[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 23759-23761]
[DOCID:fr20my09-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59924; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto To Amend the By-Laws, Rules, and Option Floor Procedure Advices
Concerning Governance of the Exchange

May 14, 2009.
    On March 13, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its By-Laws, Rules of the Board of
Governors, Options Rules, and Option Floor Procedure Advices to make
changes to certain standing committees and governance processes of the
Exchange. On March 25, 2009, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 9, 2009.\3\ On April 30, 2009, Phlx filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received
no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59697 (April 2,
2009), 74 FR 16249 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, Phlx made technical and conforming
changes to certain By-Laws, including changes to the paragraph
numbering in Article I, Section 1-1 (Definitions) and revisions to
the marking of new rule text in Article X, Sections 10-1 (Standing
Committees) and 10-15 (Finance Committee). These changes were
designed to reflect intervening amendments to those By-Laws proposed
in a preceding Phlx filing (File No. SR-Phlx-2009-17) that were
recently approved by the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59794 (April 20, 2009), 74 FR 18761 (April 24, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-17). Because Amendment No. 2 is technical in nature,
the Commission is not required to publish it for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, the Exchange proposes to conform its governance
structure to more closely resemble that of its corporate siblings, The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(``BX'').\5\ In particular, Phlx proposes to eliminate the Admissions
Committee and the Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities
Committee (``Allocation Committee''); consolidate the Options Committee
and the Foreign Currency Options Committee into the Quality of Markets
Committee; and eliminate the use of the Weekly Bulletin.\6\ Phlx also
proposes to change the membership structure of the Business Conduct
Committee and eliminate the Hearing Officer; make the Finance Committee
optional at the discretion of the Board; and authorize the Board or its
designee to take certain actions in the event of an emergency or
extraordinary market conditions. Finally, the Exchange proposes
technical changes that, among other things, delete obsolete references
to departments and positions that have been re-named or no longer
exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange, Nasdaq, and BX are subsidiaries of The NASDAQ
OMX GROUP, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58179 (July
17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31) (order
approving changes to the Exchange's governing documents in
connection with its acquisition by The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.).
    \6\ The Weekly Bulletin contained, among other things, notice of
changes in permit holder and member organization status and
applications. Currently, if the Admissions Committee votes favorably
regarding a request by an applicant, Phlx posts his or her name in
the Weekly Bulletin and on its Web site for seven days to invite
readers to report information regarding applications and applicants.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Weekly Bulletin and instead
provide notification regarding membership approvals on its Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this proposed rule change, the eleven current standing
committees of the Board of Governors of the Exchange (``Board'') would
be reduced to eight.\7\ Of those eight, the Finance Committee would
become optional at the discretion of the Board.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The remaining standing committees would be: Executive
Committee, Audit Committee, Business Conduct Committee, Compensation
Committee, Finance Committee, Nominating Committee, Member
Nominating Committee, and Quality of Markets Committee. See Phlx By-
Law Article X, Section 10-1. See also Amendment No. 2 (reflecting
changes made by SR-Phlx-2009-17 to create the Nominating Committee
and the Member Nominating Committee).
    \8\ The Exchange noted that Nasdaq's Finance Committee is also
optional at the discretion of Nasdaq's board of directors. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 74 FR 16254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange \9\ including, in particular, Section
6(b)(1) of the Act,\10\ which requires a national securities exchange
to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act; Section 6(b)(3) of the
Act,\11\ which requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection
of its directors and administration of its affairs, and provide that
one or more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors
and not be associated with a member of the exchange, broker or dealer;
and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires that an exchange
have rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will conform certain of the By-Laws and
rules of the Exchange to those of Nasdaq, while maintaining the fair
representation of the Exchange's members in the administration of the
affairs of the Exchange. Among other things, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the Admissions Committee, and to have the Phlx Membership
Department perform the functions that are currently performed by the
Admissions Committee. In this respect, the proposed change would
reflect the practice at Nasdaq, which does not have an Admissions
Committee and whose staff handles membership application

processing and decisions regarding membership.\13\ As proposed, the
Membership Department would assume responsibility for administering the
admissions and membership processes currently overseen by that
committee including, among other things, the admission, denial,
reinstatement and revocation of membership to the Exchange.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at note 13.
    \14\ According to the Exchange, its staff has been ``involved in
virtually all aspects of the Exchange's admissions and membership
process,'' including assisting the Admissions Committee in the
performance of its duties. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74 FR 16250.
To accomplish this transfer, the Exchange proposes to delete By-Law
Article X, Section 10-6 (Admissions Committee) and transfer the
duties and functions of that committee to the Membership Department
in new Rule 900.1 (General Powers and Duties of Membership
Department). In addition, Exchange proposes to delete By-Law Article
XII, Section 12-5, which sets forth duties and functions of the
Admissions Committee with respect to applications for permits and
admission as a foreign currency options participant, and transfer
those duties to the Membership Department in new Rule 900.2
(Membership Applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An applicant for Exchange membership or admission whose application
is not approved currently has a right to an appeal hearing pursuant to
By-Law Article XI. The Exchange proposes to include the Membership
Department in this By-Law in order to permit appeals from Membership
Department decisions.\15\ Accordingly, the current appeal rights of
applicants will be preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Such appeals would be heard by a special committee of the
Board composed of at least three governors, at least one of which
would be an Independent Governor. See Phlx By-Law Article XI,
Section 11-1(c). Designated Independent Governors are selected
through a process that is subject to the input of Phlx's Member
Organization Representatives. See Phlx By-Law Article III, Section
3-2 (Member Nominating Committee creates a list of candidates for
each Designated Governor Position); see also Article I, Section 1-
1(e) (Designated Governors include Designated Independent
Governors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete the Allocations
Committee and have the Exchange's staff perform the duties and
functions that are currently performed by the Allocation Committee.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that Nasdaq does have a board of
directors committee that is equivalent to the Allocation Committee.
See Notice, supra note 3, at note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to combine its Options Committee
and Foreign Currency Options Committee, which are currently two
separate Board committees, into the existing Quality of Markets
Committee. The duties and functions of the Exchange's reformulated
Quality of Markets Committee would be analogous to those of the
Nasdaq's Quality of Markets Committee and would include, among other
things, responsibility for advising the Board on issues relating to the
fairness, integrity, efficiency, and competitiveness of the Exchange's
market. The Quality of Markets Committee would include a number of
Member Representative members that is equal to at least twenty percent
of the total number of members of the Quality of Markets Committee.\17\
In addition, the number of Non-Industry members on the Quality of
Markets Committee would equal the sum of the number of Industry members
and Member Representative members. Accordingly, the proposed new
formulation for the Quality of Markets Committee would continue to
assure the fair representation of the Exchange's members on this
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A Member Representative Member is ``a member of any
committee appointed by the Board of Governors who has been elected
or appointed after having been nominated by the Member Nominating
Committee.'' See Phlx By-Law Article I, Section 1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to provide that the President of the
Exchange, and his or her designated staff, would have general
supervision over the options trading floor as well as general
supervision over the dealings of members on the trading floor and on
Exchange trading systems. The President would also be given
responsibility regarding supervision of relations with other options
exchanges. The Exchange notes that such authority is consistent with
the practice at Nasdaq.\18\ Similarly, the Exchange proposes to adopt a
By-Law provision similar to Nasdaq that authorizes the Board or its
designee to take certain actions in the event of an emergency or
extraordinary market conditions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at note 29.
    \19\ See Proposed Phlx By-Law Article IV, Section 4-23. See also
Nasdaq By-Law Article IX, Section 5. In addition, the Exchange
currently has other extraordinary market conditions provisions in
its rules. See Rules 1080(e) and 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange proposes to alter the composition of the
Business Conduct Committee, which serves as the disciplinary committee
of the Exchange. As amended, the Business Conduct Committee could
consist of not less than five, or more than nine, members.\20\ In
addition, the majority of committee members would be Non-Industry
members, and the remaining committee members would be Industry members.
At least one BCC member would have to be a member of the Exchange that
conducts an options business at Phlx. The Exchange has informed the
Commission that, upon approval, it initially intends to have five
persons serve on the BCC.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The BCC currently consists of nine members including three
Independent Governors, one member or person associated with a member
organization who conducts business on XLE (Phlx's electronic equity
trading system), one member who conducts an options business at the
Exchange, and four persons who are members or persons associated
with a member organization. In particular, the Exchange poses to
eliminate the requirement to seat on the BCC one member or person
associated with a member organization who conducts business on XLE,
because XLE is no longer operating. See Notice, supra note 3, at
note 34.
    \21\ See E-mail from Jurij Trypupenko, Assistant General
Counsel, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., to Richard Holley III, Senior
Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated
May 14, 2009. Phlx has committed to submit a separate proposed rule
change by its July 2009 Board meeting to clarify in Article X,
Section 10-11 that the Business Conduct Committee shall include a
number of committee members equal to at least 20% of the total
number of members on the Business Conduct Committee that are
representative of Phlx members. This provision would be relevant
only in the event that the Exchange chose to appoint six or more
members to the BCC, since with a five member BCC the required
appointment of ``at least one'' committee member who is a member of
the Exchange that conducts an options business at Phlx would satisfy
the 20% requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to conform its hearings
processes to more closely resemble those of Nasdaq. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to change the composition of its disciplinary hearing
panel by deleting the requirement to have a presiding Hearing Officer.
In its place, a new position of Hearing Attorney would be created to
assume the administrative duties that the Hearing Officer previously
handled. The Hearing Attorney would advise the Hearing Panel on
applicable rules and procedures, but would not be a voting member of
the Hearing Panel. The process of appealing Hearing Panel decisions
would remain unchanged.
    The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal is designed to
more closely align certain aspects of Phlx's governance structure and
processes to more closely resemble that of Nasdaq, which, like the
Exchange, is a subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX GROUP, Inc. As discussed above,
the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Act. In
particular, the proposal should allow the Exchange to be so organized
and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to
enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its
members with the provisions of the Act, and should continue to assure
the fair representation of the Exchange's members in the administration
of its affairs.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2009-

23), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11739 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65255-65256]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0385; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-23]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reidsville, GA, and Amendment
of Class E Airspace; Vidalia, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Reidsville, GA.
Separation of existing Class E airspace surrounding Swinton Smith Field
at Reidsville Municipal Airport, Reidsville, GA, from the Class E
airspace of Vidalia Regional Airport, Vidalia, GA, has made this action
necessary to enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also changes
the names of both airports and updates the airport's geographic
coordinates.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 5, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Swinton Smith Field at
Reidsville Municipal Airport, Reidsville, GA, to accommodate the
separation of existing Class E airspace surrounding Vidalia Regional
Airport, Vidalia, GA, (77 FR 39653) Docket No. FAA-2012-0385.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Geographic coordinates for both airports also
are adjusted.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Swinton Smith Field at Reidsville Municipal
Airport, formerly Reidsville Airport, Reidsville, GA, and amends Class
E airspace at Vidalia, Regional Airport, formerly Vidalia Municipal
Airport, Vidalia, GA, to provide the controlled airspace required to
accommodate the separation of existing Class E airspace surrounding
Vidalia Regional Airport. Geographic coordinates for both airport are
adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. This
action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when

promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace surrounding Swinton Smith Field
at Reidsville Municipal Airport, Reidsville, GA and amends controlled
airspace at Vidalia Regional Airport, Vidalia, GA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Vidalia, GA [Amended]

Vidalia Regional Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]11'34'' N., long. 82[deg]22'16'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Vidalia Regional Airport.
* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Reidsville, GA [New]

Swinton Smith Field at Reidsville Municipal Airport, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]03'32'' N., long. 82[deg]09'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Swinton Smith Field at Reidsville
Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 11, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-26330 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18456-18461]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07008]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0056; FRL-9907-62]

Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
clomazone in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes
an existing tolerance on ``cabbage'' that is superseded by this action.
The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 2, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 2, 2014, 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-2013-0056, 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: Lois Rossi, 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.

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-2013-0056 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
June 2, 2014. 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-2013-0056, 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 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.html.
    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 Wednesday, February 27, 2013 (78 FR
13295) (FRL-9380-2), 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 2E8136) by the Interregional Research Project Number 4,
IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.425 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone,
in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.1 parts per million
(ppm), pea, southern, dry seed at 0.05 ppm, pea, southern, succulent
seed at 0.05 ppm, pea, southern, hay at 0.05 ppm, and rhubarb at 0.3
ppm. In addition, the petitioner proposes based upon the establishment
of new tolerances above, removal of the existing cabbage tolerance at
0.1 ppm under 40 CFR 180.425 that is superseded by this action. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by FMC
Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to the comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of data supporting the petition, EPA has removed
and/or established clomazone residue tolerances for certain
commodities. The reason(s) 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 clomazone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with clomazone follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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 primary target of clomazone is the liver, with hepatocellular
cytomegaly noted in the chronic rat and mouse studies (chronic mouse
study deemed unacceptable due to maximum tolerated dose (MTD) not
achieved), hepatocellular necrosis in the chronic mouse study, and
increased liver weight observed in subchronic and chronic studies. No
neurotoxicity studies with clomazone are available; however, based on a
weight of the evidence approach, the EPA has concluded that a
neurotoxicity battery is not required for clomazone. This approach
considered all of the available hazard and exposure information
including: (1) There is no evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity
or neuropathology in adult animals in subchronic and chronic studies;
(2) the liver is the target organ for clomazone, not the neurological
system; (3) clomazone is absorbed and rapidly excreted in rats with 97%
of the radioactivity excreted within 168 hours; and (4) the point of
departure (POD) and endpoint for chronic dietary risk assessment is
based on liver effects in rats which appear to be the most sensitive
endpoint. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
susceptibility in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits or in the
2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, delayed ossification occurred at doses that
produced maternal effects (chromorhinorrhea and abdominogenital
staining). Although qualitative susceptibility was observed in the
developmental toxicity study in rats, the concern is low since there
are clear no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) in the study and this study was
used for risk assessment, and therefore, is protective of the
developmental effects.
    There is no concern for mutagenicity. In the rat carcinogenicity
study, there was no evidence of carcinogenicity. The mouse
carcinogenicity study was inadequate to determine carcinogenic activity
due to the lack of adverse effects at the highest dose tested. Despite
the inadequacy of the mouse carcinogenicity study, EPA has determined
that an additional mouse carcinogenicity study is not needed and that
the rat chronic/carcinogenicity study will be adequate for assessing
chronic risk, including cancer. This finding is based upon the
following conclusions: (1) The rat is more sensitive than the mouse for
the chronic assessment; (2) the consistent effect in rats (decreased
body weight and increased liver weight) has been used as the point of
departure for the chronic assessment; (3) a new mouse study would only
use doses well above the current POD for the chronic assessment; and
(4) even if a new mouse study identified positive carcinogenicity
effects, that finding would not result in the adoption of a
quantitative linear assessment of cancer risk due to the negative
carcinogenicity finding in the rat study and the lack of a positive
finding for genotoxicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by clomazone as well as

the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in document,'' Clomazone: Human Health Risk
Assessment for New Uses in/on Brassica, Head and Stem, Subgroup 5A;
Rhubarb; and Pea, Southern (IR-4 Petition 2E8136)'', dated December 19,
2013, pg. 31 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0056.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern (LOC)

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological POD and LOC 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 clomazone used for
human risk assessment is shown in the following Table of this unit.

    Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Clomazone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     POD and
       Exposure/scenario           uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for        Study and toxicological effects
                                  safety factors    risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (general          An endpoint was not selected for the general population because no adverse
 population including infants    effect in adult animals was identified that resulted from a single exposure. A
 and children).                  risk assessment is not required for this population subgroup.
�������������������������������---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (females 13-49    NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/ Acute              Developmental toxicity study--rat,
 years of age).                  day.              RfD = 1.0 mg/kg/    developmental
                                UFA = 10x........   day.              LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day, based on
                                UFH = 10x........  aPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/   indications of delayed ossification in
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....   day.               the form of either partial ossification
                                                                       or the absence of the manubrium,
                                                                       sternebrae 3-4, xiphoid, caudal
                                                                       vertebrae, and meta-carpals.
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all            NOAEL = 84.4 mg/   Chronic RfD =      2-year chronic toxicity study--rats,
 populations).                   kg/day (highest    0.84 mg/kg/day.   NOAEL = 84.4/112.9 mg/kg/day, males/
                                 dose tested).     cPAD = 0.84 mg/kg/  females (highest dose tested),
                                UFA = 10x........   day.              LOAEL was not attained co-critical 90-day
                                UFH = 10x........                      oral rat study
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....                     NOAEL = 135.2/160.9 mg/kg/day, males/
                                                                       females
                                                                      LOAEL = 273/319.3 mg/kg/day, males/
                                                                       females, based on decreased body weight,
                                                                       body weight gains, food consumption and
                                                                       increased absolute and relative liver
                                                                       weights in females and increased absolute
                                                                       liver weights in males. Co-critical 2-
                                                                       generation reproduction toxicity study
                                                                       parental
                                                                      NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day parental
                                                                      LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
                                                                       statistically significantly decreased
                                                                       body weight & body weight gain during pre-
                                                                       mating, and decreased body weight during
                                                                       gestation & lactation M & F. In addition,
                                                                       decreased food consumption in females and
                                                                       hydronephritic kidneys in males.
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,           The chronic endpoint is protective against any effects resulting from long-term
 inhalation).                    exposure to clomazone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point
  that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine
  risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures.

C. Exposure Assessment

    i. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In conducting the
acute dietary exposure assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model--Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID, ver.
3.16), which incorporates consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
As to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance level residues
for proposed and registered crops, assumed 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) and used default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16 which incorporates
consumption information from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined assessment that
assumed 100 PCT, used DEEM default processing factors, and tolerance-
level residues for all existing and proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that the chronic PAD for clomazone will be protective of any

cancer risk posed by the pesticide. Additionally, EPA is relying on the
chronic dietary exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
clomazone. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    1. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for clomazone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of clomazone. 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.
    The Agency generated the surface water estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) based on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and the Tier 1 Rice Model.
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and Pesticide Root
Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models were used for ground water
EDWCs of clomazone. EDWCs were derived based on the maximum registered/
proposed use rate (1.5 pound active ingredient per acre (lb ai/A)
existing for tuberous and corm vegetables and proposed for rhubarb) and
the maximum registered use rate on rice (dry-seeded 0.8 lb ai/A). The
Tier 1 Rice model (dry-seeded scenario) produced the highest EDWCs for
both acute and chronic exposure.
    The EDWCs of clomazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 550
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 85.7 ppb for ground
water.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 550 ppb for surface water and 77.4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both acute and chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 550 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water. These drinking water
estimates account for parent plus FMC65317 (N-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-
3-hydroxy-2,2-dimenthylpropanamide) which are the residues of concern
in drinking water.
    2. 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). Clomazone is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    3. 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 clomazone to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and clomazone does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that clomazone 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. There was no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal
developmental toxicity study in rabbits or in the reproductive toxicity
study in rats with clomazone. In the developmental toxicity study in
rats, effects in the fetuses (delayed ossification) occurred at doses
that produced maternal effects (chromorhinorrhea and abdominogenital
staining) but were qualitatively more severe. Although qualitative
susceptibility was observed in the developmental toxicity study in
rats, the concern is low since there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs in
this study and the NOAEL in the study was used as the POD for
assessment of acute risk. EPA's assessment of acute risk is therefore
protective of any developmental effects.
    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 clomazone is complete.
    ii. Though there are no acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies
available for clomazone, there is no indication that clomazone is a
neurotoxic chemical based on results of available subchronic, chronic,
reproductive or developmental toxicity studies and no evidence of
immunotoxicity. EPA concluded, based upon its assessment of available
data, that acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are not required
nor an additional uncertainty factor (UFs) needed to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. For the reasons described above, there is low concern
regarding increased susceptibility in the young from exposure to
clomazone.
    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. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to clomazone in drinking water. There are no
existing or pending residential uses. Therefore, these assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risk posed by clomazone.

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). 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 for the
general population including infants and children.

Therefore, clomazone is not expected to pose an acute risk to these
groups.
    An acute endpoint was identified for females 13-49 years old due to
effects observed in fetuses. Using the exposure assumptions discussed
in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food
and water to clomazone will occupy 3.0% of the aPAD for females 13-49
years old.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
clomazone from food and water will utilize 3.6% of the cPAD for all
Infants < 1 year of age, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses currently registered or
proposed for clomazone, and thus no chronic exposures from residential
use of clomazone.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Clomazone is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposures. Because there is no short-term
or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure
has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD
(which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term
risk), no further assessment of short-term or intermediate-term risk is
necessary. EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term and intermediate-term risk for clomazone.
Therefore, short-term and intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments
are not required.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the cPAD is
protective of any cancer risk clomazone poses to humans. As noted
above, chronic dietary exposure is 3.6% of the cPAD for the highest
exposed population subgroup.
    5. 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 clomazone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC) using a
nitrogen phosphorus detector (NPD) or mass spectrometer (MS)) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. Samples are acid
hydrolyzed, hexane extracted, Na2CO3 washed, and
cleaned-up with a Florisil column. The resulting samples are analyzed.
The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for this method is 0.05 ppm. A
confirmatory procedure (GC/MS-SIM) is available (Method I, PAM II).
    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.
    There are no Codex MRLs for residues of clomazone.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from ``American Citizen'' indicating
concerns over what he/she believes to be unacceptable toxic effects to
human health, plants, and the environment if EPA approves the proposed
new uses of clomazone. The commenter indicated a general opposition to
the use of pesticides. The commenter also cited toxic effects shown in
clomazone toxicity studies and the alleged irrelevance of chronic
animal studies to chronic human exposure as grounds for denying the
tolerance petition.
    EPA's response: The Agency has received similar categorical
objections to the establishment of pesticide tolerances from several
commenters on numerous previous occasions. Refer to Federal Register 70
FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), 69 FR 63096
(October 29, 2004) for the Agency's response to these types of
comments. EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a pesticide
can cause toxic effects at high doses in animal studies necessarily
means that a pesticide tolerance is unsafe. A determination on the
safety of a tolerance must not only consider potential toxic effects of
the pesticide but anticipated pesticide exposure levels as well. EPA's
risk assessment did just that in finding that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to clomazone. EPA also
disagrees with the assertion that chronic animal studies are not
relevant to assessing human risk. Chronic animal studies have been
relied upon by national and international health agencies for over 50
years in evaluating risks to humans from exposure to chemical
substances.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    After reviewing supporting data and information, EPA modified
certain elements of the petition as proposed in the notice of filing,
as follows:
    1. EPA corrected the proposed commodity definition, ``Brassica,
stem and head subgroup 5A'' to read ``Brassica, head and stem, subgroup
5A'' for consistency in naming of commodities, and
    2. In place of the proposed tolerance for ``pea, southern, hay'',
EPA is establishing tolerances for ``cowpea, forage'', and ``cowpea,
hay'' because pea, southern, hay is a very minor feed, where as
``cowpea'' is a type of ``pea, southern''.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of clomazone, 2-
[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.10 ppm; cowpea, forage at
0.05 ppm; cowpea, hay at 0.05 ppm; pea, southern, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
pea, southern, succulent seed at 0.05 ppm; and rhubarb at 0.30 ppm.

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: March 21, 2014.
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 180.425 is amended by removing the entry for ``Cabbage''
from the table in paragraph (a), and by alphabetically adding the
following entries
    ``Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A'', ``Cowpea, forage'',
``Cowpea, hay'', ``Pea, southern, dry seed'', ``Pea, southern,
succulent seed'', and ``Rhubarb'' to the table in paragraph (a) to read
as follows.

Sec.  180.425  Clomazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A........................        0.10

                                * * * * *
Cowpea, forage..............................................        0.05
Cowpea, hay.................................................        0.05

                                * * * * *
Pea, southern, dry seed.....................................        0.05
Pea, southern, succulent seed...............................        0.05

                                * * * * *
Rhubarb.....................................................        0.30

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-07008 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P