positive only donors were
applicant and 20 were qualified, and all of the donors that
were positive for NAT and antigen were qualified donors.
[Slide]
We enrolled nine of the NAT positive, antibody
negative donors into the follow-up study and what we found
was that the reduction in the window period relative to p24
antigen was six days, with an N of 14, and nine days
relative to antibody, with an N of eight.  So, you can see
by these numbers that we also had some additional data from
subsequent donations from donors that were not enrolled in
follow-up.  Indeed, all of these nine did confirm upon
follow-up.
[Slide]
Just a slide about assay performance in our
hands, the AmpliScreen HCV assay has about a 1.5 percent
positive control failure rate and a 0.5 percent negative

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
control failure rate.  For HIV, it is somewhat better.  It
is 0.8 percent positive control failure rate, with less
than 0.1 percent negative control failure rate.  This
compares quite favorably to some data that we have from our
own viromarker test laboratory when it was in operation, in
1997, of 2.4 for positive control failures and 1.1 percent
for negative control failures.
[Slide]
HBV by NAT -- as I mentioned, the testing is
performed at NGI on pooled samples that are prepared by
Bayer.  We began testing in July of 2000.  We ended follow-
up study enrollment the following August.  During that time
we tested 349,000 samples, representing 45,000 donors.
[Slide]
We identified 19 donors as NAT positive and
surface antigen negative.  We enrolled ten in the follow-up
study and the average reduction in the window period was 11
days relative to surface antigen.  Again, the N is 7.  That
is comprised of four participants of these ten, and three
that we got data from subsequent donations.
[Slide]
So, of those ten that were enrolled in the
follow-up study, as I said, four were subsequently surface
antigen positive.  However, six did not test surface
antigen positive during the follow-up study.  Four were

sgg
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
735 8th Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003-2802
(202) 546-6666
anti-core positive, and that was after following them for
12 to 14 follow-up samples.  All those were positive the
first time we tested them for core but it was already when
they were in follow-up.  Two were negative for all
subsequent tests, and that was HBV NAT, surface antigen,
anti-surface antigen and anti-core.  For one of these
donors we only had one follow-up study and the other one we
followed for 29 weeks basically, but they were negative.
Interestingly, both of these were from the same plasma
center, collected a day apart.  So, I am not sure what that
means but it is coincidental.
[Slide]
Follow-up HBV NAT data for three of the four
surface antigen positive, anti-core negative donors was
intermittent during follow-up period, and it may be
indicative of a preexisting low-level HBV infection, as was
already presented.  Further characterization of follow-up
samples for these HBV follow-up donors is in progress at
NGI.
[Slide]
In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge some
folks that helped me with the data presented here, Eleanor
Davis, Sue Banazek, Matthew Nicosia from Bayer, Leslie
Tobler from Blood Centers of the Pacific and Rich Smith
from NGI.  Thank you for your attention.


[Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 37548-37549]
[DOCID:fr10jy07-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56002; File No. SR-Amex-2007-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Options SROT
Fee Rebate Program

July 2, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 1, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' 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 June 7, 2007, the Amex submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ Amex has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Amex
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 clarifies that the SROT fee rebate program
is a separate program from the options marketing fee program.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 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 establish fee rebates applicable to
supplemental registered options traders (``SROTs'') that receive
directed orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.amex.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to provide options transaction fee
rebates to SROTs that provide liquidity to the Exchange and receive
electronic directed customer orders (the ``SROT Fee Rebate Program'').
This SROT Fee Rebate Program will provide fee rebates to SROTs that
provide order flow to the Exchange from their own firm's orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange anticipates shortly filing a proposed rule
change with the Commission to implement a Directed Order Flow
Program. Generally, for purposes of the Directed Order Flow Program,
a directed order is deemed to be an electronic customer order from
an order flow provider that is directed to a specific specialist,
registered options trader (``ROT''), SROT or remote registered
options trader (``RROT''). Once the Directed Order Flow Program is
implemented, in addition to SROTs, the Exchange intends to expand
this proposed SROT Fee Rebate Program to any specialist, ROT, and/or
RROT that participates in the Exchange's Directed Order Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would allow the Exchange to provide SROTs with
options transaction fee rebates for the number of options contracts
that are electronically directed to them and executed on the Exchange.
The following rebate schedule is proposed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly  directed  order volume  (in     Rebate per     Total rebate per
             contracts)                   contract         volume tier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1,000,000.........................              $.05           $50,000
1,000,001-2,000,000.................               .10           100,000
2,000,001-3,000,000.................              .125           125,000

3,000,001 and up....................               .15           150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rebates would be capped at 100% of options transaction fee charges
so that once an SROT's options transaction charges reach zero, the
Exchange would not pay out any additional credits.
    The Exchange notes that SROTs are entitled to the options
transaction fee rebate, which is separate and apart from the Payment
for Order Flow arrangements, which SROTs may negotiate with any firm
from which they receive the guaranteed SROT allocation (i.e.,
affiliated SROTs).\7\ The proposed options transaction fee rebate,
which is provided to SROTs will not come from the marketing fees
collected on SROT transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the current plan, the Exchange charges an equity
options marketing fee of $0.75 per contract (and $1.00 for SPY
Options) solely to customer orders that are from payment accepting
firms with whom an SROT receives the guaranteed SROT allocation,
pursuant to 935-ANTE(a)(7). As noted in the Options Fee Schedule,
the $0.35 options marketing fee applies to those series of Equity
Options, Exchange Traded Fund Share Options, and Trust Issued
Receipt Options that quote and trade in one cent increments under
the penny pilot program.
    \8\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Exchange members and issuers and other persons using Exchange
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, the
Commission considers the period to commence on June 7, 2007, the
date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2007-55 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-2007-55. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-Amex-2007-55 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13312 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P