[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59527-59533]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24371]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0396; FRL-9469-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Redesignation of the Evansville Area to Attainment of the Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2008, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for EPA to approve the
redesignation of the Evansville, Indiana nonattainment area to
attainment of the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standard. This request also included emissions
information and related material to address related State
Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements. On May 23, 2011, EPA proposed
to approve the SIP submittals and to act as requested to redesignate
the Evansville PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment. The
submittals included emissions inventories, a maintenance plan for the
Evansville area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and
accompanying motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA received one set of
adverse comments and one set of supportive comments. After review and
consideration of these comments and of the emission reduction mandates
of the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule promulgated recently, EPA
is taking final action to approve the requested SIP revisions and to
redesignate the Evansville PM2.5 nonattainment area to
attainment for the annual 1997 PM2.5 standard.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0396. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John
Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. What actions did EPA propose?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. What comments did EPA receive and what are EPA's responses?
IV. How does the CSAPR compare to the proposed Transport Rule as it
affects Evansville area air quality?
V. What is EPA's final analysis of Indiana's request?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions did EPA propose?

    Indiana submitted a request for redesignation of the Evansville
area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on April 3, 2008, supplemented by
additional subsequent submittals on various dates including submittal
of a replacement maintenance plan on April 8, 2011. On May 23, 2011, at
76 FR 29695, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing
these submittals. In the May 23 action, EPA first referred to EPA's
prior final determination that the Evansville area had attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (published November 27, 2009, at 74
FR 62243), and proposed to determine that the area continues to attain
that standard. Second, EPA proposed to approve Indiana's 1997 annual
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Evansville area as a revision
to the Indiana SIP, subject to the proviso that EPA promulgate a final
Transport Rule requiring power plant emission reductions substantially
equivalent for purposes of maintaining the PM2.5 standard in
Evansville to those proposed in EPA's Transport Rule proposal. Third,
EPA proposed to approve the 2005 emission inventory in Indiana's
maintenance plan as satisfying the requirement of section 172(c)(3) for
a comprehensive and accurate emissions inventory. Fourth, EPA proposed
to find that, subject to final approval of the emissions inventory and
the proviso set forth above with respect to EPA's proposed Transport
Rule, Indiana meets the requirements for redesignation of the
Evansville area to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. Finally, EPA proposed to
approve the 2015 and 2022 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for
the Evansville area into the Indiana SIP. These proposals were
generally contingent on EPA finalizing a Transport Rule which, for
purposes of this action, was substantially equivalent to the Transport
Rule that EPA proposed on August 2, 2010.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR
61144, EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the
three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, as supplemented on April 14,
2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA designated the Evansville area as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air quality standards. In
that action, EPA defined the Evansville nonattainment area to include
the entirety of Dubois, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties and portions
of three other counties, specifically including Montgomery Township in
Gibson County, Ohio Township in Spencer County, and Washington Township
in Pike County. On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated
designations for the 24-hour standard set in 2006, designating the
Evansville area as attaining this standard. In that action, EPA also
clarified the designations for the NAAQS promulgated in 1997, stating
that the Evansville area remained designated nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, but was designated attainment for the
1997 24-hour standard. Thus today's action does not address attainment
of either the 1997 or the 2006 24-hour standards.

    In response to legal challenges of the annual standard promulgated
in 2006, the DC Circuit remanded this standard to EPA for further
consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork
Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
However, given that the 1997 and 2006 annual standards are essentially
identical, attainment of the 1997 annual standard would also indicate
attainment of the remanded 2006 annual standard. Since the Evansville
area is designated nonattainment only for the annual standard
promulgated in 1997, today's action addresses redesignation to
attainment only for this standard.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking identifies multiple submittals
that Indiana provided in support of its request for redesignation of
the Evansville area. Given the significance of sulfates and nitrates in
the Evansville area, several of these submittals focused on the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions
from power plants and the regulations governing these emissions.
    EPA proposed the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on January 30,
2004, at 69 FR 4566, promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162,
and promulgated associated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April
28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions and improve air quality in many areas across
the eastern part of the United States. However, as a result of rulings
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the power
plant emission reductions that have resulted from the development,
promulgation, and implementation of CAIR, and the associated air
quality improvement that has occurred in the Evansville area and
elsewhere, cannot be considered permanent.
    On August 2, 2010, EPA published its proposal of the Transport
Rule, to address interstate transport of emissions with respect to the
1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to replace
CAIR. (See 75 FR 45210.) In that rulemaking action, EPA proposed to
require substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX
emissions from electric generating units (egus) across most of the
Eastern United States. Indeed, EPA's rulemaking notice proposing the
Evansville redesignation expressed the view that the Transport Rule as
proposed would require reductions of these emissions to levels well
below the levels that led to attainment in the Evansville area. On this
basis, EPA proposed to conclude that EPA's promulgation of a final
Transport Rule would make permanent and enforceable the power plant
emission reductions to which Evansville's air quality improvement were
attributable, provided the final Transport Rule was substantially
equivalent to the proposed rule for purposes of maintaining the
PM2.5 air quality standard in the Evansville area.
    Final rulemaking for the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), was published on August 8, 2011, at
76 FR 48208. The discussion below addresses the question of whether
CSAPR may be considered to be substantially equivalent to the proposed
Transport Rule for purposes of maintaining the standard in the
Evansville area.

III. What comments did EPA receive and what are EPA's responses?

    EPA received two sets of comments on its proposal to redesignate
Evansville to attainment for PM2.5. John Blair, on behalf of
Valley Watch (``Valley Watch''), opposed the redesignation, and Joanne
Alexandrovich, on behalf of the Vanderburgh County Health Department
(``Vanderburgh County''), supported the redesignation. The following
discussion summarizes the comments and provides EPA's responses.
    Comment: Valley Watch states: ``Monitors in the region have shown
levels of PM2.5 to be `moderate' on many more days than they
have been in the range considered `good' by EPA in 2011.''
    Response: The air quality index that is cited by the commenter is
designed to characterize 24-hour average concentrations in terms such
as ``good'' or ``moderate'' levels. This index is not designed to
report the 1997 annual PM2.5 values that are at issue in
this redesignation, and is in fact a weak indicator of annual average
concentrations. Furthermore, the air quality index that is the focus of
the comment often relies on reporting from continuous instruments that,
although capable of providing air quality information on a timely
basis, may provide less reliable air quality information. For these
reasons, and given the imprecise, non-quantitative nature of the
information cited by the commenter, we conclude that it is not
pertinent to the determination addressed in this rulemaking--whether
the Evansville area is meeting the 1997 annual average
PM2.5.
    As we have previously shown, based on comprehensive and quality-
assured air monitoring data presented in the proposed and final
determinations of attainment and in the proposed redesignation notice,
the Evansville area has been meeting the 1997 annual average
PM2.5 standard since 2004 to 2006, and continues to meet
that standard. The most recent air quality data available for 2011 is
consistent with continued attainment. The information regarding the 24-
hour values referred to by the commenter does not bear upon nor detract
from EPA's determinations regarding the area's longstanding attainment
of the 1997 annual standard.
    Comment: Valley Watch claims that the recent air quality
improvement ``is more likely due to the fact that overall energy
production in the region has been about 25% lower than previous years
due to the deep recession * * * rather than permanent and enforceable
emission limits.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's opinion regarding the
cause of the Evansville area's attainment of the standard. The
commenter is evidently referring to a recession that the National
Bureau of Economic Research found to extend from December 2007 to June
2009. However, EPA determined that the Evansville area attained the
standard before this period, as established by air quality data for
2004 to 2006 and for 2005 to 2007. As shown in Table 1 of the notice of
proposed rulemaking (see 76 FR 29698, May 23, 2011), data for 2010
indicate that the area continues to attain the standard by a
substantial margin, notwithstanding some economic recovery. Thus, as
set forth in the proposal and in today's action, EPA continues to
believe that the air quality improvement is largely attributable to
substantial reductions in power plant emissions. CAIR mandated
substantial reductions in power plant emissions. These requirements
address emissions through 2011 and EPA has now promulgated CSAPR, which
requires similar or greater reductions in the relevant areas in 2012
and beyond. Because the emission reduction requirements of CAIR are
enforceable through the 2011 control period, and because CSAPR has now
been promulgated to address the requirements previously addressed by
CAIR and gets similar or greater reductions in the relevant areas in
2012 and beyond, EPA has determined that the emission reductions that
led to attainment in the Evansville area can now be considered
permanent and enforceable and that the requirement of Clean Air Act
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has now been met.
    Comment: Valley Watch contends that some of the numerous power
plants in the region near Evansville have indeed installed scrubbers
for the control of SO2, ``but those reductions are not

required by permanent and enforceable emission limits. The reductions
are mainly undertaken to satisfy cap and trade programs like Clean Air
Interstate Rule.'' Valley Watch asserts, as a result, that the sources
may choose to purchase credits and emit more.
    Furthermore, Valley Watch notes that ``CAIR was overturned by the
DC Court of Appeals'', and so contends that the reductions that it
cause cannot be considered permanent or enforceable. It also asserts
that the ``D.C. Circuit already held that CAIR does not require
enforceable reductions in any particular state.''
    Response: While EPA views CAIR as likely one of the motivations for
the power plant emission reductions that it considers the primary cause
for the air quality improvement in the Evansville area, EPA is not
relying solely on CAIR as the basis for redesignating the Evansville
area to attainment. As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking,
CAIR was ultimately remanded to EPA without vacatur. EPA has now
responded to that remand with the promulgation of CSAPR. CAIR limits
emissions through the end of the 2011 control periods, and the new
Transport Rule limits emissions in 2012 and beyond. With these
regulations, EPA is requiring a level of power plant emission control
that exceeds the level of reductions that resulted in attainment in the
Evansville area.
    Several factors contribute to EPA's expectation that CSAPR will
provide even better air quality in the Evansville area than has
occurred to date. First, given the mandates under CSAPR, any utility
that has already spent the hundreds of millions of dollars to install
scrubbers will clearly find continued effective operation of these
scrubbers to be far more cost-effective than disregarding this
investment and either spending more hundreds of millions of dollars
installing replacement scrubbers elsewhere or purchasing credits at a
price equivalent to spending those hundreds of millions of dollars. In
short, any utility in a state covered by CSAPR provisions related to
PM2.5 that has installed scrubbers is almost certain under
CSAPR to retain the scrubbers and operate them effectively. Second, any
action by a utility that increases its emissions, requiring the
purchase of allowances, thereby necessitates a corresponding emission
reduction by the utility that sells the allowances. Given the regional
nature of particulate matter, this corresponding emission reduction
will have an air quality benefit that will compensate at least in part
for the impact of any emission increase from Evansville area utilities.
Third, in response to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, CSAPR trading programs include assurance
provisions to ensure that the necessary emission reductions occur
within each covered state.
    Comment: Valley Watch argues that, while the Transport Rule ``is
supposed to be finalized in a matter of weeks,'' EPA has encountered
delays in several of its rulemakings, and EPA may not rely on a rule
that has not yet been promulgated.
    Response: EPA stated in its notice of proposed rulemaking that it
would not publish final rulemaking until the Transport Rule was made
final. CSAPR has now been promulgated. EPA notes that, along with
promulgation of CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking to include six additional states in the summer season
NOX trading program. (See 76 FR 40662, published July 11,
2011.) EPA is not relying, in this redesignation, on reductions that
would be achieved if that supplemental proposal is finalized as
proposed.
    Comment: Valley Watch states that ``EPA has offered no analysis,
under Clean Air Act 110(l), of what impact this redesignation would
have on compliance with the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2010 1-hour SO2 and
NOX NAAQS.''
    Response: This redesignation does not relax any existing control
requirements, nor does it affect any existing control requirements. On
this basis, EPA concludes that this redesignation will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any of these air quality standards.
    Valley Watch attached comments dated March 27, 2008, that it
submitted to Indiana during the State's comment period on a State
proposal to request redesignation. Since these comments were summarized
in Indiana's submittal, EPA has already considered them as part of that
review process. Nevertheless, since the commenter has resubmitted these
comments, EPA will provide responses to those comments as well.
    Comment: Valley Watch commented that the air quality standard of 15
[mu]g/m\3\ is not protective of community health.
    Response: Comments regarding the appropriateness or adequacy of the
1997 PM2.5 air quality standard are not germane to this
rulemaking. At issue here is whether the Evansville area meets the
criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E) for being redesignated as attaining
the 1997 annual average PM2.5 air quality standard that was
established in a prior rulemaking that cannot be challenged here.
    Comment: Valley Watch reviews emission controls by power plants in
the Evansville area. It claims that one plant (Gibson Station) is
controlling only about 50 percent of the SO2 emissions from
three of its five units, and that another plant (Rockport Station) has
no plans to control either NOX or SO2 emissions
until at least 2018.
    Response: Data available on the Clean Air Markets public data
repository show that emissions for all five units at Gibson Station
declined by well more than 50 percent from 2002 to 2010, adding up to a
reduction by over 80 percent. The dates when the commenter expects
control of Rockport Station are similar to the dates by which a federal
consent decree requires control, though other requirements may result
in earlier installation of these controls. However, the commenter does
not explain the relevance of these comments.
    The relevant issues for this rulemaking are whether current
emission control levels suffice for the area to attain the standard,
whether the air quality improvement leading to attainment is
attributable to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and
whether the area is assured of continuing to attain the standard.
Redesignation is not contingent on achieving all possible emission
controls. The emission controls that have occurred to date have
sufficed for the Evansville area to attain the standard, EPA finds that
the air quality improvement may be attributed to a permanent and
enforceable set of emission reductions, and Indiana has demonstrated
that sufficient control requirements are in place to assure that the
Evansville area will maintain the standard.
    Comment: Valley Watch states that Indiana should not use data from
2004 to 2006 and should instead wait to collect another year of data to
see if air quality in Evansville is ``clean and healthy.'' The
commenter claims that 13 percent of the data is missing in 2006 and 16
percent is missing in 2007, ``mostly during periods when high levels of
fine particles are historically formed.'' Valley Watch states that,
``if our design value was approaching the level recommended by [the
Clean Air Science Advisory Committee] of 14 [mu]g/m\3\, * * * data
missing on days of high levels would not be such an issue.''
    Response: EPA has examined and evaluated quality-assured data for
more than four years beyond 2006 and concludes that the area continues
to attain the standard. As a general matter,

under 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, data sets that include at least 75
percent of the scheduled data are deemed complete and may be considered
to provide an adequate representation of PM2.5
concentrations. This topic was addressed specifically for the
Evansville area in EPA's determination of attainment and in the
proposed redesignation. Furthermore, Valley Watch provided no analysis
in support of its allegation that the data are unrepresentative. Data
meeting the quality assurance requirements in EPA's regulations show
that the area has been continuously in attainment with the 1997 annual
average PM2.5 standard since 2006. The design value for the
area is now well below 14 [mu]g/m\3\, so that Valley Watch's comment
suggests that it must now concede that differences between actual data
capture rates in the area and 100 percent data capture may be
considered insignificant.
    Comment: Valley Watch includes critical comments questioning the
integrity of certain State and local officials.
    Response: The comments do not raise issues relevant to
redesignation, and are not germane to this rulemaking.
    Comment: Vanderburgh County comments that it believes the State of
Indiana has submitted a redesignation package that ``meets all
statutory, regulatory, and guidance requirements'' for Evansville to be
redesignated to attainment.
    Response: EPA agrees.
    Comment: Vanderburgh County contends that ``redesignation should
not be contingent on final promulgation of the [Transport Rule].'' The
commenter adds that the area was meeting the air quality standard by
2006, and disagrees with EPA's statement ``that air quality monitoring
between 2004 and 2006 `would reflect the benefits from EPA's
development, proposal, and promulgation of CAIR.' '' The commenter
provides emissions data for power plants within 100 kilometers of
Evansville and elsewhere in Indiana and Kentucky, to support a claim
that attainment cannot be attributed to CAIR. The emissions data,
derived from the EPA Clean Air Markets Web site from 1995 to 2010,
suggest that regional power plant emissions of SO2 were
relatively constant from 2001 to 2006 and only declined significantly
thereafter. The commenter believes that the emissions data indicate
that NOX emissions steadily and significantly declined from
1998 to 2004 and then held relatively steady until declining again
starting in 2009.
    The commenter agrees that power plant emissions dominate air
quality in the Evansville area. Indeed, the commenter finds that
``PM2.5 annual design values are highly correlated with the
SO2 and NOX emissions from coal fired EGUs
located within 100 km of Evansville (R\2\ coefficients [ap] 0.80).''
    However, the commenter expresses doubt in the view that CAIR caused
significant emission reductions by 2006, when the Evansville area came
into attainment. The commenter expresses the view that the area's air
quality improvement is attributable to power plant emission reductions
resulting from the Acid Rain Program.
    Response: EPA has now promulgated CSAPR, which limits emissions in
the relevant area and will replace CAIR. As explained above, CAIR
limits emissions through the end of the 2011 control periods, and CSAPR
will limit emission in 2012 and beyond.
    The commenter does well to consider power plant emissions data for
a region that extends beyond the boundaries of the Evansville
nonattainment area. Indeed, EPA's notice of proposed redesignation
addressed emissions for 13 states including Indiana, and EPA continues
to believe that it is appropriate to examine pertinent emissions trends
in this broad area. The trends across this 13-state region are similar
to those identified by the commenter in the less broad region.
    In conjunction with its Transport Rule rulemaking, EPA conducted an
extensive examination of pertinent emissions data and, because the
Transport Rule was to replace CAIR, EPA evaluated air quality under a
baseline that did not include CAIR. EPA's final Transport Rule
analysis, which took into account comments received on the proposal,
projected that the Evansville area would attain the annual
PM2.5 standard in 2012 even in the absence of reductions due
solely to CAIR and not required by other Federal or state regulations
or consent decrees). EPA did not conduct a direct assessment of whether
the Evansville area would have attained in 2004 to 2006 in absence of
CAIR, and any extrapolation from EPA's 2012 analysis is complicated by
consideration of other emission controls mandated by 2012 (e.g., by the
settlement of enforcement cases and the imposition of state mandates)
that are independent of CAIR and CSAPR that mostly occurred after
Evansville attained the standard. Furthermore, the motivations for
power plant emission reductions are difficult to discern. In any case,
the promulgation of CSAPR makes it no longer necessary to determine
what originally motivated the power plant emission reductions that
yielded attainment. The CAIR emission reduction requirements limit
emissions through 2011 and EPA has now promulgated CSAPR which requires
similar or greater reductions in the relevant areas in 2012 and beyond.
In particular, CSAPR requires reduction of these emissions to levels
well below the levels that led to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Evansville area.
    EPA and the commenter agree that the air quality improvement is
attributable to emission reductions that are enforceable and now
permanently required. The requirements of the Acid Rain Program are
permanent and enforceable and the requirements of CSAPR, which replaces
CAIR and requires equivalent or greater reductions in the relevant
areas, are also permanent and enforceable. Thus, the emission
reductions that led to attainment in the Evansville area can be said to
be permanent and enforceable emission reductions. As noted above,
CSAPR, while not requiring identical reductions to CAIR, mandated
sufficient reductions in the relevant areas to guarantee that any
reductions originally associated with CAIR that may have been necessary
for the Evansville area to demonstrate attainment are now permanently
required.

IV. How does CSAPR compare to the proposed Transport Rule as it affects
Evansville area air quality?

    EPA's proposal to redesignate the Evansville area to attainment was
contingent in some respects on the final Transport Rule being
substantially equivalent to the proposed Transport Rule with respect to
air quality in the Evansville area. For example, EPA stated that it
proposed to conclude that the air quality could be attributed to
permanent and enforceable measures once EPA promulgated the final
Transport Rule, provided EPA issued ``final promulgation of a Transport
Rule that is substantially equivalent to the proposed rule for purposes
of maintaining the standard in the Evansville area''. EPA included a
similar proviso in the review of Indiana's maintenance plan. Therefore,
the following discussion compares the final against the proposed
Transport Rule.
    Table 1 shows the proposed and final annual NOX and
annual SO2 budgets for the 13 states that EPA had proposed
to find significantly contribute to or interfere with maintenance of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Evansville area. EPA
ultimately did not conclude that these states significantly contribute
to, or interfere with, maintenance of

these NAAQS in the Evansville area, because it determined that even in
the absence of CAIR, the Evansville area would attain the standard in
2012. Nonetheless, EPA continues to believe that these 13 states are
the most relevant with respect to Evansville area air quality.

               Table 1--SO2 and NOX Emission Budgets for 2012 in Proposed and Final Transport Rule
                                                     [tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      SO2 Budgets                     Annual NOX Budgets
                  State                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Proposed TR 2012    Final TR 2012   Proposed TR 2012    Final TR 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.................................           400,378           285,424           115,687           109,726
Alabama.................................           161,871           216,033            69,169            72,691
Georgia.................................           233,260           158,527            73,801            62,010
Illinois................................           208,957           234,889            56,040            47,872
Iowa....................................            94,052           107,085            46,068            38,335
Kentucky................................           219,549           232,662            74,117            85,086
Michigan................................           251,337           229,303            64,932            60,193
Missouri................................           203,689           207,466            57,681            52,374
Ohio....................................           464,964           310,230            97,313            92,703
Pennsylvania............................           388,612           278,651           113,903           119,986
Tennessee...............................           100,007           148,150            28,362            35,703
West Virginia...........................           205,422           146,174            51,990            59,472
Wisconsin...............................            96,439            79,480            44,846            31,628
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................         3,028,537         2,634,074           893,909           867,779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This comparison supports EPA's conclusion that the final Transport
Rule requires power plant emission reductions that are, for purposes of
maintaining the PM2.5 standard in Evansville, at least
substantially equivalent to those proposed.

V. What is EPA's final analysis of Indiana's request?

    EPA continues to believe that the Evansville area meets the
criteria of Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality standard.
First, EPA has determined that the air quality in the area meets the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Second, with the approval today
of a comprehensive emission inventory (in satisfaction of the
requirement in section 172(c)(3)), EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan. Third, with the final promulgation of
CSAPR, in conjunction with the Federal motor vehicle control program
and other emission reductions, EPA believes that the air quality
improvement in the Evansville area may be attributed to measures that
are permanent and enforceable. Fourth, EPA believes that Indiana has
provided a maintenance plan for the PM2.5 standard through
2022 that meets the requirements of section 175A. Fifth, EPA believes
that Indiana has met all pertinent planning requirements for the
Evansville area under section 110 and Part D.
    Therefore, EPA is taking several actions. EPA is approving
Indiana's PM2.5 emission inventory for the Evansville area
as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3). Pursuant to section
175A, EPA is approving the State's maintenance plan as providing for
maintenance through 2022. EPA is redesignating the Evansville area to
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality standard.
Finally, EPA is establishing transportation conformity budgets for the
area, specifically budgets for NOX of 2,628.35 tons per year
in 2015 and 1869.84 tons per year in 2022 and budgets for direct
emissions of PM2.5 of 57.05 tons per year in 2015 and 53.83
tons per year in 2022.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, redesignation of an area to attainment and
the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in
the applicability of requirements contained in the Clean Air Act for
areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraphs (v) and (w) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (v) Approval--The 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plans
for the following areas have been approved:
    (1) The Evansville area (Dubois, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties,
and portions of Gibson, Pike, and Spencer Counties), as submitted on
April 8, 2011. The maintenance plan establishes 2015 motor vehicle
emission budgets for the Evansville area of 2628.35 tons per year for
NOX and 57.05 tons per year for PM2.5, and 2022
motor vehicle emission budgets of 1869.84 tons per year for
NOX and 53.83 tons per year for PM2.5.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (w) Approval--The 1997 annual PM2.5 comprehensive
emissions inventories for the following areas have been approved:
    (1) Indiana's 2005 NOX, directly emitted
PM2.5, and SO2 emissions inventory satisfies the
emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) for the Evansville
area.
    (2) [Reserved]

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for ``Evansville,
IN'' in the table for Indiana PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS) to read
as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                              Indiana PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation\a\
         Designated area          --------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Evansville, IN...................        10/27/2011  Attainment.
    Dubois County................
    Gibson County (part).........
        Montgomery Township......
    Pike County (part)...........
        Washington Township......
    Spencer County (part)........
        Ohio Township............
    Vanderburgh County...........
    Warrick County...............

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-24371 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56907-56908]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22645]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67820; File No. SR-EDGX-2012-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

September 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2012 the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGX'') 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 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's
principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the Message Efficiency
Incentive Program (the ``MEIP'') \4\ and to delete the reference to the
MEIP in Footnote c, which is appended to the rebate for adding
liquidity in securities at or above $1.00 on the Exchange's fee
schedule. Under the MEIP, Members received standard rebates and tier
rebates as provided on the Exchange's fee schedule based upon the
Member's average inbound message-to-trade ratio for that month being
equal to or less than 100:1. Members could receive the maximum rebate
of $0.0003 per share [sic] \5\ if their average inbound message-to-
trade ratio, measured monthly, was equal to or less than 100:1, subject
to applicable rebate tiers. Where a Member exceeded the 100:1 message-
to-trade ratio, measured monthly, the Exchange reduced its rebates by
$0.0001 per share, without regard to the rebate tier for which the
Member qualified that month. In addition, under the MEIP, the following
Members were exempt from earning the rebate: (i) All Members that sent
less than 1,000,000 messages per day to the Exchange; and (ii)
registered Market Makers provided that they were registered in at least
100 securities on the Exchange over the course of a month and met their
continuous, two-sided quoting obligations under Exchange Rule 11.21(d)
on at least ten (10) consecutive trading days in the month. The
Exchange proposes to discontinue the $0.0001 per share reduction in
standard rebates and tier rebates that the Exchange applied to Members
that exceeded an average inbound message-to-trade ratio of 100:1,
measured monthly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67159 (June 7,
2012), 77 FR 35439 (June 13, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-18) (where the
Exchange introduced the MEIP).
    \5\ The Commission notes that the standard rebate for adding
liquidity on the Exchange is $0.0023 per share, subject to
applicable rebate tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on September 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \7\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its original filing introducing the MEIP, the Exchange stated
that it was establishing the MEIP in order to promote a more efficient
marketplace, to encourage liquidity provision and to enhance the
trading experience of Members on an ongoing basis.\8\ Having
implemented the MEIP for the period since its launch, the Exchange has
not seen these benefits, and thus believes that discontinuation of the
MEIP is appropriate at this time. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that, by not adequately isolating purely inefficient message flow, the
MEIP may have unintentionally captured, and therefore disincentivized,
order behavior that benefits market liquidity. For example, the MEIP
potentially discourages market participants from posting multiple
levels of liquidity in less actively traded securities. Thus, while the
Exchange's intention was to encourage efficiency and consequently
attract more liquidity, the MEIP appears to have resulted in the
opposite effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67159 (June 7,
2012), 77 FR 35439 (June 13, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to discontinue the MEIP is
equitable because it allows Members the freedom to manage their order
and message flow consistently with their business models. In addition,
the Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable because other
exchanges, e.g., BATS Exchange, Inc., maintain pricing models that are
designed to incentivize customers to increase liquidity, without any
restriction on order activity that applied under the MEIP. By
discontinuing the MEIP, the Exchange believes that it will remain
competitive with other exchanges that do not offer reductions in
standard rebates and/or tier rebates based on customers' message
efficiency. The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable and
non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to encourage market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange, or at least not to discourage the direction of order flow
to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and

therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2012-40 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-EDGX-2012-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-EDGX-2012-40 and should be
submitted on or before October 5, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22645 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14174-14175]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 27e-1 and Form N-27E-1, SEC File No. 270-486, OMB Control
No. 3235-0545.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq. ), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 27(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') (15
U.S.C. 80a-27(e)) provides in part that a registered investment company
issuing a periodic payment plan certificate,\1\ or any depositor or
underwriter for such company (collectively ``issuer''), must notify in
writing ``each certificate holder who has missed three payments or
more, within thirty days following the expiration of fifteen months
after the issuance of the certificate, or, if any such holder has
missed one payment or

more after such period of fifteen months but prior to the expiration of
eighteen months after the issuance of the certificate, at any time
prior to the expiration of such eighteen month period, of his right to
surrender his certificate * * * and inform the certificate holder of
(A) the value of the holder's account * * *, and (B) the amount to
which he is entitled * * * ''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed below, the Military Personnel Financial
Services Protection Act banned the issuance or sale of new periodic
payment plans, effective October 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 27(e) authorizes the Commission to ``make rules specifying
the method, form, and contents of the notice required by this
subsection.'' Rule 27e-1 (17 CFR 270.27e-1) under the Act, entitled
``Requirements for Notice to Be Mailed to Certain Purchasers of
Periodic Payment Plan Certificates Sold Subject to Section 27(d) of the
Act,'' provides instructions for the delivery of the notice required by
section 27(e).
    Rule 27e-1(f) prescribes Form N-27E-1 (17 CFR 274.127e-1), which
sets forth the language the issuing registered investment company or
its depositor or underwriter must use ``to inform certificate holders
of their right to surrender their certificates pursuant to Section
27(d).'' The instructions to the form require that a notice containing
the language on the form be sent to certificate holders on the sender's
letterhead. The issuer is not required to file with the Commission a
copy of the Form N-27E-1 notice.
    The Form N-27E-1 notice to certificate holders who have missed
certain payments is intended to encourage certificate holders, in light
of the potential for further missed payments, to weigh the anticipated
costs and benefits associated with continuing to hold their
certificates. The disclosure assists certificate holders in making
careful and fully informed decisions about whether to continue
investing in periodic payment plan certificates.
    Effective October 27, 2006, the Military Personnel Financial
Services Protection Act banned the issuance or sale of new periodic
payment plans. Accordingly, the staff estimates that there is no longer
any information collection burden associated with rule 27e-1 and Form
N-27E-1. For administrative purposes, however, we are requesting
approval for an information collection burden of one hour per year.
This estimate of burden hours is not derived from a comprehensive or
necessarily even a representative study of the cost of the Commission's
rules and forms.
    Complying with the collection of information requirements of rule
27e-1 is mandatory for issuers of periodic payment plans or their
depositors or underwriters in the event holders of plan certificates
miss certain payments within eighteen months after issuance. The
information provided pursuant to rule 27e-1 will be provided to third
parties and, therefore, will not be kept confidential. The Commission
is seeking OMB approval, because 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 control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 24, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6964 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64649-64651]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58856; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Listing of the NETS S&P/MIB Index Fund (Italy)

October 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 21, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 C.F.R. 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
following fund of the NETS Trust (``Trust''): NETS S&P/MIB Index Fund
(Italy). The text of

the proposed rule change 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.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the following
fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange's listing
standards for Investment Company Units (``ICUs''): \3\ NETS S&P/MIB
Index Fund (Italy) (the ``Fund'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An Investment Company Unit is a security that represents an
interest in a registered investment company that holds securities
comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an
index or portfolio of securities (or holds securities in another
registered investment company that holds securities comprising, or
otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or
portfolio of securities). See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund is currently listed on NYSE Alternext US LLC (``NYSE
Alternext US'') (formerly, American Stock Exchange LLC) and is traded
on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'').
Prior to listing on the Exchange, the Fund would be required to satisfy
the applicable delisting procedures of NYSE Alternext US and applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements, including, without limitation,
Section 12 of the Act,\4\ relating to listing the Fund on the
Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78(l).
    \5\ The Exchange will seek the voluntary consent of the issuer
of the Fund to be delisted from NYSE Alternext US and listed on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that its approval of the Fund's listing
application would be required prior to listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund is an ``index fund'' that seeks to provide investment
results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance,
before fees and expenses, of publicly-traded securities in the
aggregate in the Italian equity markets, as represented by the S&P/MIB
Index (``Index''). The primary market for securities in the Index is
principally the Borsa Italiana.
    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the
Index for the Fund does not meet all of the ``generic'' listing
requirements of Commentary .01(a)(B) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3) applicable to listing of ICUs based on international or
global indexes. The Index meets all such requirements except for those
set forth in Commentary .01(a)(B)(3).\6\ The Exchange represents that:
(1) Except for the requirement under Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) that the five most heavily weighted
component stocks shall not exceed 60% of the weight of the Index, the
Shares of the Fund currently satisfy all of the generic listing
standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued
listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and
5.5(g)(2) applicable to ICUs shall apply to the Shares; and (3) the
Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 \7\ under the Act for the
initial and continued listing of the Shares. In addition, the Exchange
represents that the Shares will comply with all other requirements
applicable to ICUs including, but not limited to, requirements relating
to the dissemination of key information such as the Index value and
Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity
securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance,\8\ and
Information Bulletin to ETP Holders, as set forth in Exchange rules
applicable to ICUs and in prior Commission orders approving the generic
listing rules applicable to the listing and trading of ICUs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange states that the Index satisfies the first
requirement under Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3) that the most heavily weighted component stock shall not
exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio. However, the
Index fails to meet the second requirement of Commentary
.01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) that the five most
heavily weighted component stocks shall not exceed 60% of the weight
of the Index. The Exchange states that, as of September 22, 2008,
the five most heavily weighted component stocks represented 60.616%
of the Index weight.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
    \8\ The Exchange may obtain information for surveillance
purposes via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') from other
exchanges who are members of ISG. For a list of the current members
of ISG, see http://www.isgportal.org. The Exchange does not have in
place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Borsa
Italiana and such exchange is not an ISG member.
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April
12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86) (order
approving generic listing standards for ICUs based on international
or global indexes); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July
12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14) (order
approving generic listing standards for ICUs and Portfolio
Depositary Receipts); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41983
(October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29)
(order approving rules for listing and trading of ICUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Detailed descriptions of the Fund, the Index, procedures for
creating and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and expenses,
dividends, distributions, taxes, and reports to be distributed to
beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Trust's
Registration Statement \10\ or on the Web site for the Fund (http://
www.netsetfs.com), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A, dated
March 17, 2008, and supplement thereto dated September 3, 2008 (File
Nos. 333-147077 and 811-22140).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change will allow the listing and
trading of the Fund on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will
be to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 purpose of the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days from the date on

which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the foregoing proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative until 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that it can list and
trade the Shares immediately. The Exchange states that the proposed
rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors
or the public interest and does not impose any significant burden on
competition. The Exchange also believes that the proposal is non-
controversial because, although the Underlying Index fails to meet the
requirement set forth in Commentary .01(a)(B)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(3) that the five most heavily weighted component stocks not
exceed 60% of the weight of the Index by a small amount (0.616%), the
Shares currently satisfy all of the other applicable generic listing
standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and all other
requirements applicable to ICUs as set forth in Exchange Rules and
prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable
to the listing and trading of ICUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
    \15\ 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\16\ Given that the Shares comply with all of the NYSE Arca
Equities generic listing standards for ICUs (except for narrowly
missing the requirement that the five most heavily weighted component
stocks not exceed 60% of the weight of the Index), the listing and
trading of the Shares by NYSE Arca does not appear to present any novel
or significant regulatory issues or impose any significant burden on
competition. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 16 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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-NYSEArca-2008-112 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-112. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2008-112 and should be submitted on or before November 20,
2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25924 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35693-35694]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-09]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Industrial
Skyworks (USA), Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1060
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2015.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-1060.
    Petitioner: Industrial Skyworks (USA), Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: part 21; 91.113; 91.119(c); 91.151;
91.209; 91.405(a) and (b); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); and
91.417(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Industrial Skyworks (USA), Inc.
petitions to operate a small unmanned aircraft system to provide
inspection services during nighttime operations.

[FR Doc. 2015-15201 Filed 6-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P