[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 46116-46117]
[DOCID:fr16au07-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56235; File No. SR-BSE-2007-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Existing Fee
Schedules

August 9, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by BSE. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The BSE proposes amending certain transaction fees set forth in the
Boston Equities Exchange (``BeX'') fee schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at http://www.bostonstock.com, at the

BSE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the revenue sharing provision of
the BeX fee schedule for the revenue sharing program. BeX proposes to
share fifty percent of gross revenues generated from the Liquidity
Taker transaction fees for each symbol traded. The revenue would be
shared with the top three liquidity-providing Member Firms based on
monthly BeX executed share volume in each security. Cross trade volume
would not be eligible to be counted for purposes of determining BeX
executed share volume in this revenue sharing program. In addition,
Chapter II ``Dealings on the Exchange'', section 26 ``Anti-Manipulative
Provisions'' of the BSE rules prohibits firms from executing wash sale
trades. If the Exchange determines that a wash sale trade has occurred,
the volume from such a trade would not be counted for the purposes of
determining BeX executed share volume for this revenue sharing
program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Telephone conversation between Kathy Marshall, Vice
President, Business Strategist, BSE and Jennifer Colihan, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on August 9,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new revenue sharing program would work as follows: First, total
monthly BeX generated liquidity taking revenues would be determined on
a per symbol basis; Second, the total monthly BeX generated liquidity
taking revenues would be split in half, with fifty percent going to BeX
and fifty percent to be allocated among the top three liquidity
providing Member Firms in each security (``Eligible Revenues''). BeX
would split the pool of Eligible Revenues with the top three liquidity
providers in each security as follows: In each calendar month, each of
the top three providers would share in the pool of Eligible Revenues on
a pro-rata basis based on their percentage of executed liquidity versus
the total executed liquidity for the top three providers. Additionally,
a minimum of 25,000 total monthly BeX executed shares must be executed
by a liquidity provider to be eligible to participate in the revenue
sharing program for any specific security.
    The following is an example of how the revenue sharing program
would work for any one security: Assume 1,125,000 total shares of
liquidity were provided and executed by five separate firms for the
month. Of the 1,125,000 total shares, the top three liquidity providers
represented 1,000,000 shares with the top firm providing 700,000, the
second place firm providing 200,000 and the third place firm providing
100,000. Since the top firm represented seventy percent of the total
liquidity provided by the top three firms (700,000 of the 1,000,000
shares), this firm would receive seventy percent of the Eligible
Revenues. The second place firm would receive twenty percent of the
Eligible Revenues and the third place firm would receive ten percent of
the Eligible Revenues.
    In the event firms are tied at certain volume levels, those firms
would share the applicable percentage of Eligible Revenues among all
firms that are tied at the same levels. The following is an example of
how this would work: Assume 1,200,000 total shares of liquidity were
provided and executed by seven separate firms for the month. Of the
1,200,000 total shares, the top three liquidity providers represented
1,000,000 with the top firm providing 700,000, and the second, third,
and fourth place firms providing 150,000 shares each. In this example,
the top firm would receive seventy percent of the Eligible Revenue. The
remaining thirty percent of Eligible Revenue would be shared equally
with the three firms, each of whom had executed 150,000 shares. Each of
the three firms would receive ten percent of the Eligible Revenue.
    BeX would also report BeX-provided liquidity information daily on
its Web site, accumulated on a month-to-date basis. This would show the
total liquidity provided in each security and would be updated at the
close of each business day. This information would also be updated
hourly on the last trading day of the month. In addition, all of the
different firms providing liquidity, as well as the individual levels
of liquidity provided, would be reported on an anonymous basis (i.e.,

Firm A, Firm B, Firm C, etc.) in a matrix format by security and by
firm.\4\ This would allow firms to determine their ranking in a
security at any given point during the month and at any given hour on
the last trading day of the month. To maintain a fair and equitable
distribution of information, BeX staff would be prohibited from
communicating, outside of the publicly available Web site information
as described above, with any Member Firms regarding their liquidity
providing levels as well as the levels of any other Member Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The matrix will list in the left column each individual
security in which liquidity has been provided over the course of the
month. Listed to the right of each security will be total liquidity
provided on a month to date (MTD) basis. The exception to this will
be the last trading day of the month in which total MTD liquidity
provided will be reflected on an hourly basis. Across the top of the
matrix, anonymous firm names will be listed with Firm A always
representing the top liquidity provider in each issue, Firm B always
representing the second top provider and Firm C always representing
the third top provider and will continue through Firm Z. In the
event that more than 26 firms provide liquidity in a security, the
firm names will continue with Firm AA and so on. To the extent that
fewer than 26 firms have provided liquidity in a security, those
firms that have not provided liquidity will be assigned a zero value
in the matrix. See E-mail from Kathy Marshall, Vice President,
Business Strategist, BSE, to Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission dated July 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed method of revenue sharing is designed to attract
volume to BeX. Firms do not need to reach high overall volume levels in
an effort to participate in this revenue sharing program. It is
designed to provide incentives for competitive quoting as well as
liquidity provision in less active securities. BeX believes that this
proposal is fair and equitable and would lead to broad participation by
firms of all sizes with varied business models.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and further the
objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among member and issues and other persons using
Exchange facilities. The Exchange believes that sharing revenue with
the top three liquidity providers creates a more competitive
environment than sharing revenue, on a pro-rata basis, with all
participants because it creates an incentive for firms to provide
competitive quotes in order to participate. The Exchange also believes
that sharing revenue across all participants, on a pro-rata basis,
would dilute the amount shared and thus make it non-competitive with
prevailing fee structures of other market centers. In addition, the
Exchange believes that sharing on a per symbol basis (as opposed to an
aggregate basis) allows for a broader participation of firms with
various business models, as opposed to the typical larger firms, with
high volumes, who are generally eligible to participate in programs
with tiered volume structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-BSE-2007-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the BSE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-37 and should be
submitted on or before September 6, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16054 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58506-58509]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18410]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0139; FRL-11276-01-OCSPP]

Methoxyfenozide; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
methoxyfenozide in or on coffee bean, sugar cane, and sugar cane
molasses. There are no U.S. registrations associated with these
tolerances. Corteva Agrisciences, LLC requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 28, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 27, 2023,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0139, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:

     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0139 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 27, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0139, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 5, 2023 (88 FR 42935) (FRL-10579-
05), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E8910) by Corteva Agriscience LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis,
IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
coffee at 0.15 parts per million (ppm) and sugarcane at 0.03 ppm and in
the processed commodity sugarcane molasses at 0.1 ppm. Compliance with
the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only
methoxyfenozide (3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-
dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Corteva Agrisciences,
LLC, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
recommended revisions in commodity definitions. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for methoxyfenozide including exposure resulting
from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with methoxyfenozide follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published in tolerance rulemakings for the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers referral back to those
sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings for
methoxyfenozide in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to methoxyfenozide and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from those rulemakings as described
further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of methoxyfenozide, see Unit III.A. of the methoxyfenozide
tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register of March 12,
2019 (84 FR 8820) (FRL-9985-06).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
methoxyfenozide used for human health risk assessment, see Unit III.B.
of the March 12, 2019, rulemaking.
    Exposure assessment. Much of the exposure assessment for
methoxyfenozide remains unchanged from the discussions in Unit III.C.
of the March 12, 2019, rulemaking and Unit III.C. of the
methoxyfenozide tolerance rulemaking published in the Federal Register
of October 11, 2022 (87 FR 61259) (FRL-9525-01), except as described
below.
    Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. The exposure assessment
has been updated to include the additional dietary exposure from the
new tolerances for residues of methoxyfenozide on coffee bean and sugar
cane commodities using the same previous assumptions of tolerance level
residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) described in Unit III.C.1.
of the March 12, 2019, rulemaking.
    Dietary exposure from drinking water. Because the requested
tolerances for residues of methoxyfenozide in or on coffee bean and
sugar cane commodities do not include registrations for use on coffee
bean and sugar cane commodities in the United States, the estimated
drinking water concentrations have not changed. For a detailed summary
of the drinking water analysis for methoxyfenozide used for the human
health risk assessment, see Unit III.C.2. of the March 12, 2019,
rulemaking and Unit III.C. of the October 11, 2022, rulemaking.
    Non-occupational exposure. As described in Unit III.C. of the
October 11, 2022, rulemaking, the Agency assumes that when labels
require specific clothing and/or personal protective equipment (PPE)
such products are not for residential use. The methoxyfenozide label
requires specific clothing and/or PPE; therefore, the Agency has made
the assumption that the registered methoxyfenozide labels are not
intended for use by residential handlers and a quantitative residential
handler assessment has not been conducted. The approach to assessing
post-application exposure is the same as described in Unit III.C.3 of
the March 12, 2019, rulemaking.
    Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' In 2016, EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs released a guidance document entitled Pesticide
Cumulative Risk Assessment: ``Framework for Screening Analysis''
(https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/pesticide-cumulative-risk-assessment-framework). This document provides
guidance on how to screen groups of pesticides for cumulative
evaluation using a two-step approach beginning with the evaluation of
available toxicological information and, if necessary, followed by a
risk-based screening approach. This framework supplements the existing
guidance documents for establishing common mechanism groups (CMGs) and
conducting cumulative risk assessments (CRA).
    The Agency has utilized this framework for methoxyfenozide and
determined that the diacylhydrazine class of insecticides
(methoxyfenozide, halofenozide and tebufenozide) form a candidate CMG.
This group of pesticides is considered a candidate CMG because they
share characteristics to support a testable hypothesis for a common
mechanism of action.
    Following this determination, the Agency conducted a screening-
level cumulative risk assessment consistent with the 2016 guidance
document. This assessment included only methoxyfenozide and
tebufenozide since there are no registered uses for halofenozide. The
current screening assessments for methoxyfenozide and tebufenozide are
below the Agency's levels of concern. No further cumulative evaluation
is necessary for methoxyfenozide.
    For more information, see Appendix E of the document titled
``Methoxyfenozide. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition to
Establish Permanent Tolerances without a U.S. Registration on Coffee
Beans and Sugar Cane,'' available at docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-
0139.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection

Act (FQPA) safety factor from 10X to 1X. See Unit III.D. of the March
12, 2019, rulemaking for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for
that determination.
    Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    An acute dietary risk assessment was not needed for methoxyfenozide
since no toxic effects attributable to a single dose were identified in
the toxicity database. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's
level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 78% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the highest exposure. There
are currently no residential handler uses for methoxyfenozide, and none
are pending before the Agency. Therefore short- and intermediate-term
exposure to methoxyfenozide is not expected, and the short- and
intermediate-term risk is equivalent to the chronic dietary risk, which
is not of concern. Methoxyfenozide is classified as ``Not Likely to Be
Carcinogenic to Humans''; therefore, EPA does not expect
methoxyfenozide exposures to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
    Determination of safety. Therefore, based on the risk assessments
and information described above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to methoxyfenozide
residues. More detailed information on this action can be found in the
document titled ``Methoxyfenozide. Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Petition to Establish Permanent Tolerances without a U.S. Registration
on Coffee Beans and Sugar Cane,'' available at docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2022-0139.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the March 12, 2019, rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for methoxyfenozide in/on
coffee bean or sugar cane commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is changing the commodity definitions from coffee to coffee
bean, sugarcane to sugar cane, and sugarcane, molasses to sugar cane,
molasses to be consistent with Agency nomenclature.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
methoxyfenozide, in or on coffee bean at 0.15 ppm, sugar cane at 0.03
ppm, and sugar cane, molasses at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 18, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.544, in paragraph (a)(1) amend the table by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the entries ``Coffee bean''; ``Sugar
cane''; and ``Sugar cane, molasses''; and
0
b. Adding footnote 2 at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.544  Methoxyfenozide; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Coffee bean \2\.............................................        0.15

                                * * * * *
Sugar cane \2\..............................................        0.03
Sugar cane, molasses \2\....................................         0.1

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * *
\2\ There are no U.S. registrations as of August 28, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2023-18410 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 5696-5697]
[DOCID:fr07fe07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments,
Protests, and/or Motions to Intervene

January 30, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI07-2-000.
    c. Date Filed: January 16, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Alaska Power & Telephone Company.
    e. Name of Project: Yerrick Creek Hydro Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project will be
located on Yerrick Creek, tributary to the Tanana River, near the town
of Tok, Alaska, affecting T. 18 N., R. 9 E, secs. 1, 2, 11, 14; T. 18
N, R. 10 E, sec. 6; and T. 19 N, R. 9 E, sec. 36, Copper River
Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Glen D. Martin, Project Manager, Alaska Power
& Telephone Company, P.O. Box 3222, 193 Otto Street, Port Townsend, WA
98368; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: March 2,
2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426. Comments, protests, and/or
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web
site at http://www.ferc.gov.

    Please include the docket number (DI07-2-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Yerrick Creek Hydro Project
would include: (1) A small diversion structure, with a sipon-type
intake; (2) a 36-inch-diameter, 11,000-foot-long penstock; (3) a
powerhouse containing a 1.5-MW Pelton-type turbine; (4) a 1.15-mile-
long transmission line, connected to an existing power grid; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project will not occupy any tribal or
federal lands.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-

free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1909 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P