[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58384-58387]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31092; Amdt. No. 3710]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective August 25, 2016. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums,

and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 2016.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35  [Amended]

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC Date           State              City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC Date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-Sep-16............  NE             Omaha...............  Eppley Airfield.....       6/0889       8/1/16  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14R, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Sundance............       6/1625       8/2/16  VOR RWY 17. Amdt 1D.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Sundance............       6/1626       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Sundance............       6/1627       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Madison.............  Lac Qui Parle County       6/2206       8/3/16  NDB RWY 32, Amdt 4A.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Madison.............  Lac Qui Parle County       6/2207       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Madison.............  Lac Qui Parle County       6/2208       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  AR             Hope................  Hope Muni...........       6/2725       7/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  IA             Storm Lake..........  Storm Lake Muni.....       6/2927       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  IA             Storm Lake..........  Storm Lake Muni.....       6/2930       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Canadian............  Hemphill County.....       6/2978       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2.
15-Sep-16............  IA             Boone...............  Boone Muni..........       6/3301       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  NE             Hebron..............  Hebron Muni.........       6/3425       8/2/16  GPS RWY 12, Orig-C.
15-Sep-16............  NE             Hebron..............  Hebron Muni.........       6/3426       8/2/16  GPS RWY 30, Orig-B.
15-Sep-16............  NE             Hebron..............  Hebron Muni.........       6/3432       8/2/16  NDB RWY 12, Amdt 4B.
15-Sep-16............  PA             Titusville..........  Titusville..........       6/3571       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  VT             Springfield.........  Hartness State             6/3594       8/3/16  LOC/DME RWY 5, Amdt 4.
                                                             (Springfield).
15-Sep-16............  VT             Springfield.........  Hartness State             6/3598       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A.
                                                             (Springfield).
15-Sep-16............  NY             Westhampton Beach...  Francis S Gabreski..       6/3600       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Westhampton Beach...  Francis S Gabreski..       6/3601       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Westhampton Beach...  Francis S Gabreski..       6/3603       8/3/16  TACAN RWY 24, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Westhampton Beach...  Francis S Gabreski..       6/3604       8/3/16  TACAN RWY 6, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Westhampton Beach...  Francis S Gabreski..       6/3606       8/3/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 10A.
15-Sep-16............  MO             Fredericktown.......  A Paul Vance               6/3682       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1A.
                                                             Fredericktown Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  MO             Fredericktown.......  A Paul Vance               6/3683       8/2/16  VOR RWY 19, Amdt 1A.
                                                             Fredericktown Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Hayward.............  Sawyer County.......       6/3704       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Hayward.............  Sawyer County.......       6/3705       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-C.
15-Sep-16............  IN             Peru................  Peru Muni...........       6/3718       8/2/16  VOR RWY 1, Amdt 8A.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Phillips............  Price County........       6/3722       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Phillips............  Price County........       6/3723       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Lapeer..............  Dupont-Lapeer.......       6/3732       8/2/16  VOR-A, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Stephenville........  Stephenville Clark         6/3739       8/2/16  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Stephenville........  Stephenville Clark         6/3741       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Stephenville........  Stephenville Clark         6/3742       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Thief River Falls...  Thief River Falls          6/3882       8/3/16  VOR/DME RWY 13, Amdt 2B.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Thief River Falls...  Thief River Falls          6/3883       8/3/16  VOR RWY 13, Amdt 9.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  MN             Thief River Falls...  Thief River Falls          6/3884       8/3/16  VOR RWY 31, Amdt 8B.
                                                             Rgnl.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4134       8/9/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4135       8/9/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4136       8/9/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4137       8/9/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 9, ILS RWY 9 (SA CAT I), ILS
                                                                                RWY 9 (CAT II & III), Amdt 13B.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4138       8/9/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4139       8/9/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4140       8/9/16  VOR RWY 27, Amdt 5A.
15-Sep-16............  NY             Newburgh............  Stewart Intl........       6/4142       8/9/16  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Corpus Christi......  Corpus Christi Intl.       6/4158       8/1/16  VOR OR TACAN RWY 18, Amdt 28A.
15-Sep-16............  TN             Livingston..........  Livingston Muni.....       6/5091       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1.
15-Sep-16............  TN             Livingston..........  Livingston Muni.....       6/5092       8/3/16  VOR/DME RWY 21, Amdt 5A.
15-Sep-16............  TN             Livingston..........  Livingston Muni.....       6/5094       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  TN             Knoxville...........  Knoxville Downtown         6/5095       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-B.
                                                             Island.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Cable...............  Cable Union.........       6/5152       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Muskegon............  Muskegon County.....       6/5170       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2.
15-Sep-16............  SD             Winner..............  Winner Rgnl.........       6/5299       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  SD             Winner..............  Winner Rgnl.........       6/5300       8/2/16  VOR-A, Amdt 7A.
15-Sep-16............  KS             Benton..............  Lloyd Stearman Field       6/5324       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Stevens Point.......  Stevens Point Muni..       6/5437       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  WI             Stevens Point.......  Stevens Point Muni..       6/5438       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  OH             Coshocton...........  Richard Downing.....       6/5702       8/3/16  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6047       8/1/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 12A.

15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6049       8/1/16  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35L, Amdt 2A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6051       8/1/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, Amdt 3A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6054       8/1/16  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (CAT
                                                                                II), ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), Amdt 10A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6055       8/1/16  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Amdt 3A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6056       8/1/16  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6057       8/1/16  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35L, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6058       8/1/16  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 35R, Amdt 2A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6060       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17R, Amdt 4A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6061       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35L, Amdt 4.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6063       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35R, Amdt 3A.
15-Sep-16............  OK             Oklahoma City.......  Will Rogers World...       6/6065       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 3A.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Pellston............  Pellston Rgnl              6/6120       7/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A.
                                                             Airport Of Emmet
                                                             County.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Pellston............  Pellston Rgnl              6/6124       7/1/16  VOR RWY 23, Amdt 16A.
                                                             Airport Of Emmet
                                                             County.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Pellston............  Pellston Rgnl              6/6125       7/1/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 11B.
                                                             Airport Of Emmet
                                                             County.
15-Sep-16............  IN             New Castle..........  New Castle-Henry Co        6/6134       8/3/16  NDB OR GPS RWY 9, Amdt 5B.
                                                             Muni.
15-Sep-16............  MO             Cuba................  Cuba Muni...........       6/7516       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-B.
15-Sep-16............  MO             Cuba................  Cuba Muni...........       6/7517       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Georgetown..........  Georgetown Muni.....       6/7534       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  TX             Georgetown..........  Georgetown Muni.....       6/7535       8/2/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig.
15-Sep-16............  MI             Midland.............  Jack Barstow........       6/7673       7/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1.
15-Sep-16............  WA             Spokane.............  Felts Field.........       6/9348       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1.
15-Sep-16............  WA             Spokane.............  Felts Field.........       6/9349       8/3/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1B.
15-Sep-16............  CA             Van Nuys............  Van Nuys............       6/9350       8/1/16  VOR-A, Amdt 4B.
15-Sep-16............  CA             Bishop..............  Bishop..............       6/9356       8/3/16  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3A.
15-Sep-16............  CA             San Diego...........  Montgomery Field....       6/9364       8/1/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 4A.
15-Sep-16............  CA             San Diego...........  Montgomery Field....       6/9365       8/1/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28R, Amdt 1A.
15-Sep-16............  PR             Aguadilla...........  Rafael Hernandez....       6/9687       8/3/16  VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 26, Orig-B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-20296 Filed 8-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
                             2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE
                           ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF
									AIR AND RADIATION
February 10, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Cost-related Meetings Regarding the Proposed Tier 3 Standards

FROM:	Todd Sherwood
      Assessment and Standards Division, OTAQ

TO:		EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

This memo documents a meetings held between representatives of the organizations listed below and EPA to discuss cost-related issues within the context of EPA's proposed Tier 3 standards (see 78 FR 29816).  The meeting attendees are also listed below. The discussion topics included technology expectations, penetration rates, directional cost estimates (i.e., EPA proposed estimate too high, too low, etc.).

Organization
Date
Non-EPA attendees
EPA attendees
California Air Resources Board
6/10/2013
Paul Hughes
Tony Fernandez
Todd Sherwood
Tad Wysor
Umicore
6/24/2013
Doug Ball
Greg Garr
Tom Pauly
Tony Fernandez
Todd Sherwood
Corning
6/25/2013
Achim Heibel
Tim Johnson
Tony Fernandez
Todd Sherwood
Tenneco
7/23/2013
Annette Chantaca
Adam Kotrba
Gabriel Salanta
Thomas Spinks
Tony Fernandez
Michael Olechiw
Todd Sherwood
Tad Wysor
BASF
8/7/2013
Pramod Ravindran
Tony Fernandez
Todd Sherwood
Johnson Matthey
8/7/2013
Michael Church
Michael Russ
Tony Fernandez
Todd Sherwood
Tenneco
8/21/2013
Adam Kotrba
Thomas Spinks
Tony Fernandez
Michael Olechiw
Todd Sherwood


Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 51 -- REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Subpart X -- Provisions for Implementation of 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

§51.918   Can any SIP planning requirements be suspended in 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas that have air quality data that meets the NAAQS?
    Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended until such time as: the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
[70 FR 71702, Nov. 29, 2005]


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 4336]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00716]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9031-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 01/02/2017 Through 01/06/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170000, Draft, NOAA, CA, Calam Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Karen Grimmer
831-647-4253.
EIS No. 20170001, Draft, USFS, MT, South Gravelly Allotment Management
Plans, Comment Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Jake Stewart 406-682-
4253.
EIS No. 20170002, Draft, DOE, CA, Remediation of Area IV and the
Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Comment
Period Ends: 03/14/2017, Contact: Stephie Jennings 1-805-842-3864.
EIS No. 20170003, Draft Supplement, FHWA, DE, US 113 North South Study
Millsboro South Area, Comment Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Nick
Blendy<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170004, Draft, USFWS, NPS, WA, North Cascades Ecosystem Draft
Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 03/14/2017,
Contact: Karen Taylor-Goodrich<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of Interior's National Park Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are joint lead agencies for the above
project.

EIS No. 20170005, Draft, BR, NM, Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System,
Comment Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Lawrence Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170006, Final, USFS, BLM, UT, Transwest Express Powerline
(TWE), Review Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Charles Call 435-691-
0768.
EIS No. 20170007, Final, NPS, UT, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 02/13/2017,
Contact: Lindsay Gillham<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170008, Final, BLM, USFS, UT, Energy Gateway South Powerline
(EGS), Review Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Kenton Call 435-691-
0768.
EIS No. 20170009, Draft Supplement, NOAA, AK, Management of the
Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul Island, Alaska,
Comment Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Michael Williams 907-271-
5117.
EIS No. 20170010, Final, USFS, ID, Lookout Pass Ski Area Expansion EIS,
Review Period Ends: 02/27/2017, Contact: Shoshana Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160298, Draft, USFS, MT, Ten Lakes Travel Management Project,
Comment Period Ends: 02/14/2017, Contact: Bryan Donner<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 12/16/2016; Extending Comment
Period from 1/30/2017 to 2/14/2017.

EIS No. 20160321, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, BART Silicon Valley Phase
II Extension Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Mary
Nguyen<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/06/2017; Correction to Comment
Period Ends 02/21/2017.

EIS No. 20160328, Draft Supplement, USACE, LA, Mississippi River, Baton
Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana,
New Industrial Canal Lock and Connecting Channels Project, Comment
Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Mark Lahare<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/06/2017; Correction to Comment
Period Ends 02/21/2017.

    Dated: January 10, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-00716 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9057-9062]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3494]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29577; 813-353]

Capital International, Inc., et al.; Notice of Application

February 10, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') granting an
exemption from all provisions of the Act, except section 9, and
sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act.
With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and
regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is
limited as set forth in the application.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to exempt certain
limited partnerships and other entities (``Partnerships'') formed for
the benefit of eligible employees of Capital International, Inc.
(``Capital'') and its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act.
Each Partnership will be an ``employees' securities company'' within
the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act.

Applicants: CGPE IV, L.P. (``CGPE IV''), CGPE V, L.P. (``CGPE V''),
Capital International Investments IV, LLC (``CII IV''), Capital
International Investments V, LLC (``CII V''), and Capital.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 1, 2003 and
amended on September 30, 2004, April 6, 2007, April 16, 2010, and
February 1, 2011.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
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 March 7, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Capital, 11100
Santa Monica Blvd., 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-3384; CGPE IV,
CGPE V, CII IV, and CII V, 6455 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618-
4518.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant
Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment Management, Office
of Investment Company Regulation).

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

Applicants' Representations

    1. Capital, a California corporation, is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc., a holding company and
one of the largest investment management firms in the world. Capital
and its ``affiliates,'' as defined in rule 12b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), are referred to
collectively as the ``Capital Group'' and each, a ``Capital Group
entity.'' Investment management and related financial services are
Capital International, Inc.'s only businesses.
    2. A Partnership will be structured as a limited partnership,
limited liability company, business trust or other entity organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware, another state, or of a
jurisdiction outside the United States. Capital Group may also form
parallel Partnerships organized under the laws of various jurisdictions
in order to create the same investment opportunities for Eligible
Employees (as defined below) in other jurisdictions. Interests in a
Partnership (``Interests'') may be issued in one or more series, each
of which corresponds to particular Partnership investments (each, a
``Series''). Each Series will be an ``employees' securities company''
within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. Each Partnership
will operate as a closed-end management investment company, and a
particular Partnership may operate as a diversified or non-diversified
vehicle within the meaning of the Act. The Partnerships are intended to
provide investment opportunities for Eligible Employees (defined below)
that are competitive with those at other investment management and
financial services firms and to facilitate the recruitment and
retention of high caliber professionals. Capital Group will control
each Partnership within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act.
    3. Capital Group formed CGPE IV under the laws of the state of
Delaware. CGPE IV invests concurrently with Capital International
Private Equity Fund IV, L.P. (``Fund IV'') and other investors
organized or managed by Capital Group or its designees that generally
co-invest with Fund IV (the ``Fund IV Co-Investors'') in various
investment opportunities, described in the application. Capital Group
formed CGPE V under the laws of the Cayman Islands. CGPE V invests
concurrently with Capital International Private Equity Fund V, L.P.
(``Fund V'') and other investors organized or managed by Capital Group
or its designees that generally co-invest with Fund V (the ``Fund V Co-
Investors'') in various

investment opportunities, described in the application. CGPE IV and
CGPE V (collectively, the ``Initial Partnerships'') may also co-invest
with each other as well as with Fund IV, Fund V, the Fund IV Co-
Investors and the Fund V Co-Investors. The Initial Partnerships are
organized as limited partnerships.
    4. Each Partnership will have a general partner, managing member or
other such similar entity (a ``General Partner''). All potential
investors in a Partnership will be ``Limited Partners.'' The General
Partner will manage, operate, and control each Partnership and will
have the authority to make all decisions regarding the acquisition,
management and disposition of Partnership investments. A Capital Group
entity will be a General Partner of each Partnership. The General
Partner may be permitted to delegate certain of its responsibilities
regarding the acquisition, management and disposition of Partnership
investments to an Investment Adviser (as defined below).
    5. The General Partner or another entity will serve as investment
adviser to a Partnership (the ``Investment Adviser''). The Investment
Adviser will be (i) Registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act''), (ii) exempt
from Advisers Act registration requirements by virtue of section
203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, or (iii) excluded from the definition of
investment adviser under the Advisers Act because it is a bank or bank
holding company, as defined in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1056, as
amended, and does not serve or act as an investment adviser to a
registered investment company. Any entity serving as Investment Adviser
to any Partnership will be a Capital Group entity.
    6. If the Investment Adviser elects to recommend that a Partnership
enter into any side-by-side investment with an unaffiliated entity, the
Investment Adviser will be permitted to engage as sub-investment
adviser the unaffiliated entity (an ``Unaffiliated Subadviser''), which
will be responsible for the management of such side-by-side investment.
An Investment Adviser may be paid a management fee, which will
generally be determined as a percentage of the capital commitments of
the Limited Partners. A General Partner or Investment Adviser may
receive a performance-based fee (a ``Carried Interest'') based on the
net gains of the Partnership's investments in addition to any amount
allocable to the General Partner's or Investment Adviser's capital
contribution.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If a General Partner or Investment Adviser is registered
under the Advisers Act, the Carried Interest payable to it by a
Partnership will be pursuant to an arrangement that complies with
rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act. If the General Partner or
Investment Adviser is not required to register under the Advisers
Act, the Carried Interest payable to it will comply with section
205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, with the Partnership treated as a
business development company solely for the purpose of that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Interests in a Partnership will be offered without registration
in reliance on section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
``Securities Act''), or Regulation D or Regulation S under the
Securities Act, and will be sold only to ``Qualified Participants'' (as
defined below). Prior to offering Interests to an Eligible Individual
(as defined below), a General Partner must reasonably believe that the
Eligible Employee or Eligible Family Member will be capable of
understanding and evaluating the merits and risks of participation in a
Partnership and that each such individual is able to bear the economic
risk of such participation and afford a complete loss of his or her
investment.
    8. ``Qualified Participants'' are (a) current and former employees,
officers, directors and current Consultants \2\ of Capital Group
(collectively, ``Eligible Employees''), (b) spouses, parents, children,
spouses of children, brothers, sisters and grandchildren of Eligible
Employees (``Eligible Family Members'' and, together with Eligible
Employees who are natural persons, ``Eligible Individuals''), (c)
trusts or other investment vehicles established solely for the benefit
of Eligible Individuals (``Eligible Investment Vehicles''), and (d)
Capital Group. Each Eligible Individual will be an ``accredited
investor'' under rule 501(a)(5) or rule 501(a)(6) of Regulation D
(``Accredited Investor''), except that a maximum of 35 Eligible
Employees who are sophisticated investors but who are not Accredited
Investors may become Limited Partners if each of them falls into one of
the following two categories: (A) Eligible Employees who (i) have a
graduate degree in business, law or accounting, (ii) have a minimum of
five years of consulting, investment management, investment banking,
legal or similar business experience, and (iii) had reportable income
from all sources (including any profit shares or bonus) of $100,000 in
each of the two most recent years immediately preceding the Eligible
Employee's admission as a Limited Partner and have a reasonable
expectation of income from all sources of at least $140,000 in each
year in which the Eligible Employee will be committed to make
investments in a Partnership; or (B) Eligible Employees who are
``knowledgeable employees,'' as defined in rule 3c-5 of the Act, of the
Partnership (with the Partnership treated as though it were a ``covered
company'' for purposes of the rule). An Eligible Employee who is
described in category (A) above will not be permitted to invest in any
year more than 10% of his or her income from all sources for the
immediately preceding year in the aggregate in a Partnership and in all
other Partnerships in which that investor has previously invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``Consultant'' is a person or entity whom Capital Group
has engaged on retainer to provide services and professional
expertise on an ongoing basis as a regular consultant or as a
business or legal adviser and who shares a community of interest
with Capital Group and its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An Eligible Individual may purchase an Interest through an
Eligible Investment Vehicle only if either (i) the investment vehicle
is an ``accredited investor,'' as defined in rule 501(a) of Regulation
D under the 1933 Act, or (ii) the Eligible Individual is a settlor \3\
and principal investment decision-maker with respect to the investment
vehicle. Eligible Investment Vehicles that are not accredited investors
will be included in the 35 non-accredited investor limit discussed
above. Any Capital Group entity or a Consultant entity will be an
``accredited investor'' as defined in rule 501(a) of Regulation D under
the 1933 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If such investment vehicle is an entity other than a trust,
the term ``settlor'' will be read to mean a person who created such
vehicle, alone or together with other Eligible Individuals, and
contributed funds to such vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The terms of a Partnership will be disclosed to the Eligible
Employees at the time they are offered the right to subscribe for
Interests, and they will be furnished with a copy of the partnership
agreement. A Partnership will send its Limited Partners an annual
financial statement audited by independent accountants as soon as
practicable after the end of its fiscal year.\4\ In addition, as soon
as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of a Partnership, a
report will be sent to each Limited Partner setting forth the
information with respect to his or her share of income, gains, losses,
credits, and other items for federal and state income tax purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Audit'' will have the meaning defined in rule 1-02(d) of
Regulation S-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Interests in the Partnerships will not be transferable except
with the express consent of the General Partner, and then only to a
Qualified Participant. All of the Partnerships will have only Qualified
Participants as Limited

Partners. No sales load will be charged in connection with the sale of
Interests.
    12. The General Partner may have the right to repurchase or cancel
the Interest of an Eligible Employee who ceases to be an employee,
officer, director, or current Consultant of any member of Capital Group
for any reason. In the case of Interests held by a Consultant whose
retainer has been terminated or has expired, such Interests will be
subject to mandatory redemption or repurchase by Capital Group, or
Capital Group may require the former Consultant to sell such Interests
to an Eligible Investor. A Limited Partner, other than the Initial
Partnerships for which no right to repurchase or cancellation exists,
would receive upon repurchase or cancellation of its Interest, the
lesser of (a) the amount actually paid by the Limited Partner to
acquire the Interest plus interest, less any distributions, and (b) the
fair market value of the Interest determined at the time of the
repurchase or cancellation as determined in good faith by the General
Partner.
    13. A Partnership may make investments side-by-side with Capital
Group entities and through investment pools sponsored by or managed by
a Capital Group entity or an unaffiliated entity. A Partnership may
also co-invest directly in a company with Capital Group or an
investment fund or separate account organized for the benefit of
investors who are not affiliated with Capital Group over which a
Capital Group entity or an Unaffiliated Subadviser exercises investment
discretion (``Third Party Funds'').
    14. If Capital Group makes loans to any Partnership, the lender
will be entitled to receive interest at a rate no less favorable to the
borrower than the rate that could be obtained on an arm's length basis.
A Partnership will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would
cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own
outstanding securities of the Partnership (other than short-term
paper). Any indebtedness of a Partnership will be without recourse to
the Limited Partners of the Partnership.
    15. A Partnership will not acquire any security issued by a
registered investment company if, immediately after the acquisition,
the Partnership will own, in the aggregate, more than 3% of the
outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission
will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the
Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection
of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider,
in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should
be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure,
the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the
company's securities and the amount of any sales load, how the
company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company
and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13)
defines an employees' securities company, in relevant part, as any
investment company all of whose securities (other than short-term
paper) are beneficially owned (a) by current or former employees, or
persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers, (b) by
immediate family members of such persons, or (c) by such employer or
employers together with any of the persons in (a) or (b).
    2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies
that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or
redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) of the Act provides that, in
connection with any order exempting an investment company from any
provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by
the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons
dealing with the company as though the company were registered under
the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of
the Act exempting the Partnerships from all provisions of the Act,
except section 9 and sections 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules
and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under
the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application.
    3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any affiliated person of a
registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an
affiliated person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or
purchasing any security or other property to or from the company.
Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit: (a) A
Capital Group entity or a Third Party Fund (or any affiliated person of
such Third Party Fund), acting as principal, to engage in any
transaction directly or indirectly with any Partnership or any company
controlled by such Partnership; (b) a Partnership to invest in or
engage in any transaction with any entity, acting as principal, (i) in
which such Partnership, any company controlled by such Partnership, or
any Capital Group entity or Third Party Fund has invested or will
invest, or (ii) with which such Partnership, any company controlled by
such Partnership, or any Capital Group entity or Third Party Fund is or
will otherwise become affiliated; and (c) a Third Party Investor,
acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or
indirectly with any Partnership or any company controlled by such
Partnership. The term ``Third Party Investor'' refers to any person or
entity that is not a Capital Group entity or affiliated with Capital
Group and is a partner or other investor in a Third Party Fund.
    4. Applicants submit that an exemption from section 17(a) is
consistent with the purposes of the Partnerships and the protection of
investors. Applicants state that the Limited Partners will be informed
of the possible extent of the Partnership's dealings with Capital Group
and of the potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Applicants
also state that, as professionals engaged in financial services
businesses, the Limited Partners will be able to evaluate the risks
associated with those dealings. Applicants assert that the community of
interest among the Limited Partners and Capital Group will serve to
reduce the risk of abuse. Applicants represent that the requested
relief will not extend to any transactions between a Partnership and an
Unaffiliated Subadviser or an affiliated person of an Unaffiliated
Subadviser, or between a Partnership and any person who is not an
employee, officer or director of the Capital Group or is an entity
outside of the Capital Group and is an affiliated person of the
Partnership as defined in section 2(a)(3)(E) of the Act (``Advisory
Person'') or any affiliated person of such a person.
    5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in any joint arrangement with the company unless
authorized by the Commission. Applicants request relief to permit
affiliated persons of each Partnership, or affiliated persons of any of
these persons, to participate in, or effect any transaction in
connection with, any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or
profit-sharing plan in which the Partnership or a company controlled by
the Partnership is a participant. Applicants acknowledge that the
requested relief will not extend to any transaction in which an
Unaffiliated Subadviser or an Advisory Person, or an affiliated person
of either such person, has an interest, except in

connection with a Third Party Fund sponsored by an Unaffiliated
Subadviser.
    6. Applicants assert that compliance with section 17(d) would cause
the Partnership to forego attractive investment opportunities simply
because a Limited Partner, the General Partner or any other affiliated
person of the Partnership (or any affiliate of the affiliated person)
made a similar investment. Applicants also submit that the types of
investment opportunities considered by a Partnership often require each
investor to make funds available in an amount that may be substantially
greater than what a Partnership may be able to make available on its
own. Applicants contend that, as a result, the only way in which a
Partnership may be able to participate in these opportunities may be to
co-invest with other persons, including its affiliates. Applicants
assert that the flexibility to structure co-investments and joint
investments will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule
17d-1 were designed to prevent.
    7. Co-investments with Third Party Funds, or by a Capital Group
entity pursuant to a contractual obligation to a Third Party Fund, will
not be subject to condition 3 below. Applicants note that it is common
for a Third Party Fund to require that Capital Group invest its own
capital in Third Party Fund investments, and that Capital Group
investments be subject to substantially the same terms as those
applicable to the Third Party Fund. Applicants believe it is important
that the interests of the Third Party Fund take priority over the
interests of the Partnerships, and that the Third Party Fund not be
burdened or otherwise affected by activities of the Partnerships. In
addition, applicants assert that the relationship of a Partnership to a
Third Party Fund is fundamentally different from a Partnership's
relationship to Capital Group. Applicants contend that the focus of,
and the rationale for, the protections contained in the requested
relief are to protect the Partnerships from any overreaching by Capital
Group in the employer/employee context, whereas the same concerns are
not present with respect to the Partnerships vis-a-vis a Third Party
Fund.
    8. Section 17(e) of the Act and rule 17e-1 under the Act limit the
compensation an affiliated person may receive when acting as agent or
broker for a registered investment company. Applicants request an
exemption from section 17(e) to permit a Capital Group entity
(including the General Partner) that acts as an agent or broker to
receive placement fees, advisory fees, or other compensation from a
Partnership in connection with the purchase or sale by the Partnership
of securities, provided that the fees or other compensation are deemed
``usual and customary.'' Applicants state that for purposes of the
application, fees or other compensation that are charged or received by
a Capital Group entity will be deemed ``usual and customary'' only if
(a) The Partnership is purchasing or selling securities with other
unaffiliated third parties, including Third Party Funds, (b) the fees
or compensation being charged to the Partnership are also being charged
to the unaffiliated third parties, including Third Party Funds, and (c)
the amount of securities being purchased or sold by the Partnership
does not exceed 50% of the total amount of securities being purchased
or sold by the Partnership and the unaffiliated third parties,
including Third Party Funds. Applicants assert that, because Capital
Group does not wish to appear to be favoring the Partnerships,
compliance with section 17(e) would prevent a Partnership from
participating in transactions where the Partnership is being charged
lower fees than unaffiliated third parties. Applicants assert that the
fees or other compensation paid by a Partnership to a Capital Group
entity will be the same as those negotiated at arm's length with
unaffiliated third parties.
    9. Rule 17e-1(b) under the Act requires that a majority of
directors who are not ``interested persons'' (as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act) take actions and make approvals regarding
commissions, fees, or other remuneration. Rule 17e-1(c) under the Act
requires each investment company relying on the rule to satisfy the
fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act (the
``Fund Governance Standards''). Applicants request an exemption from
rule 17e-1 to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to comply
with the rule without having a majority of the directors of the General
Partner who are not interested persons take actions and make
determinations as set forth in paragraph (b) of the rule, and without
having to satisfy the standards set forth in paragraph (c) of the rule.
Applicants state that because all the directors of the General Partner
will be affiliated persons, without the relief requested, a Partnership
could not comply with rule 17e-1. Applicants state that each
Partnership will comply with rule 17e-1 by having a majority of the
directors of the General Partner take actions and make approvals as set
forth in the rule. Applicants state that each Partnership will
otherwise comply with rule 17e-1.
    10. Section 17(f) of the Act designates the entities that may act
as investment company custodians, and rule 17f-1 under the Act imposes
certain requirements when the custodian is a member of a national
securities exchange. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(f)
and rule 17f-1 to permit a Capital Group entity to act as custodian of
Partnership assets without a written contract. Applicants also request
an exemption from the rule 17f-1(b)(4) requirement that an independent
accountant periodically verify the assets held by the custodian.
Applicants state that, because of the community of interest between
Capital Group and the Partnerships and the existing requirement for an
independent audit, compliance with this requirement would be
unnecessary. Applicants will comply with all other requirements of rule
17f-1.
    11. Applicants also request an exemption from rule 17f-2 to permit
the following exceptions from the requirements of rule 17f-2: (a) A
Partnership's investments may be kept in the locked files of the
General Partner; (b) for purposes of paragraph (d) of the rule, (i)
Employees of the General Partner (or Capital Group) will be deemed to
be employees of the Partnerships, (ii) officers or managers of the
General Partner of a Partnership (or Capital Group) will be deemed to
be officers of the Partnership and (iii) the General Partner of a
Partnership or its board of directors will be deemed to be the board of
directors of a Partnership and (c) in place of the verification
procedure under paragraph (f) of the rule, verification will be
effected quarterly by two employees of the General Partner (or Capital
Group). Applicants expect that with respect to certain Partnerships,
some of their investments may be evidenced only by partnership
agreements, participation agreements or similar documents, rather than
by negotiable certificates that could be misappropriated. Applicants
assert that for such a Partnership, these instruments are most suitably
kept in the files of the General Partner, where they can be referred to
as necessary.
    12. Section 17(g) of the Act and rule 17g-1 under the Act generally
require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered
investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule
17g-1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested
persons take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to
fidelity bonding. The rule also requires that the board of directors of
an investment company

relying on the rule satisfy the Fund Governance Standards. Applicants
request relief to permit the General Partner's board of directors, who
may be deemed interested persons, to take actions and make
determinations as set forth in the rule. Applicants state that, because
all directors of the General Partner will be affiliated persons, a
Partnership could not comply with rule 17g-1 without the requested
relief. Specifically, each Partnership will comply with rule 17g-1 by
having a majority of the General Partner's directors take actions and
make determinations as set forth in rule 17g-1. Applicants also request
an exemption from the requirements of paragraph (g) of rule 17g-1
relating to the filing of copies of fidelity bonds and related
information with the Commission and the provision of notices to the
board of directors, paragraph (h) of rule 17g-1 relating to the
appointment of a person to make the filings and provide the notices
required by paragraph (g), and paragraph (j)(3) of rule 17g-1 relating
to compliance with the Fund Governance Standards. Applicants state that
the Partnerships will comply with all other requirements of rule 17g-1.
    13. Section 17(j) of the Act and paragraph (b) of rule 17j-1 under
the Act make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in
fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security held or to be acquired by a registered investment
company. Rule 17j-1 also requires that every registered investment
company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of
a registered investment company report personal securities
transactions. Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of
rule 17j-1, except for the anti-fraud provisions of paragraph (b),
because they are unnecessarily burdensome as applied to the
Partnerships. The relief requested will only extend to Capital Group
entities and is not requested with respect to any Unaffiliated
Subadviser or Advisory Person.
    14. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in
sections 30(a), 30(b), and 30(e) of the Act, and the rules under those
sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with
the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports
and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed
by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the
Partnerships and would entail administrative and legal costs that
outweigh any benefit to the Limited Partners. Applicants request
exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Partnership to
report annually to its Limited Partners. Applicants also request an
exemption from section 30(h) of the Act to the extent necessary to
exempt the General Partner of each Partnership, members of the General
Partner or any board of managers or directors or committee of Capital
Group employees to whom the General Partner may delegate its functions,
and any other persons who may be deemed to be members of an advisory
board of a Partnership, from filing Forms 3, 4, and 5 under section
16(a) of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests
in the Partnership. Applicants assert that, because there will be no
trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely
restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of
investors and burdensome to those required to make them.
    15. Rule 38a-1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement
and periodically review written policies reasonably designed to prevent
violation of the federal securities law and to appoint a chief
compliance officer. Each Partnership will comply will rule 38a-1(a),
(c) and (d), except that (a) since the Partnership does not have a
board of directors, the board of directors of the General Partner will
fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the Partnership's board of
directors under the rule, (b) since the board of directors of the
General Partner does not have any disinterested members, approval by a
majority of the disinterested board members required by rule 38a-1 will
not be obtained, and (c) since the board of directors of the General
Partner does not have any disinterested members, the Partnerships will
comply with the requirement in rule 38a-1(a)(4)(iv) that the chief
compliance officer meet with the independent directors by having the
chief compliance officer meet with the board of directors of the
General Partner as constituted.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Each proposed transaction involving a Partnership otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act to which a Partnership is a party (the ``Section 17
Transactions'') will be effected only if the General Partner determines
that:
    (a) the terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the
consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the
Limited Partners of the Partnership and do not involve overreaching of
the Partnership or its Limited Partners on the part of any person
concerned; and
    (b) the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of
the Limited Partners, the Partnership's organizational documents and
the Partnership's reports to its Limited Partners.
    In addition, the General Partner of the Partnership will record and
preserve a description of all Section 17 Transactions, the General
Partner's findings, the information or materials upon which the
findings are based and the basis for the findings. All such records
will be maintained for the life of the Partnership and at least six
years thereafter and will be subject to examination by the Commission
and its staff.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each Partnership will preserve the accounts, books and other
documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place
for the first two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The General Partner of each Partnership will adopt, and
periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that
reasonable inquiry is made, prior to the consummation of any Section 17
Transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the
transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal
underwriter for the Partnership or any affiliated person of such
person, promoter or principal underwriter.
    3. The General Partner of each Partnership will not invest the
funds of the Partnership in any investment in which an ``Affiliated Co-
Investor'' (as defined below) has acquired or proposes to acquire the
same class of securities of the same issuer and where the investment
transaction involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement
within the meaning of rule 17d-1 in which the Partnership and an
Affiliated Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Affiliated Co-
Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment, (a)
gives the General Partner sufficient, but not less than one day's,
notice of its intent to dispose of its investment; and (b) refrains
from disposing of its investment unless the Partnership has the
opportunity to dispose of the Partnership's investment prior to or
concurrently with, on the same terms as, and pro rata with the
Affiliated Co-Investor. The term ``Affiliated Co-Investor'' with
respect to any Partnership means any person who is: (a) An ``affiliated
person'' (as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the
Partnership (other than a Third Party Fund); (b) Capital Group; (c) an
officer or director of Capital Group; or

(d) an entity (other than a Third Party Fund) in which a Capital Group
entity acts as a general partner or has a similar capacity to control
the sale or other disposition of the entity's securities. The
restrictions contained in this condition, however, shall not be deemed
to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by an Affiliated
Co-Investor (a) To its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, to
any company (a ``Parent'') of which the Affiliated Co-Investor is a
direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary or to a direct or indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of its Parent, (b) to immediate family members
of the Affiliated Co-Investor or a trust or other investment vehicle
established for any Affiliated Co-Investor or any such immediate family
member, or (c) when the investment is comprised of securities that are
(i) listed on a national securities exchange registered under section 6
of the Exchange Act, (ii) NMS stocks pursuant to section 11A(a)(2) of
the Exchange Act and rule 600(a) of Regulation NMS thereunder, (iii)
government securities as defined in section 2(a)(16) of the Act or
other securities that meet the definition of ``Eligible Security'' in
rule 2a-7 under the Act, or (iv) listed or traded on any foreign
securities exchange or board of trade that satisfies regulatory
requirements under the law of the jurisdiction in which such foreign
securities exchange or board of trade is organized similar to those
that apply to a national securities exchange or a national market
system for securities.
    4. Each Partnership and its General Partner will maintain and
preserve, for the life of each Series of the Partnership and at least
six years thereafter, such accounts, books and other documents
constituting the record forming the basis for the audited financial
statements that are to be provided to the Limited Partners in the
Partnership, and each annual report of the Partnership required to be
sent to the Limited Partners, and agree that all such records will be
subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each Partnership will preserve the accounts, books and other
documents required to be maintained in an easily accessible place
for the first two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The General Partner of each Partnership will send to each
Limited Partner having an Interest in the Partnership at any time
during the fiscal year then ended, Partnership financial statements
audited by the Partnership's independent accountants with respect to
those Series in which the Limited Partner had an Interest. At the end
of each fiscal year, the General Partner will make or cause to be made
a valuation of all of the assets of the Partnership as of such fiscal
year end in a manner consistent with customary practice with respect to
the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Partnership. In
addition, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of
the Partnership, the General Partner will send a report to each person
who was a Limited Partner at any time during the fiscal year then
ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the
preparation by the Limited Partner of that partner's federal and state
income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the
Partnership during that fiscal year.
    6. If a Partnership makes purchases or sales from or to an entity
affiliated with the Partnership by reason of an officer, director or
employee of a Capital Group entity (a) serving as an officer, director,
general partner or investment adviser of the entity, or (b) having a 5%
or more investment in the entity, such individual will not participate
in the Partnership's determination of whether or not to effect the
purchase or sale.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3494 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comments from the

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

October 9-12, 2007

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

More information and relevant documents can be found on the EPA website
at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.h
tm#amphibian"
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm#amphi
bian

REGULATORY HISTORY

Atrazine was first registered for use in the United States in 1958. By
1991, repeated detection of atrazine in the drinking water supply
prompted EPA’s Office of Water to set the limit for the annual average
concentration in drinking water at 3 ppb –  more permissive than the
World Health Organization international drinking water guidance of 2
ppb. In 1994, EPA designated atrazine for additional regulatory scrutiny
through a process called “Special Review,” based on “concerns
regarding the carcinogenic potential of atrazine and possible risks”
from food and water.

In contrast to the U.S. approach of allowing pollution to occur until
there is scientific evidence of its risks, the European Union has a
uniform limit of 0.1 ppb for the residue of any pesticide in drinking-
and ground-water. While scientists representing Syngenta characterize
this standard as “neither health-based nor scientifically
supported”,  it appears that the E.U. generally adopts the position
that it is unhealthy to drink pesticide-contaminated water, arguably a
health-based and scientifically-supported position. Based on the
inability to keep water contamination below this level, European
regulators announced a ban on atrazine use in October, 2003, one week
before the U.S. EPA approved its continued use.

Many agencies have identified atrazine as an endocrine disruptor,
including the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency, the European
Union, the Oslo and Paris Commission Convention for the Protection of
the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, and the State of
Illinois.

SUMMARY OF NRDC COMMENTS

NRDC looks forward to a fair and complete review of the available
literature, with greatest consideration given to those data from robust
and well-designed studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature. However, this SAP has been hamstrung from that task by the
unduly narrow charge questions and limited literature review provided to
the SAP experts.

NRDC asks that all scientific data relevant to the activities of
atrazine as an endocrine disruptor be evaluated, including mammalian,
aquatic, and mechanistic studies. However, this SAP has been hamstrung
from that task by the unduly narrow charge questions limited to
amphibian gonadal effects, and the arbitrary and unsupported criteria
used by EPA to disregard critical scientific data that would inform this
issue.

NRDC asks that the Scientific Advisory Panel provide its expert
scientific opinion as to the effects of atrazine as an endocrine
disruptor, and its possible risks to wildlife and human health.

CHARGE QUESTIONS

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/october/charge_to_the_pane
l.pdf"
www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/october/charge_to_the_panel.pdf

1.	In reviewing the available laboratory and field studies, the Agency
used a number of criteria to evaluate individual investigations.
Criteria such as experimental design, test protocols, and quality
assurance information were used to evaluate the reliability of a
study’s ability to adequately assess a hypothesis that atrazine
elicits developmental effects in amphibians, and if so, the nature and
strength of associated dose-response relationships.  (a) Please provide
comments and recommendations regarding the EPA’s approach and criteria
used to evaluate the studies. (b) Given the evaluation criteria employed
by the Agency, please comment on EPA’s overall application of these
criteria to the currently available studies

NRDC response:

The 07 White Paper references study evaluation criteria in the USEPA
2003 and SAP 2003 reports. Although not specifically identified as
evaluation criteria, the  03 White Paper does discuss the parameters by
which it evaluates a specific set of studies, including some expression
of the Agency preferences for study design and data analysis (p. 62-68).
These are not clear criteria, they are overly vague, and they are often
specific to the study being reviewed. The section as presented leaves
doubt that the criteria were developed a priori and independently.

Further, neither the 03 nor 07 White Papers develop a biological
rationale to support their evaluations. This is a major deficiency in
the Agency’s approach.  It is not at all clear why EPA failed to
develop a transparent science-based logical framework in which to
interpret the study results a priori. This should have included
identifying specific endpoints of interest, developing standards of
variability including baseline data, and identifying criteria for
appropriate statistical analyses a priori.

In addition, the White Paper applies random and arbitrary critiques of
the available data. For example, the 03 and 07 White Papers refer to the
ASTM (1998) standards for loading rates, husbandry, and water quality
parameters (03 White Paper at 10). These standards are acknowledged to
include acceptable loading rates for both static or static renewal and
flow-through conditions (03 White Paper at 62). Yet, the 03 and 07 White
Papers arbitrarily identify flow-through systems as superior,  even to
the extreme of eliminating from consideration all of the static renewal
system studies. This severe application of the Agency preference results
in its failure to consider the results from the majority of highly
relevant studies that have been published in the peer-reviewed
literature, presented at scientific meetings, and received accolades
from scientific expert (03 White Paper at 62; 07 White Paper at 111).

Most curious about the Agency study evaluations is that there are many
instances in which the Agency lists as a deficiency its own failure to
gather sufficient information to evaluate the study (see as examples 07
White paper at 102-104; 107). Since the overwhelming majority of the
study authors were available to Agency staff, it is not clear why the
information was not simply requested.  For example, the 07 White Paper
states that of the open literature laboratory studies,
“none…reported analyses conducted on the commercial diets fed to
test animals” (07 White Paper at 107). Surely, since it was commercial
feed, these data could have been requested by the Agency at any time
during its review; failure to gather this information represents a
failure by the Agency to take seriously these relevant data.

In a glaring inconsistency, the Agency’s failure to gather information
was not applied to all studies. The WLI/IGB studies received
considerable personal attention and interaction. Agency staff,
“conducted inspections of each of the study laboratories”, including
“extensive review of raw data collection sheets and data summary
tables by OECA and OPP personnel”, even going so far as to inspect the
lab that processed tissues and conducted histological analyses” (07
White Paper at 35). It seems that the relationship between the Agency
and the authors of these studies, both sponsored by Syngenta, was
unusually communicative. This may have biased the Agency’s evaluation
of these studies, by providing the registrant-sponsored authors with
endless abilities respond to Agency inquiries.

EPA has so severely applied its preferences (I hesitate to call them
criteria, since they are not clearly stated, were not developed a
priori, and are not supported with a biological rationale) that its
final conclusions are precariously balanced on one study, conducted and
sponsored by the registrant.

Questions Concerning the Open Literature Studies

2) The Agency has concluded that the information contained in the open
literature published since the 2003 SAP does not provide any additional
information that could be used to refute or confirm the hypothesis that
exposure to atrazine alone causes adverse developmental effects in
amphibian gonads. (a) Please comment on the comprehensiveness of the
Agency’s literature reviews relative to the potential effects of
atrazine alone on amphibian gonadal development. (b) Please comment on
the Agency’s evaluation of the open literature studies and the
Agency’s conclusion that the data derived from laboratory studies,
both individually and collectively, are not sufficient to refute or
confirm the hypothesis that atrazine exposure causes developmental
effects in amphibian gonads. (c) The Agency concluded that the field
studies are not adequate for assessing the hypothesis at hand. Please
comment on the Agency’s conclusion. If the SAP concludes one or more
of the field studies do provide the means to assess the hypothesis that
atrazine exposure results in effects on amphibian gonadal development,
please suggest interpretive and statistical methods that should be
employed to evaluate the data.

NRDC response:

The response to this question was submitted as comments to the Agency in
May, 2007, in response to a notice in the federal register
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0204), and are supported by Northwest Coalition for
Alternatives to Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America,
Beyond Pesticides, and Defenders of Wildlife.

EPA scientific review failed to fully include scientific evidence of
neuroendocrine effects in amphibians associated with atrazine. Atrazine
has been shown by numerous independent laboratories to disrupt
neuroendocrine processes in amphibians (Rohr and Palmer, 2005; Hayes et
al, 2002, 2003; Larson et al, 1998). Such effects are likely to be a
contributing mechanism to observed adverse impacts on population
survival. Important scientific papers relevant to this issue that should
be included in the EPA and SAP review include but are not limited to:

Larval-stage exposure of salamaders to atrazine (40 and 400 ppb) was
associated with hyperactivity, fewer water-conserving behaviors, and
accelerated dessication 4-8 months after exposure, compared to controls
(Rohr and Palmer, 2005).

Larval salamanders exposed to atrazine (75 ppb, 250 ppb) had elevated
plasma thyroxine levels compared with controls. The lower dose treated
group (75 ppb) also had reduced levels of corticosterone, compared with
both the control and the high dose group. The low dose group developed
slower than controls, whereas the high dose group developed at the same
time but were smaller and had reduced weights compared with controls
(Larson et al, 1998).

Exposure of Xenopus laevis tadpoles during sexual differentiation to
atrazine (0, 21 ppb) for 48 hrs resulted in a significant increase in
the frequency of secondary oogonia in atrazine-exposed ovaries of
females (Tavera-Mendoza et al, 2002a), and a significant reduction in
spermatogonial cell nests and nursing cells in atrazine-exposed testis
of males (Tavera-Mendoza et al, 2002b), compared with controls. The
authors suggest that these effects are likely to impact the reproductive
fitness of exposed animals.

EPA scientific review failed to fully include scientific evidence of
long-term or permanent effects in amphibians associated with atrazine.
Atrazine exposure during early developmental stages has been shown to
adversely impact later-life outcomes, including susceptibility to
infection (Kiesecker, 2002), risk of dessication during adult-hood (Rohr
and Palmer, 2005), and long-term survival (Rohr et al, 2006). Such
effects are likely to be a contributing mechanism to observed adverse
impacts on population survival. Important scientific papers relevant to
this issue that should be included in the EPA and SAP review include but
are not limited to:

Relative to control animals, salamanders exposed during larval stages to
atrazine at 4 ppb and 40 ppb has statistically significantly reduced
survival even 14 months after exposure. These results were identified
only when the researchers accounted for toxic effects that persist or
appear after the exposure had ended (carryover effects), and the ability
of the population to mask harm to individuals by reduced competition
among survivors (density-mediated compensation) (Rohr et al, 2006).

Exposure of salamanders to atrazine (0, 40, 400 ppb) prior to
metamorphosis resulted in greater rates of dessication, even as much as
4 and 8 months after the exposure ended, with no sign of recovery,
compared with controls (Rohr and Palmer, 2005).

Wood frog tadpoles exposed to atrazine (0, 3, 30 ppb) for four weeks
were then challenged with naturally-occurring trematode infection. Frogs
that had been pre-exposed to atrazine at both low and high doses during
tadpole-stages had a dose-dependent weakened immune response (reduced
eosinophils) and increased infection rate, compared with controls
(Kiesecker, 2002).

Numerous scientific studies report a more severe response to atrazine
exposure at low concentrations (≤ 25 ppb), suggesting that routine
environmental exposures during critical windows of development may be of
the most relevant for predicting acute and chronic adverse impacts.
Important scientific papers relevant to this issue that should be
included in the EPA and SAP review include but are not limited to:

Tadpoles of four species of frogs--spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer),
American toads (Bufo americanus), green frogs (Rana clamitans), and wood
frogs (Rana sylvatica)—were exposed during development to atrazine (0,
3, 30, 100 ppb). Survival was significantly lower for all animals
exposed to 3 ppb compared with either 30 or 100 ppb, except the late
stages of B. americanus and R. sylvatica (Storrs and Kiesecker, 2004).

Larval-stage exposure of salamaders to atrazine (0, 4, 40, 400 ppb) was
associated with hyperactivity, fewer water-conserving behaviors, and
accelerated dessication 4-8 months after exposure, compared to controls.
The greatest impacts on survival occurred at low exposure
concentrations. Relative to control animals, the salamanders exposed to
4 ppb atrazine during early life stages had significantly lower survival
421 days after cessation of exposure, when considering both the exposure
and carryover effects.  (Rohr et al, 2006).

Larval salamanders exposed to atrazine (75 ppb, 250 ppb) had elevated
plasma thyroxine levels compared with controls. The lower dose treated
group (75 ppb) also had reduced levels of corticosterone, compared with
both the control and the high dose group. The low dose group developed
slower than controls, whereas the high dose group developed at the same
time but were smaller and had reduced weights compared with controls
(Larson et al, 1998).

The severe limits placed on SAP review are likely to bias outcome. EPA
scientific review failed to include studies demonstrating adverse
endocrine effects of atrazine in mammals. Even before evidence of
hormone disruption activity had emerged in amphibians, EPA scientists
and others had been reporting that atrazine disrupts the normal
progression of sexual development in rats. Reported findings included:
dose-dependent decreased estrogen-induced surges of circulating
prolactin and luteinizing hormone levels (Cooper et al, 2000);
prostatitis in offspring of dams treated during nursing (Stoker et al,
1999);  delayed puberty in males (Stoker et al, 2000) and females (Laws
et al, 2000) treated with atrazine by gavage from weaning until puberty;
decreased sperm number and motility in adults (Kniewald et al, 2000),
and reduced testosterone production by testicular cells of juvenile rats
exposed prior to puberty.(Friedmann et al, 2002) The disruption of
endocrine pathways is thought to be the cause of observed mammary tumors
in one strain of female rats (Sprague-Dawley); while this mechanism may
be strain-specific, it is likely to have implications for risks in other
species (IARC, 1999; Stevens et al, 1994, 1998, 1999). Important
scientific papers relevant to this issue that should be included in the
EPA and SAP review include but are not limited to:

When nursing rats were treated with atrazine the male offspring
developed prostate gland inflammation (Stoker et al, 1999).

Treatment of Wistar male and female rats with atrazine from weaning
until puberty resulted in delayed sexual maturity.  In the female, oral
gavage of 50-200 mg/kg atrazine at postnatal day 22-41 delayed vaginal
opening (puberty), in a dose-dependent manner (Laws et al, 2000). In
male rats preputial separation was significantly delayed following
treatment with 12.5, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mg/kg atrazine administered
by gavage (PND 23-53) (Stoker et al, 2000).

Atrazine reduced sperm motility in exposed Fischer rats. Animals were
treated with 60 and 120 mg/kg atrazine administered twice weekly by
intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection over a period of 60 days. The authors
report that testicular sperm number in atrazine-treated groups increased
with the treatment time due to reduced sperm motility (Kniewald et al,
2000).

Long Evans (LE) rats were exposed in utero to atrazine, followed by
challenge with the carcinogen dimethybenz[a]anthracene.
Atrazine-exposed pups demonstrated delayed mammary bud outgrowth,
followed by an increase in multiplicity and volume of tumors after
exposure to the carcinogen, compared to non-atrazine treated controls.
In addition, the atrazine-exposed pups showed an increase in organ
pathology (adrenal nodules, pituitary foci, large ovarian cysts, lymph
node and spleen enlargement), compared with controls. (Birnbaum and
Fenton, 2003)

A mammary tumor response (mammary fibroadenomas and adenocarcinomas) has
been consistently observed in Sprague-Dawley (SD) female rats following
chronic oral dosing of atrazine and simazine at and above the maximum
tolerated dose (400 ppm; based on three 2-year studies] (IARC, 1999)

EPA scientific review failed to include scientific reports of adverse
endocrine effects of atrazine in humans. Relevant human data have been
published suggesting that atrazine has been linked to endocrine effects
in individuals exposed through their work or home environment. Important
scientific papers relevant to this issue that should be included in the
EPA and SAP review include but are not limited to:

A multi-center case-control study of fertile men in U.S. agrarian areas
reported a significant association between poor semen quality (reduced
sperm concentration and motility) and urinary atrazine metabolite levels
above the level of detection (0.1 (g/g creatinine), compared with men
from urban centers (OR=11.3, 95% CI=1.3-98.9).(Swan et al, 2003, 2006)

It is alarming that far higher urinary metabolite levels have been
reported in male farmers who self-applied atrazine, ranging from 0.16 to
5.0 (g/g creatinine (95% CI=0.33-1.3) (Curwin et al, 2005), suggesting
that farmers that apply pesticide themselves (not professionally trained
applicators) may represent a population at increased risk of reduced
sperm quality from pesticide exposures.

EPA scientific review failed to consider evidence of impacts of mixtures
and co-contaminants with atrazine. The EPA review is artificially
constrained to consider exposure to pesticides in isolation; this is
extremely likely to artificially underestimate risks from exposure to
toxic mixtures that commonly occur in the real world (Chevre et al,
2006; Christin et al, 2004). One assessment of multiple pesticide
exposures among men with NHL has reported a suggested superadditive
effect of atrazine in combination with the pesticides carbofuran,
diazinon, or alachlor (DeRoos et al, 2003). Similarly, the Hayes lab
recently examined the effects of atrazine in pesticide mixtures on frog
viability and metamorphosis, and reported increased mortality of
tadpoles exposed to multiple pesticides at levels that were non-lethal
when occurring individually (0.1 ppb) (Hayes et al, 2006). Exposure to
multiple pesticides simultaneously is routine for human and wildlife
populations; the USGS reported that more than 90% of the time, watershed
streams had detections of 2 or more pesticides or metabolites, and about
20% of the time they had detections of 10 or more pesticide contaminants
(USGS, 2006). EPA should broaden its charge to the SAP to include
consideration of mixtures and co-contaminants with atrazine.

Questions Concerning the DCI Study

NRDC response:

NRDC has no specific response to these questions. The DCI studies were
perceived of as weak, confounded, and uninformative by the FIFRA SAP in
03, and nothing has altered this evaluation in the intervening time.
This, little time should be spent on them in this review.

Concluding Questions

Please comment on the Agency’s recommendation that the current body of
data is sufficient to refute the hypothesis that atrazine by itself can
adversely affect amphibian gonadal development and that no additional
data are required to address this hypothesis.

NRDC response:

EPA asked the wrong question:	The Agency has intentionally and unfairly
hamstrung its FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel by developing a series of
charge questions that clumsily avoid asking the relevant regulatory
question of whether or not atrazine poses a risk to wildlife and human
health, in particular through its activity as an endocrine disruptor.
NRDC asks the experts of this SAP to move beyond this limited set of
charge questions, and request that it be reconvened to review all
scientific data relevant to atrazine as an endocrine disruptor, and its
potential impacts on wildlife and human health.

EPA legal authority to regulate pesticides:	EPA regulates pesticides
under two statutes, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. § 346a and the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (“FQPA”) significantly amended both the FFDCA and FIFRA by
mandating that health-based and child-protective standards drive
decisions about acceptable levels of pesticide residues in food and the
environment.  FIFRA requires that pesticides must be registered to be
sold in the United States.  EPA may not register a pesticide unless the
chemical will perform its intended function without causing any
“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

The FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, authorizes EPA to “establish or
leave in effect a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food only if the Administrator determines that the tolerance is safe.”
 The term “safe” means that “there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposure” to the pesticide,
“including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures
for which there is reliable information.”

Before EPA can establish a tolerance, the Agency shall “ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure” to the pesticide, and shall
“publish a specific determination regarding the safety of the
pesticide chemical residue for infants and children.”  In ensuring
that the statutory safety standard is met, EPA must consider available
information concerning “the special susceptibility of infants and
children,” including “neurological differences between infants and
children and adults, and effects of in utero exposure to pesticide
chemicals.”  EPA acknowledges that, when setting new tolerances under
the standard, it “must now focus explicitly on exposures and risks to
children and infants.”

Furthermore, “an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide
chemical residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied for
infants and children to take into account potential pre- and post-natal
toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to exposure and
toxicity to infants and children.”  EPA can depart from this
requirement and use a different margin of safety “only if, on the
basis of reliable data, such margin will be safe for infants and
children.”

  Sass, JB, Colangelo A. European Union bans atrazine, while the United
States negotiates continued use. Int J Occup Environ Health, 2006
July;12:260-267. www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1203_Sass.pdf

 ibid
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/PCW/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35042

 7 U.S.C. § 136a.

 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C).

 Id. § 346a(b)(2)(A)(i).

 Id.  § 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii).

 Id. §§ 346a(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) & (II).

 Id. § 346a(b)(2)(C)(i)(II).

 EPA, Fact Sheet: Protecting Children from Pesticides (Jan. 2002)
(www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm) (“The 1996 Food
Quality Protection Act set tougher standards to protect infants and
children from pesticide risks.”)

 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C).

 Id. (emphasis added).

NRDC comments to SAP on atrazine	October 07

 PAGE

 PAGE   1