[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64618-64622]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84787; File No. SR-C2-2018-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Provisions Related to Its Risk Monitor Mechanism

December 11, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 30, 2018, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
amend its provision related to its Risk Monitor Mechanism. The text of
the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 proposes to amend Rule 6.14 which governs, among other
things, the Risk Monitor Mechanism.

Background

    By way of background, the Risk Monitor Mechanism providers Users
\5\ with the ability to manage their order and execution risk. Each
User may establish limits for various parameters in the Exchange's
counting program. The system counts each of the following within a
class (``class limit'') and across all classes for an EFID \6\ (``firm
limit'') over a User-established time period (``interval'') on a
rolling basis up to five minutes (except as set forth in Rule
6.14(c)(5)(A)(iv)) and on an absolute basis for a trading day
(``absolute limits''): (i) Number of contracts executed (``volume'');
(ii) notional value of executions (``notional''); (iii) number of
executions (``count''); and (iv) number of contracts executed as a
percentage of number of contracts outstanding within an Exchange-
designated time period or during the trading day, as applicable
(``percentage'') \7\ (collectively, ``risk parameters''). Additionally,
when the system determines a risk parameter exceeds a User's class
limit within the interval or the absolute limit for the class, the Risk
Monitor Mechanism cancels or rejects such User's orders or quotes in
all series of the class and cancels or rejects any additional orders or
quotes from the User in the class until the counting program resets.
Similarly, when the system determines a risk parameter exceeds a User's
firm limit within the interval or the absolute limit for the firm, the
Risk Monitor Mechanism cancels or rejects such User's orders or quotes
in all classes and cancels or rejects any additional orders or quotes
from the User in all classes until the counting program resets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``User'' means any Trading Permit Holder or
Sponsored User who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 6.8. As discussed below, the Exchange is proposing
to replace references to ``User'' in Rule 6.14(c)(5) with ``TPH''.
    \6\ The term ``EFID'' means an Executing Firm ID. The Exchange
assigns an EFID to a Trading Permit Holder, which the System uses to
identify the Trading Permit Holder and clearing number for the
execution of orders and quotes submitted to the System with that
EFID. See C2 Rule 6.8(b).
    \7\ The system determines the percentage by calculating the
percentage of a TPH's [sic] outstanding contracts that executed on
each side of the market during the time period or trading day, as
applicable, and then summing the series percentages on each side in
the underlying [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.14 to (i) make clarifying and
miscellaneous non-substantive changes, (ii) provide the ability for
Users [sic] to establish limits for a group of EFIDs, and (iii) adopt a
new risk parameter.

Clarifying and Miscellaneous Changes

    First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the term ``User'' in Rule
6.14(c)(5) and replace it with the term ``TPH'' (which stands for
Trading Permit Holder).\8\ The Exchange notes that the definition of
User is broader than TPH, as it specifically captures Sponsored Users.
The Exchange believes ``TPH'' is the more appropriate term to use with
respect to the Risk Monitor Mechanism as the rule describes how the
functionality works with respect to TPHs, and not necessarily Sponsored
Users. The Exchange notes that it currently does not have any Sponsored
Users, and to the extent it expects to have any in the future, it will
revise the rule as needed to incorporate how the Risk Monitor Mechanism
would function with respect to Sponsored Participants. The Exchange
notes that ``User'' will be referred to herein as ``TPH''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1.1 (``Trading Permit Holder'' or
``TPH''). The term ``Trading Permit Holder'' or ``TPH'' mean an
Exchange-recognized holder of a Trading Permit. A Trading Permit
Holder is deemed a ``member'' under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the term ``class'' and
replace it with ``underlying''. Specifically, the Exchange notes that
the Risk Monitor Mechanism is configured to count the risk parameters
across underlying securities or indexes. As an example, any option
related to Apple (AAPL), would be considered to have the same
underlying. Accordingly, if a corporate action resulted in AAPL1, AAPL
and APPL1 one [sic] would be considered to share the same underlying
symbol AAPL. Only a single symbol-level rule for underlying AAPL would
be configurable by the Risk Monitor Mechanism. The Exchange notes that
the term ``underlying'' is also utilized in the Exchange's technical
specification documents. The Exchange therefore believes underlying is
a more accurate term to use.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the requirement that the
``interval'' time periods be on a rolling basis up to five minutes. The
Exchange notes that its system is not configured to limit intervals to
5 minutes and as such believes the proposal to eliminate the language
will alleviate confusion and more accurately reflect current
functionality.
    The Exchange also proposes to clarify and codify what were to occur
in the event a TPH does not reactivate its ability to send quotes or
orders after its configured risk parameter limits have been reached.
Currently, subparagraph (c)(5)(D) of Rule 6.14 governs how the counting
program is reset. In the event an underlying limit, EFID limit or EFID
Group limit (as proposed), is exceeded, the rules provide that the
System will not accept new orders or quotes from that TPH (in a
underlying, from an EFID, or EFID Group, as applicable) until the TPH
instructs the System or Exchange, as applicable, to reset the counting
program. The Exchange proposes to add new subparagraph (c)(5)(D)(v) to
explicitly provide that if the Exchange cancels all of a TPH's quotes
and orders resting in the Book, and the TPH does not reactivate its
ability to send quotes or orders, the block will be in effect only for
the trading day that the TPH reached its underlying, EFID and/or EFID
Group limit. The Exchange notes this is not a substantive change, but
rather current practice, and that its affiliated Exchange, Cboe
Options, includes

similar language in its rules.\9\ The Exchange believes adding this
provision to the rules provides further transparency in its rules and
reduces potential confusion as to what would happen in the situation
where a TPH fails to reset the counting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add language regarding resets from
its affiliated Exchanges' rules governing their Risk Monitor Mechanism
functionality, which is substantively the same as the Risk Monitor
Mechanism functionality on C2. Particularly, Cboe EDGX and Cboe BZX
Rule 21.16(d) currently provides that the System will reset the
counting period for absolute limits when a TPH refreshes its risk limit
thresholds and the System will reset the counting program and commence
a new interval time period when (i) a previous interval time period has
expired and a transaction occurs in any series of a underlying [sic] or
(ii) a TPH refreshes its risk limit thresholds prior to the expiration
of the interval time period. The Exchange proposes to add this language
under subparagraph (D)(vi) of C2 Rule 6.14(c)(5) (``Counting Program
Reset''), which provision would govern ``other resets'' (i.e., resets
that are not a result from a limit being reached). The Exchange
believes adding this provision to C2's rules provides transparency in
the rules that TPH's may refresh their limits for both absolute and
interval time periods (which results in a ``reset of the counting
program'') and also clarifies that the interval time periods are reset
after the prior interval time period ended and a transaction in a
series of a underlying occurred. The Exchange notes this is not a
substantive change, but rather current practice. The Exchange believes
adding this provision to the rules provides further transparency in its
rules and reduces potential confusion as to whether a TPH can refresh
its limits and when interval time periods commence.
    The Exchange also proposes to include language from BZX and EDGX
Rule 21.16(e) that provides that a TPH may engage the Risk Monitor
Mechanism to cancel resting bids and offers, as well as subsequent
orders as set forth in Rule 6.14(c)(7), which adds transparency in the
rules that the Risk Monitor Mechanism may be utilized in this context.
The Exchange notes this is not a substantive change, but rather current
practice.
    The Exchange also proposes other non-substantive clarifying
changes. For example, the Exchange proposes to replace references to
``firm limit'' with ``EFID limit''; clarify that resets will occur when
limits are reached, instead of ``exceeded''; and replace certain
references to ``User'' with ``EFID''. The Exchange notes that the
proposed changes do not reflect a change in practice, but rather are
intended to adopt language the Exchange believes is more accurate and
would be less confusing to investors.

EFID Groups

    The Exchange next proposes to provide in the rules that in addition
to underlying limits and EFID limits, the System will be able to count
each of the risk parameters across all underlyings for a group of EFIDs
(``EFID Group'')(``EFID Group limit'').\10\ Similar to when a
underlying limit or EFID limit are reached, when a TPH's EFID Group(s)
limit is reached, the Risk Monitor Mechanism will cancel or reject such
TPH's orders or quotes in all underlyings and cancel or reject any
additional orders or quotes from any EFID within the EFID Group(s) in
all underlyings until the counting program resets. The System will not
accept new orders or quotes from any EFID within an EFID Group after an
EFID Group limit is reached until the TPH manually notifies the Trade
Desk to reset the counting program for the EFID Group, unless the TPH
instructs the Exchange to permit it to reset the counting program by
submitting an electronic message to the System. The Exchange believes
each TPH is in the best position to determine risk settings appropriate
for its firm based on its trading activity and business needs and that
it may be based on a single EFID or EFID Group(s). The Exchange notes
that its affiliate Exchange, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'')
similarly allows its members to set similar risk parameters at the
acronym-level (which is similar to an EFID) or firm level (similar to
an EFID Group).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An EFID may not belong to more than one EFID Group. The
Exchange notes that the Users [sic] determine how many, if any, EFID
Groups to establish and determine which EFIDs belong to a particular
EFID Group, if any.
    \11\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Risk Parameter

    The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt a new risk parameter.
Specifically, under the proposed functionality, a TPH may specify a
maximum number of times that the risk parameters (i.e., volume,
notional, count and/or percentage) are reached over a specified
interval or absolute period (``risk trips''). When a risk trip limit
has been reached, the Risk Monitor Mechanism will cancel or reject a
TPH's orders or quotes pursuant to subparagraph (c)(5)(B) of Rule 6.14.
The Exchange notes that a similar risk parameter (i.e., a parameter
based on the number of risk ``incidents'' that occur over a specified
time) is available on its affiliate Exchange, Cboe Options.\12\ The
Exchange believes the proposed changes to its Risk Monitor Mechanism
rule sufficiently allows TPHs to adjust and adopt parameter inputs in
accordance with their business models and risk management needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.18, which provides that a Hybrid
Market Maker or a TPH Organization may specify a maximum number of
Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism (``QRM'') QRM Incidents on an Exchange-
wide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes its changes to codify existing
functionality alleviates potential confusion, provides transparency in
the rules and makes the rules easier to read. For example, the proposal
to remove the reference to the requirement that the interval time
periods be on a rolling basis up to five minutes alleviates confusion
as the system is in fact not configured to have a five minute limit.
Providing language regarding (i) a TPH's failure to reset or initiate a
reset of the counting program, (ii) other resets due to a TPH's refresh
of its limits or a new interval time period commencing and (iii) the
use of the Risk Monitor Mechanism with respect to C2 Rule 6.14(c)(7),
provides

transparency in the rules as to what occurs in those situations,
harmonizes rule language with that of the Exchange's affiliated
Exchanges, and reduces potential confusion. The alleviation of
confusion removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects
investors and the public interest. Similarly, the Exchange believes
using the term ``underlying'' instead of ``class'' and ``TPH'' instead
of ``User'' alleviates potential confusion as the proposed terms more
accurately reflect how the Risk Monitor Mechanism operates.
    The Exchange believes providing TPHs the ability to configure
certain risk parameters across underlyings for an EFID Group is also
appropriate because it permits a TPH to protect itself from inadvertent
exposure to excessive risk on an additional level (i.e., on an EFID
group-level, not just underlying- or EFID-level). Reducing such risk
will enable TPHs to enter quotes and orders with protection against
inadvertent exposure to excessive risk, which in turn will benefit
investors through increased liquidity for the execution of their
orders. Such increased liquidity benefits investors because they may
receive better prices and because it may lower volatility in the
options market. The Exchange also believes each TPH is in the best
position to determine risk settings appropriate for its firm based on
its trading activity and business needs and that that may be based on
an EFID Group(s). Additionally, as discussed above, Cboe Options
similarly allows its TPHs to set risk parameters at the acronym-level
(which is similar to an EFID) or firm-level (similar to an EFID
Group).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposal to adopt the new risk
parameter based on number of times a risk parameter or group of risk
parameters are reached will provide TPHs with an additional tool for
managing risks. Furthermore, as noted above, the Exchange's affiliated
exchange offers similar functionality.\17\ Overall, the proposed rule
change provides TPHs more protections that reduce the risks from
potential system errors and market events. As a result, the proposed
changes, including the new risk parameter for the Risk Monitor
Mechanism, have the potential to promote just and equitable principles
of trade. Additionally, the proposed changes apply to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes with respect to its Risk Monitor
Mechanism help promote fair and orderly markets and provide clarity and
transparency the Rule. For example, the proposed rule change adds an
additional risk control parameter and flexibility to help further
prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market
participants. The proposed changes apply uniformly to all TPHs and the
Exchange notes that the proposed changes apply to all quotes and orders
in the same manner. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because the proposed enhancements apply only to
trading on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it is
voluntary for the TPHs to determine whether to make use of the new
enhancements of the Risk Monitor Mechanism. To the extent that the
proposed changes may make the Exchange a more attractive trading venue
for market participants on other exchanges, such market participants
may elect to become Exchange market participants.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \20\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \21\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay to provide
TPHs with additional tools and greater flexibility for managing their
potential risk as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal as operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2018-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2018-024. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-C2-2018-024, and should be submitted on
or before January 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27203 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66526]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23225]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 275

[Release No. IA-4532; File No. S7-16-16]

Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers: Ban on
Third-Party Solicitation; Order With Respect to FINRA Rule 2030

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Order.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or
``SEC'') is issuing an order finding that Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') rule 2030 (the ``FINRA Pay to Play Rule'')
imposes substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on
broker-dealers than rule 206(4)-5 (the ``SEC Pay to Play Rule) under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') imposes on
investment advisers and is consistent with the objectives of the SEC
Pay to Play Rule.

DATES: This Order was issued by the Commission on September 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sirimal R. Mukerjee, Senior Counsel,
Melissa Roverts Harke, Senior Special Counsel, or Sara Cortes,
Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Investment
Adviser Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SEC Pay to Play Rule [17 CFR 275.206(4)-
5] under the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b] prohibits an investment
adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a
government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its
executives or employees (``covered associates'') make a contribution to
certain elected officials or candidates. Rule 206(4)-5 also prohibits
an adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to
provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third-party for a
solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf
of such adviser, unless such third-party is a ``regulated person''
(``third-party solicitor ban''). Rule 206(4)-5 defines a ``regulated
person'' as an SEC-registered investment adviser, a registered broker
or dealer subject to pay to play restrictions adopted by a registered
national securities association that prohibit members from engaging in
distribution or solicitation activities if certain political
contributions have been made, or a registered municipal advisor subject
to pay to play restrictions adopted by the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board that prohibit members from engaging in distribution or
solicitation activities if certain political contributions have been
made. In addition, in order for a broker-dealer or municipal advisor to
be a regulated person under rule 206(4)-5, the Commission must find, by
order, that these pay to play rules impose substantially equivalent or
more stringent restrictions on broker-dealers or municipal advisors
than the SEC Pay to Play Rule imposes on investment advisers and are
consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay to Play Rule.
    On December 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') proposed a rule change (Exchange Act Rel. No. 76767 (Dec.
24, 2015) [80 FR 81650 (Dec. 30, 2015)]) to adopt the FINRA Pay to Play
Rule, which would establish pay to play rules for its member firms. On
August 25, 2016, the Commission approved the FINRA Pay to Play Rule
(Exchange Act Rel. No. 78683 (Aug. 25, 2016) [81 FR 60051 (Aug. 31,
2016)]).
    On August 25, 2016, the Commission also issued a notice of intent
to issue an order (Investment Advisers Act Rel. No. 4511 (Aug. 25,
2016) [81 FR 60653 (Sept. 2, 2016)]) finding that the FINRA Pay to Play
Rule imposes substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on
brokers-dealers than the SEC Pay to Play Rule imposes on investment
advisers and is consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay to Play
Rule. The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a
hearing and stated that an order would be issued unless a hearing was
ordered. The Commission has not received a request for a hearing.
    Accordingly, the Commission hereby finds that the FINRA Pay to Play
Rule imposes substantially equivalent or more stringent restrictions on
broker-dealers than the SEC Pay to Play Rule imposes on investment
advisers and is consistent with the objectives of the SEC Pay to Play
Rule.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 20, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23225 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52913-52914]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-2199-000]

Allegany Generating Station LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Allegany Generating Station LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 10, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20864 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67433-67435]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0898]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Columbia River, Richland, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for all navigable waters within a 600-foot radius of a fireworks
display on the Columbia River for the City of Richland Christmas
Fireworks display in Richland, WA. This action is necessary to provide
for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a fireworks
display on December 2, 2022 and December 3, 2022. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0898 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Carlie Gilligan, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Columbia River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On September 20, 2022, the City of Richland, WA notified the Coast
Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 8 to 8:30
p.m. on December 2, 2022 and December 3, 2022. The fireworks are to be
launched from a pier located on the Columbia River near Howard Amon
Park Waterfront, 80 Lee Boulevard, Richland, WA 99352 at approximate
location 46[deg]16'29'' N; 119[deg]16'10'' W. Hazards from firework
displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the
Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a
safety concern for anyone within a 600-foot radius of the launch site.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 600-foot radius of the fireworks
launch site before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast
Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 7:30 to 9
p.m. on December 2, 2022 and December 3, 2022. The safety zone would
cover all navigable waters within 600-feet of the pier located on the
Columbia River near Howard Amon Park Waterfront on 80 Lee Boulevard,
Richland, WA 99352, at approximate location 46[deg]16'29'' N;
119[deg]16'10'' W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled 8 to 8:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person
would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able
to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small
designated area of the Columbia River for less than 2 hours during the
evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within 600 feet of a
fireworks launch site. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0898 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0898 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0898  Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Columbia River,
Richland, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom, 600 feet from the
fireworks display site at approximately 46[deg]16'29'' N;
119[deg]16'10'' W. These coordinates are based on the pier located on
the Columbia River near Howard Amon Park Waterfront, 80 Lee Boulevard,
Richland, WA 99352.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to a unit under the
operational control of the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River and
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Columbia River
(COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River
Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30
through 9 p.m. on December 2, 2022 and from 7:30 through 9 p.m. on
December 3, 2022.

    Dated: November 1, 2022.
M. Scott Jackson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2022-24366 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9322-9327]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0916; FRL-9376-9]

Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
hexythiazox in or on alfalfa and timothy. Gowan Company requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 8, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 2013, 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-2010-0916, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 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 is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. If OCSPP test
guidelines are cited, insert the following: To access the OCSPP test
guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2010-0916 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
April 9, 2013. 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-2010-0916, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 14, 2012 (77 FR 15012) (FRL-9335-
9), 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
1F7934) by Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide hexythiazox (trans-5-(4-
chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide)
and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety, in or on wheat, forage at 3.0 parts per million
(ppm); wheat, hay at 30 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.02 ppm; wheat, straw at
7.0 ppm; alfalfa, forage at 7.0 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 14 ppm; timothy,
forage at 35 ppm; and timothy, hay at 17 ppm. That document referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based on EPA's review of the data supporting the petition, Gowan
Company revised their petition (PP 1F7934) as follows:
    i. By increasing the proposed tolerances for alfalfa, forage;
alfalfa, hay; timothy forage; and timothy, hay;
    ii. By deleting the proposed tolerances for wheat commodities;
    iii. By adding a request for an increase in the established
tolerances for cattle, fat; goat, fat; horse fat; sheep fat; and milk;
    iv. By adding a request for an increase in the established
tolerances for cattle meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; horse,
meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts; and;
    v. By proposing tolerances for poultry, fat; and poultry, meat
byproducts; and egg.
    The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

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 in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 hexythiazox including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is complete.
Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation
routes of exposure. It produces mild eye irritation, is not a dermal
irritant, and is negative for dermal sensitization. Hexythiazox is
associated with toxicity of the liver and adrenals following subchronic
and chronic exposure to dogs, rats and mice, with the dog being the
most sensitive species. The prenatal developmental studies in rabbits
and rats and the two-generation reproduction study in rats showed no
indication of increased susceptibility to in utero and/or postnatal
exposure to hexythiazox. Reproductive toxicity was not observed. There
is no concern for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following exposure to
hexythiazox. The toxicology database for hexythiazox does not show any
evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Hexythiazox
is classified as ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans''; however, the
evidence as a whole is not strong enough to warrant a quantitative
estimation of human risk. Since the effects seen in the study that
serves as the basis for the chronic RfD occurred at doses substantially
below the lowest dose that induced tumors, the chronic RfD is
considered protective of all chronic effects including potential
carcinogenicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by hexythiazox as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support New Uses on Alfalfa and Timothy'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0916.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Hexythiazox for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety  factors      risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)..  No risk is expected from this exposure scenario as no hazard was identified
                                    in any toxicity study for this duration of exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.025  One-Year Toxicity Feeding Study--
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Dog.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.025.......  LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        increased absolute and relative
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        adrenal weights and associated
                                                                               adrenal histopathology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  2-Generation Reproduction Study--
 30 days) and intermediate-term    UFA = 10x...........                        Rat.
 (1 to 6 months).                  UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 180 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased pup body weight during
                                                                               lactation and delayed hair growth
                                                                               and/or eye opening, and decreased
                                                                               parental body-weight gain and
                                                                               increased absolute and relative
                                                                               liver, kidney, and adrenal
                                                                               weights.

                                                                              13-Week Oral Toxicity Study--Rat.
                                                                              NOAEL = 5.5 mg/kg/day.
                                                                              LOAEL = 38 mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                               increased absolute and relative
                                                                               liver weights in both sexes,
                                                                               increased relative ovarian and
                                                                               kidney weights, and fatty
                                                                               degeneration of the adrenal zona
                                                                               fasciculata.
                                                                              @ 397.5/257.6 mg/kg/day, decreased
                                                                               body-weight gain in females,
                                                                               slight swelling of hepatocytes in
                                                                               central zone (both sexes),
                                                                               increased incidence of
                                                                               glomerulonephrosis in males,
                                                                               increased adrenal weights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans''. Insufficient
                                    evidence to warrant a quantitative estimation of human risk using a cancer
                                    slope factor based on the common liver tumors (benign and malignant)
                                    observed only in high dose female mice, and benign mammary gland tumors of
                                    no biological significance, observed only in high dose male rats in the
                                    absence of mutagenic concerns. The chronic RfD is protective of all chronic
                                    effects including potential carcinogenicity of hexythiazox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR
180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for hexythiazox; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance level residues, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
incorporated DEEM default processing factors when processing data were
not available.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A. of the Federal Register of March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12691) (FRL-
8813-7), EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to hexythiazox. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,
chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for hexythiazox. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC)
of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer and cancer
assessments are estimated to be 4.3 ppb for surface water. Since
surface water residues values greatly exceed groundwater EDWCs, surface
water residues were used in the dietary risk assessment. Modeled
estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into
the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Hexythiazox is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Ornamental plantings, turf, and fruit and nut
trees in residential settings. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are expected
to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or inhalation
routes of exposures. Since a quantitative dermal risk assessment is not
needed for hexythiazox; MOEs were calculated for the inhalation route
of exposure only. Both adults and children may be exposed to
hexythiazox residues from contact with treated lawns or treated
residential plants. Post application exposures are expected to be
short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) in
duration. Adult postapplication exposures were not assessed since no
quantitative dermal risk assessment is needed for hexythiazox and
inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. The
exposure assessment for children included incidental oral exposure
resulting from

transfer of residues from the hands or objects to the mouth, and from
incidental ingestion of soil.
    Details of the residential exposure and risk assessment can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox. Human
Health Risk Assessment to Support New Uses on Alfalfa and Timothy'' in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0916. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures
may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. 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.''
    EPA has not found hexythiazox to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and hexythiazox does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
hexythiazox does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology data base indicates no increased susceptibility of rats or
rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The dietary risk assessment is
highly conservative and not expected to underestimate risk. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by hexythiazox.

E. 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 PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 63% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
hexythiazox is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 12,000 for adults
and 1,600 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 12,000 for adults and 1,900 for children. Because
EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III. C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation based on the chronic
reference dose will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic
risks. As noted in this unit there is no chronic risks of concern.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to hexythiazox residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography method with UV detection (HPLC/UV) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
    No Canadian or Mexican MRLs have been established for residues of
hexythiazox in plants or livestock. There are no codex MRLs established
for alfalfa or timothy; however, there are Code MRLs for livestock at
0.05 ppm in/on the following: edible offal (mammalian); mammalian fats
(except milk fats); milks; milk fats; poultry, edible offal; poultry
meat (fat). The U.S. and Codes residue definitions in both plants and
livestock are harmonized. There is no issue of international
harmonization with respect to the recommended alfalfa, timothy, and egg
tolerances since there are no established international tolerances for
these commodities. The tolerance for livestock meat byproducts is not
harmonized with Codex as the potential hexythiazox residue level in
meat byproducts may exceed the current Codex MRL.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Based on EPA's review of the data supporting the petition, Gowan
Company revised their petition (PP 1F7934) as follows:
    i. By increasing the proposed tolerances for alfalfa, forage to 15
ppm; alfalfa, hay to 30 ppm; timothy forage to 40 ppm; and timothy, hay
to 40 ppm;
    ii. By deleting the proposed tolerances for wheat, forage; wheat,
hay; wheat, grain; and wheat, straw;
    iii. By adding a request for an increase in the established
tolerances for cattle, fat; goat, fat; horse fat; sheep fat; and milk
to 0.05 ppm;
    iv. By adding a request for an increase in the established
tolerances for cattle meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; horse,
meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts to 0.20 ppm; and
    v. By proposing tolerances for poultry, fat; and poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.05 ppm; and egg at 0.01 ppm.
    The Agency concluded that based on the residue data, these changes
are required to support the new uses. The increase in the alfalfa and
timothy tolerances were recommended by the Agency as a result of
analyzing the submitted field trial data for these commodities using
the OEDC MRL (Maximum Residue Limit) calculator. The increase in the
livestock tolerances in fat and meat byproducts of ruminants are
required due to the increased livestock dietary burden expected with
the new uses on alfalfa and timothy. The increase in the ruminant fat
and milk tolerances are recommended in order to account for the
increased dietary burden to livestock and to be harmonized with Codex.
Additionally, because of the potential increase of hexythiazox in the
poultry diet, largely due to alfalfa use, and based on updated maximum
reasonably balanced diet (MRBD) calculations for poultry, tolerances
for eggs, poultry fat, and meat byproducts are required.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of hexythiazox
and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety, as requested in the revised petition.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule 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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
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 final rule 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 tolerance 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 final rule 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (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 of 1995 (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: February 4, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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. Section 180.448 is amended as follows:
0
i. In paragraph (a), in the table, revise the entries for ``cattle,
fat;'' ``cattle, meat byproducts;'' ``goat, fat;'' ``goat, meat
byproducts;'' ``horse, fat;'' ``horse, meat byproducts;'' ``sheep,
fat;'' ``sheep, meat byproducts;'' and ``milk.''
0
ii. In paragraph (a), in the table, add entries for ``poultry, fat;''
``poultry, meat byproducts;'' and ``egg.''
0
iii. In paragraph (c), in the table, add entries for ``alfalfa, forage
(EPA Regions 9-11 only;'' ``alfalfa, hay (EPA Regions 9-11 only;''
``timothy, forage (EPA Regions 9-11 only;'' and ``timothy, hay (EPA
Regions 9-11 only.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.448  Hexythiazox; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Cattle, fat.................................................        0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts.....................................        0.20

                                * * * * *
Egg.........................................................        0.01

                                * * * * *
Goat, fat...................................................        0.05
Goat, meat byproducts.......................................        0.20

                                * * * * *
Horse, fat..................................................        0.05
Horse, meat byproducts......................................        0.20

                                * * * * *
Milk........................................................        0.05

                                * * * * *
Poultry, fat................................................        0.05
Poultry, meat byproducts....................................        0.05

                                * * * * *
Sheep, fat..................................................        0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts......................................        0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage (EPA Regions 9-11 only).....................          15
Alfalfa, hay (EPA Regions 9-11 only)........................          30

                                * * * * *
Timothy, forage (EPA Regions 9-11 only).....................          40
Timothy, hay (EPA Regions 9-11 only)........................          40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-02924 Filed 2-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P