0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 1 Ametryn Overview  A small active ingredient of limited commercial importance  Consideration of several business options underway  Syngenta conditionally committed to limited support of selected uses  Ametryn not notified for support under List 2 451/ 2000 regulation in EU; will be withdrawn from EU market in 2003 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 2 Ametryn SMART Meeting  Syngenta Use Patterns That Will Be Supported Covered in our Presentation  Syngenta is aware of other registrant's end use products in the marketplace, but since Syngenta does not know the source of ametryn technical in those products, they are not considered in our presentation. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 3 Ametryn Regulatory History 1964 First Registration on Sugarcane 1969 Registration on Corn 1983 Toxicology Data Call   In 1984 Special Groundwater Data Call   In ( E. Fate Data)

1989 FIFRA 88 Reregistration Process ( Phase I   III)

1991 Reregistration Phase 4 Data Call   In 1992 HCB/ PCB Special Data Call   In ( Surrogate data on atrazine and simazine covers all triazines) 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 4 Ametryn Use Profile  Overview Syngenta Label Rates Crop Max. Single Rate Number Max. ( AI/ A)

Apps. Yr./ Crop Corn ( Field, Sweet, Pop) 2.0 1 2.0 Sugarcane ( state dependent) 8.0 5 16.0 State Use Programs FL 1.2 3 3.6 LA 2/ 2.4/ 2.4/ 2.4/ 2.4 5 11.6 TX 2/ 2/ 2 3 6.0 HI 7.2/ 2.4/ 2.4 3 12.0 8/ 4/ 4 3 16.0 Sugarcane Retreatment intervals: 30 days where specified per state PR 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 5 Sugarcane Use In Puerto Rico Currently no Sugarcane in Puerto Rico; 75% of current use in Puerto Rico is on Bananas and Plantains, 25 % of current use in root crops, only preemergence Timing Rate Pounds Sugarcane planting application 3 4 days after planting 4 lbs 30 45 days after first application 4 lbs cane shade over Ratoon Crop after Harvesting application 1 3 days after harvest 4 lbs 30 45 days after previous application 4 lbs 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 6 Draft Ametryn Usage Information Average of 1999   2002 Doane AgroTrak Values Confidential Business Information Deleted From Slide Total Ametryn Top States ( Up to 5)

Ranked Labeled Max. Total Lbs. AI Per Year Labeled Max.

Single or Split Lbs./ A Per Year No. Applic. Labeled Per Year Avg. Lbs.

AI Per Tractor A/ Yr Total Lbs. AI Applied % Crop Treated Tractor A/

Grown Acres As %

Ametryn Tractor Acres Crop Acres Grown Syngenta Ametryn Label Sites Confidential Business Information 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 7 Ametryn Use1. in Corn and Sugarcane:

State Specific 1998 2002 Average Base Acres Lbs./ Base Crop State Treated Lbs. Used Acre Confidential Business Information Deleted From Slide 1. Doane Marketing Research, Inc.

Confidential Business Information 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 8 Florida Fruit and Vegetable, Mr. Dan Botts Summary of Discussion With Sugarcane Producers  July 2003 Ametryn ( Evik DF)

This product is currently used on approximately 75% of the sugarcane acreage in Florida on an annual basis. Application parameters are as a single early postemergent application at the use rate of 0.25  0.50 pounds of active ingredient per application. Most applications are made using ground equipment with approximately 20% of the applications currently applied aerially depending on soil moisture conditions due to weather. Primary weed targets are small grasses and some broadleaf weeds. Estimated product usage is 200,000 pounds of product annually.

The sugarcane industry expressed tremendous concern over any potential restrictions to or loss of this material. It represents an important component in current weed management practices. The per acreage cost of this material when used in combination with the other weed control agents makes it one of the most economically effective tools in the weed management tool box.

The industry would appreciate being apprised of the situation as it develops relative to the continued regulatory review through the Reregistration process. They would be especially interested in providing more information on the efficacy and utility of the product if the need arises. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 9 Ametryn SMART Meeting   Market Niches Market Niche For Ametryn Use:

Corn: SE States for POST DIRECTED application to control TX panicum, broadleaf signalgrass, fall panicum, goosegrass, nutsedge, and certain broadleaves. Use has decreased with introduction of more effective and selective products.

Sugarcane: Additional weeds: Alexander grass, itchgrass. Primary use in FL where low rates are used primarily with atrazine or 2,4 D to improve postemergence burndown activity of both grass and broadleaf weeds. HI: Use pre and post for specific broadleaf, grasses ( guineagrass,

Chloris spp. and vines ( aiea morningglory). Used in combination with diuron or atrazine. Potential for crop injury, especially post applications.

Use in other states is insignificant.

Syngenta has no plans to change the corn or sugarcane labels. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 10 Ametryn Uses No Longer Supported By Syngenta Crop Max. Single Rate Number Max. Rate/

( Ai/ A) Apps. Yr/ Crop ( Ai/ A)

Sugarcane ( HI only) 8.0* 3 16.0*

Bananas ( all rates) 8.0 4 24.0 Plantains 8.0 4 24.0 Pineapple 8.0* Not Stated 30.0*

Noncrop Land 2.0 3 6.0 * Occurs on 51036 105 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 11 Ametryn   Method of Application Syngenta Product Labels Conventional Ground Sprayers Aerial Application Permitted Use in Chemigation Equipment is Prohibited 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 12 Ametryn Timing of Applications Syngenta Product Labels Crop Timing Instructions For Application/ intervals Corn ( Field, Sweet, Pop) Apply as a postemergence directed spray to weeds after the smallest corn is at least 12 inches tall ( measured to the highest leaf surface on free   standing plants). Do not apply within 3 weeks of tasseling.

Sugarcane Apply preemergence and postemergence, as a broadcast, directed or interline prior to close   in. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 13 Ametryn SMART Meeting: Application Methods Specific Application Methods:

Corn: Ground application: Add a surfactant and apply as a postdirected spray when the smallest corn is at least 12 inches tall in a minimum of 20 gals of water or non pressure Nitrogen solution to assure complete weed coverage. It is recommended that gauge wheels and/ or leaf lifter equipment be used to prevent leaf contact.

Drop nozzles may be used, but extreme care must be taken to keep the spray or drift from contacting the leaves and especially the whorl.

Entire spray pattern is directed downward. Apply at a spray pressure of 30 psi or less to prevent " bounce back"   spray bouncing off soil or weeds and settling on corn leaves. Do not spray over top of corn,

or injury will occur. Do not apply within 3 weeks of tasseling. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 14 Ametryn SMART Meeting: Application Methods ( 2)

Sugarcane: Aerial Application: Apply only where broadcast applications are specified in a minimum 5 gal. total spray volume per acre. Make application at a maximum height of 10 ft., using low drift nozzles at a max. pressure of 40 psi when weed speed does not exceed 10 mph. Apply alone by aircraft at a minimum upwind distance of 800 ft.

from sensitive plants.

Ground Application: Apply broadcast or banded. Repeat treatment may be broadcast, band, or interline with final application prior to close in. Postemergence application may be broadcast or directed.

Spray droplet size is not mentioned as a label limitation. Rather,

efficacy is more related to total spray volume for uniform / complete weed coverage, and psi to prevent potential spray drift and crop injury. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 15 Ametryn   Formulation Type Syngenta Product Label & Others Evik ® DF, EPA Reg. No. 100 786: 80% AI  Water Dispersible Granule Ametryn Technical, EPA Reg. No. 100 759: 90%

Unknown source of technical ametryn for end use:

Ametryne 4L, EPA Reg. No. 51036 105; 4 lbs. ai/ gal Amatryne 80W, EPA Reg. 48273 3; 80% AI 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 16 Ametryn Re Entry Intervals Syngenta Product All Uses/ Product = 12 Hour REI.

No known worker activities would be impacted by this REI in corn and sugarcane.

There is no potential use in residential,

recreational, or other public (

nonoccupational settings. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 17 Ametryn Pre Harvest Intervals ( PHI)

Syngenta Product Label Crop PHI Corn ( Field, Sweet, Pop) Allow 30 days after the application before harvesting,

grazing, or feeding forage to livestock.

Sugarcane Make the final application prior to close   in (~ 120 days before harvest). 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 18 Ametryn   Equipment for Mixing,

Loading and Application Syngenta Product Label Standard Equipment Used.

No Uncommon Equipment. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 19 Ametryn   Feeding/ Grazing Restrictions Syngenta Product Label Crop Restriction Corn Allow 30 days after the application before harvesting, grazing, or feeding forage to livestock 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 20 Ametryn Rotational Crop Restrictions Syngenta Product Label Corn: Small grains, such as wheat, oats, and rye,

may be planted in the fall following the recommended application. Do not plant any rotational crop other than small grains until the following year. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 21 Ametryn   Post Harvest Treatment Syngenta Product Label This is Not a Valid Use For Ametryn 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 22 Ametryn SMART Meeting:

Post Harvest Processing No concentration of residues in corn or sugarcane in processed fractions based on processing studies submitted to EPA.

MRIDs 41909501( corn), 4184660 ( sugarcane) 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 23 Ametryn SMART Meeting; Applicator Information Corn: Use is too small to generate the " typical"

acres treated per day and per season information.

With most of ametryn use in the southeastern states, large growers, acreages, and custom applicators are not common.

Sugarcane: Use is primarily in FL at an estimated average rate of 0.25 to 0.5 lb. ai/ A. Based on this rate and the relatively low percent of crop treated,

worker exposure assessments should result in no limitation on pounds handled or acres treated per applicator is justified. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 24 Ametryn Personal Protection Equipment ( PPE)

Requirements/ Types Syngenta Product Label Applicators/ Other Handlers Long Sleeved Shirt and Long Pants Shoes Plus Socks Engineering Control Statements When Handlers in Closed Systems, Enclosed Cabs,

or Aircraft in a Manner That Meets Worker Protection Standard ( WPS) Requirements, the Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE) Requirements May be Reduced or Modified 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 25 Ametryn   Buffer Zones Syngenta Product Label   Avoid using Evik DF where adjacent desirable plants may be injured.

  Avoid applications under conditions where uniform coverage cannot be obtained or where excessive spray drift may occur.

  Aerial Application: In order to assure that spray will be controllable within the target area when used according to label directions, make applications at a maximum height of 10 ft., using low   drift nozzles at a maximum pressure of 40 psi, and restrict application to periods when wind speed does not exceed 10 mph. To assure that spray will not adversely affect adjacent sensitive non   target plants, apply Evik DF alone by aircraft at a minimum upwind distance of 800 ft. from sensitive plants.

  Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

  Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present,

or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark.

  Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment wash water or rinsate. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 26 Ametryn   Restrictions On Use Due to Ground /

Surface Water For Syngenta Products There is a Ground Water Advisory Statement in the Environmental Hazards Section Of The Label:

Ametryn is known to leach through soil into groundwater under certain conditions as a result of registered use. Use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in groundwater contamination. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 27 Ametryn   Metabolic Pathway Plants Ametryn is degraded by N dealkylation and by hydrolysis of the methylthio group through oxidation to the methylsulfinyl derivative and followed by the formation of the hydroxy derivative. The conjugations are formed with reduced glutathion and cysteine. After a complete N dealkylation representing the ammeline structure the unsubstituted aminogroups may be replaced by hydroxy substituents representing for most plants the final step of the s triazine degradation. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 28 Ametryn   Metabolic Pathway Mammals MRID 41463301 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 29 Ametryn   Metabolic Pathway Ruminants MRID 41662305 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 30 Ametryn   Metabolic Pathway Poultry MRID 41662303 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 31 Ametryn   Metabolic Pathway Aerobic Soil MRID 41752401 FD FD FD 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 32 Ametryn SMART Meeting: Alternatives in Corn Ametryn registered in Corn in 1969. No product at that time controlled the problem corn weeds ( grasses and broadleaves), but use was limited by corn selectivity and highly specific application method and equipment. Use (~ 0.2% share) limited to problem weeds and/ or areas of lower potential corn yield. Alternatives, but more costly, now exist.

Their approximate corn market share listed below.

Atrazine: Preemergence and postemergence BL/ GR control ( 70%)

Nico, primi, pro, rim, thifensulfuron: Post BL or GR control ( 35%)

Acetanilides: Preemergence grass control ( 60%)

Imazethapyr: Preemergence and Postemergence broadleaf and grass control ( 4%) Roundup Ready Corn: Post broad   spectrum control in glyphosate tolerant corn Isoxaflutole: Preemergence broadleaf and grass control ( 8%) 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 33 Ametryn SMART Meeting: Alternatives In Sugarcane Ametryn is used in combination or sequentially with other herbicides,

where it broadens that product's spectrum, and enhances its postemergence activity on both grasses and broadleaves. It is not a stand alone product and thus " alternatives" are not appropriate, but rather how would other AIs be used without ametryn.

2,4 D: Used for postemergence broadleaf control. Higher rates or additional applications needed.

Atrazine: Complete application flexibility. Ametryn contributes to postemergence burndown of both grasses and broadleaves.

Higher atrazine rates needed without ametryn.

Diuron: BL and GR but ametryn adds burndown and spectrum of large seeded BL and vines. More use of 2,4 D and/ or atrazine. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 34 Ametryn SMART Meeting:

Uniqueness of Ametryn Uniqueness:

 Effective on problem grasses, broadleaves, and nutsedge  Primarily post use but also effective pre at higher rates  Very economical for delivered efficacy  At low rates, can enhance postemergence activity of tank   mix partners Limitations:

 Risk of crop injury ( corn and sugarcane)

 Requires specific applications procedures to prevent corn injury  Effective alternatives have been developed in corn 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 35 Ametryn SMART Meeting: New Data?

Syngenta has no new toxicology or chemical specific exposure monitoring data or biomonitoring data. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 36 Ametryn SMART Meeting: Outstanding Product Chemistry Data 63 14 Oxidizing/ Reducing Action EPA response to Phase 2 Submission said this product specific requirement will be addressed in Phase Five.

63 15 Flammability, 63 18 Viscosity, and 63 19 Miscibility Same comment as for 63 14, and not applicable because Ametryn Technical is not a liquid.

63 21 Dielectric Breakdown Voltage Same comment as 63 14, and not applicable because Ametryn Technical is not a liquid to be used around electrical equipment. 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 37 Hawaii Use Information   Crops Not Supported Pineapple:

21,000 A*

Ametryn preplant @ 0.5   2 lbs/ A on 100% acres postplant @ 0.5   2 lbs/ A on 97% acres 8,900 A**

Ametryn preplant or immediately postplant @ 1.6 lbs/ A typical additional postplant applications @ 1.6 lbs/ A typical, prior to flower induction, with 160 day PHI Bananas:

1,700 A Ametryn on 300 A at 6 lbs/ A with maximum of 18 lbs/ A/ yr * Crop Profiles: http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ hipineapples. html ( 1998 acreage)

** Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, Aug 25, 2003 letter to Syngenta 0812B1GH [ OVERLAYS] 38 Puerto Rico Crops Not Supported Bananas and plantains new planting, pre emergence 6 lbs/ A 4 6 months, direct application to needed areas 4 lbs/ A up to 4 applications per year Pineapple after planting prior to emergence 4 lbs/ A only application


TSD-1e

CMAQ Model Performance and Assessment

8-h OTC Ozone Modeling

Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research

Division of Air Resources

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Albany, NY 12233

March 19, 2006

Air quality model evaluation and assessment

One of the tasks that is required as part of demonstrating attainment
for the 8-hr ozone NAAQS is the evaluation and assessment of the air
quality modeling system that has been utilized to predict future air
quality over the region of interest. As part of the attainment
demonstration, the SMOKE/CMAQ modeling system was applied to simulate
the pollutant concentration fields for the base year 2002 emissions with
the corresponding meteorological information. The modeling databases for
meteorology using MM5 (TSD-1a), the emissions using SMOKE (TSD-1b and
TSD-1c), and application of CMAQ (TSD-1d) provides simulated pollutant
fields that are compared to measurements, in order to establish the
credibility of the simulation. In the following sections a comparison
between the measured and predicted concentrations is performed and
results are presented, demonstrating on an overall basis the utility of
the modeling system in this application.

The results presented here should serve as an illustration of some of
the evaluation and assessment performed on the base 2002 CMAQ
simulation.  Additional information can be made available by request
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Summary of measured data

The ambient air quality data, both gaseous and aerosol species, for the
simulation period of May through September 2002 were obtained from the
following sources:

EPA Air Quality System (AQS)

EPA fine particulate Speciation Trends Network (STN)

EPA Clean Air Status & Trends Network (CASTNet)

Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)

Pinnacle State Park, NY operated by Atmospheric Science Research Center,
University at Albany, Albany, NY

Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA operated by Harvard University, Boston, MA

Atmospheric Investigation, Regional Modeling, Analysis and Prediction
(AIRMAP) operated by University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

NorthEast Ozone & Fine Particle Study (NE-OPS), led by Penn State
University and other research groups in Philadelphia, PA

Aircraft data obtained by the University of Maryland, College Park MD

Wet deposition data from the National Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN), Atmospheric Integrated
Research Monitoring Network (AIRMoN), and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

Measured data from sites within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) plus
the rest of Virginia were included here.  The model-based data were
obtained at the grid-cell corresponding to the monitor location; no
interpolation was performed.

Ozone (O3)

Hourly O3 is measured at a large number of State, Local, and National
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS/NAMS) across the US on a routine basis,
and the data from 208 sites were extracted from the AQS database (
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebhome.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebhome.html ).  Hourly O3
concentrations from the Harvard Forest Environmental Management Site in
Petersham, MA (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.as.harvard.edu/data/nigec-data.html"
http://www.as.harvard.edu/data/nigec-data.html ); Pinnacle State Park in
Addison, NY (  HYPERLINK "http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu"
http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu ); and the four University of New
Hampshire AIRMAP sites (http://airmap.unh.edu) were also included in
this database.  The EPA CASTNet program collects hourly O3 at generally
rural locations across the US (  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/castnet"
http://www.epa.gov/castnet ); data from 22 sites, including two from
West Virginia, were used in the model evaluation.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

The 24-hour average Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM2.5 mass data
collected routinely at SLAMS/NAMS sites across the US were extracted
from AQS (257 sites).  Hourly PM2.5 mass was also included in this
database, primarily extracted from AQS (54 sites).  Hourly PM2.5 mass
were also taken from the Thompson Farm, NH AIRMAP site, Pinnacle State
Park, and the NE-OPS site in Philadelphia, PA (  HYPERLINK
"http://lidar1.ee.psu.edu"  http://lidar1.ee.psu.edu ).

Fine particulate speciation

The 24-hour average PM2.5 and fine particulate speciation (sulfate
(SO4), nitrate (NO3), elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon/organic mass
(OC/OM), and soil/crustal matter) from Class I areas across the US,
collected every 3rd day, were obtained from the IMPROVE web site (
HYPERLINK "http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Default.htm"
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Default.htm ).  In addition to
these parameters, the EPA STN (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html ) also reports ammonium (NH4)
to AQS; data from this network are collected every 3rd or 6th day. Data
from 49 STN sites, generally in urban areas and often collocated with
FRM monitors, and 21 IMPROVE sites (including Dolly Sods, WV) were used
in this analysis.  Organic mass is assumed to equal 1.8×OC, and
soil/crustal matter is assumed to consist of oxides of Al, Ca, Fe, Si,
and Ti.  The STN OC data are blank-corrected by removing a
monitor-specific, constant blank, and these values are available from
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd03/pdfs/2_chemspec0fpm25.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd03/pdfs/2_chemspec0fpm25.pdf ; the
IMPROVE OC blanks are assumed to equal zero.

Criteria gaseous pollutants

Hourly carbon monoxide (CO; 97 sites), nitric oxide (NO; 75 sites),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2; 97 sites) and sulfur dioxide (SO2; 134 sites) are
also included in this model evaluation database.  A large majority of
these sites are SLAMS/NAMS monitors located primarily in urban in
suburban areas, but data from the Harvard Forest, Pinnacle State Park,
and AIRMAP sites are also included here.

Non-methane hydrocarbons

While there are several dozen hydrocarbon species measured routinely,
for this model evaluation database the focus was on Carbon Bond IV
species groups that consist of a single primary species.  For this
reason only ethene (C2H4), isoprene (C5H8), and formaldehyde (HCHO)
concentrations were extracted from AQS.  Hourly C2H4 and C5H8 data from
19 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) sites and 24-hour
average HCHO from 18 air toxics sites are included in this database.

University of Maryland aircraft data

The University of Maryland performed 144 aircraft spirals at 41 regional
airport locations over 26 days from May-August 2002 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~RAMMPP"  http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~RAMMPP ).
Spirals are approximately 20-45 minutes in duration, over which time the
atmosphere from about 0-3 km is sampled.  The concentrations of O3, CO,
and SO2 from these spirals were included in this database, and help
provide a semi-quantitative evaluation of CMAQ performance above the
ground surface.  Minute average aircraft data were compared to the
nearest instantaneous 3-dimensional CMAQ output.

Wet deposition

The NADP (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu) collects wet deposition samples
across the US, through the NTN and the AIRMoN. Weekly wet deposition
samples are collected by the NTN, while daily or event-based  samples
were collected by the AIRMoN.  The NYSDEC (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.dec.state.ny.us"  http://www.dec.state.ny.us ) also collects
weekly wet deposition samples independently from the NADP.  The wet
deposition of SO42-, NO3-, and NH4+ from 43 NADP/NTN sites, 7
NADP/AIRMoN sites, and 19 NYSDEC sites are included in this model
evaluation database.

Evaluation of CMAQ predictions

  are the average concentrations, respectively, and N is the sample
size.

Observed average, in ppb:

Predicted average, in ppb (only use Pi when Oi is valid):

Correlation coefficient, R2:

Normalized mean error (NME), in %:

Root mean square error (RMSE), in ppb:

Fractional error (FE), in %:

Mean absolute gross error (MAGE), in ppb:

Mean normalized gross error (MNGE), in %:

Mean bias (MB), in ppb:

Mean normalized bias (MNB), in %:

Mean fractionalized bias (MFB), in %:

Normalized mean bias (NMB), in %:

Daily maximum 8-hour O3 concentrations

Model evaluation statistics, based on daily maximum 8-hour average O3
levels on those days having (1) at least 18 valid observations, or (2)
fewer than 18 valid observations but the observed daily maximum O3
concentration was at least 85 ppb, are presented here for all sites
across the OTR and all of VA.  The data covered the period May 15
through September 29, excluding July 6-9, when many sites across the
eastern US were affected by large forest fires in Quebec.  There are 208
SLAMS/NAMS sites and 28 special sites.

These model evaluation statistics were computed using two different
threshold values for observed daily maximum 8-hour O3.  First, the
statistics were computed using only those days when the observed daily
maximum 8-hour O3 concentration exceeded 40 ppb.  Second, the statistics
were computed using only those days when the observed daily maximum
8-hour O3 exceeded 60 ppb.  This latter method focuses on the highest O3
days.

Figures 1-4 display time series of observed and predicted daily maximum
8-hour O3 concentrations averaged over all sites across the OTR, at
SLAMS/NAMS and special sites and for the daily maximum two thresholds.
These averages were computed for each day considering all sites that met
the corresponding threshold criteria.  In general the observed and
predicted composite average O3 concentrations track each other rather
well, although there was fairly substantial underprediction during the
mid-August period.  Also, the model performance tends to be better when
the lower cutoff (40 ppb) was considered.

Figures 5-8 display spatial maps of fractional error and mean
fractionalized bias for the two threshold levels.  At each site the
statistics were computed over the entire modeling season.  Both the
SLAMS/NAMS and special monitors are displayed here.  In general, the
model performance was better in the vicinity of urban areas and along
the northeastern corridor, compared to the performance in rural areas
where the model tended to underpredict daily maximum concentrations.
The other statistical metrics yielded similar results to FE and MFB.

Table 1 lists the median and range in fractional error, and the mean
fractionalized bias of daily maximum 8-hour O3 calculated at each site
over the season, for both observed thresholds (40 and 60 ppb), as well
as all sites versus just the SLAMS/NAMS sites.  Considering just
SLAMS/NAMS sites, FE was always less than 32% for the 40 ppb threshold,
and less than 40% for the 60 ppb threshold.  Similarly, the MFB at
SLAMS/NAMS sites ranged from -29 to +23% for the 40 ppb threshold, and
ranged from -40 to +22% for the 60 ppb threshold.  Adding the special
sites did not affect the statistics substantially.

Diurnal variations of gases

Figures 9-17 display the composite diurnal variations of the species
reported hourly – O3 (SLAMS/NAMS and other/special sites, displayed
separately), continuous PM2.5, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, ethene, and isoprene.
The average diurnal variations are for the period of May 15-September 30
– again excluding July 6-9 – considering all sites in the OTR.  Note
that the O3 diurnal variations were computed from running 8-hour
averages, with hours denoting the start of the 8-hour block.  The number
of monitors used to compute each composite diurnal variation is shown in
each figure.

For O3, the composite diurnal pattern predicted by CMAQ is fairly
similar to that observed, especially at the more urban SLAMS/NAMS
monitors.  However, on average CMAQ predicts the daily maximum about an
hour earlier than observed.  For most of the other species presented
here, CMAQ tends to predict two daily peaks, one morning and one late
afternoon.  For some species, such as PM2.5 mass the observed
concentration on a composite basis has very little diurnal variation.
On the other hand, primary pollutants like CO, NO, and ethane, CMAQ
exhibits qualitative agreement with the observations.

Daily average concentrations of co-pollutant trace gases

Composite daily average predicted and observed concentrations of CO, NO,
NO2, SO2, C2H4, HCHO, and C5H8 across the OTR are displayed in Figures
18-24.  Daily average concentrations of the criteria gases, C2H4 and
C5H8 were computed from hourly averages, and only those days having at
least 12 hours of valid observed data were considered here.  The HCHO
data shown here are based on 24-hour average values every 6th day.  The
criteria gas data cover the period May 15 – September 30, whereas the
NMHC data only cover the June 1 – August 31 period, since these data
are predominantly PAMS data; however, excluded from this analysis is the
July 6-9 period when many sites across the eastern US were affected by
large forest fires in Quebec.

Table 2 lists the median and range in mean fractionalized bias
calculated at each site over the season used in this analysis.  The
values listed in Table 2 were computed at each site over the entire
season.  While the range in MFB is rather large for each species across
all sites, the median MFB was below 50% for all species except C2H4,
which is substantially overpredicted by CMAQ.  It should be noted that
these species can vary substantially from day to day, and days with very
low modeled or observed values can contribute to high MFB.

PM2.5 mass and speciation

Composite daily average predicted and observed concentrations of PM2.5
mass (both daily average FRM data and continuous data), as well as major
speciation –SO4, NO3, NH4, EC, OM (defined here operationally as
1.8×blank-corrected organic carbon), and crustal mass (sum of oxides of
Al, Ca, Fe, Si, and Ti) – across the OTR were compared in this
analysis. The data cover the period May 15 – September 30, and again
the July 6-9 period was excluded, when numerous sites in the eastern US
were affected by large forest fires in Quebec.  The continuous and FRM
PM2.5 data are shown every day, since there are ample daily FRM sites
across the OTR.  The speciation data included here are daily averages
every third day, and consist of the largely urban EPA STN and the
largely rural IMPROVE network.  The two speciation networks collect
PM2.5, SO4, NO3, EC, OM, and crustal mass, while only the STN reports
NH4 at a sufficient number of locations.

observed and predicted crustal concentrations were 4.59 μg m-3 and 1.74
μg m-3, respectively at the STN monitors, and 4.46 μg m-3 and 0.99 μg
m-3, respectively at the IMPROVE monitors.

	As with the gaseous co-pollutant data, there is a substantial spread in
MFB across the sites.  However, the median MFB for PM2.5 mass and SO4
was generally small (<12%) for both urban and rural sites.  CMAQ tends
to overpredict NO3, more so at the IMPROVE sites.  CMAQ also tends to
underpredict OM at both urban and rural sites, although some of this
discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that OM is operationally
defined and is highly dependent on the blank correction and multiplier
to account for other components of OM not directly measured.  CMAQ tends
to overpredict both EC and crustal mass, especially at urban sites;
similar to OM, the crustal mass overprediction is related to the fact
that this parameter is operationally defined.

Wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium

Observed and predicted wet deposition of SO4, NO3, and NH4 were compared
over the period May 14 – September 30.  For this analysis, weekly or
event-based wet deposition amounts from the NADP/NTN (43 sites),
NADP/AIRMoN (7 sites), and New York State DEC (19 sites) covering the
entire OTR plus all of VA and WV were integrated over the
four-and-a-half months.  Because the observed weekly wet deposition
samples did include July 6-9, the corresponding CMAQ predictions also
include this period.  Table 4 lists the model evaluation statistics for
integrated wet deposition of SO4, NO3, and NH4 at each site over the
season, while Figures 40-42 compare the observed and predicted weekly
values relative to the 1:1 line.

Overall CMAQ tended to overpredict wet deposition of these ions.  On a
percentage basis, the overprediction was least for SO4 and highest for
NO3.  The NME, MNGE, MNB, and NMB were less than 50% for the three ions.
 Given that precipitation is very difficult to predict, especially
during the summer months when rainfall can vary tremendously over a 12
km by 12 km area represented by this model grid, CMAQ did a rather good
job reproducing seasonal wet deposition over the OTR.

Upper-air O3, CO, and SO2 data

The University of Maryland operated an instrumented light aircraft
during the summer of 2002.  On 26 days from May-August meteorological,
trace gas, and particle scattering/absorption data were collected during
ascent or descent spirals over 41 regional airports.  In all, 144
spirals were performed from near the surface to about 3 km above ground
level.  For this analysis, composite average profiles of O3, CO, and SO2
were created over three time periods:  “morning” (08-11 EST),
“afternoon” (12-16 EST), and “evening” (17-19 EST).  The minute
average observed concentrations were aggregated into layer averages,
which correspond to the lowest 15 model layers.  Model layers are
increasingly thick away from the surface; the surface layer is about 20
m thick while the 15th layer is about 500 m thick (and centered about
2.8 km above the ground).

Figures 43-51 display the observed and predicted composite vertical
profiles of O3, CO, and SO2 for the three time periods.  In terms of
profile shape, CMAQ was in good qualitative agreement for all three
species above the surface during the afternoon hours.  For CO, the model
tends to greatly underpredict observed levels near the surface, whereas
the predicted O3 and SO2 concentrations are closer to the respective
observed values.

Summary

	Various model evaluation statistics are presented here for a variety of
gaseous and aerosol species in addition to O3.  In general, the CMAQ
results were best for daily maximum O3 and daily average PM2.5 and SO4
mass.  Many other species vary tremendously over the course of a day, or
from day to day, and small model over- or underprediction at low
concentrations can lead to large biases on a composite basis.  It is
important to demonstrate that the model performs reasonably over the
diurnal cycle, not just in terms of daily maximum or average values.
Also, it is important to demonstrate that the model can reproduce
concentrations above the ground level.Table 1.  Median and range in
fractional error (FE, %) and mean fractionalized bias (MFB, %) for daily
maximum 8-hour O3 using the 40 ppb and 60 ppb observed thresholds.  The
values using only SLAMS/NAMS sites are boldfaced, the values using all
sites are in regular font.

Metric, threshold	Range (%)	Median (%)

FE, 40 ppb	+10 to +34%

+10 to +32%	+15%

+15%

MFB, 40 ppb	-34 to +23%

-29 to +23%	-6%

-6%

FE, 60 ppb	+9 to +40%

+9 to +40%	+15%

+15%

MFB, 60 ppb	-40 to +22%

-40 to +22%	-12%

-11%

Table 2.  Median and range in mean fractionalized bias (%) for daily
average CO, NO, NO2, SO2, C2H4, HCHO, and C5H8.

Pollutant	Range in MFB (%)	Median MFB (%)

CO (97 sites)	-128 to +144%	-10%

NO (75 sites)	-182 to +116%	-46%

NO2 (97 sites)	-125 to +107%	+13%

SO2 (134 sites)	-139 to 140%	+3%

C2H4 (19 sites)	+28 to +168%	+86%

HCHO (18 sites)	-66 to +96%	-13%

C5H8 (19 sites)	-54 to +165%	+43%

Table 3.  Median and range in mean fractionalized bias (%) for daily
average PM2.5, SO4, NO3, NH4, EC, and OM.

Pollutant	Range in MFB (%)	Median MFB (%)

PM2.5 (FRM; 257 sites)	-59 to +119%	-4%

PM2.5 (continuous; 57 sites)	-39 to +85%	+5%

STN PM2.5 (49 sites)	-45 to +102%	-9%

IMPROVE PM2.5 (21 sites)	-36 to +19%	-10%

STN SO4 (49 sites)	-21 to +60%	+12%

IMPROVE SO4 (21 sites)	-26 to +16%	-7%

STN NO3 (49 sites)	-73 to +406%	+25%

IMPROVE NO3 (21 sites)	-57 to +358%	+64%

STN NH4 (49 sites)	-36 to +112%	+16%

STN EC (49 sites)	-42 to +269%	+34%

IMPROVE EC (21 sites)	-60 to +146%	-27%

STN OM (49 sites)	-82 to -25%	-58%

IMPROVE OM (21 sites)	-60 to +7%	-40%

STN crustal (49 sites)	+2 to +546%	+182%

IMPROVE crustal (21 sites)	-18 to +163%	+38%

Table 4.  Model evaluation statistics for integrated wet deposition of
SO4, NO3, and NH4

.

Parameter	SO4	NO3	NH4

Observed average, mg m-2	1063	704	185

Predicted average, mg m-2	946	367	117

Correlation coefficient, R2	0.17	0.22	0.12

NME, %	34	49	48

RMSE, mg m-2	490	417	109

FE, %	36	62	57

MAGE, mg m-2	365	344	89

MNGE, %	36	45	46

MB, mg m-2	-118	-337	-68

MNB, %	-3	-44	-28

MFB, %	-13	-61	-44

NMB, %	-11	-48	-37

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.

Figure 24.

Figure 25.

Figure 26.

Figure 27.

Figure 28.

Figure 29.

Figure 30.

Figure 31.

Figure 32.

Figure 33.

Figure 34.

Figure 35.

Figure 36.

Figure 37.

Figure 38.

Figure 39.

Figure 40.

Figure 41.

Figure 42.

Figure 43.

Figure 44.

Figure 45.

Figure 46.

Figure 47.

Figure 48.

Figure 49.

Figure 50.

Figure 51.

 PAGE

 PAGE   37

-


 [Federal Register: October 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 204)] [ Notices]                [Page 54800-54801] [DOCID:fr23oc09-33]

=======================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

  Notice of Filings 1

October 16, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric

rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-44-000.

    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.

    Description: Illinois Power Co submits the Transmission

Construction Agreement between Ameren Services and Prairie State

Generating Company, LLC, to be effective 10/6/09.

    Filed Date: 10/13/2009.

    Accession Number: 20091014-0081.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric

securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-4-000.

    Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.

    Description: Application of Trans Bay Cable LLC for Authority to

Issue Securities.

    Filed Date: 10/15/2009.

    Accession Number: 20091015-5102.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 2, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES10-5-000.

    Applicants: System Energy Resources, Inc.

    Description: Application of System Energy Resources, Inc., for

Authorization Under FPA Section 204.

    Filed Date: 10/15/2009.

    Accession Number: 20091015-5103.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 2, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above

proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment

date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket

related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the

same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to

make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the

Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,

interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline

need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an

intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the

intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and

14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the

above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's

Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link

on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification

when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance

with any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-25491 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28735-28737]
[FR Doc No: E9-14192]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28766; File No. 812-13499]

X Exchange-Traded Funds, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application

June 11, 2009.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

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

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to amend a prior
order that permits: (a) Series of open-end management investment
companies to issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable only in large
aggregations (``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market transactions in
the Shares to occur at negotiated prices; (c) dealers to sell Shares to
purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus when
prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act''); and (d) certain affiliated persons of the series
to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in
connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units (``Prior
Order'').\1\ Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order in order to
provide that (a) a series will invest at least 80%, rather than 90%, of
its total assets in the component securities (``Component Securities'')
of its underlying index (``Underlying Index''); (b) the Underlying
Index may be reconstituted and rebalanced no more frequently than on a
monthly, rather than on a quarterly, basis (``Monthly
Reconstitution''); and (c) the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value (as
defined below) may be calculated and disseminated by a national
securities exchange (``Exchange'') or by a major market data vendor.
Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Order to delete the relief
granted in the Prior Order from section 24(d) of the Act and revise the
applications on which the Prior Order was issued (``Prior
Applications'') accordingly and to amend the terms and conditions of
the Prior Applications with respect to certain disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HealthShares, Inc., et al., Investment Company Act Release
Nos. 27553 (November 16, 2006) (notice) and 27594 (December 7, 2006)
(order), as amended by HealthShares, Inc., et al., Investment
Company Act Release Nos. 27916 (July 27, 2007) (notice) and 27930
(August 20, 2007) (order).

Applicants: X Exchange-Traded Funds, Inc. (``X Funds''); XShares
Advisors LLC (formerly, X-Shares Advisors, LLC) (the ``Advisor'');
XShares Group, Inc. (formerly, Ferghana-Wellspring LLC); and TDX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independence Funds, Inc. (formerly, TDAX Funds, Inc.) (``TDX Funds'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 9, 2007, and
amended on

April 1, 2008, January 27, 2009 and April 20, 2009.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2009 and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Attn. David W.
Jaffin, 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2550, New York, NY 10170, and
Domenick Pugliese, Esq., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Park
Avenue Tower, 75 East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. TDX Funds, organized as a Maryland corporation, is registered
under the Act as an open-end management investment company and is
comprised of five series. X Funds, organized as a Maryland corporation,
is an open-end management investment company and is comprised of two
series, including the Nations Large Cap Enhanced Covered Call ETF (the
``Nations Fund''). The Advisor, a Delaware limited liability company,
is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 and serves or will serve as investment adviser to the Funds
(defined below). XShares Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the
parent company of the Advisor.
    2. Applicants currently are permitted to offer series that operate
pursuant to the Prior Order, as well as series that may be created in
the future and are advised by the Advisor or an entity controlled by or
under common control with the Advisor and that comply with the terms
and conditions of the Prior Order (``Future Funds,'' together with the
TDX Funds and X Funds, the ``Funds''). Applicants state that all
representations and conditions contained in the Prior Applications
would apply to the Funds, except as described in the current
application, as summarized in this notice.
    3. Applicants state that the Nations Fund requires the requested
relief in order to operate in accordance with its intended investment
strategy. The Nations Fund employs a ``passive management'' investment
strategy designed to track the performance, before fees and expenses,
of the NationsShares Large Cap Enhanced Covered Call Index (the
``NationsShares Index''). The Prior Order provides that each Fund would
invest at least 90% of its total assets in Component Securities of its
Underlying Index. Applicants wish to amend the Prior Order to provide
that each Fund, including the Nations Fund, must invest at least 80% of
its total assets in the Component Securities and investments that have
economic characteristics that are substantially identical to the
economic characteristics of the Component Securities of its Underlying
Index. Under this approach, the Nations Fund may invest up to 20% of
its assets in certain futures, options and swap contracts, as well as
cash and cash equivalents. Applicants expect that the returns of a Fund
should continue to be highly correlated with the returns of its
Underlying Index, expecting that the correlation coefficient between a
Fund and its Underlying Index will at least be 95% over extended
periods.
    4. In the Prior Order, the specific criteria for determining the
Component Securities in each Underlying Index (the ``Index Composition
Methodology'') provides that the Underlying Indexes will be
reconstituted no more frequently than quarterly. The Nations Fund seeks
to replicate the NationsShares Index, an index that is reconstituted
monthly. Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order to permit the Funds
to use an Underlying Index that may be reconstituted as frequently as
monthly. Applicants believe that the Monthly Reconstitution will not
have any impact on the operation of the Funds or the efficiency of the
Funds' arbitrage mechanism. Because the Index Composition Methodology
is published and transparent, and because any changes to the Index
Composition Methodology must be published 60 days in advance of
implementation, information about the current constituents of each
Underlying Index, and potential changes to the list of current
constituents as a result of any reconstitution, will be readily
ascertainable by market participants.
    5. The Prior Order currently represents that the Indicative
Optimized Portfolio Value (``IOPV'') will be calculated and
disseminated widely every 15 seconds by the Exchange.\2\ Applicants
seek to amend the Prior Order to permit the calculation and/or
dissemination of the IOPV either by the Exchange or by a major market
data vendor. The IOPV will be calculated by the Exchange or a major
market data vendor every 15 seconds during the Exchange's regular
trading hours and disseminated every 15 seconds by such entity.
Applicants contend that this will provide the Fund with additional
flexibility to engage vendors with the appropriate expertise and
resources to most accurately and efficiently calculate and disseminate
the Fund's IOPV. Applicants believe that the IOPV will have visibility
comparable to that which would be obtained had it been calculated by
the Exchange. In either case, the IOPV will continue to be disseminated
on the consolidated tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As described in the Prior Applications, the IOPV represents
the sum of the current value of the Deposit Securities and the
estimated Cash Requirement, on a per Share basis. The ``Deposit
Securities'' are the securities that have been selected by the
Advisor or Sub-Advisor to correspond generally to the performance of
the relevant Underlying Index. The ``Cash Requirement'' is the cash
payment needed to equalize any differences between the market value
of the Deposit Securities per Creation Unit and the net asset value
(``NAV'') per Creation Unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicants seek to amend the terms and conditions of the Prior
Applications to provide that all representations and conditions
contained in the Prior Applications that require a Fund to disclose
particular information in the Fund's prospectus (``Prospectus'') and/or
annual report shall be effective with respect to the Fund until the
time that the Fund complies with the disclosure requirements adopted by
the Commission in Investment Company Act Release No. 28584 (Jan. 13,
2009) (``Summary Prospectus Rule''). Applicants state that such
amendment is warranted because the Commission's amendments to Form N-1A
with regard to exchange-traded funds as part of the Summary Prospectus
Rule reflect the Commission's view with respect to the appropriate
types of prospectus and annual report disclosures for an exchange-
traded fund.

    7. Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Order to delete the
relief granted from section 24(d) of the Act. Applicants state that the
deletion of the exemption from section 24(d) that was granted in the
Prior Order is warranted because the adoption of the Summary Prospectus
Rule should supplant any need by a Fund to use a product description
(``Product Description''). The deletion of the relief granted with
respect to section 24(d) of the Act from the Prior Order will also
result in the deletion of related discussions in the Prior
Applications, revision of the Prior Applications to delete references
to Product Descriptions including in the conditions, and the deletion
of condition 7 of the Prior Order.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any amended order of the Commission granting
the requested relief will be subject to the same conditions as those
imposed by the Prior Order, except for condition 7 to the Prior Order,
which will be deleted, and conditions 2 and 5, which are revised as
follows: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All representations and conditions contained in the
application and the Prior Applications that require a Fund to
disclose particular information in the Fund's Prospectus and/or
annual report shall remain effective with respect to the Fund until
the time that the Fund complies with the disclosure requirements
adopted by the Commission in Investment Company Act Release No.
28584 (Jan. 13, 2009). Defined terms used in the following
conditions that are not otherwise defined in this notice or the
application have the same meanings as in the Prior Applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Condition 2. Each Fund's Prospectus will clearly disclose that, for
the purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the Funds and that the
acquisition of Shares by investment companies is subject to the
restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act, except as permitted by an
exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest
in a Fund beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1), subject to certain
terms and conditions, including that a registered investment company
enter into an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the
investment.
    Condition 5. The Web site maintained for the Corporation, which is
and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the
following information, on a per Share basis, for each Fund: (a) The
prior Business Day's NAV and the Bid/Ask Price and a calculation of the
premium or discount of the Bid/Ask Price at the time of calculation of
the NAV against such NAV; and (b) data in chart format displaying the
frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask
Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four
previous calendar quarters.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14192 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 OAR 2005 WV 0002; FRL ] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Emission Reductions to Meet Phase II of the Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx) SIP Call AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional approval of a State Implementation Plan ( SIP)

revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision establishes and requires NOx emission reductions from large, stationary internal combustion engines in the State to meet Phase II of the NOx SIP Call. Because the revision was adopted by West Virginia under its emergency rules provisions and has a sunset date, this approval is conditioned on West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ( WVDEP) adopting a permanent rule with an effective date prior to the sunset date of the emergency rule, and submitting the permanent rule as a SIP revision to EPA by July 1, 2006. WVDEP is in the process of adopting its permanent version of the rule and has submitted a written commitment to EPA stating it will meet all of these conditions. The intended effect of this action is to grant conditional approval of West Virginia's rule to meet its remaining emission reduction obligations under the NOx SIP Call.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on [ insert date 30 days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA.

R03 OAR 2005 WV 0002. All documents in the docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov 2 website. Although listed in the electronic docket, 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 www. regulations. gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality,

7012 MacCorkle Avenue, S. E., Charleston, West Virginia 25304 2943.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, ( 215) 814 2308, or by e mail at powers. marilyn@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background On October 20, 2005 ( 70 FR 61104), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPR) for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed to grant conditional approval of revisions to West Virginia emergency rule 45CSR1 titled Control and Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides from Non

Electric Generating Units as a Means to Mitigate Transport of Ozone Precursors. The formal SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP on March 31, 2005 ( inadvertently noted in the NPR as being submitted on March 30, 2005). 3 II. Summary of SIP Revision West Virginia's March 31, 2005 SIP submittal requires large, stationary internal combustion engines in the State to reduce NOx emissions by a total of 903 tons for the 2007 ozone season and beyond, beginning on May 1, 2007. Sources in West Virginia that are subject to the new requirements must submit a compliance plan to WVDEP by May 1, 2006.

Other specific requirements of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's action to grant conditional approval are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action EPA is granting conditional approval of West Virginia's March 31, 2005 SIP revision consisting of West Virginia emergency rule 45CSR1. For West Virginia's emergency rule 45CSR1 to become fully approvable, the State must, in accordance with its August 15, 2005 commitment,

fulfill the following conditions:

( 1) Adopt a permanent rule that corresponds to emergency rule 45CSR1, but with an effective date prior to the sunset date of the emergency rule, and ( 2) Submit the permanent rule as a SIP revision to EPA by July 1, 2006.

Once West Virginia fulfills these conditions, EPA will conduct rulemaking to convert its conditional approval to a full approval. If the conditions are not fulfilled within the specified time frame, any final conditional approval granted by EPA will convert to a disapproval. 4 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter 5 the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,

when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 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 rule 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 6 in the Federal Register. This rule is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 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 [ insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 granting conditional approval of West Virginia's SIP revision to meet Phase II of the NOx SIP Call 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

/ s/ ___________ ___________________________ Dated: December 23, 2005 Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 7 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart XX   West Virginia 2. Section 52.2522 is amended by adding paragraph ( i) to read as follows:

§ 52.2522 Approval Status.

* * * * *

( i) EPA is granting conditional approval of West Virginia's March 31, 2005 SIP revision consisting of West Virginia emergency rule 45CSR1. For West Virginia's emergency rule 45CSR1 to become fully approvable, the State must, in accordance with its August 15, 2005 commitment, fulfill the following conditions:

( 1) Adopt a permanent rule that corresponds to emergency rule 45CSR1, but with an effective date prior to the sunset date of the emergency rule, and ( 2) Submit the permanent rule as a SIP revision to EPA by July 1, 2006.