[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34131-34132]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15448]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0008; FRL-9980-25]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in
the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Michael Goodis,
Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-
7090; email address: [email protected]. The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001.

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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
New Uses
    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-895, 100-1259, 100-1211. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0143. Applicant: The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient:
Abamectin. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Carrot, roots;
Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A;
Leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B;
Arugula; Garden cress; Upland cress; Celtuce; Fennel, Florence.
Contact: RD.
    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-895, 100-1259, 100-1211. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0143. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Abamectin.
Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Edible-podded legume
vegetable, subgroup 6A; Succulent shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6B;
Dried shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6C, except soybean. Contact: RD.
    3. EPA Registration Number(s): 264-824, 264-825, and 264-1055.
Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0531. Applicant: Bayer CropScience
LP2, T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active
ingredient: Prothioconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use:
Crop group expansion from current use on canola to Crop Subgroup 20A
(Rapeseed subgroup). Contact: RD.
    4. EPA Registration Number(s): 4787-55, 4787-61, 279-3557, 279-
3588, 279-3594, and 279-3596. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0297.
Applicant: Cheminova A/S, P.O. Box 9, DK-7620, Lemvig, Denmark and on
behalf of FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Active ingredient: Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use:
Alfalfa, Barley, Corn, and Rice. Contact: (RD).
    5. EPA Registration Numbers: 62719-631, 62719-623, 62719-625.
Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0179. Applicant: The Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active
ingredient: sulfoxaflor. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use:

Artichoke, globe; Asparagus; Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry,
subgroup 13-07A; Sunflower, subgroup 20B; Fruit, stone, group 12-12;
Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B; Nut,
tree, group 14-12; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16,
except cauliflower; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except
watercress; Celtuce; Fennel, Florence; and Kohlrabi. Contact: RD.
    6. EPA Registration Numbers: 68539-3, 68539-4, 68539-7, 68539-9 and
68539-10. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks,
Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd., Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564.
Active ingredients: Trichoderma virens strain G-41 and/or Trichoderma
harzianum Rifai strain T-22. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For
expanded field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead sprinkler
chemigation). Contact: BPPD.
    7. EPA Registration Number: 68539-8. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks, Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd.,
Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564. Active ingredient: Trichoderma virens
strain G-41. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For manufacturing
of Trichoderma virens strain G-41 pesticide products with expanded
field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead sprinkler chemigation).
Contact: BPPD.
    8. EPA Registration Number: 68539-12. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks, Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd.,
Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564. Active ingredient: Trichoderma harzianum
Rifai strain T-22. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For
manufacturing of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22 pesticide
products with expanded field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead
sprinkler chemigation). Contact: BPPD.
    9. EPA Registration Numbers and File Symbol: 71512-26, 71512-27,
71512-GU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0194. Applicant: ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd, Suite A, Concord, OH, 44077.
Active Ingredient: Cyclaniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed
Use: Citrus fruit (crop group 10-10); tuberous & corm vegetables (crop
group 1C); and berry & small fruit (crop subgroups 13-07A, 13-07B, 13-
07E, except grape, 13-07G). Contact: RD.
    10. EPA Registration Number and File Symbols: 71512-27, 71512-GE,
71512-GG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0194. Applicant: ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd, Suite A, Concord, OH, 44077.
Active Ingredient: Cyclaniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed
Use: Indoor & outdoor ornamentals, Christmas trees, non-bearing fruit
and nut trees, vines in shade houses, nurseries, and greenhouses.
Contact: RD.
    11. EPA Registration Number: 74054-1, 66222-47. Docket ID number:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0275. Applicant: Makhteshim AGAN of North America,
INC., D/B/A/ADAMA, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27604.
Active ingredient: clofentezine. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed
use: Guava. Contact: RD.
    12. EPA File Symbol: 80286-EA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-
0352. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St. Riverside,
CA 92507. Active Ingredient: Cypermethrin. Product type: insecticide.
Proposed use: palm trees (including date palms, coconut palms, oil
palms and ornamental palms). Contact: RD.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-15448 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 99)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28912-28920]
[DOCID:fr23my07-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261; FRL-8130-8]

Methamidophos, Oxydemeton-methyl, Profenofos, and Trichlorfon;
Proposed Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the
insecticides methamidophos and oxydemeton-methyl. Also, EPA is
proposing to modify certain tolerances for the insecticides
methamidophos, oxydemeton-methyl, profenofos, and trichlorfon. In
addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the
insecticides methamidophos and profenofos. The regulatory actions
proposed in this document are in follow-up to the Agency's
reregistration program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment program under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
      Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0261. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the
Agency Proposes to Revoke?

    This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and
the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data.
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take
appropriate action under FFDCA.
    EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised
again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the insecticides methamidophos, oxydemeton-
methyl, profenofos, and trichlorfon in or on commodities listed in the
regulatory text.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of the FFDCA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision
(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the
implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to
reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change
commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy.
Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and

from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone: 1<PHONE_NUMBER> or (703) 605-
6000; internet at http://www.ntis.gov/. Electronic copies of REDs and

TREDs are available on the internet. The methamidophos, oxydemeton-
methyl, and profenofos REDs and triclorfon TRED are found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm
.

    The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in
such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the
raising of a tolerance when data show that:
    (1) Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a
higher residue level on the commodity.
    (2) The tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue
level allowed under the tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk
management, Reregistration, and Tolerance reassessment'' typically
describes the regulatory position, FQPA assessment, cumulative safety
determination, determination of safety for U.S. general population, and
safety for infants and children. In particular, the human health risk
assessment document which supports the RED describes risk exposure
estimates and whether the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency
discusses its evaluation of the dietary risk associated with the active
ingredient and whether it can determine that there is a reasonable
certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that no harm to any population
subgroup will result from aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to
harmonize tolerances with international standards set by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, as described in Unit III.
    Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative
Record and paper copies for methamidophos, oxydemeton-methyl,
profenofos, and trichlorfon are available in the public docket for this
rule. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public
docket and comment system, regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/.
 You may search for docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-

0261, then click on that docket number to view its contents.
    EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not
of concern for the above mentioned pesticide active ingredients based
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
    EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this
document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance
with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance
nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These
findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references
are available for inspection as described in this document under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances
because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where

registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily
requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide.
It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances
for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which
there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person, in
comments on the proposal, indicates a need for the tolerance to cover
residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally
treated.
    1. Methamidophos. Because methamidophos is a metabolite of
acephate, EPA determined that residues of methamidophos resulting from
the application of acephate should be included under the tolerance
regulations for methamidophos as a pesticide. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to recodify the tolerances for methamidophos from 40 CFR
180.315(a) into (a)(1) for permanent tolerances for residues of
methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or on food
commodities as a result of the application of the insecticide
methamidophos and (a)(2) for residues of methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl
phosphoramidothioate) in or on food commodities as a result of the
application of the insecticide acephate.
    Currently, 40 CFR 180.3, the section on tolerances for related
pesticide chemicals, contains a paragraph (d)(8) stating that where
tolerances are established for residues of O,S-dimethyl
phosphoramidothioate, resulting from the use of acephate (O,S-dimethyl
acetylphos-phoramidothioate) and/or O,S-dimethylphosphoramidothioate on
the same agricultural commodity, the total amount of O,S-dimethyl-
phosphoramidothioate shall not yield more residue than that permitted
by the higher of the two tolerances. However, with the proposed change
to include tolerances for methamidophos that result from the
application of acephate under the methamidophos tolerance regulations
in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2), there is no longer a need for the related
pesticide chemical regulation under 40 CFR 180.3(d)(8); and therefore,
EPA is proposing to remove existing paragraph (d)(8).
    With the exception of uses on cotton and potatoes, EPA canceled all
methamidophos FIFRA section 3 registrations and, with the exception of
uses on tomatoes, all section 24(c) regional registrations (62 FR
67071, December 23, 1997) (FRL-5764-2). Because there are no active
registrations for uses of either methamidophos or acephate on broccoli,
cabbage, cucumber, eggplant, and melon, the associated tolerances in 40
CFR 180.315 are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315 on broccoli,
cabbage, cucumber, eggplant, and melon. Also, on July 31, 2002 (67 FR
49606)(FRL-7191-4), EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register
in which it responded to the Canadian Horticultural Council's comment
asking that certain tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315, including those on
broccoli and cabbage, not be revoked. At that time, the Agency
responded that it would not revoke the tolerances on broccoli and
cabbage in 40 CFR 180.315, but would follow-up to see that data
requirements were met should an interested party support those
tolerances for import purposes. However, in the interim period, no
interested party has declared an interest and committed in writing to
do the required data to support the broccoli and cabbage tolerances for
import purposes.
    However, because there are registered acephate uses on Brussels
sprouts, cauliflower, celery, and head lettuce, EPA is proposing to
recodify the tolerances for Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and lettuce
from 40 CFR 180.315(a) into (a)(2) and celery from (b) into (a)(2).
Also, in order to reflect active registered use of acephate on head
lettuce, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2) to revise ``lettuce''
to ``lettuce, head.'' In addition, because there is an existing
tolerance for acephate use on cauliflower, which has been reassessed in
the acephate RED at the same level, such that residues from metabolism
to methamidophos are expected to be no greater than 0.5 parts per
million (ppm), EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance on
cauliflower in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2) from 1.0 to to 0.5 ppm. Also, this
proposed level will harmonize with the Codex MRL of 0.5 mg/kg on
cauliflower.
    At the time of the completion of the methamidophos IRED, a
registrant submitted an import tolerance petition for peppers,
strawberries, and squash. This petition has not been reviewed. Because
there is an existing tolerance for acephate use on peppers, which in
the acephate RED has been reassessed at the same level, such that
residues from metabolism to methamidophos are expected to be no greater
than 1.0 ppm, EPA is proposing to recodify the tolerance on pepper from
40 CFR 180.315(a) to (a)(2) at 1.0 ppm. Also, this proposed level will
harmonize with the Codex MRL of 1.0 mg/kg on sweet peppers.
    Because there are registered methamidophos uses on potato, EPA is
proposing to recodify the tolerance at 0.1 ppm on potato from 40 CFR
180.315(a) into (a)(1). There is a Codex MRL of 0.05 ppm on potato, but
harmonization is not possible because of differences in agricultural
practices.
    Based on available data that showed methamidophos residues as high
as 0.191 ppm on cottonseed, EPA determined that the tolerance on
cottonseed should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to recodify the tolerance on cotton, undelinted
seed from 40 CFR 180.315(a) to (a)(1) and increase the tolerance to 0.2
ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e.,
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Also, this proposed level
will harmonize with the Codex MRL of 0.2 mg/kg on cottonseed.
    Based on available data that showed methamidophos residues as high
as 8.03 ppm on cotton gin byproducts, EPA determined that a tolerance
on cotton gin byproducts should be established at 10.0 ppm. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance on cotton, gin
byproducts in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(1) at 10.0 ppm.
    Based on available data that showed methamidophos residues as high
as 1.4 ppm on tomatoes, EPA determined that the tolerance on tomato
should be increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm. Because there are only active
FIFRA section 24(c) registrations for use of methamidophos on tomatoes
and no active registrations for use of acephate on tomatoes, the Agency
has determined that the tolerance should be recodified as a regional
tolerance. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to recodify 40 CFR
180.315(b) as (c) and the tolerance on tomato from 40 CFR 180.315(a) to
(c), and increase the tolerance to 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined that
the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. Also, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance
expression in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.315(c), as follows:
    Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in 40 CFR
180.1(m), are established for residues of methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl
phosphoramidothioate) in or on the following food commodities as a
result of the application of the insecticide methamidophos.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.315 by adding
separate paragraphs (b) and (d), and

reserving those sections for tolerances with section 18 emergency
exemptions, and indirect or inadvertent residues, respectively.
    Because there are existing tolerances for use of acephate on dry
and succulent beans and cranberries, which in the acephate RED have
been reassessed at the same level, such that residues from metabolism
to methamidophos are expected to be no greater than 1.0 ppm and 0.1
ppm, respectively, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR
180.315(a)(2) for residues of methamidophos as a result from the
application of acephate on bean, dry, seed at 1.0 ppm, bean, succulent
at 1.0 ppm, and cranberry at 0.1 ppm.
    Because there is an existing tolerance for use of acephate on mint
hay, which in the acephate RED has been reassessed to be increased from
15.0 to 27.0 ppm, such that residues from metabolism to methamidophos
are expected to be increased from no greater than 1.0 to 2.0 ppm, EPA
is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2) for
residues of methamidophos as a result from the application of acephate
on mint, hay at 2.0 ppm and revise it to ``peppermint, tops'' and
``spearmint, tops.''
    2. Oxydemeton-methyl. Currently, the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330
are expressed for residues of oxydemeton-methyl and its cholinesterase-
inhibiting metabolites. Based on the Agency's determination that only
residues of oxydemeton-methyl and its metabolite oxydemeton-methyl
sulfone are of concern in plants, the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330
should be recodified for plant commodities from 40 CFR 180.330(a) to
(a)(1) and animal commodities from 40 CFR 180.330(a) to (a)(2).
Therefore, EPA is proposing to recodify plant tolerances in 40 CFR
180.330(a)(1) and animal tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330(a)(2) and revise
the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.330 as follows:
    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for the combined
residues of the insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-
ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) and its metabolite oxydemeton-
methyl sulfone in or on the following food commodities.
    (2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-
dimethyl phosphorothioate) and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites in or on the following food commodities.
    Because certain registered uses have product labels which prohibit
harvest within one year of application, so that there is no reasonable
expectation of residues on food commodities, the Agency considers them
to be nonfood uses of oxydemeton-methyl. As a result, the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.330 for these nonfood uses are no longer needed and should
be revoked for apple, apricot, grape, and plum, prune, fresh.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.330(a) on apple, grape, and plum, prune, fresh and in 40 CFR
180.330(c) on apricot.
    Because bean, lima, forage; clover, seed screenings; and sorghum
milled fractions (except flour) are no longer considered by the Agency
to be significant animal feed items, their tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330
are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 on bean, lima,
forage; clover, seed screenings; and sorghum, milled fractions (except
flour).
    In 1994, the technical registrant for oxydemeton-methyl (ODM)
agreed not to market ODM on snap beans, field corn, popcorn, pears, and
turnips but retained them on registrations with the possibility of
requesting to reinstate them on marketing labels after EPA's review of
needed ODM data and completion of dietary and worker risk assessments.
In a letter to the Agency dated February 4, 2004, the technical
registrant requested to amend the registrations for both a technical
and end-use registration and delete those uses. In the Federal Register
of November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67167) (FRL-7744-7), EPA published a notice
announcing the receipt of requests for amendments to delete uses in
certain pesticide registrations, including deletion for ODM use on snap
beans, field corn, popcorn, pears, and turnips concerning registrations
for one technical and one end use product. That notice had an effective
date of December 5, 2005 and allowed the registrant to sell or
distribute product under the previously approved labelling for a period
of 18 months after approval of the revision. There have been no end use
marketing labels for ODM use on these commodities since September 18,
1995. However, there has been one active technical registration with
these uses from 1995 through the December 5, 2005 effective date that
amended its label. Nevertheless, despite the allowance by EPA that
existing stocks for the technical and end use registrations could be
sold or distributed by the registrant for 18 months, the Agency
believes that no end users have used ODM on snap beans, field corn,
popcorn, pears, and turnip commodities since 1995. Therefore, EPA
believes that existing stocks of end use product was exhausted years
ago and that such ODM treated-snap beans, field corn, popcorn, pears,
and turnip commodities passed through channels of trade long ago and
that sufficient time has passed. Consequently, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 on bean, snap, succulent; bean,
snap, forage; corn, grain; pear; turnip; and turnip, greens; all on the
date of publication of the final rule.
    Based on available data that showed combined oxydemeton-methyl
residues of concern as high as 0.9 ppm in or on corn forage, EPA
determined that the tolerance on corn forage should be decreased from
3.0 to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.330 to
decrease the tolerance on corn, forage to 1.0 ppm and revise it to
corn, sweet, forage. No tolerance on field corn forage is needed.
    Based on available data that showed combined oxydemeton-methyl
residues of concern as high as 9.84 ppm in or on clover hay grown for
seed, EPA determined that the tolerance on clover hay grown for seed
should be decreased from 11.0 to 10.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.330 to decrease the tolerance on clover, hay,
grown for seed to 10.0 ppm and revise it to clover, hay.
    Based on available data that showed combined oxydemeton-methyl
residues of concern as high as 0.15 ppm in or on lima beans, 0.2 ppm in
or on melons, less than 0.1 ppm in or on pumpkins, and less than 0.05
ppm in or on walnuts, EPA determined that the tolerances on lima beans,
cottonseed, melons, pumpkins, and walnuts should be decreased from 0.5
to 0.2 ppm, 0.1 to 0.02 ppm, 0.3 to 0.2 ppm, 0.3 to 0.2 ppm, and 0.3 to
0.05 ppm, respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR
180.330 to decrease the tolerances on bean, lima to 0.2 ppm, cotton,
undelinted seed to 0.02 ppm, melon to 0.2 ppm, pumpkin to 0.2 ppm, and
walnut to 0.05 ppm.
    Based on available data that showed combined oxydemeton-methyl
residues of concern as high as 1.22 ppm in or on cabbage, EPA
determined that the tolerance on cabbage should be increased from 1.0
to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.330 to
increase the tolerance on cabbage to 2.0 ppm. The Agency determined
that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. Also, because there is one active FIFRA
section 24(c) registration for foliar use of oxydemeton-methyl on
broccoli raab, EPA determined that data could be translated from
cabbage and broccoli to broccoli raab, and therefore a tolerance

should be established on broccoli raab at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to establish a regional tolerance on broccoli raab in 40 CFR
180.330(c) at 2.0 ppm and revise the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.330(c) as follows:
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations, as defined in 40 CFR
180.1(m), are established for the combined residues of the
insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-
dimethyl phosphorothioate) and its metabolite oxydemeton-methyl
sulfone in or on the following food commodities.
    Based on a poultry metabolism study at the 6x feeding level that
showed no residues of toxicological concern in poultry commodities and
an earlier poultry metabolism study that showed residues were present
in eggs and tissues, EPA determined that egg and poultry tolerances
should be established at the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 ppm.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR
180.330(a)(2) on egg; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; and poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm.
    Also, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR
180.330 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: ``alfalfa,
green'' to ``alfalfa, forage;'' ``alfalfa, hay, grown for seed'' to
``alfalfa, hay;'' ``beet, sugar'' to ``beet, sugar, roots;'' ``corn,
stover'' to ``corn, sweet, stover'' (no tolerances are needed on field
corn stover or popcorn stover) ``mint, hay'' to ``peppermint, tops''
and ``spearmint, tops;'' ``onion, dry bulb'' to ``onion, bulb;''
``orange, sweet'' to ``orange;'' ``sorghum, forage'' to ``sorghum,
forage, forage'' and ``sorghum, grain, forage;'' ``sorghum, grain'' to
``sorghum, grain, grain.''
    There are no Codex MRLs for oxydemeton-methyl.
    3. Profenofos. Currently, the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.404(a) are
expressed for residues of profenofos and its metabolites converted to
4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl and calculated as profenofos. Based on the
Agency's determination that only residues of profenofos per se are of
toxicological concern, the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.404
should be revised to reflect that profenofos per se is the only
regulated residue. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.404(a) as follows:
    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide profenofos (O-(4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-O-ethyl-S-propyl
phosphorothioate) in or on the following food commodities.
     Based on available data that showed profenofos residues were as
high as 1.1 ppm on cottonseed, EPA determined that the tolerance should
be decreased from 3.0 to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.404 on cotton, undelinted seed to
2.0 ppm. Also, this proposed level will harmonize with the Codex MRL of
2 mg/kg on cottonseed.
    Based on available data that showed profenofos residues as high as
53 ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance of 55.0 ppm should be
established for cotton gin byproducts. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.404 for the residues
of profenofos on cotton, gin byproducts at 55.0 ppm.
    4. Trichlorfon. There are no active registrations for the use of
the insecticide trichlorfon for cattle commodities in the United
States. However, trichlorfon is used as a dermal pour-on application
for cattle for import purposes. Based on cattle metabolism data from
dermal application of trichlorfon which showed residues of trichlorfon
as high as 0.2 ppm in muscle and less than 0.5 ppm in fat, EPA
determined that the tolerances on cattle meat and cattle fat should be
increased from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm and 0.1 to 0.5 ppm, respectively.
Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.198 to increase the
tolerances on cattle, meat to 0.2 ppm and cattle, fat to 0.5 ppm. The
Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Dichlorvos is a degradate
of trichlorfon. However, as stated in the 2006 Dichlorvos RED, non-
detectable dichlorvos residues in livestock commodities are expected as
a result of trichlorfon use, and dichlorvos was not a significant
metabolite in the trichlorfon dermal metabolism data. Therefore,
dietary (food) exposure to dichlorvos residues resulting from use of
trichlorfon is considered by the Agency to be negligible.
    Also, in 40 CFR 180.198, EPA is proposing to remove the ``(N)''
designation from all entries to conform to current Agency
administrative practice, where the ``(N)'' designation means negligible
residues. In addition, in order to conform to current Agency practice,
EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.198 and establish subparts (a)
through (d), recodify general tolerances under 40 CFR 180.198(a) and
reserve sections (b) for tolerances with section 18 emergency
exemptions, (c) for regional registrations, and (d) for indirect or
inadvertent residues.
    There are no Codex MRLs for trichlorfon.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

     A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA,
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported
into the United States.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions in follow-up to the
tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). The safety finding determination under section 408
of the FFDCA standard is discussed in detail in each Post-FQPA RED and
TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the
implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to
reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change
commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy.
Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as
provided in Unit II.A.
    EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for methamidophos, oxydemeton-methyl,
and profenofos, and a TRED for trichlorfon, whose RED was completed
prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the
data base for these pesticides, including requirements for additional
data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health
and environmental risk assessments associated with current product
uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products
will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the
establishment,

modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the
FFDCA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' However,
tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed
in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no
longer necessary.
    EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
    Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
    EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import
tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This
guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic
copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/. On the

Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,'' then select
Regulations and Proposed Rules and then look up the entry for this
document under ``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can
also go directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
.

    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example,
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
    1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
    2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will
exist.
    3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
    EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg
tolerances proposed for revocation in this rule and has concluded that
there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of
concern in or on those commodities.

C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

    EPA is proposing that the actions herein become effective on the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, because
their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency
believes that existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the
uses associated with the tolerances proposed for revocation have been
completely exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is
presented with information that existing stocks would still be
available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider
extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments
regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows
sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade,
please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA,
and
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the
pesticide was applied to such food.

III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?

     The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and
are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
    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, as required by section 408(b)(4) of the FFDCA.
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 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, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA requires that EPA explain the
reasons for departing from the Codex level in a notice published for
public comment. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized
in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs, and
in the Residue Chemistry document which supports the RED and TRED, as
mentioned in Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this rule and how
they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit II.A.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g.,
establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation
for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed
rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special
considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review
or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously
assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from
tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or
revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small
entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4,
1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020),
respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis,
and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this
proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action
will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA
determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an
import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect
a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a
negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding
simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of this proposed rule).
Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present
proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this proposed rule does not have any [ld]quo;tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 16, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec. 180.3  [Amended]

    2. Section 180.3 is amended by removing paragraph (d)(8) and
redesignationg paragraphs (d)(9) through (d)(14) as paragraphs (d)(8)
through (d)(13).
    3. Section 180.198 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.198  Trichlorfon; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide trichlorfon (dimethyl (2,2,2-trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl)
phosphonate) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat \1\......................................                0.5
Cattle, meat \1\.....................................                0.2
Cattle, meat byproducts \1\..........................                0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no U.S. registrations for cattle commodities as of June 24,
  1999.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    4. Section 180.315 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.315  Methamidophos; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or on the
following food commodities as a result of the application of the
insecticide methamidophos.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton, gin byproducts...............................               10.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................                0.2
Potato...............................................                0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of methamidophos (O,S-
dimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or on the following food commodities
as a result of the application of the insecticide acephate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bean, dry, seed......................................                1.0
Bean, succulent......................................                1.0
Brussels sprouts.....................................                1.0
Cauliflower..........................................                0.5
Celery...............................................                1.0
Cranberry............................................                0.1
Lettuce, head........................................                1.0
Pepper...............................................                1.0
Peppermint, tops.....................................                2.0
Spearmint, tops......................................                2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
     (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are established for
residues of methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or on
the following food commodities as a result of the application of the
insecticide methamidophos.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomato                                                               2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    5. Section 180.330 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.330  S-(2-(Ethylsulfinyl)ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate;
tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for the combined
residues of the insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-
ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) and its metabolite oxydemeton-
methyl sulfone in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage......................................                5.0
Alfalfa, hay.........................................               11.0
Bean, lima...........................................                0.2
Beet, sugar, roots...................................                0.3
Beet, sugar, tops....................................                0.5
Broccoli.............................................                1.0
Brussels sprouts.....................................                1.0
Cabbage..............................................                2.0
Cauliflower..........................................                1.0
Clover, forage.......................................                5.0
Clover, hay..........................................               10.0
Corn, sweet, forage..................................                1.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......                0.5
Corn, sweet, stover..................................                3.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................               0.02
Cucumber.............................................                1.0
Eggplant.............................................                1.0
Filbert..............................................               0.05
Grapefruit...........................................                1.0
Lemon................................................                1.0
Lettuce, head........................................                2.0
Melon................................................                0.2
Onion, bulb..........................................               0.05
Orange...............................................                1.0
Pepper...............................................               0.75
Peppermint, tops.....................................               12.5
Pumpkin..............................................                0.2
Safflower, seed......................................                1.0
Sorghum, forage, forage..............................                2.0
Sorghum, grain, forage...............................                2.0
Sorghum, grain, grain................................               0.75
Spearmint, tops......................................               12.5
Squash, summer.......................................                1.0
Squash, winter.......................................                0.3
Strawberry...........................................                2.0
Walnut...............................................               0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl
phosphorothioate) and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in or
on the following food commodities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.01
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.01
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.01
Egg..................................................               0.01
Goat, fat............................................               0.01
Goat, meat...........................................               0.01
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.01
Hog, fat.............................................               0.01
Hog, meat............................................               0.01
Hog, meat byproducts.................................               0.01
Horse, fat...........................................               0.01
Horse, meat..........................................               0.01
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.01
Milk.................................................               0.01
Poultry, fat.........................................               0.01
Poultry, meat........................................               0.01
Poultry, meat byproducts.............................               0.01
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.01
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.01
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................               0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations, as defined in 180.1(m), are established for the
combined residues of the insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-
(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) and its
metabolite oxydemeton-methyl sulfone in or on the following food
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broccoli raab........................................                2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    6. Section 180.404, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.404  Profenofos; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide profenofos (O-(4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-O-ethyl-S-propyl
phosphorothioate) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.05

Cattle, meat.........................................               0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.05
Cotton, gin byproducts...............................               55.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................                2.0
Goat, fat............................................               0.05
Goat, meat...........................................               0.05
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.05
Horse, fat...........................................               0.05
Horse, meat..........................................               0.05
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.05
Milk.................................................               0.01
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.05
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................               0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 07-2561 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5300-5301]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1169; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-24]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Cable Union, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Cable Union,
WI. Decommissioning of the Seely non-directional beacon (NDB) at Cable
Union Airport, Cable Union, WI, has made this action necessary for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-1169/Airspace Docket No. 10-
AGL-24, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-1169/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-24.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Cable Union Airport, Cable Union, WI. Airspace reconfiguration is
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mosby NDB and the
cancellation of the NDB approach. Geographic coordinates would also be
adjusted in accordance with the FAA's Aeronautical Products. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation

listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 would modify controlled airspace at Cable Union Airport, Cable
Union, WI.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

    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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Cable Union, WI [Amended]

Cable Union Airport, WI
    (Lat. 46[deg]11'42'' N., long. 91[deg]14'54'' W.)
    Hayward VOR/DME
    (Lat. 46[deg]01'08'' N., long. 91[deg]26'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Cable Union Airport, and within 3 miles
each side of the Hayward VOR/DME 038[deg] radial extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 10 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 14, 2011.
Richard J. Kervin, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-2067 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29312-29314]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11406]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92013; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

May 25, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 12, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'' or ``BZX
Equities'') is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend its fee schedule. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to eliminate the
standard rebate for liquidity adding orders in securities priced below
$1.00.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes May 3,
2021 (SRCboeBZX-2021-037). On May 12, 2021, the Exchange withdrew
that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 15% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays credits to Members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (April 26, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For liquidity adding orders (i.e., yielding fee code B,\5\ V,\6\
and Y \7\), the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.0018 per
share for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00, and a standard
rebate of $0.0009 per share for orders in securities priced below
$1.00. For liquidity removing orders (i.e., yielding fee code N,\8\
W,\9\ and BB \10\), the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share
for orders in securities at or above $1.00, and assesses a fee of 0.30%
of the total dollar value for orders in securities priced below $1.00.
The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the standard rebate applied to
orders in securities priced below $1.00 and provide that such
executions shall be free as the Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is it
required to, provide such a rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fee code B is appended to displayed orders adding liquidity
to BZX (Tape B).
    \6\ Fee code V is appended to displayed orders adding liquidity
to BZX (Tape A).
    \7\ Fee code Y is appended to displayed orders adding liquidity
to BZX (Tape C).
    \8\ Fee code N is appended to orders removing liquidity from BZX
(Tape C).
    \9\ Fee code W is appended to orders removing liquidity from BZX
(Tape A).
    \10\ Fee code BB is appended to orders removing liquidity from
BZX (Tape B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5),\12\ in
particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members, issuers
and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The
proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed
to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to
the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed eliminating
the rebate and providing free executions for liquidity adding orders in
securities priced below $1.00 is reasonable because the Exchange no
longer wishes to, nor is it required to, provide such a rebate. The
Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because Members still are not paying any fees for such
executions. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies equally to all
Members. With the proposed amendments, the Exchange's make-take fee
structure would continue to incentivize liquidity providers to continue
to provide liquidity since such orders remain eligible for better
pricing than orders that remove liquidity and are charged a fee.
Further, the Exchange believes liquidity in securities priced less than
$1.00 is sufficient without a rebate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to all Members, and
Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets. Excessive fees would serve to impair an
exchange's ability to compete for order flow and Members rather than
burdening competition. Moreover, Members still would not be assessed
fees for liquidity adding orders, which is designed to incentivize
liquidity, which the Exchange believes will benefit all market
participants by encouraging a transparent and competitive market. The
Exchange believes liquidity in securities priced less than $1.00 is
sufficient without a rebate.
    As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and
alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a
small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single equities exchange has more than 15% of the
market share.\13\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing
power in the execution of order flow. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to

investors and listed companies.'' \14\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\15\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee changes imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supra note 3.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \15\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \17\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-CboeBZX-2021-040 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-CboeBZX-2021-040. 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
20549-1090 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-CboeBZX-2021-040 and should
be submitted on or before June 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11406 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P