[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58849-58850]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24330]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29789; File No. 812-13892]

Legg Mason Partners Equity Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

September 15, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit open-
end management investment companies relying on rule 12d1-2 under the
Act to invest in certain financial instruments.
    Applicants: Legg Mason Partners Equity Trust (``LMP Equity
Trust''), Legg Mason Partners Variable Equity Trust (``LMP Variable
Equity Trust'' and together with LMP Equity Trust, the ``Trusts''),
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC (``LMPFA''), and Legg Mason
Investor Services, LLC (the ``Distributor'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 12, 2011, and
amended on August 24, 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 October 11, 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, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: the Trusts, 55 Water
Street, New York, NY 10041; LMPFA, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY
10018; the Distributor, 100 International Drive, Baltimore, MD 21202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6821 (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. The Trusts are organized as Maryland statutory trusts and are
registered under the Act as open-end management investment companies.
LMPFA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc. (``Legg Mason''),
is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940, as amended (the ``Advisers Act'') and currently serves as
investment adviser to each Trust. The Distributor, a Delaware limited
liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Legg Mason, is
registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the ``Exchange Act''), and is the distributor for
each registered open-end investment company for which LMPFA presently
acts as investment adviser.
    2. Applicants request the exemption to the extent necessary to
permit any existing or future registered open-end management investment
company or series thereof that (i) Is advised by LMPFA or an entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with LMPFA (any such
adviser or LMPFA, an ``Adviser''); \1\ (ii) is in the same group of
investment companies as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act and
that invests in other registered open-end management investment
companies (``Underlying Funds'') in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(G) of
the Act; and (iii) is also eligible to invest in securities (as defined
in section 2(a)(36) of the Act) in reliance on rule 12d1-2 under the
Act (each a ``Fund of Funds''), also to invest, to the extent
consistent with its investment objectives, policies, strategies and
limitations, in financial instruments that may not be securities within
the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (``Other Investments'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All Advisers to any Fund will be registered under the
Advisers Act.
    \2\ Every existing entity that currently intends to rely on the
requested order is named as an applicant. Any entity that relies on
the order in the future will do so only in accordance with the terms
and condition in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each
Fund of Funds' board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged
by the Fund of Funds' Adviser to ensure that they are based on services
provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services
provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company
in which the Fund of Funds may invest.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered
investment company (``acquiring company'') may acquire securities of
another investment company (``acquired company'') if such securities
represent more than 3% of the

acquired company's outstanding voting stock or more than 5% of the
acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with
the securities of other investment companies, represent more than 10%
of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that no registered open-end investment company may sell its
securities to another investment company if the sale will cause the
acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting
stock, or cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to
be owned by investment companies and companies controlled by them.
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in part, that section
12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased
by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquired company and acquiring
company are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the
acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are
part of the same group of investment companies, government securities,
and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-
related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not
excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section
22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section
15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired
company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of
registered open-end investment companies or registered unit investment
trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.
    3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end
investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities
issued by another registered investment company in the same group of
investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (i)
Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same
group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (ii) securities (other
than securities issued by an investment company); and (iii) securities
issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on
rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2,
``securities'' means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the
Act.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and
provisions of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that the Funds of Funds will comply with rule
12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds of Funds may
invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants
request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from
rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds of Funds to invest in Other
Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants assert that
permitting the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments as
described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that
the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the
Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any
Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the
application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24330 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 01/ 15/ 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Linuron. Anticipated Residues and Dietary Exposure Assessment (PC Code 035506); DP Barcode D279340; Case 0047.

FROM: John S. Punzi, Ph. D., Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division (7509C)

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DE SAC) 12/ 20/ 2001 Chemistry Science Advisory Council (DE SAC) 12/ 19/ 2001 Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Carol Christensen, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division (7509C)

Executive Summary This exposure assessment was conducted for the herbicide linuron to estimate the dietary risk associated with registered uses of this product. A refined tier 3 analysis was done for the chronic assessment and a refined tier 3 probalistic analysis was perfomed for the acute assessment. Residue levels from USDA and FDA monitoring programs do not include all residues of concern needed for this assessment (linuron and metabolites converted to 3,4 dichloroanaline) and would underestimate residue values for this analysis. Anticipated residues (ARs) were computed from field trial data and subsequently utilized to estimate the dietary exposure to linuron from the diets of the U. S. population, as well as certain population subgroups. In addition to percent crop treated (% CT) data, residue reduction data from 2 washing, cooking and various processing studies were used as refinements to the residue data. USDA PDP data shows that up to 70% of the carrot samples have detectable residues of linuron up to 0.3 ppm. This suggests that the ARs used for this assessment are not unrealistic.

Estimated chronic dietary exposure associated with the use of linuron does not exceed HED's level of concern (> 100% cPAD 1 ) for the U. S. population or any population subgroup examined. The chronic dietary risk estimates for the US population and children aged 1 6 years (the highest exposed group) are approximately 15 % and 35 % of cPAD, respectively. Approximately 30 % of the chronic exposure to linuron from food is from meats and milk however the ARs for these foods are based on extremely conservative livestock diets.

Estimates for acute dietary exposures associated with the use of linuron does not exceed HED's level of concern (> 100% aPAD 1 at the 99 th percentile) for the population subgroup comprised of females aged 13 to 50 years. The acute dietary risk exposure estimate for this population is approximately 10 % of aPAD. Approximately 37 % of the acute exposure to linuron from food is from asparagus and milk. As stated above the AR for milk is extremely conservative.

1 cPAD/ aPAD= acute/ chronic Population Adjusted Dose= Acute or Chronic RfD FQPA Safety Factor The data and results for this analysis are organized into 9 Sections with 4 Appendices;

1. DEEM™ Program and Consumption Information 2. Anticipated Residues 3. Crop Use Information and Field Trial Data 4. Processing Studies 5. Residue Reduction 6. Residues in Meat and Milk 7. Toxicology Data 8. Chronic Exposure Results 9. Acute Exposure Results Appendix 1; Residue Distribution Files (asparagus. rdf, carrot. rdf, celery. rdf, parsely. rdf, potato. rdf, sweetcorn. rdf). Appendix 2; Chronic DEEM input files (linuron_ chronic. rs7, linuron_ chronic. CH1). Appendix 3; Acute DEEM input files (linuron_ acute. rs7, linuron_ acute. AC1) Appendix 4; BEAD % Crop Treated Data.

1. DEEM™ Program and Consumption Information 3 Linuron acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™) software Version 7.73, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989 1992. The 1989 92 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over three consecutive days, and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique person days of data. Foods as consumed (e. g., apple pie) are linked to raw agricultural commodities and their food forms (e. g., apples cooked/ canned or wheat flour) by recipe translation files internal to the DEEM software. Consumption data are averaged for the entire U. S. population and within population subgroups for chronic exposure assessment, but are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure assessment.

For chronic exposure and risk assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food form (e. g., orange or orange juice) on the commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form. The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total estimated exposure. Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one day food consumption data are used on an individual byindividual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic (Tier 1 or Tier 2) exposure assessment, or matched in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic (Tier 3/ 4) assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i. e., those who reported eating relevant commodities/ food forms) and a percapita (i. e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis. However, for tiers 1 and 2, significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are identified and noted in the risk assessment.

2. Anticipated Residues Table 1 Residue data to be used in exposure calculations.

Crop Tolerence Percent of Crop Treated Anticipated Residue s 1 Processing/ Reduction factor( s) Average Maximum Chronic Acute Asparagus 7.0 20 33 0.541750 0.893888b 2 RDF1 nb, pb Washing (0.4) 3 Boiled (0.25)

Carrot 1.0 75 100 0.276250 0.368333b RDF2 nb, pb Boiled (0.35) 4 Celery 0.5 24 33 0.030150 0.041456b RDF3 nb, pb Boiled (0.35)

Corn, grain 0.01 1 1 0.000633 0.000633 oil 1x bran 1x flour 1x Boiled (0.35)

Corn, sweet 0.25 1 1 0.000138 0.000138b RDF4 nb, pb Boiled (0.35)

Cotton 0.05 1 2 0.000500 0.000500 meal 1x oil 1x Parsley 0.25 3 6 0.003400 0.006800b RDF5 nb, pb Boiled (0.35)

Parsnip 0.05 2 3 0.001000 0.001500b RDF6 nb, pb Boiled (0.35)

Potato 0.20 7 11 0.003700 0.005814b RDF7 nb, pb Baked (1.5x) Boiled (0.48)

Sorghum 0.25 1 1 0.002500 0.002500 Boiled (0.35)

Soybean 1.0 1 1 0.002796 0.002796 oil (0.2) meal (1.2) tofu (0.3) Boiled (0.35)

Wheat 0.05 1 1 0.000450 0.000450 bran 1x flour 1x germ 1x Boiled (0.35)

Beef lean 0.10 NA 100 0.012567 0.067391 NA Beef fat 0.20 NA 100 0.085405 0.114493 NA Beef liver 0.10 NA 100 0.337838 1.775362 NA Pork lean 0.05 NA 100 0.002435 0.003039 NA Pork fat 0.05 NA 100 0.004136 0.005130 NA Pork liver 0.01 NA 100 0.065445 0.081169 NA Milk 0.05 NA 100 0.010000 0.053623 boiled 0.35 5 footnotes:

1. The anticipated residues have been corrected for % CT in this Table.

2. b =blended, nb= not blended, pb= partially blended.

3. Washing factor from asparagus study was applied to asparagus only since washing study from celery did not show residue reduction.

4. An average boiling factor was derived from asparagus, carrot and potato cooking studies and translated to all appropriate food forms (exception of meats).

3. Crop Use Information and Field Trial The reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in plants are fulfilled for asparagus, carrots; field corn grain; field corn forage and fodder; cottonseed; parsley; parsnips; potatoes; sorghum grain; sorghum aspirated grain fractions; soybeans; soybean forage and hay; soybean aspirated grain fractions; and wheat grain.

The reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in plants are not fulfilled for: celery; corn, field, aspirated grain fractions; corn, sweet (K+ CWHR); corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, stover; cotton gin byproducts; sorghum forage and stover; wheat forage, hay, and straw. The unsatisfied data requirements are generally either storage stability information or additional geographic representation.

The data collection method for linuron and metabolites of concern involves hydrolysis of the sample and measurement of 3,4 DCA. The analytical methods used by monitoring programs rely on methods that will detect only the parent linuron compound. Since the MARC has determined that linuron and compounds hydrolyzable to 3,4 DCA are the residues of concern the monitoring programs (USDA, FDA) do not collect the appropriate data. It is noteworthy that parent linuron was detected in nearly 70 % of the carrot samples from 1999 USDA PDP sampling program and that values up to 0.3 ppm have been measured. This indicates that the ARs generated herein are not unrealistically high.

Root and Tuber Vegetables Group Carrot: Data from carrot field trials (MRID 40537601) indicate that linuron residues ranged from 0.28 0.50 ppm and 0.30 0.60 ppm in/ on samples of washed and unwashed carrots, respectively, harvested 14 days following either a single postemergence application of a 50% WP or 50% DF formulation at 2.0 lb ai/ A (1x the maximum seasonal application rate) or two applications for a total rate of 2.0 or 4.0 lb ai/ A (1x or 2x the maximum seasonal application rate). Data for anticipated residues are from 6 unwashed carrot samples; (0.30, 0.28, 0.40, 0.50, 0.39, 0.34 ppm). The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for blended food forms is; (0.30 + 0.28 + 0.40 + 0.50 + 0.39 + 0.34)/ 6 * % CT= 0.368333(% CT) ppm. Note that the % CT value is an estimated maximum for acute assessment and a weighted average for the chronic assessment. The rdf file to be used in the acute exposure assesment for 6 non blended and partially blended food forms contains the residue values only since the maximum % CT is 100%.

Parsnip: Data from 6 parsnip field trials (MRID 00018171) indicate that the linuron residues of concern were <0.05 ppm in/ on parsnips harvested 155, 169, and 182 days following a single application of the 50% WP at 1.0 or 2.0 lb ai/ A (0.7x or 1.3x the maximum seasonal rate). Linuron residues of concern were nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm). In the absence of reliable analytical data concerning the limits of detection (LOD), the residue value to be used for chronic assessments is; (0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05)/ 6 * % CT= 0.050000(% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in the acute exposure assesment for non blended and partially blended food forms contains the residue values and 194 zeros to reflect 3% CT.

Potato: Data from 7 potato field trials (MRID 00163267) indicate that residues were nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm) in/ on all but one sample (0.07 ppm) of potato harvested 125 to 155 days after planting. A single preeemergence or postemergence application of the WP or DF formulation was made at 1.0 4.0 lb ai/ A (0.5 2x the maximum seasonal application rate) using ground equipment. Data for anticipated residues are; 0.05, 0.05, 0.05, 0.05, 0.05, 0.05, 0.07 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for blended food forms is; (0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 +0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 +0.07)/ 7* % CT= 0.052857(% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in the acute exposure assesment for non blended and partially blended food forms contains the residue values and 57 zeros to reflect 11% CT.

Leafy Vegetables Group Celery: Residue data from celery field trials (MRID 41501501) indicate that linuron residues of concern were 0.04 0.42 ppm in/ on six celery samples harvested 68 102 days following a single posttransplant application of the 4 lb/ gal FlC or 50% DF formulation at 1.5 lb ai/ A (1x the maximum seasonal rate) in tests performed in FL, MI, and NY. Data from additional celery field trials (MRID 40537601) indicate that linuron residues of concern were nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm) to 0.32 ppm in/ on celery (washed/ unwashed and trimmed /untrimmed) harvested 44 82 days following postemergence application of either the 4 lb/ gal FlC, 50% WP, or 50% DF formulation at (i) 0.5 1.5 lb ai/ A (0.33 1x the maximum single application rate) and (ii) two or four applications at consecutive intervals of 22, 13, and 19 days for a total seasonal rate of 1.5 or 3.0 lb ai/ A (1 or 2x the maximum registered seasonal rate) in tests performed in CA, FL, and MI.

Currently, the Griffin labels for the 4 lb/ gal FlC and 50% DF formulation permit use on celery in all states including CA. Griffin Corporation submitted Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR 4) residue data (MRID 43681401) in support of a request for amended use of the 4 lb/ gal FlC and 50% DF formulations on celery grown west of the Rocky Mountains. Linuron residues of concern were 0.04 0.12 ppm in/ on celery grown in CA or OR and harvested 66 or 77 days following posttransplant application at 1.5 lb ai/ A (1x the maximum seasonal rate for all states except CA; 1.5x the maximum seasonal rate for CA).

The data for the anticipated residues are taken from MRIDs 40537601, 43681401, and 41501501 and 7 reflect 1.5 lb/ ai/ A and PHI range of 60 83 days.

Data for anticipated residues are; 0.08, 0.07, 0.10, 0.12, 0.05, 0.06, 0.04, 0.04, 0.12, 0.14, 0.42, 0.18, 0.32, 0.17, <0.05, <0.05 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for blended food forms is; (0.08 + 0.07 + 0.10 + 0.12 + 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.12 + 0.14 + 0.42 + 0.18 + 0.32 + 0.17 + 0.05 + 0.05)/ 16*% CT= 0.125625(% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in acute exposure assesment for non blended and partially blended food forms contains the 16 residue values and 17 zeros.

Parsley: Data reported in MRID 41189801 indicate that linuron residues of concern from a single preemergence application at 1x were 0.08 0.11 ppm in/ on samples of parsley harvested 52 90 days after treatment. Linuron residues of concern from a single preemergence plus a postemergence application at 1.3x total were 0.09 0.18 ppm in/ on parsley 24 days after the last application. Data for anticipated residues are; 0.08, 0.18, 0.08, 0.12, 0.11, 0.11 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for blended food forms is; (0.08, 0.18, 0.08, 0.12, 0.11, 0.11)/ 6* (% CT)= 0.113333(% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in the acute exposure assesment for non blended and partially food forms contains the 6 residue values and 94 zeros.

Legume Vegetables Group Soybean: Data reported in MRID 43039101 indicate that the linuron residues of concern from were <0.01 1.0 ppm in/ on 9 samples of soybeans harvested 56 132 days following a single preemergence application of the DF formulation at 2.5 lb ai/ A followed by a single directed postemergence application at 1.0 lb ai/ A for a total rate of 3.5 lb ai/ A (-1x the maximum seasonal rate).

Data for anticipated residues are; 0.31, 0.29, 0.31, 0.23, 0.087, 0.11, 0.10, 0.80 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for the blended food forms is; (0.31, 0.29, 0.31, 0.23, 0.087, 0.11, 0.10, 0.80)/ 8* (% CT)= 0.279625(% CT) ppm.

Cereal Grain Group Corn, field, grain: Data from field corn grain field trial (MRID 40537601) indicate that linuron residues were nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm) to 0.11 ppm in/ on five samples of field corn grain harvested between 47 and 116 days following a single postemergence application of the 4 lb/ gal FlC formulation at 1.5 lb ai/ A (1x the maximum application rate).

Corn field trial data (MRIDs 00018171, 00018206, and 40210901) indicate that linuron residues were: (i) nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm) in/ on corn grain harvested 56 65 days following a single postemergence application of the WP formulation at 0.75 6.0 lb ai/ A; and (ii) nondetectable (< 0.05 ppm) in/ on corn grain harvested 116 125 days following a single preemergence application of the WP formulation at 1.5 lb ai/ A. One sample of corn harvested 150 days following 0.75 lb/ ai /A (0.5x) showed detectable residues (0.06 8 ppm).

Data for anticipated residues are; 8@< 0.05, 0.11,0.09,0.10,0.06, ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for the blended food forms is; (( 8* 0.05)+ 0.11 + 0.09 + 0.10 + 0.06)/ 12* (% CT)= 0.063333(% CT) ppm.

Corn, sweet (K+ CWHR): Crop field trial data for sweet corn were submitted by Griffin; these data are inadequate to fulfill reregistration requirements because of incomplete geographic representation. Although inadequate, the field trial data indicate that linuron residues of concern were below the LOQ (< 0.01 ppm) to 0.048 ppm in/ on sweet corn K+ CWHR harvested at maturity following a single soil directed application of the 50% DF or 4 lb/ gal FlC formulation at 1.48 1.57 lb ai/ A (~ 1x the maximum application rate) made when sweet corn plants were at least 15 inches tall.

Data for anticipated residues are; 16@< 0.01, 0.048, 0.04, ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for the blended food forms is; (( 16* 0.01)+ 0.048 + 0.04)/ 18* (% CT)= 0.013777(% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in acute exposure assessment for non blended and partially blended food forms contains the 18 residue values and 1584 zeros.

Sorghum: Since linuron is used on less than 1% of the US sorghum crop the tolerance of 0.25 ppm (corrected for % CT) will be used.

Wheat, grain: There are three linuron EPs (EPA Reg. Nos. 1812 245, 19713 97, and 51036 78) currently registered for use on winter wheat (drill planted) in ID, OR, and WA.. Data reported in MRID 42605901 indicate that the linuron residues of concern were nondetectable (< 0.03 ppm to 0.08 ppm) in/ on two samples of wheat grain harvested 128 days following a single postemergence application of the DF formulation at 2.5 or 5.0 lb ai/ A (1.4x or 2.9x the maximum seasonal rate for areas west of the Cascade Range and 3.3x or 6.7x the maximum seasonal rate for areas east of the Cascade Range). Data for anticipated residues are; 4@ 0.03, 5@ 0.05, 0.08 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for the blended food forms is; (( 4* 0.03)+ 5*( 0.05) + 0.08)/ 10* (% CT)= 0.045(% CT) ppm.

Miscellaneous Commodities Asparagus: Residure data for asparagus (MRID 41452601) indicate that linuron residues of concern were 0.4 5.0 ppm in/ on asparagus harvested 1 day following four applications (one at preemergence, a second at early emergence, followed by two postemergence applications) at 1.0 lb ai/ A/ application for a total rate of 4.0 lb ai/ A (1x the maximum seasonal rate) of L or DF formulations. Data for anticipated residues are from 8 samples; 6.75, 5.95, 1.74, 1.74, 1.13, 0.86, 2.0, 1.5 ppm. The residue value to be used for chronic and acute assessments for blended food forms is; (6.75 + 5.95 + 1.74 + 1.74 + 1.13 + 0.86 + 2.0 + 1.5)/ 8 (*% CT)= 2.708750 (% CT) ppm. The rdf file to be used in the acute exposure assessment for non blended and partially blended food forms contains the residue values and 17 zeros. 9 Cotton, seed: Since linuron is used on less than 1% of the U. S. cotton crop the tolerance of 0.05 ppm (corrected for % CT) will be used.

4. Processing Studies The reregistration requirements for the magnitude of the residue in processed food/ feed are fulfilled for field corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat.

Corn, field: An acceptable field corn processing study has been submitted (MRID 42560001). The data indicate that linuron residues of concern do not concentrate in starch, grits, meal, flour, or crude or refined oil (from both wet and dry milling) processed from field corn grain bearing trace residues following treatment at 5x.

Cotton: Acceptable residue data are available for cotton processed commodities (DP Barcode D271950). No concentration of linuron residues of concern was observed in cotton meal, hulls, and refined oil processed from cottonseed bearing detectable linuron residues of concern.

Potato: The processing data indicate that linuron residues of concern concentrate in wet peel waste (processing factor of 5.5x), chips (2.0x), dehydrated granules (3.4x), and oven baked potatoes (2.1x) but do not concentrate in peeled potato (0.82x) or mashed potato (0.61x).

Sorghum, grain: Sorghum processing data (DP Barcode D187993, 11/ 18/ 93, D. McNeilly) indicate that linuron residues of concern do not concentrate in sorghum flour (processing factor of <0.44x) or starch (< 0.44x).

Soybean: The available soybean processing data ( DP Barcode D182595) indicate that linuron residues of concern do not concentrate significantly in hulls (processing factor of 0.5x), meal (1.2x), soapstock (0.7x), crude oil (0.2x), refined oil (0.2x), degummed oil (0.2x), tofu (0.3x), light impurities (0.9x), soybean milk (0.15x), or soybean kernels (0.9x). Residues were found to concentrate in soybean isolate (1.6x) and lecithin (2.3x).

Wheat: HED granted a waiver for a wheat processing study for linuron (DP Barcode D185892, 1/ 15/ 93, R. Perfetti) based on the fact that linuron residues of concern were below the LOQ (< 0.03 ppm) in/ on wheat grain treated at an exaggerated rate of 6.7x.

5. Reduction of Residues All data for reduction of residues have been evaluated and deemed adequate except that additional information is required to upgrade existing potato and carrot cooking studies.

The asparagus cooking study shows washing with water reduces residues by 40%. Boiling removes an 10 additional 25% of the residues, while steaming had little or no effect on reducing residue levels in or on asparagus (D182590, 3/ 18/ 93, D. McNeilly).

A carrot cooking study indicated that linuron residues of concern concentrate in peels (3.3x) but reduce after boiling (0.3x) or steaming (0.4x). Additional information pertaining to how the carrots were cooked and how the LOQs were determined is required to upgrade this study (D181455, 9/ 8/ 92, S. Knizner).

The potato cooking study shows that linuron residues concentrate in oven baked potatoes (1.5x) and microwave baked potatoes (1.6x), but are reduced in boiled potatoes (0.48x). Additional information pertaining to the cooking procedures, LOQ determination, and sample handling/ storage is required to upgrade this study (D181454, 9/ 2/ 92, S. Knizner).

The appropriate reduction factor will be used in the DEEM input files. For commodities not specifically tested a boiling factor will be employed using an average of the three cooking studies listed above (0.35x).

6. Residues in Meat and Milk Two cows were fed 50 ppm linuron (6.9x) for 30 days. Residues were 12.0 and 13.0 ppm in kidney, 11.0 and 13.0 in liver, 0.45 and 0.48 ppm in lean muscle, and 0.48 and 1.10 ppm in subcutaneous fat. Milk residues were 0.05 0.37 ppm, with the highest value observed on Day 27 of dosing; milk samples were collected every other day during dosing (MRID 00018210). Tolerances are not required for poultry.

Table 2 Cattle diet for acute exposure assessment (6.9x):

Feed Item % Dry Matter % Diet Residues Contibution (ppm)

Carrot, culls 12 25 1.00 2.08 Corn, sweet, forage 48 40 3.00* 2.50 Cotton, gin byproducts 90 20 9.00* 2.00 Cottonseed, meal 89 15 0.10 0.017 Total 6.60 *Estimated tolerance (additional field trial data required).

Anticipated residues for acute exposure assessments were computed as follows;

Fat (0.48+ 1.10)/ 2 / 6.9= 0.114493 ppm Muscle (0.45+ 0.48)/ 2 /6.9 = 0.067391ppm. Liver/ kidney (12.0+ 13.0+ 11.0+ 13.0)/ 4/ 6.9= 1.775362ppm. Milk 0.37/ 6.9= 0.053623 ppm 11 Table 3 Cattle diet for chronic exposure assessment (37x).

Feed Item % Dry Matter % Diet Residues Contibution (ppm)

Carrot, culls 12 25 0.368333 0.767354 Corn, sweet, forage 48 40 0.277139 0.230949 Cotton, gin byproducts 90 20 1.491475 0.331439 Cottonseed, meal 89 15 0.10 0.017 Total 100 1.34672 Fat (0.48+ 1.10)/ 2 /37= 0.085405 ppm Muscle (0.45+ 0.48)/ 2 /37 =0.012567 ppm. Liver/ kidney (12.0+ 13.0+ 11.0+ 13.0)/ 4/ 37= 0.337838 ppm. Milk 0.37/ 37= 0.010000 These values are used for: liver, kidney, meat byproducts, and other organ meats of beef, goat, horses, sheep, and veal.

Table 4 Swine diet for acute exposure assessment (153x).

Feed Item Carrot, culls NA 10 1.0 0.10 Sorghum, grain NA 90 0.25 0.225 Total 100 0.325 Fat (0.48+ 1.10)/ 2 /153= 0.005163 ppm Muscle (0.45+ 0.48)/ 2 /153 = 0.003039 ppm. Liver/ kidney (12.0+ 13.0+ 11.0+ 13.0)/ 4/ 153= 0.080065 ppm.

Table 5 Swine diet for chronic exposure assessment (191x).

Feed Item Carrot, culls NA 10 0.368333 0.036833 Sorghum, grain NA 90 0.25 0.225 Total 100 0.261833 Fat (0.48+ 1.10)/ 2 /191= 0.004136 ppm Muscle (0.45+ 0.48)/ 2 /191= 0.002435 ppm. Liver/ kidney (12.0+ 13.0+ 11.0+ 13.0)/ 4/ 191= 0.065445 ppm. 12 7. Toxicology Data On September 13 and 27, 2001 the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) reviewed the toxicology data base of linuron and selected endpoints/ doses for various exposure assessments. The HIARC also evaluated the potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to linuron as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The doses and toxicological endpoints selected for various exposure scenarios are summarized below (HED DOC. No. 0050286).

Table 6 Toxicology data.

EXPOSURE SCENARIO DOSE (mg/ kg/ day) ENDPOINT STUDY Acute Dietary (Females 13 50) NOAEL= 12.1 UF = 100 Increased post implantation loss and fetal/ litter resorptions at 49.8 mg/ kg/ day (LOAEL). Rat Prenatal Developmental Toxicity (MRID 00018167)

Acute RfD (Females 13 50 years old) = 0.121 mg/ kg Acute Dietary (General Population) No appropriate effects attributed to a single exposure was identified.

Chronic Dietary NOAEL = 0.77 UF = 100 Increased met and sulfhemoglobin levels at LOAEL (4.17 mg/ kg/ day, males; 3.49 mg/ kg/ day, females). Chronic Oral / Dog (MRID 40952601)

Chronic RfD = 0.0077 mg/ kg/ day The FQPA committee met on 11/ 26/ 2001 and reduced the safety factor to 3x for acute dietary and retained a 10x safety factor for chronic exposure assessment. The cPAD and aPAD are: 12.1 mg/ kg/ 300= 0.0403333 mg/ kg and 0.77 mg/ kg/ 1000= 0.00077 mg/ kg respectively (TXR No. 0050322).

The rationale for requiring the FQPA Safety Factor is listed below;

1. A qualitative increase in susceptibility seen in the F1 males in the rat reproductive toxicity study. 2. A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is required for the chemical because linuron is a potential endocrine disruptor and there is evidence for testicular lesions and decreased fertility in the rat reproductive toxicity study. 3. The toxicology database is complete; 4. The dietary (food and water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants, children, and/ or women of childbearing age; and, 5. There are no residential uses. 13 8. Results The chronic exposure to linuron from the diets of the U. S. population and a number of populations was computed using the latest version of DEEM, anticipated residues discribed above, 1989 1992 USDA consumption data and current percent crop treated data provided by BEAD. These results are presented in Table 4. Estimated chronic dietary exposure associated with the use of linuron does not exceed HED's level of concern (> 100% cPAD) for the US population or any population subgroup examined. The chronic dietary risk estimates for the US population and children aged 1 6 years (the highest exposed group) are approximately 15 % and 35 % of cPAD, respectively. Approximately 30 % of the chronic exposure to linuron from food is from meats and milk. The AR for meats and milk are based on an extremely conservative animal diets and is likely overestimated.

Table 7. The chronic exposure of linuron from the diets for a variety of subpopoulations.

Population subgroup Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population (total) 0.000114 14.8 Infants (< 1 year) 0.000179 23.3 Children 1 6 yrs 0.000268 34.7 Children 7 12 yrs 0.000173 22.4 Females 13 50 yrs 0.000083 10.8 Males 13 19 yrs 0.000102 13.2 Males 20+ yrs 0.000088 11.4 Seniors 55+ 0.000094 12.2 The acute exposure to linuron from the diet for a subgroup of the U. S. population was computed using a Monte Carlo approach with 1000 iterations in the latest version of DEEM, anticipated residues discribed above, 1989 1992 USDA consumption data and current percent crop treated data provided by BEAD. These results are presented in Table 5. Estimates for acute dietary exposures associated with the use of linuron does not exceed HED's level of concern (> 100% aPAD) for the population subgroup comprised of 14 females aged 13 years to 50 years. The acute dietary risk exposure estimate for this population is approximately 10 % of aPAD. Approximately 37 % of the acute exposure to linuron from food is from asparagus and milk. The AR for milk is based on an extremely conservative animal diet and is likely overestimated.

Table 8. Acute dietary exposure of linuron from the diets for a variety of subpopoulations.

Population subgroup 95 th percentile 99 th percentile 99.9 th percentile exposure (mg/ kg/ day) %aPAD exposure (mg/ kg/ day) %aPAD exposure (mg/ kg/ day %aPAD Females 13 50 yrs 0.000605 1.50 0.001177 2.92 0.003839 9.52 Appendix 1; Residue Distribution Files (asparagus. rdf, carrot. rdf, celery. rdf, parsely. rdf, potato. rdf, sweetcorn. rdf). Appendix 2; Chronic DEEM input files (linuron_ chronic. rs7, linuron_ chronic. AC1). Appendix 3; Acute DEEM input files (linuron_ acute. rs7, linuron_ acute. AC1) Appendix 4; BEAD % Crop Treated Data.

Asparagus. rdf totalnz= 8 totalz= 17 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 6.75 5.95 1.74 1.74 1.13 0.86 2.0 1.5 End of File (EOF)

Parsnip. rdf totalnz= 6 15 totalz= 194 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 EOF Potato. rdf totalnz= 7 totalz= 57 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 EOF Celery. rdf totalnz= 16 totalz= 17 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.12 16 0.14 0.42 0.18 0.32 0.17 0.05 0.05 EOF Parsely. rdf totalnz= 6 totalz= 94 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.11 EOF Carrot. rdf totalnz= 6 totalz= 0 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.30 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.39 0.34 EOF Sweetcarn. rdf totalnz= 18 17 totalz= 1584 totallod= 0 lodres= 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.048 0.04 EOF Acute. AC1 Chronic. CH1 Quantitative Usage Analysis for Linuron Case Number: 0047 PC Code: 35506 Date: October 22, 2001 Analyst: Frank Hernandez Based on available usage information from pesticide surveys for the years of 1992 through 2000, total annual domestic usage of linuron averaged approximately over four hundred thousand pounds of active ingredient (a. i.) for just under four hundred thousand acres treated. Linuron is a herbicide with its largest markets in terms of total pounds of active ingredient allocated to carrots (35%), potatoes (20%), and cotton (17%). Most of the usage is in IL, IN, MD, MI, OH, and WA. Crops with a high percentage of the total U. S. planted acres treated include carrots (75%), celery (24%), 18 asparagus (20%), and potatoes (7%). Crops with less than 1 percent of the crop treated include alfalfa, barley, dry beans, corn, cotton, lettuce, melons, peanuts, rice, rye, sorghum, soybeans, sweet corn, and wheat.

Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ A/ yr #appl / yr lb ai/ A/ appl Alfalfa 23,701 1 4 0.00 0.02 1 2 0.7 1.0 0.7 Asparagus 90 18 30 20.39 33.29 18 36 1.0 1.0 1.0 Barley 7,326 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.5 1.0 0.5 Beans/ Peas, Dry 2,190 3 12 0.14 0.54 2 10 0.8 2.5 0.3 Beans/ Peas, Green 709 1 2 0.10 0.28 0 1 0.4 1.0 0.4 Carrots 104 79 104 75.31 100.00 145 210 1.8 1.0 1.8 Celery 34 8 11 23.67 32.54 4 8 0.5 1.0 0.5 Corn 72,425 7 10 0.01 0.01 15 29 2.1 1.3 1.7 Cotton 12967 88 233 0.68 1.80 72 123 0.8 1.0 0.8 Lettuce 274 2 8 0.61 2.98 1 5 0.6 1.0 0.6 Melons 375 1 2 0.25 0.5051 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 Site Acres Grown (000) Acres Treated (000) % of Crop Treated LB AI Applied (000) Average Application Rate Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max Wtd Avg Est Max lb ai/ A/ yr #appl / yr lb ai/ A/ appl 19 Oats/ Rye 6,184 0 1 0.01 0.01 0 1 0.7 1.0 0.7 Parsley 5 0 0 3.00 6.00 0 2 2.7 3.5 0.8 Parsnips 4 0 0 1.55 2.33 0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Peanuts 1,582 0 1 0.03 0.06 1 1 1.1 1.0 1.1 Potatoes 1,433 100 158 6.98 11.03 85 180 0.8 1.0 0.8 Rice 2,992 5 20 0.18 0.66 3 13 0.5 1.1 0.5 Rye 4,364 0 1 0.01 0.02 0 1 0.7 1.0 0.7 Sorghum 11,140 33 107 0.30 0.96 13 52 0.4 1.0 0.4 Soybeans 63,141 25 41 0.04 0.07 53 100 2.1 1.1 2.0 Sweet Corn 732 3 10 0.47 1.37 4 8 1.19 1.6 0.8 Wheat, Spring 21,311 0 2 0.00 0.01 0 1 0.5 1.0 0.5 Wheat, Winter 44,907 7 13 0.01 0.03 3 6 0.4 2.0 0.2 Total 383 577 421 605 COLUMN HEADINGS Wtd Avg = Weighted average the most recent years and more reliable data are weighted more heavily. Est Max = Estimated maximum, which is estimated from available data. Average application rates are calculated from the weighted averages.

NOTES ON TABLE DATA Usage data primarily covers 1992  2000. Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree because they are displayed as rounded to the nearest 1000 for acres treated or lb. a. i. (therefore 0 = < 500), and to two decimal percentage points for % of crop treated.

Other/ Crop Groups Melons include cantaloupe, watermelon, honeydew, muskmelon, and winter melon.

SOURCES: EPA data, USDA, and National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 20 cc: JSPunzi (RRB2), Linuron Reg. Std. File, Linuron SF, RF, LAN. RD/ I: RRB2 Chem Review Team (12/ 10/ 2001), Alan Nielsen (12/ 30/ 2001), ChemSac (12/ 12/ 2001), DeSac (12/ 18/ 2001). 7509C: RRB2: John S. Punzi: CM2: Rm 804E: 703 305 7727: 12/ 20/ 2001.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26448-26450]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10734]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0643; FRL-9652-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District and Eastern Kern and Santa
Barbara County; Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), Eastern Kern
Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), and Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving local rules that
define terms used in other air pollution regulation in these areas and
approving a rule rescission that addresses Petroleum Coke Calcining
Operations--Oxides of Sulfur.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 3, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 4, 2012. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0643, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are rescinding and the rules we are
approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air
agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                Rule No.               Rule title                Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD................................        1119  Petroleum Coke Calcining               01/18/11     06/21/11
                                                     Operations--Oxides of Sulfur
                                                     (rescinded).
EKAPCD................................         102  Definitions.......................     01/13/11     06/21/11
SBCAPCD...............................         102  Definitions.......................     01/20/11     06/21/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for AVAQMD Rule
1119, EKAPCD Rule 102, and SBCAPCD Rule 102 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved earlier versions of these rules into the SIP on the
dates listed: AVAQMD Rule 1119 on September 28, 1981 (46 FR 47451),
EKAPCD Rule 102 on March 7, 2011 (76 FR 12280), and SBCAPCD Rule 102 on
May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20872). The SBCAPCD amended revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 20, 2010 and CARB submitted them to us on
April 5, 2011. While we can act on only the most recently submitted
version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local
agency's program to control these pollutants.
    Antelope Valley AQMD Rule 1119 applies to the operation of
petroleum

coke calcining equipment. The AVAQMD has determined that there are no
petroleum coke calcining operations located within the District and
none are anticipated in the future. The AVAQMD has rescinded this rule
and has certified that there are no sources covered by this rule in the
jurisdiction of the AVAQMD. Since this rule is currently part of the
SIP for AVAQMD, a resolution certifying that no sources exist in the
AVAQMD is required by section 182(b)(2).
    Eastern Kern APCD Rule 102, Definitions, is being amended to define
a number of terms that are used in other District rules. The amendments
include updating the name of the District, adding ten new definitions,
revising language in three definitions, and adding one compound to the
Exempt Compounds list. Minor formatting issues are also being
corrected.
    Santa Barbara County Rule 102, is amended by adding a new
definition for ``greenhouse gas or greenhouse gases.'' In addition, the
definition of ``attainment pollutant'' has been clarified to exclude
greenhouse gases.
    EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information
about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that
support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In
combination with the other requirements, these rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to
evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the Bluebook
(``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (``Guidance
Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA
Region 9, August 21, 2001).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have
more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by June 4, 2012, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on July 3, 2012. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these rules do not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 3, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule

and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not
be challenged in later proceedings to enforce its requirements (see
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(88)(iii)(C) and
(c)(391) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (88) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) In Resolution 11-04 dated January 18, 2011, Antelope Valley Air
Quality Management District certified that no sources which would be
subject to Rule 1119, ``Petroleum Coke Calcining Operations,'' exist in
the AVAQMD. Therefore, Rule 1119 has been rescinded and is removed from
the SIP.
* * * * *
    (391) New and amended regulations were submitted on June 21, 2011
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 102, ``Definitions,'' amended on January 13, 2011.
    (B) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 102, ``Definitions,'' revised on January 20, 2011.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-10734 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 67763]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26641]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87671; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Exchange To List and Trade Exchange
Traded Products

December 5, 2019.
    On October 3, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade Exchange Traded Products that have a component NMS Stock
listed on the Exchange or that are based on, or represent an interest
in, an underlying index or reference asset that includes an NMS Stock
listed on the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 23, 2019.\3\ The Commission
has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87329 (Oct. 17,
2019), 84 FR 56864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is December 7, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
January 21, 2020 as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2019-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26641 Filed 12-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 50679-50680]
[DOCID:fr04se07-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888; FRL-8463-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Superfund Site
Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System; EPA ICR No. 1488.07, OMB Control
No. 2050-0095

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on February 29, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0888 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Our preferred method. Follow the

online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Superfund Docket; (Mail Code 2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Superfund Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2007-0888. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Hippen, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation, Mail Code 5204P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is 202-566-
0276.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of

information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those State agencies, Indian Tribes, and U.S. Territories performing
Superfund site evaluation activities.
    Title: Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1488.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0095.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
29, 2008. 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 for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 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 in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980 and 1986) amends the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) to include
criteria prioritizing releases throughout the U.S. before undertaking
remedial action at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) is a model that is used to evaluate the relative
threats to human health and the environment posed by actual or
potential releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants. The HRS criteria take into account the population at
risk, the hazard potential of the substances, as well as the potential
for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human contact,
destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources
affecting the human food chain, contamination of surface water used for
recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient
air.
    EPA Regional offices work with States to determine those sites for
which the State will conduct the Superfund site evaluation activities
and the HRS scoring. The States are reimbursed 100 percent of their
costs, except for record maintenance.
    Under this ICR, the States will apply the HRS by identifying and
classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation.
The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to
determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial actions.
    HRS scores are derived from the sources described in this
information collection, including conducting field reconnaissance,
taking samples at the site, and reviewing available reports and
documents. States record the collected information on HRS documentation
worksheets and include this in the supporting reference package.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 166.1
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. EPA estimates 60
States, Indian Tribes, and U.S. Territories will likely respond, each
averaging 15 actions per year. The total burden for all respondents is
estimated at 150,285 hours and approximately $13,580,375 each year
(based on historic data on estimated costs per site assessment
activity).
    The current ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 60.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
15.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 150,285 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $13,580,375. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $13,580,375 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    The current estimate of hours in the total estimated respondent
burden reflects hours identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.
EPA expects a decrease in total burden and cost for the renewal ICR due
to changes in calculating burden and cost estimates, fewer assessment
activities conducted nationally, and a relative shift to less complex
assessment activities among respondents.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 28, 2007.
Barnes Johnson,
Acting Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation.
[FR Doc. E7-17412 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P