[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52040-52042]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576; FRL-11129-01-OCSPP]

Imazapic; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
imazapic in or on rice, bran and rice, grain. BASF requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 7, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 6, 2023,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 6, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 2022 (87 FR 58047) (FRL-
9410-05-OCSPP), 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 2E9008) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180.490 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide imazapic (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-
imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid), in or on rice, bran
at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), and rice, grain at 0.05 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF
Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

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 imazapic

including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
imazapic 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.
    Endpoints were previously selected for imazapic; however, the
toxicological database was reevaluated as part of Registration Review.
The no-observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and lowest-observed
adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for the chronic oral toxicity study in
dogs were updated to reflect current practices in hazard evaluation.
The NOAEL is now 501 and 534 mg/kg/day in males and females,
respectively. The LOAEL is now 1,141 and 1,092 in males and females,
respectively, based on decreased body weight, increased incidence of
salivation and emesis, changes in hematological parameters, red blood
cell morphology findings, changes in clinical chemistry parameters,
gross pathology in the bone marrow, and histopathological findings.
Adverse effects in the database were only noted in two studies at doses
that are not considered relevant for human health risk assessment (>500
mg/kg/day). Therefore, no endpoints were selected for imazapic and a
quantitative assessment is not needed.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by imazapic as well as the NOAEL and LOAEL from
the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
document titled ``Imazapic Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the
Establishment of a Tolerance without U.S. Registration in/on Rice''
(hereafter ``Imazapic Human Health Risk Assessment'' on pages 11-13 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576).

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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    Since no effects were seen in any guideline toxicity studies at
doses relevant for human health risk assessment, no toxicological PODs
were selected for imazapic.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to imazapic, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing imazapic tolerances in 40 CFR
180.490. There is likely to be dietary exposure to imazapic from its
use as a pesticide on imported and domestic food. Should exposure
occur, however, minimal to no risk is expected for the general U.S.
population, including infants and children, due to the low toxicity of
imazapic.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. While there is no
additional exposures expected from imazapic tolerances for rice because
it is for import only, there is likely to be dietary exposure to
imazapic in drinking water from its registered uses as a pesticide on
domestic crops. Should exposure occur, however, minimal to no risk is
expected for the general U.S. population, including infants and
children, due to the low toxicity of imazapic.
    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). Imazapic is
registered for domestic uses that could result in residential exposure,
including residential spot-treatment for weed control on/in walkways,
driveways and gravel pathways. In a residential setting, residential
adult handlers may be exposed while handling imazapic and both adults
and children may be exposed following outdoor applications. Due to the
low toxicity of imazapic, quantitative exposure assessments are not
required. Residential exposure to imazamic is not expected to increase
with this tolerance because this tolerance if for import only. EPA
concludes with reasonable certainty that non-occupational exposures to
imazapic do not pose a significant human health risk.
    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.'' Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity
finding as to imazapicand any other substances and imazapic does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
imazamox, imazapic, and imazethapyr have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. Further information regarding EPA Pesticide
Commulative Risk Assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/pesticide-cumulative-risk-assessment-framework.

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 Food Quality
Protection Act (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. Conclusion. In the available guideline studies, imazapic
exhibited

very low toxicity in mammalian systems, and no effects were seen at
doses relevant for human health risk assessment. The database for
imazapic is complete. No additional toxicological studies are currently
required, and no additional safety factors to protect children are
needed.

E. Determination of Safety

    Taking into account the available data for imazapic, EPA has
concluded that given the low toxicity of this substance, no risks of
concern are expected. Therefore, 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
imazapic.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (capillary electrophoresis CE
methods (CE method M 3114 and CE method M 2379)) is available for
tolerance enforcement. Residues are confirmed by liquid chromatography
(LC)/mass spectrometry (MS) analysis.
    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 protected].

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 has established an MRL for residues of imazapic in or on
rice, grain at 0.05 ppm which is the same level as the tolerance being
established for imazapic in or on rice, grain in the United States.
Codex has not established an MRL for imazapic in or on rice, bran.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of imazapic, (2-
[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-
methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on rice, bran at 0.2 ppm and
rice, grain at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 25, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.490 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.490  Imazapic; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
imazapic, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only
imazapic (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-
2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid).

                       Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts per
                       Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice, bran............................................               0.2
Rice, grain...........................................              0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-16613 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67754-67757]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84925; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Options Fee Schedule and Equities Price List To Extend for One Year a
Fee Discount for the Partial Cabinet Solution Bundles Offered in
Connection With the Exchange's Co-Location Services

December 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 20, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange''
or ``NYSE American'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Fee Schedule (the
``Options Fee Schedule'') and Equities Price List (the ``Equities Fee
Schedule'', together with the Options Fee Schedule, the ``Fee
Schedules'') to extend for one year a fee discount for the Partial
Cabinet Solution bundles offered in connection with the Exchange's co-
location services. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedules to
extend a fee discount for the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles offered
in connection with the Exchange's co-location services.\4\ The Exchange
offers the four Partial Cabinet Solution bundles to attract smaller
Users, such as those with minimal power or cabinet space demands, or
those for which the attendant costs of having a dedicated cabinet and
related connectivity are too burdensome.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Commission in 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299
(September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-80) (the ``Original Co-
location Filing''). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77071 (February 5,
2016), 81 FR 7382 (February 11, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers Users \6\ that purchase a Partial Cabinet
Solution bundle on or before December 31, 2018 a 50% reduction in the
monthly recurring charges (``MRC'') for the first 24 months.\7\ The
Exchange proposes to extend the 50% fee reduction to those Users that
purchase a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle on or before December 31,
2019.\8\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the length of the
discount period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60213
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67). As specified in the Price
List and Fee Schedule, a User that incurs co-location fees for a
particular co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject
to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'' and, together, the ``Affiliate SROs''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70176 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50471
(August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79717 (December 30,
2016), 82 FR 1767 (January. 6, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-123).
    \8\ The Exchange previously extended the MRC reduction for one
year. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82224 (December 6,
2017), 82 FR 58465 (December 12, 2017) (SR-NYSEAmer-2017-35). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82223 (December 6, 2017)
82 FR 58459 (December 12, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-62), and 82226
(December 6, 2017), 82 FR 58462 (December 12, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-
2017-134).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended portions of the Fee Schedules would read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type of service             Description        Amount of charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Cabinet Solution      Option A: 1 kW        $7,500 initial
 bundles. Note: A User and     partial cabinet, 1    charge per bundle
 its Affiliates are limited    LCN connection (1     plus monthly charge
 to one Partial Cabinet        Gb), 1 IP network     per bundle as
 Solution bundle at a time.    connection (1 Gb),    follows:
 A User and its Affiliates     2 fiber cross         For Users
 must have an Aggregate        connections and       that order on or
 Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW     either the Network    before December 31,
 or less to qualify for a      Time Protocol Feed    2019: $3,000
 Partial Cabinet Solution      or Precision Timing   monthly for first
 bundle. See Note 2 under      Protocol.             24 months of
 ``General Notes.''.                                 service, and $6,000
                                                     monthly thereafter.
                                                     For Users
                                                     that order after
                                                     December 31, 2019:
                                                     $6,000 monthly.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Option B: 2 kW        $7,500 initial
                               partial cabinet, 1    charge per bundle
                               LCN connection (1     plus monthly charge
                               Gb), 1 IP network     per bundle as
                               connection (1 Gb),    follows:
                               2 fiber cross         For Users
                               connections and       that order on or
                               either the Network    before December 31,
                               Time Protocol Feed    2019: $3,500
                               or Precision Timing   monthly for first
                               Protocol.             24 months of
                                                     service, and $7,000
                                                     monthly thereafter.
                                                     For Users
                                                     that order after
                                                     December 31, 2019:
                                                     $7,000 monthly.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Option C: 1 kW        $10,000 initial
                               partial cabinet, 1    charge per bundle
                               LCN connection (10    plus monthly charge
                               Gb), 1 IP network     per bundle as
                               connection (10 Gb),   follows:
                               2 fiber cross         For Users
                               connections and       that order on or
                               either the Network    before December 31,
                               Time Protocol Feed    2019: $7,000
                               or Precision Timing   monthly for first
                               Protocol.             24 months of
                                                     service, and
                                                     $14,000 monthly
                                                     thereafter.
                                                     For Users
                                                     that order after
                                                     December 31, 2019:
                                                     $14,000 monthly.
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Option D: 2 kW        $10,000 initial
                               partial cabinet, 1    charge per bundle
                               LCN connection (10    plus monthly charge
                               Gb), 1 IP network     per bundle as
                               connection (10 Gb),   follows:
                               2 fiber cross         For Users
                               connections and       that order on or
                               either the Network    before December 31,
                               Time Protocol Feed    2019: $7,500
                               or Precision Timing   monthly for first
                               Protocol.             24 months of
                                                     service, and
                                                     $15,000 monthly
                                                     thereafter.
                                                     For Users
                                                     that order after
                                                     December 31, 2019:
                                                     $15,000 monthly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \9\ and (iii)
a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \10\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67, supra note 6 at 50471. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2018-63 and SR-NYSEArca-2018-93, and SR-NYSENAT-2018-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) \12\ and 6(b)(5) \13\ of the Act, in particular. The
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. The Proposal is also consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and
is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because it would
extend the existing eligibility for a 50% MRC reduction for another
year, providing smaller Users with minimal power or cabinet space
demands with additional time to purchase a Partial Cabinet Solution at
a discounted rate. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
continue to offer the fee reduction as an incentive to Users to utilize
the service, including both new and past Users. As is currently the
case, the purchase of any colocation service (including Partial Cabinet
Solution bundles) is completely voluntary. All Users that order a
bundle on or before December 31, 2019 would have their MRC reduced by
50% for the first 24 months.
    The proposal would remove impediments to, and perfects the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system
because extending the 50% MRC reduction would continue to make it more
cost effective for Users to utilize co-location by offering a cost
effective, convenient way to create a colocation environment, through
the choice of four Partial Cabinet Solution bundles with different
cabinet footprints and network connections options. As mentioned

above, the Exchange expects that such Users would include those with
minimal power or cabinet space demands and Users for which the costs
attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection
bandwidth are too burdensome.
    The proposal would not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers because it would apply to all Users
equally. The Exchange would continue to offer the same four different
Partial Cabinet Solution bundles with different cabinet footprints and
network connections options. Users that require other sizes or
combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could
still request them.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The proposed rule changes will not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.\14\ The proposal changes will enhance
competition by continuing to offer cost effective options for Users to
create a colocation environment through four Partial Cabinet Solution
bundles. Partial Cabinet Solution bundles allow Users to select their
desired cabinet footprint and network connections at a reduced MRC for
the first 24 months. Such Users may choose, in turn, to pass on such
cost savings to their customers. In addition to the proposed services
being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal
basis (i.e., the same products and services are available to all Users,
and the extension of the 50% reduction for the MRC for the Partial
Cabinet Solution bundles, would apply to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading and other market activities of those market participants who
believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by
the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from,
such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive
fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to
terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt
a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their
servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data
center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies
less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency
associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which
could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue
of the affected exchange. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its services and related
fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges.
    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEAMER-2018-55 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-NYSEAMER-2018-55. 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 the 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-NYSEAMER-2018-55 and

should be submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28399 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68867-68868]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-12-000]

Voltus, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 20, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e and Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Voltus, Inc. (Complainant) filed a
formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
(MISO or Respondent) requesting that the Commission find that MISO
tariff provisions authorizing states to bar third party demand response
providers from participating in MISO's wholesale market are
inconsistent with the jurisdictional provisions of the Federal Power
Act, and are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory and
preferential, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for MISO, as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed

proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2020.

    Dated: October 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24016 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

Subject:	Mefluidide Use Closure Memo

		Includes Active Ingredients:	Mefluidide (ANSI) (114001)

						Mefluidide, diethanolamine salt (114002)

						Potassium mefluidide (114003)

From:		Wilhelmena Livingston, Chemical Review Manager

Special Review and Reregistration Division

To:		Mefluidide Team Members

This memo serves as the mefluidide use closure memo and clarifies
mefluidide usage data for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
risk assessments.  The risk assessments for mefluidide will be based on
the use sites and usage date in BEAD’s LUIS report, documents
presented by the registrants, and the product labels.

The SMART meeting for mefluidide was held on November 8, 2006, at which
time PBI Gordons Corp. (technical registrant) presented current
mefluidide use and usage information as requested by the Agency.

Mefluidide is a plant regulator that is applied postemergence, when
needed.  It is used to control ornamental and non-ornamental woody
plants, ground cover, hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and broadleaf
weeds by inhibiting plant cell division, stem elongation and seed head
development.  It is also registered for growth control of low
maintenance turf on rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites.
There are multiple active ingredient products that contain an additional
plant growth regulator and herbicides such as, paclobutrazol, imazapyr,
and imazethapyr.  Current formulations include; granular, liquid-ready
to use, and soluble concentrate/liquid.   Mefluidide can be applied as a
band treatment, broadcast, spot treatment, and spray.  The equipment
used to apply mefluidide includes; backpack sprayer, boom sprayer,
ground equipment, hand held sprayer, handgun, hose-end sprayer, power
sprayer, pressure sprayer, and spreader.

	The uses that will be included in the reregistration assessment are;
agricultural/farm structures/buildings and equipment,
agricultural/nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, airports/landing
fields, commercial industrial lawns, commercial institutional/industrial
premises/equipment (indoor/outdoor), golf course turf, hospitals/medical
institutions premises (human veterinary), household domestic dwellings
outdoor premises, industrial areas (outdoor), nonagricultural outdoor
buildings/structures, nonagricultural rights-of-way/fencerows/hedgerows,
ornamental and or shade trees, ornamental ground cover, ornamental
herbaceous plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental nonflowering
plants, ornamental woody shrubs and vines,

paths/patios, paved area (private roads/sidewalks), recreational areas,
and residential lawns.

	The two registrants for mefluidide, PBI/Gordon (technical registrant)
and The Scotts Company (end-use registrant) are supporting all of the
uses for reregistration on their respective labels.

	Usage information on mefluidide can be found in the attached table.  If
you have any questions or concerns regarding this memorandum, please
contact Wilhelmena Livingston, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Attachments

Table A3

cc:	Nancy Andrews

	Thuy Nguyen

	Jim Hetrick

	Marie Janson

	Ray Kent

	Yan Donovan

	David Jaquith

	Cynthia Giles-Parker

	Tony Kish

	John Bazuin

	Robert Mcnally