[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2713-2718]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Update to NEPA Implementing Procedures

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

ACTION: Notice of Updated Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts by adding categorical exclusions.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces that it has revised its Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts to add seven new additions to the
list of categorical exclusions (CE). Categorical exclusions are actions
that FRA has determined do not individually or cumulatively have
significant effects on the human environment and thus, do not require
the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). To consolidate the location of all of FRA's CEs, this notice
reproduces all 20 original CEs and adds the seven new CEs starting with
number 21.

DATES: The new CEs are effective on January 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Van Nostrand, Attorney
Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave SE., W31-208, Washington, DC 20590, telephone:
(202) 493-6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (FRA
Environmental Procedures), 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999), which are
available on the agency's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02561, establish the process for the assessment of
environmental impacts of actions and legislation proposed by FRA and
for the preparation and processing of documents based upon such
assessments. The FRA Environmental Procedures supplement the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508). Currently, section 4(c) of FRA's Environmental Procedures
identifies twenty classes of action that FRA has determined to be
categorically excluded from the EIS or EA preparation requirements of
NEPA and the Procedures because they do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
update adds seven new CEs to section 4(c). Sections 4(c) and (e) of
FRA's Environmental Procedures contain a process for identifying
``extraordinary circumstances'' where FRA determines a particular
action normally included within one of these categories has the
potential for significant environmental impacts and an EA or EIS is
prepared.
    FRA has determined that additions to the existing list of CEs are
necessary to facilitate FRA's administration of laws relating to
railroad safety, development, rehabilitation, and railroad financial
assistance programs, particularly the High-Speed Intercity Passenger
Rail (HSIPR) grant program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan/loan guarantee program. After careful
consideration, FRA has determined that the actions included in the
proposed seven new CEs are not of the type or character as to
individually or cumulatively cause significant effects on the human or
natural environment.
    Recent statutory initiatives have greatly expanded FRA's ability to
provide financial assistance to intercity passenger railroad projects
and contributed to the need for these proposed CEs. The Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 (Division B of Pub. L.
110-432, 122 Stat. 4907, (2008)) created three new passenger rail
capital assistance programs, the intercity passenger rail corridor
capital assistance program, high-speed rail corridor development, and a
congestion relief program. Additionally, in an effort to stimulate the
economy, create jobs and jumpstart a new era of high-speed rail in this
county, Congress provided $8 billion in grant funding for projects that
support the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (Pub. L.
111-5, 123 Stat. 115(2009)). Congress also appropriated additional
funds for HSIPR projects in the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 (Div. A of
Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 (2009)).
    PRIIA, the Recovery Act, and other appropriations greatly expanded
FRA's capacity to fund rail projects in order to achieve world class
high-speed and intercity passenger rail in the United States. The
purpose of the HSIPR Program is to address the nation's transportation
challenges by investing in efficient high-speed and intercity passenger
rail networks connecting communities across America.\1\ Many of these
investments involve large scale projects for which FRA and project
sponsors (typically State Departments of Transportation) will be
preparing EISs and EAs. However, other investments and components of
multi-year programs are smaller projects that FRA has concluded do not
require either an EIS or an EA and justify the creation of a CE since
they would not have a significant effect on the environment. Preparing
EISs or EAs for projects that do not have the potential for a
significant effect on the environment is not an efficient use of
resources of either FRA or State partners in the various Departments of
Transportation. Accordingly, the added CEs will facilitate the
responsible and efficient implementation of the HSIPR, RRIF, and other
FRA programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Federal Railroad Administration, Vision for High-Speed
Rail in America (April 2009) (describing the general approach to
revitalizing high-speed and intercity passenger rail in the United
States) available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/FinalFRA_HSR_Strat_Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the proposed CEs were chosen from the list of categorical
exclusions currently employed by both the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (see
23 CFR Part 771). FRA identified these specific actions for categorical
exclusion because they have direct applicability for many FRA programs
and a limited potential for environmental impacts. All of the actions
identified in this notice have been subject to extensive environmental
review by FRA, FHWA and FTA, are comparable to activities categorically
excluded by other Federal agencies, and were identified through FRA's

benchmarking effort (described in greater detail below). These
environmental reviews, mostly in the form of documented CEs and EAs,
demonstrate that the actions do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human or natural environment. As required
under FRA's Environmental Procedures, FRA staff evaluates each action
individually to ensure that the action meets the criteria for
categorical exclusion, and whether extraordinary circumstances exist
which require additional environmental review.

II. Process Used To Identify the Categorical Exclusions

    FRA undertook a rigorous process to identify appropriate new CEs.
This evaluation process followed CEQ's guidance on establishing new CEs
and included an internal review by FRA's Environment and Systems
Planning Division as well as FRA's Office of Chief Counsel, independent
review and comment by experts enlisted by FRA in coordination with FTA
and the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in
Cambridge Massachusetts (Volpe Center), submission to and review by
CEQ, and publication for public review and opportunity to comment. FRA
undertook this process to ensure that the types of projects covered by
the new CEs presented in Section III below comply with CEQs NEPA
regulations (40 CFR 1507.3, 1508.4) and do not cause significant
impacts on the human or natural environment. The information assembled
during the internal and independent reviews are described in a
Categorical Exclusion Substantiation Documentation (CE Substantiation)
that is available on the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L03010.
    The list of new CEs was generated in close collaboration with FTA.
FRA and FTA each have responsibility for similar types of rail
projects. FTA has historically provided funding for commuter rail
projects, which have many similarities to intercity passenger rail
projects and to freight railroad projects. In addition to using
existing FTA CE's as templates, FRA has coordinated the effort to
develop new CEs with FTA and jointly submitted proposed CEs to NEPA
experts for independent review.
    FTA and FRA, in coordination with the Volpe Center, called on
several expert NEPA professionals to provide feedback on FTA's and
FRA's initial list of actions to be classified as CEs. The expert's
opinions were very valuable in refining the CEs, including identifying
appropriate limitations necessary to avoid covering activities that
have the potential to have significant environmental impacts. The
experts were asked to draw upon their general knowledge of and
experience/involvement with NEPA environmental processes. The
submission to the experts consisted of the proposed CE, a brief
explanation of the CE, and a list of comparative benchmarks or similar
CEs currently employed by other Federal agencies. After a period of
review, the experts submitted comments to FRA, which included suggested
changes or modifications or, as in most cases, an endorsement of the
proposed CE.
    After receiving the experts' comments and suggestions, FRA staff
met to discuss the comments and modified the CE's where appropriate.
The experts suggested ways in which to narrow the categories of actions
to ensure that all covered activities would not have significant
impacts. In addition, using their own professional experience, they
provided insights into the potential practical application of many of
the proposed CEs.
    Consistent with the CEQ Regulations and the Memorandum for the
Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies from Nancy H. Sutley, Chair,
Council on Environmental Quality on Establishing and Applying
Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act
(Nov. 23, 2010) (CEQ Memorandum), FRA consulted with CEQ prior to
making the CEs available for public review and comment. CEQ suggested
modifications to clarify FRA's intended application and scope of the
proposed CEs, and the CE Substantiation Document reflects the
consideration of CEQ's comments and suggestions and FRA's final
determinations.
    On June 13, 2012, FRA published a notice in the Federal Register
(77 FR 35471) advising the public of FRA's intent to add seven new CEs
to its Environmental Procedures and solicited public comments on the
proposal. Concurrent with the June 13 notice, FRA also made the CE
Substantiation document available on its Web site. The CE
Substantiation supports FRA's finding that the proposed CEs address
actions that FRA has determined will not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. The comment period
closed on July 13, 2012. FRA received comments from the American Road
and Transportation Builders Association, three individuals, the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, New Jersey
Transit, the Lone Star Rail District, the Southern Environmental Law
Center, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Texas Department
of Transportation, the American Public Transportation Association, the
Alaska Railroad Corporation, the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association, the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority, the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Californians for
Alternatives to Toxics, Florida East Coast Industries, Inc., the
Washington State Department of Transportation, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, OneRail Coalition, the National Association of
Railroad Passengers, Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation, and the Kanas City Southern Railway Company. The
comments are addressed in this section. Several commenters submitted
comments regarding FRA's HSIPR program as well as general comments
about FRA's Environmental Procedures. Several commenters submitted
general comments in support of the proposal.
    Several commenters suggest that FTA, FHWA, and FRA consolidate
their environmental procedures as the commenters believed it would
minimize project sponsor confusion and the need for separate
environmental documentation. In the alternative one commenter suggested
FRA adopt all FTA/FHWA environmental categorical exclusion regulations
through a new CE.
    FRA agrees that avoiding duplicative environmental reviews is
desirable. FHWA and FTA share a joint environmental regulation because
of the close connection between the two agencies' programs and the
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. Further,
Congressional authorizing legislation for highway and transit programs
has resulted in statutory changes to FHWA and FTA's NEPA procedures
that make them unique. FRA shares only some common activities with FHWA
and FTA and has not had the close historical connections that would
have made a joint FHWA/FTA/FRA environmental review regulation
necessary. CEQ directs Federal agencies to establish CEs based on their
individual determinations that consider their experience in applying
NEPA to their actions. With these seven new CEs, FRA will have
established complementary CEs for the vast majority of actions eligible
for FRA funding that may also be funded by FTA or FHWA, while
appropriately relying on environmental procedures that are tailored to
FRA's Federal actions.
    It is also worth noting that Section 1314 of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141 (2012))
allows an operating

administration to use another modal administration's CE for a
multimodal project, subject to conditions described in the statute.
However, this provision cannot be used until DOT issues future guidance
on its application and use.
    One commenter asked why FRA did not reevaluate and substantiate
FRA's existing CEs in conjunction with the new CE proposal. As
described in the Substantiation Document, FRA will engage in a
reevaluation of the FRA Environmental Procedures in the future. As part
of that effort, FRA will reexamine the existing CEs and may also
consider adding additional CEs and making other changes to make the
procedures more efficient for rail projects and projects sponsored by
multiple agencies.
    One commenter suggested adding a CE that would allow construction
of critical improvement projects that address reliability problems for
existing railroads provided that the improvements occur within the
existing ROW. FRA has a number of existing CEs that in combination with
the seven new CEs cover all appropriate types of minor railroad
improvement that could address railroad system reliability. The
commenter's proposal is too broad and cannot be reasonably expected to
exclude construction activities that are likely to have significant
impacts and therefore require additional environmental review and
analysis.
    One commenter suggests FRA impose a time limit for FRA to complete
CE review and approval. The process for establishing new CEs does not
require revisions to FRA's Environmental Procedures. FRA makes every
effort to review and approve CEs as expeditiously as possible to avoid
any unnecessary project delay. However, it is incumbent on FRA to
ensure that the necessary information is available to confirm that the
project is appropriate for categorical exclusion and does not raise any
extraordinary circumstances that warrant a higher level of
environmental review and analysis. Agency practice ensures FRA has the
appropriate understanding of the nature and extent of the potential
environmental impacts before FRA approves a project as a categorical
exclusion and allowing the project proponent to proceed with
construction activities. Imposing arbitrary time limits may
unnecessarily limit the ability to set priorities in completing
environmental reviews for proposed activities.
    One commenter suggests FRA add an additional CE that would cover
grants, loans, and refinancing for a project already approved and
funded by another Federal agency if the project has been subject to a
separate NEPA review and where no changes to the project are involved
that would result in significant environmental impacts.
    An agency's obligations under NEPA are triggered by the agency's
consideration of the environmental effects of a proposed action that is
within the responsibility of the agency. Once such obligation is
triggered, the agency is required to make an independent assessment of
the potential environmental impacts that could result from its action
from the perspective of the agency's mission and experience. CEQ
regulations provide opportunity for agencies to adopt (in total or in
part) or to incorporate by reference the analyses provided in another
agency's EA or EIS. (40 CFR 1506.3). One commenter suggests expanding
the list of CEs to include the purchase of existing railroad right-of-
way and/or purchase of right-of-way for hardship or protective
purposes. FRA notes that many acquisition activities typical of FRA
projects are covered under FRA CE 17. FRA will reexamine CE
17 as part of the larger effort to reevaluate the FRA
Environmental Procedures in the future.
    One commenter is concerned of the broader application of future CEs
because the new high-speed rail infrastructure has a wider right-of-way
that could increase the potential impacts of future projects. CEs are
applied to projects that do not have the potential for significant
environmental impacts and are not applicable to projects that have the
potential for significant environmental impacts due to expanded rights-
of-way. Wider right-of-way is not clearly related to the severity or
likelihood of environmental impact, and FRA examines the specifics of
each proposed application of a CE to determine whether there are any
extraordinary circumstances that raise the potential for significant
impacts.
    One commenter suggests FRA clarify its interpretation of the scope
of the CEs so that all activities within the existing railroad right-
of-way are excluded from further NEPA review, unless extraordinary
circumstances exist. Put another way under the commenter's proposal,
any new rail line construction taking place within an existing right-
of-way would be categorically excluded.
    FRA considers every proposal in light of the action's specific
circumstances. The commenter's suggestion could permit activities
inappropriate for categorical exclusion because of the likelihood of
significant impacts. Both the existing and proposed CEs allow for
construction activities within existing rights-of-way with the
appropriate limitations to reduce the potential for serious
environmental impacts.
    One commenter believes there was a lack of public notification
related to FRA's proposal to add CEs and requests that FRA reopen the
public comment period.
    The CEQ Regulations and CEQ Memorandum outline procedures for
establishing new or revised categorical exclusions. These procedures
call for public involvement and opportunity and comment through a
notice in the Federal Register. As described above, FRA published a
notice in the Federal Register on June 13, 2012 and invited public
comment for 30 days. FRA also made the Substantiation Document
available on FRA's Web site which also contained instructions for
submitting comments. FRA received 24 public comments and does not
believe it is necessary to reopen the public comment period.
    One commenter believes that the proposed CEs will limit the number
of projects that are subject to public participation and believes
strong public review is essential for the environmental process. FRA
supports public involvement in project development; however, the
commenter assumes that because a project is covered by a CE the public
is not provided an opportunity to participate. When FRA reviews
information provided by project proponents in support of a CE, one of
the elements FRA considers is the extent to which the public has been
informed of the proposed project and whether any environmental issues
were raised by the public. This information helps FRA determine whether
due to public concerns, the action while normally categorically
excluded, raises to the level of extraordinary circumstances requiring
a more extensive environmental review.
    One commenter suggests FRA expand the scope of CE 22 to
include activities related to historic bridges if the activity will not
have an adverse effect on the historic bridge, and where FRA has
received concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer. FRA
does not agree that this change is necessary. CE 22 can be
used for actions involving activities on historic bridges, particularly
when compliance with Section 106 concludes that there is no adverse
effect from the activity.
    Several commenters suggested that CE 22 covering bridge
work should be modified to include bridge approaches. Commenters
suggested adding the following language to CE 22,
``construction or reconstruction of approaches and/or embankments to

bridges''. FRA finds that these activities are substantially similar to
those already included as part of the illustrative list for CE
22 which are unlikely to have significant environmental
impacts with the limitations contained in the CE (i.e. no extensive in-
water work). Therefore, because approaches and/or embankments are
consistent and integral to the category of activities intended to be
excluded under this CE, the proposed activities were added to the
illustrative list for CE 22.
    Several commenters suggest FRA include rehabilitating and
maintaining existing docks and piers to accommodate maintenance
activities within existing ports connecting to rail facilities to CE
22.
    FRA agrees that it is appropriate to adopt a modified version of
the commenters' proposal. FRA finds that these activities are
substantially similar to those already included as part of the
illustrative list for CE 22 which are unlikely to have
significant environmental impacts with the limitations contained in the
CE (i.e. no extensive in-water work). In addition, FRA encounters these
types of activities when involved in funding rail activities within
ports. These projects are mostly related to improvements to the rail
facilities in a port facility but also contain certain modest
improvements to existing docks and/or piers to accommodate intermodal
transfers. At present, even if FRA provides funding and the work is
minor, because the activities are not covered by a CE, an EA is
required even if the activities are otherwise appropriate for
categorical exclusion.
    The CE also limits the potential impacts by imposing a spatial
limitation (``predominantly within the existing right-of-way'') and an
activity scope limitation (``do[es] not involve extensive in-water
construction activities''). The limitation on in-water work coincides
with the type of limitations on the extent of water impacts imposed
through the use of nationwide permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Should a project require an individual permit, the degree of
impact to waters would be reviewed to determine if the project was
consistent with the CE, or if an EA or EIS would be required. For these
reasons, FRA has added ``the rehabilitation or maintenance of the rail
elements of docks or piers for the purposes of intermodal transfers''
to permit limited work to rehabilitate or maintain the rail elements of
docks and piers necessary to facilitate intermodal transfers.
    Several commenters are concerned that the illustrative lists of
activities covered under the CEs are too narrow and suggest various
additions to avoid excluding activities otherwise appropriate for
categorical exclusion. Similarly, to clarify the purpose of the
illustrative list, one commenter suggested FRA replace the phrase
``such as'' with ``examples may include by are not limited to'' for all
of the CEs.
    The purpose of the list of illustrative activities is to provide
project proponents and FRA with examples of the types of activities
that should be covered by the CE not to exclude others that are not
specifically mentioned. FRA does not believe the phrase ``such as'' in
any way limits the range of potential activities covered by the CE to
the list of illustrative activities. The CEQ Memorandum encourages
agencies to structure CEs to ``offer several examples of activities
frequently performed by that agency's personnel.''
    Several commenters recommend FRA add, ``other passenger amenities/
improvements'' to CE 24.'' These activities would include
``benches, signage, sidewalks or trails, equipment enclosures, and
fencing.'' FRA agrees these activities are appropriate for categorical
exclusion and has added ``passenger amenities, benches, signage,
sidewalks or trails, equipment enclosures, and fencing'' to the
illustrative list for CE 24 because they are unlikely to have
significant environmental impacts with the limitations contained in the
CE and are consistent with the category of activities intended to be
excluded under this CE.
    One commenter is concerned with the potential hazardous materials
associated with CE 24, installation of electronic and
communication systems. It is unclear from the comment how electronics
and communication systems could cause impacts related to hazardous
materials. In general, FRA considers the project's potential for impact
on a variety of resource areas, including hazardous materials, when
deciding if it can apply a CE. Consistent with FRA practice, the
project proponent is required to provide information on the potential
impacts related to hazardous materials where relevant. FRA believes
that this level of screening is appropriate and sufficient to protect
against potential release of hazardous substances associated with the
installation of electronic and communication systems. Additionally,
project proponents are required to comply with all State and Federal
requirements for the handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous
materials.
    Several commenters recommend that FRA add ``wastewater treatment
systems'' to the illustrative list of activities in CE 25. FRA
agrees that water pollution abatement systems reduce the potential for
environmental impacts and finds that some types of waste water
treatment systems may be appropriate for exclusion under this CE. Oil/
water separators are commonly installed to mitigate storm water
pollution from locomotive fueling and maintenance activities and FRA
has determined that the installation, improvement, and operation of
such separators are unlikely to result in significant environmental
impacts. While FRA will include ``storm water oil/water separators'' in
the illustrative list, FRA finds that ``wastewater treatment
facilities'' can be broadly interpreted and is not appropriate as an
example in the illustrative list.
    One commenter suggested clarifying or defining the term ``right-of-
way'' and also suggested that FRA consider whether use of the term
``railroad track'' in CE 25 should actually be ``railroad
right-of-way''. While FRA does not believe it would be appropriate to
define the term right-of-way in the context of establishing new CEs
alone, we will consider this suggestion as we conduct a more
comprehensive review of the FRA Environmental Procedures as a whole.
With respect to the second comment, CE 25 associates
remediation or prevention actions proximate to existing and former
railroad track, infrastructure, stations, and facilities. This approach
ties the actions to railroad features and activities rather than a
property boundary that may or may not consistently relate to the
railroad use that relates to the pollution in question.
    Several commenters suggest that the scope of CE 25 is too
limited since additional remediation activities related to soils might
be otherwise appropriate, but might be restricted as the CE is
currently drafted. These commenters suggest adding the following
language ``any removal or remediation activity undertaken pursuant to
an order, law, regulation, program, or policy''.
    As a matter of clarity, the illustrative list is not intended to
restrict the range of remediation activities. To address the concern
with the drafting of this CE, the limitation was moved to the CE
definition to clarify that any applicable project should conform to
applicable laws, regulations, and permits. This CE covers activities
specifically undertaken to remediate past environmental degradation, to
restore environmental conditions, or to prevent ongoing or potential
pollution. As such, most covered actions have environmental benefits,
and FRA believes the

installation and operation of remediation equipment associated with
such remediation activities are unlikely to result in significant
adverse environmental impacts. However, like all activities that might
be categorically excluded, it is FRA's practice to require the project
proponent to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the
proposed action is appropriate for categorical exclusion and is
consistent with regulatory requirements that might apply to
environmental remediation activities.
    One commenter is concerned with soil remediation elements of CE
25 because of the potential impacts from contaminated soil.
The commenter also notes that public participation is essential in
ensuring remediation activities are fully implemented and is concerned
that such participation is absent from FRA's CE process.
    As discussed above, FRA's process for evaluating CEs requires
project proponents to describe both the potential impacts of the
project because of hazardous materials and to provide FRA with some
information on the level of public involvement. FRA may ask for
additional information with respect to both the level of public
participation and the potential impacts related to hazardous material
so that FRA staff have sufficient information to determine whether the
project is appropriate for categorical exclusion or whether
extraordinary circumstances exist requiring a more detailed
environmental review.
    One commenter is concerned with CE 26 because it would
allow the construction/installation of potentially large rail
facilities without input from local communities. As discussed above, it
is FRA's practice to review the scope of each project before deciding
the project meets the requirements for one of the CEs. As part of this
process, FRA considers the potential community and land use impacts of
the project. If there is substantial public concern or other
extraordinary circumstances, FRA will require the development of
additional environmental analysis.
    Several commenters raised concerns with the reference to ``existing
land use and zoning'' in CE 26 because in some cases railroads
are exempt from local land use and zoning requirements. An example
provided by a commenter is Amtrak's exemption under 49 U.S.C. 24902(j).
While the commenters are correct that, in certain circumstances,
railroads are exempt from certain local land use and zoning
requirements, this comment overlooks the purpose of the limiting
factors in all of the new CEs. The purpose of the factors is to limit
the activities permitted under each CE based on FRA's experience to
reduce the likelihood of environmental effects, including those to
local communities. Such limitations are encouraged by the CEQ
Memorandum where activities might be variable in their environmental
effects resulting in some situations where the activity is appropriate
for a CE and others where it is not.
    CE 26 does not require a project proponent to comply with
local land use and zoning where it would be otherwise exempt, but
rather places a limitation on the application of the CE because of
potential for community impacts related to the construction of
facilities that are not consistent with local land use and zoning.
    One commenter is concerned with CE 27 because of the
potential for the release of hazardous substances associated with
replacing rail, ties, and other wood infrastructure. As discussed
above, it is FRA's practice to determine the potential project impacts
related to hazardous materials prior to approving a CE. In addition,
during project implementation, the project proponents are expected to
comply with all applicable State and Federal laws regarding the
handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.
    Two commenters suggest FRA add to the illustrative example list in
CE 27, ``installing, maintaining, or restoring drainage
ditches; ballast cleaning, and; constructing minor curve
realignments''. FRA agrees these activities are appropriate for
categorical exclusion and therefore added ``installing, maintaining, or
restoring drainage ditches, cleaning ballast, constructing minor curve
realignments'' to the illustrative list because they are unlikely to
have significant environmental impacts with the limitations contained
in the CE and are consistent with the category of activities intended
to be included under this CE.
    One commenter is concerned with the use of the term
``predominantly'' in CE 27 if the term would permit the
installation of new tracks or other infrastructure improvements beyond
the existing right-of-way. FRA intentionally included the term
predominantly because in certain circumstances minor construction
related activities (i.e. staging areas) may occur outside the railroad
right-of-way due to spatial and safety constraints related to
construction activities and equipment use near active rail corridors.
    Several commenters requested clarification of the term
``substantial'' in CE 27. Some commenters sought assurances
that the term would not be interpreted restrictively so the CE could
apply to more potential projects, while another wanted some assurance
that the term would be read so that any new operations resulting from
new infrastructure improvements would not interfere with existing
operations.
    The reason for including ``substantial'' as a limiting factor is
because additional train service beyond current levels resulting from a
project might also have additional and potentially unanalyzed indirect
environmental impacts.
    With respect to the request for assurance that the CEs would not be
used to increase service interfering with existing operations, in light
of the discussion above regarding the term ``substantial'', there is no
need for any clarification in the CE itself.

III. Categorical Exclusions

    Through this notice, FRA adds seven CEs to section 4(c) of FRA's
Environmental Procedures. As discussed in the SUMMARY section above, to
consolidate the location of all FRA's CEs, the entire list of CEs is
reproduced here, including the seven new CEs starting with number 21
and ending at number 27. This notice does not otherwise amend or modify
the requirements described in FRA's Environmental Procedures.
    The following classes of FRA actions are categorically excluded:
    (1) Administrative procurements (e.g. for general supplies) and
contracts for personal services;
    (2) Personnel actions;
    (3) Financial assistance or procurements for planning or design
activities which do not commit the FRA or its applicants to a
particular course of action affecting the environment;
    (4) Technical or other minor amendments to existing FRA
regulations;
    (5) Internal orders and procedures not required to be published in
the Federal Register under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(1);
    (6) Changes in plans for an FRA action for which an environmental
document has been prepared, where the changes would not alter the
environmental impacts of the action;
    (7) Rulemakings issued under section 17 of the Noise Control Act of
1972, 42 U.S.C. 4916;
    (8) State rail assistance grants under 49 U.S.C. 22101 et seq. for
rail service continuation payments and acquisition, as defined in 49
CFR 266;
    (9) Guarantees of certificates for working capital under the
Emergency Rail Services Act (45 U.S.C. 661 et seq.);
    (10) Hearings, meetings, or public affairs activities;

    (11) Maintenance of: existing railroad equipment; track and bridge
structures; electrification, communication, signaling, or security
facilities; stations; maintenance-of-way and maintenance-of-equipment
bases; and other existing railroad-related facilities. For purposes of
this exemption ``maintenance'' means work, normally provided on a
periodic basis including the changing of component parts, which does
not change the existing character of the facility, and may include work
characterized by other terms under specific FRA programs;
    (12) Temporary replacement of an essential rail facility if repairs
are commenced immediately after the occurrence of a natural disaster or
catastrophic failure;
    (13) Operating assistance to a railroad to continue existing
service or to increase service to meet demand, where the assistance
will not result in a change in the effect on the environment;
    (14) State rail assistance grants under 49 U.S.C. 22101 et seq. for
relocation costs as that term is defined in 49 CFR Part 266, where the
relocation involves transfer of a shipper to a site zoned for the
relocated activity. This categorical exclusion shall not apply to the
relocation of a shipper involved in the transportation of any material
classified as a hazardous material by DOT in 49 CFR Part 172;
    (15) Financial assistance for the construction of minor loading and
unloading facilities, provided that projects included in this category
are consistent with local zoning, do not involve the acquisition of a
significant amount of land, and do not significantly alter the traffic
density characteristics of existing rail or highway facilities;
    (16) Minor rail line additions including construction of side
tracks, passing tracks, crossovers, short connections between existing
rail lines, and new tracks within existing rail yards provided that
such additions are not inconsistent with existing zoning, do not
involve acquisition of a significant amount of right-of-way, and do not
significantly alter the traffic density characteristics of the existing
rail lines or rail facilities;
    (17) Acquisition of track and bridge structures, electrification,
communication, signaling or security facilities, stations, maintenance-
of-way or maintenance-of-equipment bases, and other existing railroad
facilities or the right to use such facilities, for the purpose of
conducting operations of a nature and at a level of use similar to
those presently or previously existing on the subject properties;
    (18) Research, development and/or demonstration of advances in
signal, communication and/or train control systems on existing rail
lines provided that such research, development and/or demonstrations do
not require the acquisition of a significant amount of right-of-way,
and do not significantly alter the traffic density characteristics of
the existing rail line;
    (19) Improvements to existing facilities to service, inspect, or
maintain rail passenger equipment, including expansion of existing
buildings, the construction of new buildings and outdoor facilities,
and the reconfiguration of yard tracks;
    (20) Promulgation of railroad safety rules and policy statements
that do not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water
pollutants or noise or increased traffic congestion in any mode of
transportation;
    (21) Alterations to existing facilities, locomotives, stations and
rail cars in order to make them accessible for the elderly and persons
with disabilities, such as modifying doorways, adding or modifying
lifts, constructing access ramps and railings, modifying restrooms, and
constructing accessible platforms.
    (22) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement, the
rehabilitation or maintenance of the rail elements of docks or piers
for the purposes of intermodal transfers, and the construction of
bridges, culverts, or grade separation projects, predominantly within
existing right-of-way, that do not involve extensive in-water
construction activities, such as projects replacing bridge components
including stringers, caps, piles, or decks, the construction of roadway
overpasses to replace at-grade crossings, construction or
reconstruction of approaches and/or embankments to bridges, or
construction or replacement of short span bridges.
    (23) Acquisition (including purchase or lease), rehabilitation, or
maintenance of vehicles or equipment that does not cause a substantial
increase in the use of infrastructure within the existing right-of-way
or other previously disturbed locations, including locomotives,
passenger coaches, freight cars, trainsets, and construction,
maintenance or inspection equipment.
    (24) Installation, repair and replacement of equipment and small
structures designed to promote transportation safety, security,
accessibility, communication or operational efficiency that take place
predominantly within the existing right-of-way and do not result in a
major change in traffic density on the existing rail line or facility,
such as the installation, repair or replacement of surface treatments
or pavement markings, small passenger shelters, passenger amenities,
benches, signage, sidewalks or trails, equipment enclosures, and
fencing, railroad warning devices, train control systems,
signalization, electric traction equipment and structures, electronics,
photonics, and communications systems and equipment, equipment mounts,
towers and structures, information processing equipment, and security
equipment, including surveillance and detection cameras.
    (25) Environmental restoration, remediation and pollution
prevention activities in or proximate to existing and former railroad
track, infrastructure, stations and facilities conducted in conformance
with applicable laws, regulations and permit requirements, including
activities such as noise mitigation, landscaping, natural resource
management activities, replacement or improvement to storm water oil/
water separators, installation of pollution containment systems, slope
stabilization, and contaminated soil removal or remediation activities.
    (26) Assembly or construction of facilities or stations that are
consistent with existing land use and zoning requirements, do not
result in a major change in traffic density on existing rail or highway
facilities and result in approximately less than ten acres of surface
disturbance, such as storage and maintenance facilities, freight or
passenger loading and unloading facilities or stations, parking
facilities, passenger platforms, canopies, shelters, pedestrian
overpasses or underpasses, paving, or landscaping.
    (27) Track and track structure maintenance and improvements when
carried out predominantly within the existing right-of-way that do not
cause a substantial increase in rail traffic beyond existing or
historic levels, such as stabilizing embankments, installing or
reinstalling track, re-grading, replacing rail, ties, slabs and
ballast, installing, maintaining, or restoring drainage ditches,
cleaning ballast, constructing minor curve realignments, improving or
replacing interlockings, and the installation or maintenance of
ancillary equipment.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 4, 2013.
Karen J. Hedlund,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-00561 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Andrew Ertman<PHONE_NUMBER>

IR-4 Project

PP 0E7804

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 0E7804) from IR-4 Project, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.418 by establishing a tolerance for residues of zeta-cypermethrin in or on the raw agricultural commodities avocado, papaya, star apple, black sapote, mango, sapodilla, canistel, and mamey sapote at 0.45 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled cypermethrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

	2. Analytical method. There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of cypermethrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances (Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD).

	3. Magnitude of residues. Crop field trial residue data from studies conducted at the maximum label rates for representative commodities for avocado show that the proposed zeta-cypermethrin tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodities avocado, papaya, star apple, black sapote, mango, sapodilla, canistel, and mamey sapote at 0.45 parts per million (ppm) will not be exceeded when the zeta-cypermethrin products labeled for these uses are used as directed.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, the NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats was used to determine the acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) of 0.1 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL of 50.0 mg/kg/day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.
	2. Genotoxicty. The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: in vivo chromosomal aberration in rat bone marrow cells; in vitro cytogenic chromosome aberration; unscheduled DNA synthesis; CHO/HGPT mutagen assay; weakly mutagenic: gene mutation (Ames).
	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No evidence of additional sensitivity to young rats was observed following pre- or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin.
      a. A two-generation reproductive toxicity study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a NOEL of 7.0 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 27.0 mg/kg/day for parental/systemic toxicity based on body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs. There were no adverse effects in reproductive performance. The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was considered to be > 45.0 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested).
      b. A developmental study with zeta-cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 12.5 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased maternal body weight gain, food consumption and clinical signs. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 35.0 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.
      c. A developmental study with cypermethrin in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 450 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 700 mg/kg/day, the highest dose level tested.
      d. In a rat developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study there were no maternal effects at the highest dose tested.  The offspring NOAEL and LOAEL were set at 7.4 and 17.3 mg/kg/day, respectively, based on reduced body weight and body weight gain in female pups.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. The short- and intermediate-term incidental oral exposure risk assessment is based on a NOAEL of 7.4 mg/kg/day from the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats.  The endpoint of concern is the decreased body weight seen in the offspring at the LOAEL of 17.3 mg/kg/day.  The dose and endpoint are appropriate for the route (oral), population (infants and children) and duration (seen during lacation days 13 - 21) of concern.

	5. Chronic toxicity. a. The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint was based on clinical signs.
b. Cypermethrin is classified as a Group C chemical (possible human carcinogen with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals) based on an increased incidence of lung adenomas and combined adenomas plus carcinomas in female mice. The presence of common benign tumors (lung adenomas) in one species (mice) and one sex (female), with no increase in the proportion of malignant tumors or decrease in the time-to-tumor occurrence, together with the lack of mutagenic activity, was not considered strong enough evidence to warrant a quantitative estimation of human cancer risk.  The chronic reference dose has been considered protective for all chronic effects as well as any potential cancer effects.

	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in animals is adequately understood.  Cypermethrin has been shown to be rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted in rats when administered orally. Cypermethrin is metabolized by hydrolysis and oxidation.

      7. Metabolite toxicology. The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of cypermethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression nor in the risk exposure assessments.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of cypermethrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects was reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that cypermethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.  An order has been issued for Tier I screening of cypermethrin as part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and Other Scientifically Relevant Information has been submitted for review in response to the order.
C. Aggregate Exposure
	1. Dietary exposure
      i. Food. For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure to zeta-cypermethrin the established tolerances were used (40 CFR 180.418).  In addition, tolerances for pistachio; globe artichoke; and barley, buckwheat, oat and rye (grain, hay and straw) have been proposed in addition to those included in this petition.  For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these existing and the proposed tolerances, available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated has been utilized as follows:
Acute exposure and risk.  The acute dietary exposure estimates for zeta-cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, do not appear to be of concern. The NOAEL of 10.0 mg/kg/day from the zeta-cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats with an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 (acute RfD =0.10 mg/kg/day) was used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups.  Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving.  Drinking water was incorporated directly in the dietary assessment.  The acute drinking water concentration of 1.04 ppb was provided in EFED's Feb 8, 2007 review (J. Melendez; D334937). The most highly exposed subpopulation for the acute scenario is children 1-2 years old which utilizes 53% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile of exposure.  The acute risk estimate for the general population utilizes 24% of the aPAD at the 99.9th percentile of exposure.  The results of the acute dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.	Results for Zeta-Cypermethrin Acute Dietary (Food and Water) Exposure Analysis Using DEEM-FCID at the 99.9th Percentile
                                  Population
                               Exposure Estimate
                                     %aPAD
                                   Subgroups
                                (mg/kg bw/day)

                                U.S. Population
                                   0.024368
                                     24.37
                         All Infants (< 1 year old)
                                   0.035972
                                     35.97
                           Children (1-2 years old)
                                   0.053316
                                     53.32
                           Children (3-5 years old)
                                   0.047081
                                     47.08
                           Children (6-12 years old)
                                   0.018877
                                     18.88
                            Youth (13-19 years old)
                                   0.023538
                                     23.54
                           Adults (20-49 years old)
                                   0.019506
                                     19.51
                            Adults (50+ years old)
                                   0.024625
                                     24.62
                         Females (13  -  49 years old)
                                   0.019197
                                     19.20

The results of the analysis show that for all populations, the estimated exposures are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD).
Chronic exposure and risk. A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for zeta-cypermethrin using the chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day for zeta-cypermethrin based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/kg/day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis. The chronic dietary risk estimates for food and drinking water are below the EPA level of concern.  The chronic exposure for the general U.S. population is 1% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed subpopulation for the chronic scenario is children 1-2 years old, utilizing 4% of the cPAD.
 For the chronic analysis, anticipated residue levels are utilized for most crops.  These anticipated residues were derived from previous analyses for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin. Anticipated residues (average field trial values) were calculated for the proposed new uses from the field trial data.  Exposure estimates are based on these anticipated residues, USDA PDP monitoring data, and processing factors.  Drinking water was incorporated directly in the dietary assessment.  The chronic drinking water concentration of 0.013 ppb was provided in EFED's Feb 8, 2007 review (J. Melendez, D334937).  The results of the chronic dietary assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Results for Zeta-Cypermethrin Chronic Dietary (Food and Water) Exposure Analysis Using DEEM-FCID
                                  Population
                               Exposure Estimate
                                     %cPAD
                                   Subgroups
                                (mg/kg bw/day)

                                U.S. Population
                                   0.000724
                                      1.2
                         All Infants (< 1 year old)
                                   0.001326
                                      2.2
                           Children (1-2 years old)
                                   0.002603
                                      4.3
                           Children (3-5 years old)
                                   0.001848
                                      3.1
                           Children (6-12 years old)
                                   0.001029
                                      1.7
                            Youth (13-19 years old)
                                   0.000604
                                      1.0
                           Adults (20-49 years old)
                                   0.000513
                                      0.9
                            Adults (50+ years old)
                                   0.000547
                                      0.9
                           Females (13-49 years old)
                                   0.000511
                                      0.9

The results of the analysis show that for all populations, the exposures are far below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).

	ii. Drinking water.  For cypermethrin /zeta-cypermethrin, comprehensive water monitoring data do not exist for use in a dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment in drinking water. Therefore drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of cypermethrin/zeta-cypermethrin.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of cypermethrin/zeta-cypermethrin for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.04 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.013 ppb for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 1.04 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value 0.013 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Occupational and residential risk were assessed for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin under the re-registration process for cypermethrin.  For occupational and residential handler risk, short- and intermediate-term dermal risks were not assessed for occupational handlers since no short- or intermediate-term dermal endpoints were identified.  When data were available to assess risks, short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks to occupational and residential handlers are below the Agency's level of concern (i.e., MOE >100) at baseline.  Occupational and residential post-application exposures and risks were not assessed for applications of cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin to residential and commercial lawns, and in and around industrial, commercial, and residential premises since no short- or intermediate-term dermal endpoints of concern were identified and long-term exposures are not expected for tasks involving any of the registered use patterns.  Post-application risks to toddlers from incidental oral ingestion were assessed using a short-term incidental oral endpoint (10 mg/kg/day) for zeta-cypermethrin. For residential post-application risks, MOEs are not a concern for any of the oral non-dietary scenarios, because they are greater than 100 and do not exceed HED's level of concern (i.e., MOE < 100) for risk assessments in non-occupational settings. When the post-application risks to toddlers from incidental oral ingestion following applications to lawns were combined, the results indicate that the combined risks are below EPA's level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.
   Cypermethrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of pesticides.  EPA has developed a draft science policy document on the proposed common mechanism of toxicity for naturally-occuring pyrethrins and pyrethroids.  This document was supported by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.  In addition, there is ongoing research by the EPA's Office of Research and Development to make improvements to the SHEDS model as well as development of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models.  When available, the Agency will consider this research and make a determination of a basis for assessing cumulative risk.  FMC will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of zeta-cypermethrin consistent with the schedule established by EPA at 62 Federal Register 42020 (Aug. 4, 1997) and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.  Based on the current risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from exposure to zeta-cypermethrin residues from the proposed uses.

	2. Infants and children.  In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of zeta-cypermethrin, data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a two-generation reproductive study in the rat, and a developmental neurotoxicity study in the rat were considered. The data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity from in utero and/or postnatal exposure to zeta-cypermethrin or cypermethrin. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the database.  For zeta-cypermethrin, the FQPA safety factor has been set at 1X due to the completeness of the toxicology database, the lack of residual concerns regarding pre- and post-natal toxicity, and the reliance on exposure data that are unlikely to underestimate exposure.
   Based on the current risk assessment, there is reasonable certainty that no harm to infants and children will result from aggregate acute or chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to zeta-cypermethrin residues.

F. International Tolerances
There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican residue limits for residues of cypermethrin or zeta-cypermethrin in or on representative commodities for avocado, papaya, star apple, black sapote, mango, sapodilla, canistel, and mamey sapote.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 45224]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0320]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0078

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0078,
Credentialing and Manning Requirements for Officers of Towing Vessels;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 25,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2020-0320] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0320], and
must be received by September 25, 2020.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Credentialing and Manning Requirements for Officers of
Towing Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0078.
    Summary: Credentialing and manning requirements ensure that towing
vessels operating on the navigable waters of the U.S. are under the
control of credentialed officers who meet certain qualification and
training standards.
    Need: Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations parts 10 and 11
prescribe regulations for the credentialing of maritime personnel. This
information collection is necessary to ensure that a mariner's training
information is available to assist in determining his or her overall
qualifications to hold certain credentials.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of towing vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
18,635 hours to 24,152 a year due to an estimated increase in the
annual number of respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 21, 2020.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2020-16134 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10574-10576]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53348; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases
the Standard Position and Exercise Limits for Certain Options Traded on
the Exchange

February 22, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 31, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to extend an existing pilot program that
increases the standard position and exercise limits for certain options
traded on the Exchange (``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the CBOE's Web site (http://www.cboe.com),

at the CBOE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Pilot Program, as previously approved by the Commission,
provides for an increase to the standard position and exercise limits
for equity option contracts and for options on QQQQs for a six-month
period.\5\ Specifically, the

Pilot Program increased the applicable position and exercise limits for
equity options on the QQQQ in accordance with the following levels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed extension is actually for six months and ten
days. The Pilot Program, which the Commission approved for February
23, 2005, and extended for an additional six months, is set to
expire on February 23, 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
51244 (February 23, 2005) 70 FR 10010 (March 1, 2005) (order
approving SR-CBOE-2003-30, as amended) (``Pilot Program Order'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52262 (August 15,
2005), 70 FR 48995 (August 22, 2005) (order approving SR-CBOE-2005-
61).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Current equity option contract        Pilot program equity option
             limit \6\                          contract limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         13,500                               25,000
                         22,500                               50,000
                         31,500                               75,000
                         60,000                              200,000
                         75,000                              250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CurrenPilot program QQQQ option contract
                                                               limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        300,000                              900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program for an additional period of slightly over six months, through
September 1, 2006. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot
Program for six months is warranted due to the positive feedback from
members and for the reasons cited in the original rule filing that
proposed the adoption of the Pilot Program.\7\ Also, the Exchange has
not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the Pilot
Program since its inception. For these reasons, the Exchange requests
that the Commission extend the Pilot Program for the aforementioned
additional period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.
    \7\ See Pilot Program Order, supra note5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements provided under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that
the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
The Commission is also exercising its authority to waive the five-
day pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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 No. SR-CBOE-2006-11 and should be
submitted on or before March 22, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-1907 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

October 11, 2007

Mr. George S. Aburn, Director

Air and Radiation Management Administration

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Mr. Aburn:

On June 18, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from
the Maryland Department of the Environment.  The SIP revision pertains
to the amendments to control VOC emissions from Portable Fuel
Containers.  EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively
and technically complete, and is being reviewed to prepare a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Gobeail McKinley, Air Quality Planning Branch at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  She is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

						/s/ David Arnold for

        	Judith M. Katz, Director

Air Protection Division

cc:  Shari T. Wilson, Secretary, MDE

      Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, MDE

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 77 (Friday, April 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21730-21731]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08431]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA R9-2021-01; FRL-10022-29-Region 9]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order
on Consent for Cost Recovery of Past Response Costs at the Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc. Building 915 Superfund Site, Sunnyvale, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice
is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), has
entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Cost Recovery
(``Settlement Agreement''), with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(``AMD''). Under the Settlement Agreement, AMD agrees to pay some of
EPA's past response costs at the AMD Building 915 Superfund Site (``AMD
915 Site'') in Sunnyvale, California.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement agreement is available for public
inspection at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100023247.pdf. Comments
on the Settlement Agreement should be submitted in writing to Rebekah
Reynolds at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the AMD
Building 915 Superfund Site and the EPA Docket Number for the
Settlement Agreement, EPA R9-2021-01. If for any reason you are not
able to submit a comment by email, please contact Ms. Reynolds at (415)
972-3916 to make alternative arrangements for submitting your comment.
EPA will post its response to any comments at https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0902708, EPA's website for the AMD
915 Site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebekah Reynolds, Assistant Regional
Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this proposed administrative
settlement is made in accordance with Section 122(i) of CERCLA. The
Settlement Agreement concerns past response costs incurred by EPA to
perform oversight at the AMD 915 Site from September 30, 2017 to
December 31, 2019. Under the Settlement Agreement, AMD agrees to pay
EPA $69,711.43 out of $90,116.11 in past response costs, representing a
compromise of $20,404.68. The settlement will compensate EPA for the
portion of its past response costs related to oversight of vapor
intrusion risks at the AMD 915 Site. The Settlement Agreement includes
a covenant not to sue AMD for past response costs pursuant to Section
107(a) of CERCLA. EPA will consider all comments received on the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections of this Notice and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
Settlement Agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the settlement is inappropriate,
improper, or inadequate.

    Dated: April 16, 2021.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2021-08431 Filed 4-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43267-43269]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32810; File No. 812-14691]

The Vanguard Group, Inc., et al.

September 8, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, 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, and under
section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-
managed series of certain open-end management investment companies
(``Funds'') to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only
(``Creation Units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares
to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value
(``NAV''); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain
circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Creation Units
for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit
securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection
with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain
registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts
outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds
(``Acquiring Funds'') to acquire shares of the Funds.

Applicants:  The Vanguard Group, Inc. (``Initial Adviser''), a
Pennsylvania corporation registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Vanguard Marketing Corporation
(``Distributor''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Initial Adviser and
a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''), and Vanguard Admiral Funds, Vanguard Bond Index
Funds, Vanguard California Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Charlotte Funds,
Vanguard Chester Funds, Vanguard Convertible Securities Fund, Vanguard
Explorer Fund, Vanguard Fenway Funds, Vanguard Fixed Income Securities
Funds, Vanguard Horizon Funds, Vanguard Index Funds, Vanguard
International Equity Index Funds, Vanguard Malvern Funds, Vanguard
Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Funds, Vanguard Money Market Reserves,
Vanguard Montgomery Funds, Vanguard Morgan Growth Fund, Vanguard
Municipal Bond Funds, Vanguard New Jersey Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard New
York Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Ohio Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard
Pennsylvania Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Quantitative Funds, Vanguard
Scottsdale Funds, Vanguard Specialized Funds, Vanguard STAR Funds,
Vanguard Tax-Managed Funds, Vanguard Trustees' Equity Fund, Vanguard
Valley Forge Funds, Vanguard Variable Insurance Funds, Vanguard
Wellesley Income Fund, Vanguard Wellington Fund, Vanguard Whitehall
Funds, Vanguard Windsor Funds, and Vanguard World Fund, each a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series (each a ``Trust,'' and
together, the ``Trusts'').

Filing Date:  The application was filed on August 17, 2016, and amended
on May 19, 2017, August 22, 2017, and September 7, 2017.

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 October 3, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, 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, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Brian P. Murphy, Esq., The
Vanguard Group, Inc., Mail Stop V26, P.O. Box 2600, Valley Forge, PA
19482-2600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asen Parachkevov, Senior Counsel, or
Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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 for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as
actively-managed exchange traded funds (``ETFs'').\1\ Fund shares will
be purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units only. All
orders to purchase Creation Units and all redemption requests will be
placed by or through an ``Authorized Participant,'' which will have
signed a participant agreement with the Distributor. Shares will be
listed and traded individually on a national securities exchange, where
share prices will be based on the current bid/offer market. Any order
granting the requested relief would be subject to the terms and
conditions stated in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to future series of
the Trusts and other open-end management investment companies or
series thereof that currently exist or that may be created in the
future (each, included in the term ``Fund''), each of which will
operate as an actively-managed ETF. Any series of the Trusts, or of
other open-end management investment companies, that have multiple
share classes will not be able to rely on the order. Any Fund will
(a) be advised by the Initial Adviser or an entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Adviser
(each such entity or any successor thereto is included in the term
``Adviser'') and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the
application. For purposes of the requested order, the term
``successor'' is limited to an entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities,
instruments, other assets or positions (``Portfolio Positions''). Each
Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the
Portfolio Positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation
of NAV at the end of the day.
    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and
generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption
will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the
application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by
depositing specified instruments (``Deposit Instruments''), and
shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments
(``Redemption Instruments''). The Deposit Instruments and the
Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions
in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified
in the application.
    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants
request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the
Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management
investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation
Units only.
    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the
Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares
will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price
described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV.
Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not
involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an
investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist
during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as
a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand.
Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in
shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among
purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will
be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares
from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
    6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Positions and
that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind,
applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e)
in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen
calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption.
Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable,
undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption
proceeds.
    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Acquiring Funds to
acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the
Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or
any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares
to Acquiring Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other
things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund
through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and
17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or
second tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain
ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind.
The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the
redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be
the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and
Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those
Portfolio Positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek
relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section
17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from
an Acquiring Fund, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind
transactions with the Acquiring Fund.\2\ The purchase of Creation Units
by an Acquiring Fund directly from a Fund will be accomplished in
accordance with the policies of the Acquiring Fund and will be based on
the NAVs of the Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares
in Creation Units by a Fund to an Acquiring Fund and redemptions of
those shares. Applicants, moreover, are not seeking relief from
section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will not apply to,
transactions where a Fund could be deemed an affiliated person, or a
second-tier affiliate, of an Acquiring Fund because an investment
adviser to the Funds is also an investment adviser to the Acquiring
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19474 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P