[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59726-59727]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-[2016-0040]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 70 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on July 22, 2016. The exemptions
expire on July 22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On June 22, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 70 individuals and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 40746. The public comment period closed
on July 22, 2016, and four comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 70 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 70 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 35 years.
These

applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of
consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person,
or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without
warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more)
severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an
endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness
to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received
education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin
regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions,
including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision
requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the June 22, 2016, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received 4 comments in this proceeding. Two anonymous
commenters are in favor of granting the exemptions to all drivers
listed in the notice. Deb Carlson stated that the state of Minnesota is
in favor of granting the exemptions to Samuel B. Morris and Lloyd E.
Schrunk, both of whom are drivers licensed in Minnesota. Ryan Root
stated he is in favor of granting Zachary J.F. Kinsey an exemption. Mr.
Root has been Mr. Kinsey's supervisor since 2013 and believes Mr.
Kinsey properly manages his condition.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 70 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Michael J. Andries (WI)
Appiah T. Ankrah (M)
Gregory P. Austin (CA)
David F. Banko (CO)
John T. Bardin (NY)
Joseph Berta IV (OK)
John C. Birmingham (IA)
Brett C. Brayton (IA)
Robert G. Canelo (NM)
Christoph A. Chiappa
Johnny L. Cloy Sr. (TN)
Jon W. Collett (OH)
Joel A. Cote (ME)
Donald E. Cowell (CA)
Raymond J. Crosbie (NH)
Elmer W. Danley (PA)
Kenneth Dennis Jr. (KY)
Robert D. Diefenbaugh (NE)
Ronald A. Fancelli (OH)
Eduard Fontes (IA)
William J. Gangloff (NY)
Spencer J. Gruba (ND)
Phillip K. Guidice (WA)
Darin K. Hansen (IA)
James A. Hanson (OH)
William M. Haralson (TN)
Alejandro R. Hernandez (FL)
Stephen R. Hill (PA)
James A. Hutson (NY)
Jon W. Jernigan (OK)
Denise D. Johnston (IA)
Mark A. Johnston (PA)
Zachary J.F. Kinsey (CA)
Steven J. Korb (OH)
Jongsub Lee (PA)
Ramon Lopez (TX)
David C. Love (IL)
Cody J. Makuski (WI)
John T. McEntire III (SC)
Billy J. McNealy (MI)
Carlos Medellin (TX)
Harry E. Miller (PA)
Christopher K. Moore (AZ)
Samuel B. Morris (MN)
Bryan C. Mullins (TX)
Zachary Nechi (IL)
Toriano T. Neely (AL)
Orlando Padilla (TX)
Michael P. Pattie (RI)
Tony L. Pennywell (FL)
Brian K. Porter (KY)
Oscar L. Quezada (CA)
Kenneth G. Reesman (PA)
Walter D. Richardson (MA)
Karla Robles (FL)
Tracy A. Rowland (WA)
Michael J. Russell (MA)
Jeffrey M. Sandler (CA)
Paul A. Schaus (IL)
Lloyd E. Schrunk (MN)
Evan C. Sebastian (TX)
Nyanate F. Senyon (NJ)
Burton D. Shellabarger (IA)
John M. Suttles (OH)
John R. Tupper (ID)
Thomas W. Upton (NY)
James M. Walsh (WI)
Billy J. Webb, Jr. (MS)
Steven R. Williams (MO)
James A. Yates (IA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: August 17, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-20782 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55717-55723]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948; FRL-8475-7]
RIN 2060-AN75

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise EPA's definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for
purposes of preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone under Title I of the
Clean Air Act (Act). This proposed revision would add compounds to the
list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that
these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone
formation. The compounds under consideration are propylene carbonate
and dimethyl carbonate. The EPA is inviting comment on an alternative
evaluation criteria for exempting one of these compounds (propylene
carbonate), methods for tracking changes in the use and emissions of
both of these compounds and their potential substitutes, and the
potential for health risks that may result from this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2007.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing on or before October 16, 2007, we will hold a public
hearing. Additional

information about the hearing would be published in a subsequent
Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room: 3334,
Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0948. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov,

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-

2006-0948, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948 is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Johnson, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards
Division, Mail code C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Public Hearing: To request a public hearing or information
pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela S.
Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be an entity potentially affected by this proposed policy
change if you use or emit propylene carbonate or dimethyl carbonate.
States which have programs to control VOC emissions will also be
affected by this proposed change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Industries that make and use
                                          coatings, adhesives, inks or
                                          which perform paint stripping
                                          or pesticide application.
States.................................  States that control VOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware of that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types
of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. This proposed action has no substantial
direct effects on industry because it does not impose any new mandates
on these entities, but, to the contrary, removes two chemical compounds
from the regulatory definition of VOC, and therefore from regulation
for Federal purposes.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.

     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?

    Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms.
Pamela S. Long, New Source Review Group, Air Quality Policy Division
(C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 2 days in
advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the
public hearing should also contact Ms. Long to verify the time, date,
and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
these proposed changes.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

Outline

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?
    D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
    A. Propylene Carbonate
    B. Dimethyl Carbonate
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12848: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

II. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere. Because of
the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and State governments limit
the amount of VOCs and NOX that can be released into the
atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of carbon which form
ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs have
different levels of reactivity--that is, they do not react to form
ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. Some
VOCs react slowly, and changes in their emissions have limited effects
on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy
that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be
excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC, so as to focus VOC
control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone
concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting such compounds
creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds
in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs.
The EPA lists these negligibly reactive compounds in its regulations
(at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition of VOCs.
    Since 1977, EPA has used the reactivity of ethane as the threshold
for determining negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive
than, or equally reactive to, ethane under the assumed conditions may
be deemed negligibly reactive. Compounds that are more reactive than
ethane continue to be considered reactive VOCs and therefore subject to
control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound
was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the
1977 policy.
    In the past, EPA has considered three different metrics to compare
the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The
reaction rate constant with the hydroxyl radical (known as
kOH), (ii) maximum incremental reactivities (MIR) expressed
on a reactivity per gram basis, and (iii) MIR expressed on a reactivity
per mole basis. Table 1 presents these three reactivity metrics for
ethane and for the two compounds discussed in this proposed rule.
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.

                     Table 1.--Reactivities of Ethane and Compounds Considered for Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    kOH (cm\3\/molecule-    MIR (g O3/mole      MIR (g O3/gram
                     Compound                               sec)                 VOC)                VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane...........................................          2.4 x 10-\13\                 9.3                0.31
Propylene carbonate..............................          6.9 x 10-\13\                25.5                0.25
Dimethyl carbonate...............................         3.49 x 10-\13\                5.31               0.059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes: 1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. Atkinson.,
D. L. Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G.
Hynes, M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi and J. Troe (2004),
Summary of Evaluated Kinetic and Photochemical Data for Atmospheric
Chemistry. Web version, 2005 http://www.ibiblio.org/iupac-ki/summary/IUPACsumm_web_March2005.pdf
.

    2. kOH value for propylene carbonate is reported in:
W.P.L. Carter, D. Luo, I.L. Malkina, E.C. Tuazon, S.M. Aschmann, and
R. Atkinson (July 8, 1996), ``Investigation of the Atmospheric Ozone
Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl Pyrrolidinone and
Propylene Carbonate.'' University of California--Riverside. ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/pubs/arcorpt.pdf
.

    3. kOH value for dimethyl carbonate is reported in:
Y. Katrib, G. Deiber, P. Mirabel, S. LeCalve, C. George, A.
Mellouki, and G. Le Bras (2002), ``Atmospheric loss processes of
dimethyl and diethyl carbonate,'' J. Atmos. Chem., 43: 151-174.
    4. All maximum incremental reactivities or MIR (g O3/
g VOC) values are from: W. P. L. Carter, ``Latest VOC Reactivity
tabulations for SAPRC-99 Mechanism'' (updated 2/5/03) ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/SAPRC99/r02tab.xls
.

    5. MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from
the MIR (g O3/g VOC) values by determining the number of
moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

    The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down
in the air and participates in the ozone forming process. If this step
is slow, the compound will likely not form ozone at a very fast rate.
The kOH values have long been used by EPA as a measure of
photochemical reactivity and ozone forming activity, and they have been
the basis for most of EPA's

previous exclusions of negligibly reactive compounds. The kOH
metric is inherently molar, i.e., it measures the rate at which
molecules react.
    The MIR values, both by mole and by mass, are more recently
developed measures of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-
based photochemical model. These measures consider the complete ozone
forming activity of a compound, not merely the first reaction step.
Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in: W. P. L. Carter,
``Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic
Compositions,'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol.
44, 881-899, July 1994.
    The MIR values are usually expressed either as grams of ozone
formed per mole of VOC (molar basis) or as grams of ozone formed per
gram of VOC (mass basis). For comparing the reactivities of two
compounds, using the molar MIR values considers an equal number of
molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, using the mass MIR
values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which will involve
different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative molecular
weights. The molar MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog
chamber experiments, which compared equal molar concentrations of
individual VOCs, that underlie the original selection of ethane as the
threshold compound. It is also consistent with previous reactivity
determinations based on inherently molar kOH values. The
mass MIR comparison is consistent with how MIR values and other
reactivity metrics are applied in reactivity-based emission limits,
specifically the California Air Resources Board rule for aerosol spray
paints (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/apt.pdf ).

    The choice of molar basis versus mass basis is significant. Given
the relatively low molecular weight of ethane, use of the mass basis
tends to result in more VOCs falling into the ``negligibly reactive''
class versus the molar basis. This means that, in some cases, a
compound might be considered less reactive than ethane and eligible for
VOC exemption under the mass basis but not under the molar basis. One
of the compounds considered in this proposal falls into this situation,
where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane, but the mass
MIR value is less than that of ethane. This compound is propylene
carbonate.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. The design
of the VOC exemption policy, including the choice between a mass and
mole basis, has been critiqued in the published literature.\1\ Most
recently, in ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' published on September
13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), EPA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Basil Dimitriades, ``Scientific Basis of an Improved EPA
Policy on Control of Organic Emissions for Ambient Ozone
Reduction.'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
49:831-838, July 1999.

    `` * * * a comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the
right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture
compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a
threshold that is high enough to exempt some compounds that may
usefully substitute for more highly reactive compounds. * * * When
reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC exempt status,
EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using kOH
expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed on a mass
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
basis.''

    Relying on a comparison of mass MIR values consistent with this
guidance, EPA is proposing to revise its definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s) to add propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list
of compounds that are exempt because they are negligibly reactive
because they are equal to or less reactive than ethane on a mass basis.
For the first of these compounds, EPA is inviting comment on the
alternative use of a molar basis for the comparison of these compounds
to ethane.
    EPA has become aware of revised MIR values posted by Dr. W.P.L.
Carter on his Web site \2\ as part of a report for the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) which indicate changes in the reactivity values
of the two compounds being proposed for exemption as well as for that
of ethane. In particular, the new data indicate that propylene
carbonate has an MIR value that is essentially equal to that of ethane
on a gram basis. These new MIR values are shown in Table 2 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These new MIR values may be found at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls
.

                    Table 2.--2007 Revised MIR Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Compound                       MIR (g O3/gram VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane.............................................                0.26
Propylene carbonate................................                0.26
Dimethyl carbonate.................................                0.055
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA understands that these numbers were produced by Carter under a
contract with the CARB and are reported in the August 31, 2007 report
``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone
Reactivity Scales.'' CARB will consider this report as part of their
investigation of whether MIR values in CARB regulations need to be
revised. EPA is not relying on these new MIR values for this proposal,
but we do not think the new MIR values would prohibit us from
proceeding with the exemptions because the two compounds being proposed
for exemption would still be equal to or less than ethane in
reactivity. We invite comments on the whether EPA should use this new
data for the VOC exemptions being considered in this notice.
    The technical rationale for recommending an exemption for each of
the individual compounds is given below:

A. Propylene Carbonate

    Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA on July 27, 1999,
requesting that propylene carbonate be exempted from VOC control based
on its low reactivity relative to ethane.
    Propylene carbonate (CAS registry number 108-32-7) is an odorless
non-viscous clear liquid with a low vapor pressure (0.023 mmHg at 20
[deg]C) and low evaporation rate compared to many other commonly used
organic solvents. It has been used in cosmetics, as an adhesive
component in food packaging, as a solvent for plasticizers and
synthetic fibers and polymers, and as a solvent for aerial pesticide
application.
    Huntsman submitted several pieces of information to support its
petition, all of which have been added to the docket for this action.
One of these pieces of information was ``Investigation of the
Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl
Pyrrolidinone and Propylene Carbonate'' by William P.L. Carter, Dongmin
Luo, Irina L. Malkina, Ernesto C. Tuazon, Sara M. Aschmann, and Roger
Atkinson, University of California at Riverside, July 8, 1996. Table 8
of that reference lists the MIR for propylene carbonate (on a gram
basis) as 1.43 times higher than that of ethane. However, in Table 1
above, EPA has shown a 2003 MIR value that was taken from more recent
2003 data from Dr. Carter's Web site. This 2003 MIR value is lower than
that of ethane on a mass basis.
    From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that propylene carbonate
has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it
initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule
of propylene carbonate is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane,
as shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values, since
equal numbers of

moles have equal numbers of molecules. However, a gram of propylene
carbonate is less reactive, or creates less ozone on the day of its
emission to the atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This is because
propylene carbonate has a molecular weight (102), which is over three
times that of ethane (30), thus requiring less than a third the number
of molecules of propylene carbonate to weigh a gram than the number of
molecules of ethane needed to weigh a gram.
    Based on the mass MIR (g O3/g VOC) value for propylene
carbonate being equal to or less than that of ethane, EPA is proposing
to find that propylene carbonate is ``negligibly reactive'' and
therefore exempt for the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s). EPA is inviting comment on whether the comparison of
propylene carbonate to ethane should instead be made on the basis of
the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) value. In that case, the
petition to grant propylene carbonate a status of ``negligibly
reactive'' would be denied.

B. Dimethyl Carbonate

    The EPA received a petition from Kowa America Corporation on July
29, 2004 seeking an exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC for
dimethyl carbonate. This petition asserted that dimethyl carbonate
(DMC) is less photochemically reactive than ethane and asked for the
exemption on that basis.
    Dimethyl carbonate (CAS registry number 616-38-6) may be used as a
solvent in paints and coatings. The petitioner anticipated that it
might be used in waterborne paints and adhesives because it is
partially water soluble. It is also used as a methylation and
carbonylation agent in organic synthesis. It can be used as a fuel
additive.
    In support of its petition, the petitioner presented articles which
give the kOH and MIR values for the compound shown in Table
1. These articles have been placed in the docket.
    As shown in Table 1, DMC has a greater kOH value than
ethane, which indicates that DMC will likely initially react more
quickly in the atmosphere. However, the MIR values for DMC calculated
on either a mass or mole basis are less than that of ethane, which
indicates lower reactivity overall. Based on these data, EPA proposes
to find that DMC is ``negligible reactivity'' and therefore exempt from
the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). Because both the
mass and molar MIR values of DMC are less than those of ethane, this
chemical would meet EPA's exemption criteria under either MIR metric.

III. Proposed Action

    This proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. The EPA hereby proposes to amend
its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude propylene
carbonate and dimethyl carbonate from the regulatory definition of VOC
for use in ozone SIPs and ozone controls for purposes of attaining the
ozone national ambient air quality standard.
    The revised definition will also apply for purposes of any Federal
implementation plan for ozone nonattainment areas (see e.g., 40 CFR
52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to exclude from control as a
VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive.
However, if this action is made final, States should not include these
compounds in their VOC emissions inventories for determining reasonable
further progress under the Act (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and may not
take credit for controlling these compounds in their ozone control
strategy.
    Excluding a compound from the regulatory definition of VOC may lead
to changes in the amount of the exempt compound used and the types of
applications in which the exempt compound is used. Although this
proposal has no mandatory reporting requirements, EPA urges States to
continue to inventory the emissions of these compounds for use in
photochemical modeling. Further, EPA invites comment on methods for
tracking the uses and emissions of these two compounds, as well as any
more reactive compounds for which these two compounds may substitute.
    The EPA believes that the proposed exemptions will help to decrease
exposures to ground-level ozone by encouraging the use of exempted
negligibly reactive compounds in lieu of VOCs and thereby focusing air
quality management programs on VOC emissions that contribute most to
ozone formation. Although compounds are defined as negligibly reactive
solely on the basis of their contribution to ground-level ozone
formation, EPA is interested in evaluating whether the proposed
exemptions could increase public health risks if these negligibly
reactive compounds were toxic themselves. While EPA does not have
information to suggest that the proposed exemptions could increase
health risks due to possible toxicity of the exempted compounds, we
invite the public to submit comments and additional information
relevant to this issue.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It does not impose any recordkeeping or
reporting requirement burden.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply, with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency does not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts
of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act
specifically requires the completion of a RFA analysis in those
instances where the regulation would impose a substantial impact on a
significant number of small entities. Because this

rulemaking imposes no adverse economic impacts, an analysis has not
been conducted.
    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I have determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
concerns only the definition of VOC and does not directly regulate any
entities. The RFA analysis does not consider impacts on entities which
the action in question does not regulate. See Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F. 3d 449, 467 (D.C. Cir. 1998);
United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F. 3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1224 (1997). Pursuant to the provision of 5
U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the rule will not have an impact
on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Since this rule is deregulatory in nature and does not impose a
mandate upon any source, this rule is not estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments or the private
sector of $100 million in any 1 year. Therefore, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This action addressing the exemption of two chemical compounds from
the VOC definition does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This action does not impose any
new mandates on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA is specifically soliciting
comments on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.
Today's action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA invites comments
on the proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule amendment is deregulatory and does allow
relaxation of the control measures on sources. However, this is not
expected to lead to increased ozone formation since the compounds being
exempted have been determined to have negligible photochemical
reactivity.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 51, subpart F, continues to read
as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

Sec.  51.100  [Amended]

    2. Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1)
introductory text by removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds
which fall into these classes:'' and adding in their place a semi-colon
and the words ``; propylene carbonate; dimethyl carbonate; and
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:''.

 [FR Doc. E7-19324 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53004-53007]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21592]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65161; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Reflect a Change to the
Benchmark Index Applicable to the Russell Equity ETF

August 18, 2011.
    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 3, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
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 reflect a change to the benchmark index
applicable to Russell Equity ETF (the ``Fund,'' and formerly known as
the ``One Fund''). Russell Equity ETF is currently listed and traded on
the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission has approved listing and trading on the Exchange of
shares (``Shares'') of One Fund, a series of U.S. One Trust,\3\ under
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (``Managed Fund Shares'').\4\ As of
February 23, 2011, Frank Russell Company (``Russell'') acquired U.S.
One, Inc., the previous investment adviser for the Fund. As a result,
the Fund's investment adviser became Russell Investment Management
Company (``Adviser'').\5\ In addition, effective on April 15, 2011, the
name of One Fund was changed to Russell Equity ETF and the name of U.S.
One Trust was changed to Russell Exchange Traded Funds Trust
(``Trust''). Further, on or about May 2, 2011, the custodian, transfer
agent and administrator for the Fund changed from The Bank of New York
to State Street Bank and Trust Company. These administrative changes
were implemented as a result of the acquisition of U.S. One, Inc. by
Russell. Shareholders of the Fund were notified of the changes to the
Fund's name, the Trust's name, the Fund's investment adviser,\6\ and
the custodian, transfer agent and administrator in the updated Fund
prospectus, dated April 29, 2011, included in the Fund's annual
prospectus mailing to shareholders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61843 (April 5,
2010), 75 FR 18558 (April 12, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-12) (``One
Fund Order''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61689
(March 11, 2010), 75 FR 13181 (March 18, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-12)
(``One Fund Notice,'' and together with the One Fund Order,
collectively, the ``One Fund Release'').
    \4\ A Managed Fund Share is a security that represents an
interest in an investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (``1940 Act'') organized as an
open-end investment company or similar entity that invests in a
portfolio of securities selected by its investment adviser
consistent with its investment objectives and policies. In contrast,
an open-end investment company that issues Investment Company Units,
listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3), seeks to provide investment results that correspond
generally to the price and yield performance of a specific foreign
or domestic stock index, fixed income securities index or
combination thereof.
    \5\ The Adviser is affiliated with multiple broker-dealers and
has implemented a ``fire wall'' with respect to such broker-dealers
regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or
changes to the Fund's portfolio, and will continue to be in
compliance with Commentary .06 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. In
the event (a) The Adviser or any sub-adviser becomes newly
affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-
adviser becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a
fire wall with respect to such broker-dealer regarding access to
information concerning the composition and/or changes to the
portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the
use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding
such portfolio.
    \6\ An investment adviser to an open-end fund is required to be
registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers
Act''). As a result, the Adviser and its related personnel are
subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act
relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires investment advisers
to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the fiduciary nature of the
relationship to clients as well as compliance with other applicable
securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed to prevent the
communication and misuse of non-public information by an investment
adviser must be consistent with Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act.
In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it unlawful
for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to clients
unless such investment adviser has (i) Adopted and implemented
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent
violation, by the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of
the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted thereunder; (ii)
implemented, at a minimum, an annual review regarding the adequacy
of the policies and procedures established pursuant to subparagraph
(i) above and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (iii)
designated an individual (who is a supervised person) responsible
for administering the policies and procedures adopted under
subparagraph (i) above.
    \7\ See the Trust's Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to Form N-1A,
dated April 29, 2011 (File Nos. 333-160877; 811-22320)
(``Registration Statement''). In addition, the Commission has issued
an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the
1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 29164 (March 1,
2010) (File No. 812-13815 and 812-13658-01) (``Exemptive Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to reflect a
change to the benchmark index applicable to the Fund.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Adviser represents that, for one year following
implementation of the change to the benchmark Index, materials
issued by the Fund relating to Fund performance, including materials
posted on the Fund's Web site (http://www.russelletfs.com), will
reference both the current benchmark and the new benchmark Index, in
accordance with Item 27(b)(7) of Form N-1A under the 1940 Act. The
Adviser represents that the benchmark Index change will be
referenced on Russell's Web site, and that the quarterly fact sheet
for the Fund, available on the Fund's Web site, will reference the
current benchmark and the new benchmark Index for one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the acquisition of U.S. One, Inc. by Russell, the
Fund seeks to change its underlying benchmark to the Russell Developed
Large Cap Index (``Index'') from the Fund's current benchmark, the S&P
500 Index.\9\ The Index offers investors access to the large-cap
segment of the developed equity universe representing approximately
75.4% of the global equity market. The Index includes the largest
securities in the Russell Developed Index. As of May 31, 2010, the
Index included 2,372 securities in 25 developed countries, with a
market capitalization ranging from $238 billion to $1.3 billion; the
weighted average market capitalization of Index components was $54.7
billion; and the largest three Index securities and associated Index
weights were ExxonMobil (1.58%); Apple Inc. (1.17%); and Chevron Corp.
(0.79%). The current benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, includes 500 leading
companies in leading industries of the U.S. economy, capturing 75%
coverage of U.S. equities. It focuses on large capitalization
securities and represents approximately 75% of the U.S. market
capitalization. A committee determines the securities included based on
a set of published guidelines. The Index includes the Russell
1000[supreg], which represents 90% of U.S. market capitalization. It
also includes an additional 1,372 securities which, as of

May 31, 2010, were listed in other developed countries. The Adviser
represents that the investment objective of the Fund has not changed,
the Index more accurately represents the investment strategy of the
Fund, and the change to the Fund's benchmark will not impact the
investment objective or the principal investment strategies for the
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The change to the Fund's benchmark Index will be effective
upon filing with the Commission of an amendment to the Trust's
Registration Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Adviser has represented that it believes the Index is an
appropriate broad-based benchmark index for the Fund and the Fund's
investment objective. As represented in the One Fund Release, the
Fund's investment objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation.
[sic] by investing at least 80% of its total assets in exchange-traded
funds (``Underlying ETFs'') that track various securities indices
comprised of large, mid and small capitalization companies in the
United States, Europe and Asia, as well as other developed and emerging
markets. As stated in the One Fund Release, the Adviser intends to hold
Underlying ETFs that hold equity securities of large, mid and small
capitalization companies in the United States, as well as other
developed countries and developing countries, and that give the Fund
exposure to most major developed and developing markets around the
world.\10\ Thus, whereas the S&P 500 Index mostly reflects U.S.-based
companies, the Index includes a broader range of issuers from both the
domestic and international markets, and such range is consistent with,
and should better reflect, the Fund's investment objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Adviser employs an asset allocation strategy focused on
increasing shareholder return and reducing risk through exposure to
a variety of domestic and foreign market segments. The Adviser's
asset allocation strategy pre-determines a target mix of investment
types for the Fund to achieve its investment objective and then
implements the strategy by selecting securities that best represent
each of the desired investment types. The strategy also calls for
periodic review of the Fund's holdings as markets rise and fall to
ensure that the portfolio adheres to the target mix and indicates
purchases and sales necessary to return to the target mix. The
Adviser selects Underlying ETFs based on their ability to accurately
represent the underlying stock market to which the Adviser seeks
exposure for the Fund, and seeks to construct a portfolio that will
outperform its benchmark. Additionally, the Adviser seeks to
maintain a low after-tax cost structure for the Fund and, therefore,
also evaluates ETFs based on their underlying costs. The Adviser
employs a buy and hold strategy, meaning that it buys and holds
securities for a long period of time, with minimal portfolio
turnover. The Fund, using a buy and hold strategy, seeks to achieve
its investment objective through investment in Underlying ETFs that
track certain securities indices. While the Fund intends to
primarily invest in Underlying ETFs that hold equity securities, the
Adviser may also invest in Underlying ETFs that may hold U.S. and
foreign government debt and investment grade corporate bonds.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund does not invest in
derivatives. See One Fund Release, note 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made
in the One Fund Release remain unchanged.\11\ The Fund will continue to
comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is
the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \12\ that an exchange have rules
that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the
Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the
initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600. The Fund's benchmark Index will continue to be a broad-based
index of large capitalization companies. The Index represents
approximately 75.4% of the global equity market and includes the
largest securities in the Russell Developed Index. As of May 31, 2010,
the Index included 2,372 securities in 25 developed countries, with a
market capitalization ranging from $238 billion to $1.3 billion; the
weighted average market capitalization of Index components was $54.7
billion. The Fund's investment objective is to seek long-term capital
appreciation by investing at least 80% of its total assets in
Underlying ETFs that track various securities indices comprised of
large, mid and small capitalization companies in the United States,
Europe and Asia, as well as other developed and emerging markets. All
Underlying ETFs are listed and traded on a national securities
exchange. The Index includes a broader range of issuers from both the
domestic and international markets compared to the S&P 500 Index, and
such range is consistent with, and should better reflect, the Fund's
investment objective. The Adviser represents that the investment
objective of the Fund has not changed, the Index more accurately
represents the investment strategy of the Fund, and the change to the
Fund's benchmark will not impact the investment objective or the
principal investment strategies for the Fund. Except for Underlying
ETFs that may hold non-U.S. issues, the Fund will not otherwise invest
in non-U.S.-registered issues. Except for the changes noted above, all
other representations made in the One Fund Release remain unchanged.
The Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing
requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in
that the new benchmark Index will continue to be calculated and
disseminated in a manner consistent with representations in the One
Fund Order. The Adviser has represented that it believes the Index is
an appropriate broad-based benchmark index for the Fund. In addition,
the Adviser has represented that the change to the Fund's benchmark
will not impact shareholders of the Fund, and that the new benchmark
Index more accurately reflects the Fund's principal investment strategy
and will not result in a change to such strategy.
    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest in that it will permit the Fund to utilize an
alternative broad-based, large capitalization benchmark Index that the
Adviser believes is an appropriate benchmark for the Fund. The change
to the Fund's benchmark Index will be effective upon filing with the
Commission of an amendment to the Trust's Registration Statement.

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory

organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-53 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-NYSEArca-2011-53. 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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days
between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-53 and should be submitted
on or before September 14, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21592 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P