[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17441-17445]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06817]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9908-65-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Eau Claire
Municipal Well Field Superfund Site (Site) located in Eau Claire,
Wisconsin, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Wisconsin, through the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by April 28, 2014. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: Howard Caine, Remedial Project Manager, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Susan Pastor, Community Involvement
Coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion Process Manager at (312)
886-4071.
     Mail: Howard Caine, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Susan Pastor, Community
Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J),
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800)
621-8431.
     Hand delivery: Susan Pastor, Community Involvement
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business
hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2005-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding
federal holidays.
     L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library, 400 Eau Claire St.,
Eau Claire, WI 54701. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Hours: Monday through Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 9: 00 p.m., Friday
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Sunday 1:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, the library is closed every Sunday from May
26-September 1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Caine, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this Direct Final Notice of Deletion of
the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This deletion of
the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site is proposed in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of
Policy Change: Deletion of Sites on the National Priorities List, (49
FR 37070), 09/21/1984. As described in 300.425(e) (3) of the NCP, sites
deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions
if future conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA receives
adverse comments by April 28, 2014. Along with this Direct Final Notice
of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion
action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final
Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and the
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section
V discusses EPA's action to delete the site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA may conduct such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Eau Claire
Municipal Well Field Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Wisconsin prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review
of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to
their publication today, and the State, through the WDNR, has concurred
on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, ``Eau
Claire Leader Telegram''. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day
public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not

in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as
appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes
and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states
that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility
for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such
actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Eau Claire Municipal Well Field (ECMWF) site (CERCLIS ID:
WID980820054) is located in Chippewa County in the Chippewa River
Valley, east of the Chippewa River and approximately 2.5 miles west of
the National Presto Industries (NPI) site. The ECMWF site consists of
15 municipal groundwater wells in two adjoining well fields (five in
the north well field and ten in the south) that provide drinking water
to approximately 60,000 residential and commercial users. All municipal
wells are installed in the glacial outwash sand and gravel aquifer. In
addition to these municipal wells, a number of private wells previously
drew drinking water from this sand and gravel aquifer. The sand and
gravel aquifer is hydraulically connected to an underlying sandstone
aquifer, which is not used extensively in the area due to its low
hydraulic conductivity and the water's poor aesthetic qualities. The
well field is about a mile long and trends generally in a north-south
direction. The ECMWF site has been used as a well field by the city for
over the past 70 years. According to city personnel, prior to that time
it was forested land. Current land use in the surrounding area is
primarily residential, with a small park to the south and the Eau
Claire airport located about one-quarter mile east of the northern
portion of the city well field. It is anticipated that these land uses
will continue into the foreseeable future.
    In March 1981, as part of the U.S. EPA Groundwater Supply Survey,
the WDNR tested the Eau Claire municipal water supply for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1-dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA) were detected in samples collected from the north well
field. The WDNR informed the city of Eau Claire that the concentrations
for each of the VOCs detected were below Wisconsin groundwater
standards. In addition to monitoring individual municipal production
wells, the city began testing private residential wells located
immediately northeast of the well field. VOCs were subsequently
detected in several of the residential wells sampled at levels above
Wisconsin groundwater standards.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at
the ECMWF site in October 1984. Based on groundwater monitoring data
from private wells and monitoring wells installed as part of the field
investigation, the ECMWF RI identified two distinct plumes of
contamination at the site, separated by a gap of approximately 1,700
feet at the Eau Claire County Airport. The ECMWF RI did not confirm the
source of the groundwater contamination at the well field but suggested
that the nearby National Presto Industries (NPI) property (which later
became a Superfund site) could be a potential source of the groundwater
contamination at the ECMWF site. Data generated during the NPI RI
clearly established that waste disposal areas at the NPI site were the
source of TCE contamination at the ECMWF site, and indeed, continued to
release contaminants to groundwater. A separate action was taken at NPI
and cleanup at the NPI site is still ongoing.

Record of Decision Findings

    On June 10, 1985, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that
selected a packed column air stripper as an Initial Remedial Measure
(IRM) to address contamination at the ECMWF site. During the first
month of operation (August 1987), influent to the air strippers was
sampled and analyzed weekly for VOCs. Influent and effluent have been
tested monthly thereafter. Influent and effluent samples are analyzed
for VOCs according to modified Method 601 of 40 CFR part 136 by the
city of Eau Claire.
    Following the completion of the RI/FS, EPA issued the final ROD for
the ECMWF site on March 31, 1988. The major components of the selected
remedy were:
     Continued treatment of contaminated municipal water with
the air stripper constructed as the IRM;
     provision of municipal water from the city of Eau Claire
to private well users within or near the two plumes of groundwater
contamination identified during the RI;
     installation of groundwater extraction wells in one of the
two plumes of contamination; and
     discharge of untreated groundwater from extraction wells
to the Chippewa River. WDNR concurred with the remedy selected by EPA
for the ECMWF site. The remedies for the ECMWF site were developed to
meet the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):
     Prevent human ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
     Prevent inhalation of contaminants from the groundwater,
and
     Restore the contaminated aquifer to water quality
objectives that are protective of beneficial use within a reasonable
timeframe.

Explanation of Significant Differences

    After EPA issued the ECMWF site final ROD, WDNR determined that the
discharge of untreated groundwater from the proposed extraction wells
into the Chippewa River would not comply with Wisconsin Statute,
Chapter 283, Pollution Discharge Elimination. As a result, two of the
components of the ECMWF site remedy, installation of extraction wells
and the discharge of untreated water, were never fully implemented. The
lack of extraction wells, however, did not fundamentally alter the
selected ECMWF remedy. EPA issued an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) in 2008 to document that these measures were not
implemented and would not be implemented in the future.
    The 1988 ROD states that ``EPA will clean up the groundwater to
non-detect for these compounds and continue to pump and treat for a
period of time beyond the non-detect to assure that the target compound
limits (TCLs) have been reached.'' The target cumulative carcinogenic
risk for the site was set at 1 x 10-6 excess lifetime cancer
risk (ELCR) and apportioned across several of the site's VOC
groundwater contaminants. In order to provide the desired
protectiveness, the TCLs needed to be lower than federal drinking water
standards (maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA)).
    EPA and WDNR reviewed the cleanup goals upon conclusion of the 2007
Five-Year Review. The 1988 ROD had developed TCLs as groundwater
cleanup goals at the ECMWF site. However, in 1985 Wisconsin had
promulgated Groundwater Quality regulations in the Wisconsin
Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 140 (NR 140). An ESD was signed on
December 23, 2009, to update the groundwater cleanup goals to
incorporate NR 140. NR 140 provides

two types of standards that are to be followed. One is the Preventive
Action Limits (PALs) and the other is the Enforcement Standards (ES).
WDNR concurred with the ESD which adopted enforcement standards as the
groundwater cleanup goal.

Construction Activities

    On behalf of EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed
construction of the air stripper in June 1987 and the system became
operational in August 1987. The city of Eau Claire operates the air
stripper as a part of its drinking water distribution operations. The
air stripper has been in constant operation since completion of the
interim remedial action in 1987. A permanent municipal water supply has
been provided to affected private well owners in the city of Eau
Claire, and a permanent municipal water supply was constructed and is
operating in the Town of Hallie which provides its residents with
drinking water.
    On April 25, 1989, EPA issued a Section 106 Administrative Order to
the NPI PRPs to execute remedial action tasks consistent with the ECMWF
final ROD and the data generated in the NPI RI. These activities
included implementation of a temporary bottled water distribution
program for those in the affected area in and adjacent to the redefined
Plume 2. NPI was also required to conduct a Phased Feasibility Study
(PFS) to identify and reevaluate options for a permanent alternate
drinking water supply for the affected area. To ensure consistency with
the ECMWF final ROD, bottled water was to be made available to all
private well users in the affected area until a permanent and
uncontaminated drinking water supply was fully implemented and
operational.
    On August 1, 1990, EPA issued a ROD for the NPI site selecting a
permanent drinking water supply for the affected area in and around the
redefined Plume 2. Under this ROD, the city of Eau Claire would extend
its municipal service to those portions of the affected area which had
been annexed to the city. The remaining portions of the affected area
were to be serviced by a newly created Hallie Sanitary District
(District).
    The city of Eau Claire hookups were completed by November 1991. The
first service connections to the District were completed in December
1991 and by mid-summer 1992 the District was fully operational and
servicing the affected area within the Town of Hallie.
    EPA conducted a pre-certification inspection of the District on
August 19, 1992. Upon completion of the certification process by the
Agency and satisfaction of the terms of the Administrative Order, the
District assumed full control and responsibility, including operation
and maintenance, of its drinking water system.
    Remediation of off-site groundwater, including Plume 1-2 which
migrated from the NPI site to the ECMWF site, was addressed in the
final FS for the NPI site in conjunction with remediation of on-site
source areas in the southwest corner of the NPI site. NPI also
implemented an interim action for on-site plume containment pursuant to
a third Section 106 Administrative Order issued to NPI on July 2, 1992.
This action was designed to be consistent with the final cleanup action
for the NPI site by preventing the off-site movement of contaminated
groundwater through extraction and treatment. This alternative was
selected in an Interim Action ROD issued for the NPI site by EPA on
September 30, 1992.
    The city of Eau Claire has annexed and extended municipal water
service to private well owners in the area that could have been subject
to impacts from the contaminated groundwater originating from the NPI
site. NPI paid for the construction of two air stripping towers at the
ECMWF and continues to pay for their operation. The purpose of the
towers is to remove the very low concentrations, even below federal
drinking water standards, of volatile organic compounds in the
groundwater withdrawn by the city wells and to ensure a safe drinking
water supply for the city. These engineered controls appear to be
effective in their goal of protecting human health and the environment.

Institutional Controls

    Institutional Controls (ICs) were required at the ECMWF site in
order to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. ICs are non-
engineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls,
that help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and
protect the integrity of the remedy. Compliance with ICs is required to
assure long-term protectiveness for any areas that do not allow for
unlimited use or unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
    The ROD for the ECMWF site did not identify the need for ICs.
However, the 1996 ROD for NPI acknowledges that ICs are required to
ensure protectiveness of the final site-wide remedy until Plume 1-2,
which impacts the ECMWF, meets the groundwater cleanup goals.
Residences in the affected area who have received municipal water are
still allowed to use private wells for other purposes, such as
irrigation and car washing as long as there is no connection to indoor
plumbing. To use these private wells, property owners must submit
applications for annual permits to either the City of Eau Claire's
Health Department or the Hallie Sanitary District.
    The City of Eau Claire (City), Village of Lake Hallie (formerly
known as the Town of Hallie), and Chippewa County have all passed
ordinances to protect citizens from impacted groundwater. The City has
an ordinance that bans cross connections between private water supply
wells and the municipal supply. The City has also annexed properties
that are within and near the identified boundaries of the NPI plume(s)
in Chippewa County and provided those properties with municipal water.
The City recently enacted an ordinance that restricts the construction
of new private water supply wells within the City, as well as requiring
the abandonment of existing supply wells. The WDNR has promulgated
Chapters NR 809 and NR 811 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, which
regulate safe drinking water and the design and operation of municipal
water systems, respectively. The key part of this code, as it pertains
to ECMWF site, is its prohibition against cross connections and its
requirement of adequate separation of potable wells from sources of
contamination.
    The ordinances and administrative codes enacted by the local
municipalities, counties, and the state provide a strong and effective
framework for protection of the local citizens against consumption of
contaminated groundwater from NPI and ECMWF until the cleanup goals are
attained in all plumes.

Cleanup Goals

    Recent data indicates that the levels of TCE in Plume 1-2 have
declined and are meeting the Wisconsin enforcement standard of 5 ppb,
except for 5 groundwater monitoring wells associated with the NPI site,
which exceed the enforcement standard. One of these groundwater
monitoring wells is located on the NPI site property and is
significantly above the enforcement standard; two groundwater
monitoring wells are west of the NPI site along North Hastings Way and
measures TCE between 5-6 ppb; and two groundwater monitoring wells
located at and near the airport measure TCE between 5-6 ppb.
    Groundwater monitoring wells on the ECMWF site, as well as the
production wells, all show TCE below the enforcement standard of 5 ppb.
A review of the monthly production well data by ECMWF for wells 10, 11,
15, 16, 17 and 19 shows that the TCE has not been detected except for
well 19. This

well does detect TCE consistently, but it is below the enforcement
standard of 5 ppb. The blended production well water entering the air
stripper is non-detect for any VOCs. The detection limit used by the
city in its analyses is 0.7 ppb TCE. As a result, the implemented
remedy at the ECMWF site has achieved the degree of cleanup as
specified in the decision documents for all pathways of exposure.

Operation and Maintenance

    Operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements outlined in the O&M
Plan for the IRM were: (1) Routine maintenance of the air stripper as
described in the manufacturer's manual; and (2) sampling and analysis
requirements of stripper influent and effluent, as previously
discussed. TCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene (PCE)
are monitored regularly by the city of Eau Claire to ensure compliance
with Wisconsin Enforcement Standards and the Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) for drinking water.

Five-Year Review

    EPA conducted four five-year reviews at this site; the last report
was dated July 17, 2012. EPA, in consultation with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), determined that the cleanup
remedy at the ECMWF site is protective of human health and the
environment because cleanup standards have been met at the site.
Additionally, exposure pathways from the NPI site that could result in
unacceptable risks are being controlled through the use of ICs. EPA has
also determined that the air strippers at ECMWF can be taken off-line
as the groundwater entering the city's well field has met the cleanup
standards for over 5 years and is not expected to exceed the standards
in the future. The city of Eau Claire has chosen to keep the air
strippers on-line in the short term, although they may turn off the air
strippers at a future date. Since unlimited use/unrestricted exposure
has been met at the ECMWF site, future five-year reviews are not
required.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for
recommendation of the deletion of this site from the NPL are available
to the public in the information repositories and at
www.regulations.gov.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Wisconsin, has determined that all
required response actions have been implemented and no further response
action by the responsible parties is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence from the State of Wisconsin through the WDNR,
has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have
been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April
28, 2014. If adverse comments are received during the comment period,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of
Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not
take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with
the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and
the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity
to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: March 3, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``WI'', ``Eau Claire Municipal Well Field'', ``Eau Claire''.

[FR Doc. 2014-06817 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 42 (Monday, March 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12590-12591]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04166]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0744; FRL-9959-64-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Request to Renew OMB
Control No. 2070-0046 (EPA ICR No. 0794.16) Submitted to OMB for Review
and Approval; Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has submitted the following information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA):
``Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the
Environment under TSCA Sec. 8(e)'' and identified by EPA ICR No.
0794.16, OMB Control No. 2070-0046. This is a request to renew the
approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through
February 28, 2017. EPA has addressed the comments received in response
to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the
Federal Register of July 5, 2016, (81 FR 43601). With this submission,
EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2015-0744, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
     To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and
     To OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address
comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Lintner, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in
detail the information collection activities and the related burden and
cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in
the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2017. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB.
    Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires that any person who manufactures, imports, processes or
distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and which
obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such
substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or
the environment must immediately inform EPA of such information. EPA
routinely disseminates TSCA section 8(e) data it receives to other
federal agencies to provide information about newly discovered chemical
hazards and risks. This information collection refers to the reporting
requirement described above.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import or distribute
in commerce a chemical substance or mixture, and that obtain
information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance
or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (see 15 U.S.C.
2607(e)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 65 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 21,412 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,650,068 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 2,894 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's revised
estimates of the number of TSCA sec. 8(e) initial submissions. This
change is an adjustment.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-04166 Filed 3-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41443-41446]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16536]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30590; 812-14096]

BofA Funds Series Trust, et al., Notice of Application

July 3, 2013.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and
17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an
exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.

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

APPLICANTS:  BofA Advisors, LLC (together with any successor,\1\ the
``Advisor''),\2\ BofA Funds Series Trust (``Trust'' and each series of
the Trust, a ``Current Fund,'' and collectively, the ``Current
Funds''),\3\ any existing or future registered management investment
companies and their series that are advised or subadvised by the
Advisor (``Future Funds,'' Future Funds and Current Funds are
collectively the ``Funds''),\4\ and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated (together with any successor, ``MLPF&S''). All the
Funds are money market funds subject to rule 2a-7 under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction, a change in the
type of business organization or a combination, consolidation or
reorganization of any of the entities referred to above, including
any such combination, consolidation or reorganization effected
through the use of a ``shell'' entity controlled by any of the
foregoing entities, provided that such combination, consolidation or
reorganization does not result in a change of direct or indirect
control of such entity.
    \2\ For purposes of the relief sought by the Applicants, the
term ``Advisor'' also includes any other existing or future
investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (``Advisers Act'') which controls, is controlled by, or is
under common control with (as defined in Section 2(a)(9) of the Act)
the Advisor. Any Advisor that currently intends to rely on the
requested order is named as an Applicant in this Application. Any
other Advisor that relies on the order in the future will comply
with the terms and conditions of the application.
    \3\ The Trust offers eleven series: BofA Cash Reserves, BofA
Money Market Reserves, BofA Treasury Reserves, BofA Government
Reserves, BofA Government Plus Reserves, BofA Tax-Exempt Reserves,
BofA Municipal Reserves, BofA California Tax-Exempt Reserves, BofA
New York Tax-Exempt Reserves, BofA Connecticut Municipal Reserves
and BofA Massachusetts Municipal Reserves.
    \4\ Any Fund that currently intends to rely on the requested
order is named as an applicant in the application. Any Future Fund
that relies on the order in the future will comply with the terms
and conditions of the application.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:  Applicants request an order to permit the
Funds to engage in principal transactions in certain tax-exempt money
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
market instruments with MLPF&S.

FILING DATES:  The application was filed on November 19, 2012, and
amended on May 14, 2013.

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 July 29, 2013, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the 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 may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/
o Robert M. Kurucza, Esq., Goodwin Procter LLP, 901 New York Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel,
(202) 551-6868 or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief,<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Exemptive Applications Office).

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

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, an open-end management company registered under the
Act, is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is comprised of
eleven series that are Funds. The Advisor, an investment adviser
registered under the Advisers Act, is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of BofA Global Capital Management Group, LLC, which is a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of Bank of America, which in turn is an indirect,
wholly-owned banking subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation
(``BAC''). Each Fund has an investment advisory agreement with the
Advisor pursuant to which the Advisor provides investment advisory and
management services. MLPF&S, a broker-dealer registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provides retail brokerage customer
services and operates as a full service investment banking firm with a
broad range of investment banking services, among which are the public
underwriting and private placement of equity and debt securities,
including a wide variety of Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments (as
defined below). MLPF&S is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merrill Lynch &
Co. (``ML&Co''), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAC.
    2. Applicants state that the Advisor and MLPF&S are functionally
independent of each other and operate as completely separate entities.
While MLPF&S and the Advisor could be deemed second-tier affiliates
through their relationship with BAC, each entity has its own separate
directors, officers and employees, is separately capitalized, maintains
its own books and records and operates on different sides of walls of
separation with respect to the Funds and Tax-Exempt Money Market
Instruments. The Advisor also maintains offices physically separate
from MLPF&S.
    3. Investment decisions for the Funds are determined solely by the
Advisor. The portfolio managers and other employees that are
responsible for the investment of the Funds are employed solely by the
Advisor, and not MLPF&S, and have lines of reporting responsibility
solely within the Advisor. The compensation of persons employed by the
Advisor will not depend on the volume or nature of trades with MLPF&S,
except to the extent that such trades may affect the profits and losses
of BAC and its affiliates as a whole and such trades affect the
investment performance of a Fund.
    4. As used in the application, the term ``Tax-Exempt Money Market
Instruments'' refers to tax-exempt securities which are eligible for
purchase by money market funds under rule 2a-7, including conventional
municipal notes, tax-exempt commercial paper, and variable rate demand
bonds. The term ``Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments'' does not
include ``Government Securities'' as defined under Section 2(a)(16) of
the Investment Company Act. Each Fund is

able to invest in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments under its
investment objectives and policies.
    5. Trading in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments generally takes
place in over-the-counter markets consisting of groups of dealers who
are primarily major securities firms or large banks. The tax-exempt
money market consists of an extensive telephonic and electronic
communications network among buyers and sellers, which generally
precludes being able to obtain a single market price for a given
instrument at any given time. Applicants state that the money market
for Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments tends to be somewhat segmented.
The markets for the different types of instruments will vary in terms
of price, volatility, liquidity and availability. With respect to any
given type of security or instrument, there may be only a few dealers
who can be expected to have the security in inventory and be in a
position to quote a purchase and sale price that is the best price.
Applicants also state that different dealers may quote different prices
with respect to the same type of instrument because of differing
outlooks on future yields, to adjust their inventory or because of
competitive pressure to meet other dealers' quotes.
    6. MLPF&S is one of the world's largest dealers in Tax-Exempt Money
Market Instruments, being a major participant in both the primary new
issue, and in the secondary dealer, tax-exempt money markets. During
the period January 1, 2013, to April 6, 2013, MLPF&S underwrote
approximately $547 million in new issues of municipal notes, acting as
senior manager, and its market share in the municipal 2013 new issue
note market as of April 6, 2013, was estimated to be approximately
11.4%, acting as lead manager. At April 10, 2013, MLPF&S acted as
dealer for tax-exempt commercial papers programs in an authorized
amount of approximately $20.5 billion. MLPF&S's market share in the
tax-exempt commercial paper market was estimated by the Advisor to be
18.4% as of December 31, 2012. MLPF&S estimates that its market share
in the new issue market for variable rate demand bonds was 16.5% for
the period January 1, 2013, through April 6, 2013. During the period
January 1, 2013, to April 11, 2013, MLPF&S underwrote approximately
$265.1 million in new issues of variable rate demand bonds as senior
manager. MLPF&S acted as remarketing agent for approximately $43.4
billion of variable rate demand bonds as of March 31, 2013, with a
market share of approximately 18.8%. MLPF&S is the remarketing agent
for approximately $3.5 billion of put bonds outstanding as of April 11,
2013.
    7. Subject to the general supervision of the board of trustees of
the Funds (``Board''), the Advisor is responsible for portfolio
investment decisions and for the placement of portfolio transactions.
The Funds have no obligation to deal with any dealer or group of
dealers in the execution of their portfolio transactions. When placing
orders, the Advisor must attempt to obtain the best net price and the
most favorable execution of its orders. In doing so, it takes into
account such factors as price, the size, type and difficulty of the
transaction involved and the dealer's general execution and operational
facilities. The transaction costs of the Funds with respect to Tax-
Exempt Money Market Instruments consist primarily of dealer or
underwriter spreads. Spreads for Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments
typically are not greater than 5 basis points (0.05%), but are subject
to variations based on the type of instruments or the occurrence of
turbulent market conditions.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Applicants request an order pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act exempting certain transactions from the provisions of
section 17(a) of the Act to permit MLPF&S, acting as principal, to sell
or purchase Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments to or from the Funds,
subject to the conditions set forth below.
    2. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated
person or principal underwriter of a registered investment company, or
any affiliated person of that person (``second-tier affiliate''),
acting as principal, from selling to or purchasing from the registered
company, or any company controlled by the registered company, any
security or other property. Because BAC owns ML&Co, which in turn, owns
MLPF&S, ML&Co and MLPF&S could both be deemed to be ``affiliated
persons'' of the Advisor, in which case the Funds and MLPF&S could be
deemed second-tier affiliates, and the Funds could be prohibited from
conducting portfolio transactions with MLPF&S in transactions in which
MLPF&S acts as principal.
    3. Section 17(b) of the Act provides that the Commission, upon
application, may exempt a transaction from the provisions of section
17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed
transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and
fair, and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned, and that the proposed transaction is consistent with the
policy of the registered investment company concerned and with the
general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) provides that the Commission
may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act or of any
rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act.
    4. Applicants note the following in support of the requested
relief:
    (a) With over $10.4 billion invested in Tax-Exempt Money Market
Instruments, the Funds have an ongoing need for access to significant
quantities of high quality Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. The
Funds and the Advisor believe that access to a major dealer as MLPF&S
in this market increases the Funds' ability to obtain suitable
portfolio securities.
    (b) The policy of the Funds, which is to invest in securities with
short maturities, combined with the active portfolio management
techniques employed by the Advisor, results in a high level of
portfolio activity and the need to make numerous purchases and sales of
Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. This high level of portfolio
activity emphasizes the importance of increasing opportunities to
obtain suitable portfolio securities and best price and execution.
    (c) The tax-exempt money market is highly competitive and
maintaining a dealer as prominent as MLPF&S in the pool of dealers with
which the Funds could conduct principal transactions may provide the
Funds with improved opportunities to purchase and sell Tax-Exempt Money
Market Instruments, including those not available from any other
source.
    (d) MLPF&S is such a major participant in the tax-exempt money
market that removing constraints on the ability of the Funds to conduct
principal transactions with MLPF&S would enhance the Funds' ability to
obtain best price and execution even when the Funds trade with
unaffiliated dealers.
    5. Applicants believe that the requested order will provide the
Funds with fuller access to the primary and secondary market for Tax-
Exempt Money Market Instruments to better ensure the availability of
suitable portfolio securities and best price and execution of portfolio
trades. The Funds

submit that such transactions are consistent with the policies of the
Funds as recited in their registration statements and reports filed
under the Investment Company Act. The Applicants also submit that the
procedures to be followed with respect to principal transactions with
MLPF&S are structured in such a way as to ensure that the terms of such
transactions will be in all instances reasonable and fair and will not
involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned and that such
exemption is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Italicized terms are defined as set forth in paragraph (a)
of rule 2a-7 under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The exemption shall be applicable to principal transactions in
the secondary market and primary or secondary fixed and variable rate
dealer offerings not made pursuant to underwriting syndicates.
Principal purchase or sale transactions pursuant to the requested order
will be conducted only in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments that are
First Tier Securities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Fund
purchases a Tax-Exempt Money Market Instrument meeting the above
requirements from MLPF&S and, subsequent to such purchase, the security
becomes no longer a First Tier Security, the Fund may sell the security
to MLPF&S in a manner consistent with the requirements of Rule 2a-
7(c)(7)(i)(B). Additionally:
    (a) The exemption shall not apply to an Unrated Security.
    (b) The exemption shall not apply to any purchase or sale of any
security issued by ML&Co., BAC or any affiliated person of ML&Co. or
BAC or to any security subject to a Demand Feature or Guarantee issued
by ML&Co., BAC or any affiliated person of ML&Co. or BAC. For purposes
of this requirement, ML&Co., BAC or any affiliated person of ML&Co. or
BAC will not be considered to be the issuer of a Demand Feature or
Guarantee solely by reason of the fact that MLPF&S or an affiliate
thereof serves as a remarketing agent for a Tax-Exempt Money Market
Instrument.
    2. The Advisor (unless the Board decides that the Fund should make
these determinations) will determine with respect to each principal
transaction conducted by a Fund pursuant to the order, based upon the
information reasonably available to the Funds and the Advisor, that the
price available from MLPF&S for each Tax-Exempt Money Market Instrument
other than a variable rate demand bond is at least as favorable to the
Fund as the prices obtained from two other dealers in connection with
securities falling within the same category of instrument, quality and
maturity (but not necessarily the identical security or issuer)
(``price test''). In the case of variable rate demand bonds, for which
dealer prices are not ordinarily available, the Funds will only
undertake purchases and sales where the rate of interest to be earned
from the variable rate demand bond in a purchase, or price to be
received in a sale, is at least equal to that of variable rate demand
bonds of comparable quality from other dealers. Neither ML&Co., BAC nor
any other affiliate thereof (other than the Advisor) will have any
involvement with respect to proposed transactions between the Funds and
MLPF&S and, except to the extent set forth in Condition 6(e) below,
will not attempt to influence or control in any way the placing by the
Funds or the Advisor of orders with MLPF&S.
    3. Before any principal transaction may be conducted pursuant to
the order, the Advisor or a Fund must obtain such information as it
deems reasonably necessary to determine that the price test (as defined
in Condition (2) above) has been satisfied. In the case of each
purchase or sale of a Tax-Exempt Money Market Instrument other than a
variable rate demand bond, the Advisor or a Fund must make and document
a good faith determination with respect to compliance with the price
test based on current price information obtained through the
contemporaneous solicitation of bona fide prices in connection with
securities falling within the same category of instrument, quality and
maturity (but not necessarily the identical security or issuer). With
respect to variable rate demand bonds, information on the rate of
interest or price of bonds of comparable quality shall be solicited
during the same trading day. With respect to prospective purchases of
securities by a Fund, the dealer firms from which prices or interest
rates are solicited must be those who have securities of the categories
and the types desired in their inventories, or who otherwise have
access to Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments of the categories and
types desired, and who are in a position to quote favorable prices or
interest rates with respect thereto. With respect to the prospective
sale of securities by a Fund, these dealer firms must be those who, in
the experience of the Funds and the Advisor, are in a position to quote
favorable prices.
    4. Principal transactions in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments
conducted by a Fund pursuant to the order, and principal transactions
in taxable money market instruments other than repurchase agreements
conducted by a Fund pursuant to the Taxable Order, shall be limited to
no more than (a) 25% of the direct or indirect purchases or 25% of the
direct or indirect sales, as the case may be, conducted by that Fund of
Eligible Securities other than repurchase agreements and (b) 25% of the
purchases or sales, as the case may be, by MLPF&S of Eligible
Securities other than repurchase agreements. Principal transactions in
Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments conducted by each Fund pursuant to
the order, shall be limited to no more than an aggregate of 20% of the
direct or indirect purchases and 20% of the direct or indirect sales of
Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments by that Fund. These limits shall be
measured on an annual basis (the fiscal year of each Fund) and shall be
computed using the dollar volume of transactions.
    5. MLPF&S's dealer spread regarding any transaction with the Funds
pursuant to the order will be no greater than its customary dealer
spread on similar transactions (with unaffiliated parties) of a similar
size during a comparable time period. Its customary dealer spread also
will be consistent with the average or standard spread charged by
dealers in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments of a similar type and
transaction size.
    6. The Advisor, on the one hand, and MLPF&S, on the other, will
operate on different sides of appropriate walls of separation with
respect to the Funds and the Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. The
walls of separation will include all of the following characteristics,
and such others that MLPF&S and the Advisor consider reasonable to
facilitate the factual independence of the Advisor from MLPF&S:
    (a) The Advisor will maintain offices physically separate from
those of MLPF&S.
    (b) The compensation of persons assigned to the Advisor (i.e.,
executive, administrative or investment personnel) will not depend on
the volume or nature of trades effected by the Advisor for the Funds
with MLPF&S under the

exemption, except to the extent that such trades may affect the profits
and losses of BAC and its affiliates as a whole or to the extent that
such trades affect the investment performance of a Fund.
    (c) MLPF&S will not compensate the Advisor based upon its profits
or losses on transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption, provided
that the allocation of the profits by BAC to its shareholders and the
determination of general firm-wide compensation of officers and
employees, will be unaffected by this undertaking.
    (d) Personnel employed by the Advisor's investment advisory
operations on behalf of the Funds will be exclusively devoted to the
investment advisory businesses and affairs of the Advisor and the
businesses of its affiliates (other than MLPF&S), and have lines of
reporting solely within the Advisor or its affiliates (other than
MLPF&S). The personnel assigned to the Advisor's investment advisory
operations that are also involved with the business of other affiliates
have absolutely no function or responsibility with respect to MLPF&S.
    (e) Personnel assigned to MLPF&S will not participate in the
decision-making process for or otherwise seek to influence the Advisor
other than in the normal course of sales and dealer activities of the
same nature as are simultaneously being carried out with respect to
nonaffiliated institutional clients. The Advisor, on the one hand, and
MLPF&S, on the other, may nonetheless maintain affiliations other than
with respect to the Funds, and in addition with respect to the Funds as
follows:
    (i) The Advisor's personnel may rely on research, including credit
analysis and reports prepared internally by various subsidiaries and
divisions of MLPF&S.
    (ii) Certain senior executives of BAC with responsibility for
overseeing operations of various divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates
of BAC are not precluded from exercising those functions over the
Advisor because they oversee MLPF&S, as well; provided that such
persons shall not have any involvement with respect to proposed
transactions pursuant to the exemption and will not in any way attempt
to influence or control the placing by the Funds or the Advisor of
orders in respect of Eligible Securities with MLPF&S.
    7. The Funds and the Advisor will maintain such records with
respect to those transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption as
may be necessary to confirm compliance with the conditions to the
requested relief. To this end, each Fund shall maintain the following:
    (a) An itemized daily record of all purchases and sales of
securities pursuant to the exemption, showing for each transaction the
following: (i) the name and quantity of securities; (ii) the unit
purchase or sale price; (iii) the time and date of the transaction; and
(iv) whether the security was a First Tier Security. For each
transaction (other than variable rate demand bonds), these records
shall document two quotations received from other dealers for
securities falling within the same category of instrument, quality and
maturity; including the following: (i) the names of the dealers; (ii)
the names of the securities; (iii) the prices quoted; (iv) the times
and dates the quotations were received; and (v) whether such securities
were First Tier Securities. In the case of variable rate demand bonds,
the Fund shall maintain the same records except that the rates of
return quoted will be substituted for the prices quoted.
    (b) Records sufficient to verify compliance with the volume
limitations contained in Condition (4) above. MLPF&S will provide the
Funds with all records and information necessary to implement this
requirement.

The records required by this Condition (7) will be maintained and
preserved in the same manner as records required under Rule 31a-1(b)(1)
under the Investment Company Act.
    8. The compliance departments of MLPF&S and the Advisor will
prepare and administer guidelines, which will be reviewed by the legal
departments of MLPF&S and the Advisor, for personnel of MLPF&S and the
Advisor, respectively, to make certain that transactions conducted
pursuant to the order comply with the conditions set forth in the order
and that the parties generally maintain arm's-length relationships. In
the training of MLPF&S's personnel, particular emphasis will be placed
upon the fact that the Funds are to receive rates as favorable as other
institutional purchasers buying the same quantities. The compliance
departments will periodically monitor the activities of MLPF&S and the
Advisor to make certain that the conditions set forth in the order are
adhered to.
    9. The audit committee of the Funds or another committee, which is
comprised of Independent Trustees (as defined below) (the ``Audit
Committee''), will approve, periodically review, and update as
necessary, guidelines for the Funds and the Advisor that are reasonably
designed to make certain that the transactions conducted pursuant to
the exemption comply with the conditions set forth herein and that the
above procedures are followed in all respects. The Audit Committee will
periodically monitor the activities of the Funds and the Advisor in
this regard to ensure that these goals are being accomplished.
    10. The Board, including a majority of the members of the Board
that are not ``interested persons'' as defined in section 2(a)(9) of
the Act (``Independent Trustees''), will have approved each Fund's
participation in transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption and
determined that such participation by the Fund is in the best interests
of the Fund and its shareholders. The minutes of the meeting of the
Board at which this approval was given must reflect in detail the
reasons for the Board's determination. The Board will review no less
frequently than annually each Fund's participation in transactions
conducted pursuant to the exemption during the prior year and determine
whether the Fund's participation in such transactions continues to be
in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Such review
will include (but not be limited to) (a) a comparison of the volume of
transactions in each type of security conducted pursuant to the
exemption to the market presence of MLPF&S in the market for that type
of security, which market data may be based on good faith estimates to
the extent that current formal data is not reasonably available, and
(b) a determination that the Funds are maintaining appropriate trading
relationships with other sources for each type of security to ensure
that there are appropriate sources for the quotations required by
Condition 3. The minutes of the meetings of the Board at which these
determinations are made will reflect in detail the reasons for the
Board's determinations.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16536 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P