[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73544-73548]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25393]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90405]

Order Granting a Temporary Conditional Exemption Pursuant to
Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
and Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS Under the Exchange Act, Relating to
the Reporting of Certain Activities on the Floor of National Securities
Exchanges and Certain Activities by Industry Members Off Exchange
Floors, as Required by Section 6.4(d) of the National Market System
Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail

November 12, 2020.

I. Introduction

    By letter dated July 1, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX''), Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''),
Investors Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC,
MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC,
Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``PHLX''), The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE
Chicago, Inc., NYSE National, Inc., and Long Term Stock Exchange, Inc.
(collectively, the ``Participants'' or ``SROs'') requested

that the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
grant temporary exemptive relief to the Participants from the National
Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS
Plan''),\1\ pursuant to its authority under Section 36 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 608(e)
of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, from certain reporting
requirements in Section 6.4(d) of the CAT NMS Plan relating to certain
activities on the floors of national securities exchanges and certain
activities by Industry Members off exchange floors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAT NMS Plan was approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016)
(``CAT NMS Plan Approval Order'').
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \3\ See letter from the Participants to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 1, 2020 (the ``July 1, 2020
Exemption Request''). Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms are
used as defined in the CAT NMS Plan. MEMX LLC was added as a
Participant to the CAT NMS Plan on June 5, 2020. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 89306 (July 13, 2020), 85 FR 43626 (July
17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 36 of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority,
with certain limitations, to ``conditionally or unconditionally exempt
any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or
provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation
thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the
protection of investors.'' \4\ Under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, the
Commission may ``exempt from [Rule 608], either unconditionally or on
specified terms and conditions, any self-regulatory organization,
member thereof, or specified security, if the Commission determines
that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanism of,
a national market system.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth below, this Order grants the
Participants' request for a temporary exemption from Section 6.4(d) of
the CAT NMS Plan as set forth in the July 1, 2020 Exemption Request,
expiring on July 31, 2023.

II. Request for Relief

    In the July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, the Participants request
that the Commission exempt each Participant from the requirement in
Section 6.4(d) of the CAT NMS Plan that each Participant, through its
Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members to record and
electronically report to the Central Repository: (1) Floor broker
verbal announcements of firm bids and offers on an exchange trading
floor that are otherwise reported as systematized orders; and (2)
market maker verbal announcements of firm quotes on an exchange trading
floor, to the extent either are considered orders reportable under Rule
613 of Regulation NMS, the CAT NMS Plan and the Compliance Rules, until
July 31, 2023. As a condition to this exemptive relief, the
Participants state that they would continue to require that firm verbal
interest on an exchange floor (which includes both floor broker verbal
announcements of firm bids and offers and market maker verbal
announcements of firm quotes) be expressed pursuant to exchange rules
approved by the Commission,\6\ and that any such firm verbal interest
expressed by a floor broker must be related to a CAT-reportable
systematized order, and any resulting trade must be reported to CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchanges with floors currently have rules that govern the
operation of the trading floor, from original receipt and
systematization of an order by a floor broker to execution,
including rules describing how verbal interest on an exchange floor
is to be communicated. See, e.g., July 1, 2020 Exemption Request,
Exhibit A (describing the process for relevant exchanges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Participants request that the Commission exempt
each Participant from the requirement in Section 6.4(d) of the CAT NMS
Plan that each Participant, through its Compliance Rule, require its
Industry Members to record and electronically report to the Central
Repository the following communications that occur ``upstairs,'' \7\ to
the extent such are considered reportable under Rule 613 of Regulation
NMS, the CAT NMS Plan and the Compliance Rules, until July 31, 2023:
(1) Telephone discussions between an Industry Member and a client that
may involve firm bid and offer communications; and (2) unstructured
electronic and verbal communications that are not currently captured by
Industry Member order management or execution systems (e.g., Bloomberg
chats, text messages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Upstairs'' is a term used to describe the off-exchange
market. For example, trading that occurs within a broker-dealer firm
or between two broker-dealers in the over-the-counter market would
be described as occurring ``upstairs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Floor Activity

    The Participants state that on all exchanges with floor trading,\8\
each order must be systematized upon receipt by the floor broker on the
floor of the exchange.\9\ The Participants further state that an order
is considered systematized: (1) When it is sent electronically to the
floor broker's system at the exchange; or (2) when the order is
manually systematized by the floor broker upon receipt outside of the
floor broker's system and prior to representation in the floor trading
crowd.\10\ To the extent a floor broker is not holding a systematized
order, the floor broker is not eligible to represent any firm bid or
offer, or to request firm quotes from in-crowd market participants on
the floor of an exchange.\11\ The Participants state that all firm bids
or offers represented by a floor broker must be associated with orders
that have already been systematized, and that any activity by the floor
broker prior to systemization cannot be related to an order, bid or
offer pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.\12\ As a result of the
systematization requirements, all orders represented verbally by a
floor broker on an exchange floor are required to be captured in
exchange systems and, under CAT requirements, the floor broker's
receipt of the order, and any modification, electronic route,
cancellation, or execution of the order is subject to CAT
reporting.\13\ The Participants believe that two verbal events on
exchange floors may be CAT-reportable: Floor broker announcements of
firm orders and market maker announcements of firm quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, these exchanges are NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE
Arca, CBOE, PHLX and BOX.
    \9\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 3.
    \10\ See id. at 3.
    \11\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 3. See
also NYSE Rule 7.35B, NYSE Arca Rule 6.67-O, NYSE American Rule
955NY and Cboe Rule 5.91(a)(4).
    \12\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 3. See
also NYSE Rule 7.35B, NYSE Arca Rule 6.67-O, NYSE American Rule
955NY and Cboe Rule 5.91(a)(4).
    \13\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that that reporting of either of these two
verbal events were not contemplated when the Commission and the
Participants were considering the cost and impact of the CAT NMS
Plan.\14\ The Participants further state that requiring these elements
to be reported to CAT would have a significant and costly impact to
exchange floors, to floor broker and market maker business models, and
to market structure; and the data being captured would provide minimal
added regulatory benefit, likely not justified by

the costs that would be required to create systems to capture the
activity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 6-7.
    \15\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants explain that floor brokers and floor market makers
will ultimately be required to expend significant effort and funds to
provide the data necessary to report verbal orders and quotes to
CAT.\16\ The Participants state that if verbal floor activity were
required to be reported to CAT, Industry Members operating on exchange
floors would need to create a process or system to electronically
record in real time the firm data being verbally communicated on
exchange floors and to merge that data into the information tracked
electronically.\17\ The Participants state that neither the exchanges
with floors nor Industry Members currently collect or have the means to
collect the data for verbal activity on the floor for purposes for CAT
reporting and the measures necessary to put such systems in place would
significantly disrupt floor trading.\18\ The Participants further state
that requiring such reporting would likely cause market makers to miss
participation in fast-changing markets, and no similar burden would be
borne by electronic market makers, whose data collection for CAT
reporting will not impact their real-time ability to provide liquidity
to the market.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 6.
    \17\ See id. at 9.
    \18\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 6.
    \19\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Unstructured Verbal and Electronic Activity

    The Participants believe that much unstructured verbal and
electronic activity by Industry Members does not involve firm orders
and is thus not subject to CAT reporting.\20\ However, the Participants
believe that two types of verbal and unstructured electronic upstairs
activity may involve firm orders that would be subject to CAT
reporting: (1) Verbal telephone discussions between an Industry Member
and a client and (2) unstructured electronic communications that are
not currently captured by Industry Member order management or execution
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that telephonic discussions and unstructured
electronic upstairs activities were not contemplated as being CAT
reportable at the time the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation
NMS and the CAT NMS Plan.\21\ The Participants state that the industry
has provided the Participants with cost projections for capturing and
reporting upstairs negotiations, which are estimated to be
approximately $485 million to $590 million.\22\ The Participants
further state that these cost projections recognize that Industry
Members do not currently collect data for these scenarios, and do not
have the means today to collect such data. The Participants also
explain that there is uncertainty whether necessary information can be
captured with today's technology or personnel in a reliable, accurate
and consistent manner.\23\ The Participants do not believe this
information will add much value to the data available in CAT and any
minimal added regulatory benefit would be outweighed by costs imposed
on, and adverse impact on, Industry Members.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 9-10.
    \22\ See id. at 10.
    \23\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 10.
The Commission understands that this estimation is based on industry
cost projections and assumes significant manual intervention is
necessary to capture this information.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that the changes required to capture and
report verbal and unstructured electronic upstairs activity would cause
significant and adverse changes to existing industry practices and
business models, which would conflict with one of the underlying
principles of the CAT.\25\ The Participants also state that reporting
of this activity may also slow trading processes at certain broker-
dealers, and/or may increase the time to initiate a trade, causing
clients potentially to receive less advantageous pricing for
investors.\26\ The Participants also believe that if required to be
reported, Industry Members may modify their workflows to rely more
heavily on indications of interest or similar methods outside the
definition of an order, thereby avoiding CAT reporting requirements for
that activity, which could have a negative impact on the price
discovery process as well as existing workflows.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants also state that identifying and reporting of
verbal or unstructured electronic communications is difficult and given
the subjective nature of determining whether or not a bid or offer is
firm, CAT reporting of such communications will be variable and
inconsistent.\28\ The Participants state that Industry Members and
different individuals could reach different conclusions about whether
or not specific verbal or unstructured electronic communications meet
the elements of a CAT Reportable Event and Industry Members on opposite
sides of a bid/offer may capture the same activity differently,
resulting in a misleading view of the transaction.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 10.
    \29\ See id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Participants' Exemption Request

    The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by
the Participants in support of the Participants' exemption request. The
Commission believes that granting temporary exemptive relief is,
pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act, appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors, and that
pursuant to Rule 608(e), this exemption is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and the perfection
of a national market system.
    Rule 613(j)(9) of Regulation NMS and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS
Plan defines the term ``reportable event'' as including, but not
limited to, the original receipt or origination, modification,
cancellation, routing, and execution (in whole or in part) of an order,
and receipt of a routed order.\30\ The term ``order'' is defined in
Rule 613(j)(8) of Regulation NMS and Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan as
including: (i) Any order received by a member of a national securities
exchange or national securities association from any person; (ii) any
order originated by a member of a national securities exchange or
national securities association; or (iii) any bid or offer.\31\ ``Bid''
and ``offer'' are defined in Regulation NMS as the bid price or offer
price communicated by a member of an exchange or association to any
broker-dealer or to any customer, at which it is willing to buy or sell
one or more round lots of an NMS security, as principal or agent, but
excluding indications of interest.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 17 CFR 242.613(j)(9).
    \31\ See 17 CFR 242.613(j)(8).
    \32\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan both require the capture and
reporting of quotes and orders that meet the definition of a CAT
reportable event, which includes verbal quotes and orders. The
Commission believes that many unstructured verbal or manual
communications on exchange floors and ``upstairs'' are reportable
events under Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan because firm verbal quotes
and orders,

whether they occur on an exchange floor or ``upstairs,'' are reportable
to CAT if they are a firm bid or offer. As the Participants note, firm
indications of a willingness to buy or sell a security are orders,
bids, or offers and have reportable events associated with them
pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.\33\ However, indications of interest and
other verbal negotiations that do not constitute firm quotes or orders
are not reportable to CAT, and many unstructured verbal or manual
communications on exchange floors and ``upstairs'' are not reportable
to CAT because they are not firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission disagrees with the Participants' statement that the
verbal announcement of already systematized and reported orders and of
firm quotes on exchange floors, firm bid and offer communications in
verbal telephone discussions between an Industry Member and a client,
and firm orders in unstructured electronic communications that are not
currently captured by Industry Member order management or execution
systems were not contemplated as being CAT-reportable at the time the
Commission adopted Rule 613 and the approval of the CAT NMS Plan.
Verbal quotes and orders are a subset of ``Manual Order Events,''
which, as defined by the CAT NMS Plan, are non-electronic
communications of order-related information for which CAT Reporters
must record and report the time of the event.\34\ Prior to approval of
the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants requested and were granted exemptive
relief from the requirement in Rule 613(d)(3) of Regulation NMS that,
for Manual Order Events, each CAT Reporter record and report details
for reportable events in timestamps to the millisecond.\35\ In support
of the request, the SROs listed examples illustrating reportable events
involving the non-electronic communication of order-related information
for which CAT Reporters must record and report the time of the event
under Rule 613, and, among other things, noted that ``a floor broker at
an exchange that represents an order on the floor of the exchange may
have to capture the time stamp of order events manually.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See CAT NMS Plan at Section 1.1 (defining ``Manual Order
Events'' as ``a non-electronic communication of order-related
information for which CAT Reporters must record and report the time
of the event'').
    \35\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77265 (March 1,
2016), 81 FR 11856 (March 7, 2016). The Commission granted exemptive
relief conditioned upon (1) Manual Order Events being recorded and
reported with granularity to the second; (2) Manual Order Events
being identified as such in the CAT; and (3) the Electronic Capture
of Manual Order Events being recorded and reported to the
millisecond. Manual Order Events are defined in the CAT NMS Plan as
a non-electronic communication of order-related information for
which CAT Reporters must record and report the time of the event.
    \36\ See letter from BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.,
BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange,
Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC,
Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc., Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC, National Stock Exchange,
Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, and NYSE MKT LLC
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated January 30, 2015,
at 33, available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/exorders/2016/finra-incoming-letter-013015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that capturing this verbal activity would be
costly, and provide minimal added regulatory benefit likely not
justified by the costs. In particular, as noted above, Industry Members
have provided Participants with cost projections for capturing and
reporting upstairs negotiations, which are estimated to be
approximately $485M to $590M. The Commission acknowledges the current
difficulties of implementing reporting of such events, as described by
the Participants in the July 1, 2020 Exemption Request. Currently, the
exchanges with floors and Industry Members do not have the means to
collect the information necessary for reporting verbal activity on
exchange floors or upstairs. At the same time, the Commission believes
that the collection of verbal quotes and orders would provide
regulatory benefits that do not currently exist today and disagrees
with the Participants statement that capturing such data would provide
minimal added regulatory benefit.\37\ Such reporting would help
regulators better identify potential violations of securities laws,
regulations, and exchange rules, including violations of best execution
obligations, firm bid/offer obligations and exchange priority rules.
For example, the reporting of firm verbal quotes from floor market
makers would allow regulators to determine whether a market maker has
``backed away'' from a firm quote. Currently, regulators do not have
detailed information relating to most verbal quotes and orders and such
information would allow regulators to more capably perform regulatory
and surveillance functions, and the Commission does not believe it is
appropriate to exclude such quotes and orders from CAT reporting, which
often are more complex and/or involve larger-sized orders, particularly
on options trading floors and trading floors for proprietary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at 6 and
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the concerns expressed by the Participants, the Commission
believes the Participants' request to delay the reporting requirements
for verbal quotes and orders is reasonable. While including verbal
quotes and orders in the CAT will provide regulatory benefits, the
Commission acknowledges that the reporting of such orders and quotes
involves complexity and/or costs, especially because capture of this
information may require significant manual human intervention. The
Commission believes that granting temporary exemptive relief to delay
the reporting of verbal quotes and orders could allow Participants and
Industry Members time to develop or implement technological changes
necessary to capture this information at a lower cost. The Commission
further believes that over time, the costs of capturing this CAT
reportable information could decline due to technological or business
developments, such as through the usage of artificial intelligence or
automated processes to capture and report such information, instead of
reliance on the manual capture of order information.
    Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors, and pursuant to Rule 608(e), it is consistent
with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and the
perfection of a national market system to grant temporary relief for
the reporting of: (1) Floor broker verbal announcements of firm orders
on an exchange that are otherwise reported as systematized orders; (2)
market maker verbal announcements of firm quotes on an exchange trading
floor and; (3) telephone discussions between an Industry Member and a
client that involve firm bid and offer communications; and (4)
unstructured electronic communications that are not currently captured
by Industry Member order management or execution systems. Granting
temporary exemptive relief until July 31, 2023, which is the date
requested by Participants in the July 1, 2020 Exemption Request, and
which is approximately one year after the date by which the
Participants previously estimated that the CAT would be fully
implemented, July 11,

2022,\38\ would provide CAT Reporters the time to fully consider how to
report such events and create the necessary technological and process
changes required to capture these required quotes and orders while
minimizing potential business disruptions and impacts to existing
workflows. As a condition to this relief, the Participants must provide
the Commission a written status update on the reporting of these quotes
and orders by July 31, 2022, including the estimated costs of reporting
these quotes and orders and an implementation plan for the reporting of
these quotes and orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88890 (May 15,
2020), 85 FR 31322, 31334 (May 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to grant temporary
exemptive relief that exempts each Participant from the requirement in
Section 6.4(d) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its
Compliance Rule, to require its Industry Members to record and
electronically report to the Central Repository the following
communications, until July 31, 2023: (1) Floor broker verbal
announcements of firm orders on an exchange that are otherwise reported
as systematized orders; (2) market maker verbal announcements of firm
quotes on an exchange trading floor; (3) telephone discussions between
an Industry Member and a client that may involve firm bid and offer
communications; and (4) unstructured electronic and verbal
communications that are not currently captured by Industry Member order
management or execution systems. As a condition to this relief, the
Participants must provide the Commission a written status update on the
reporting of these quotes and orders by July 31, 2022, including the
estimated costs of reporting these quotes and orders and an
implementation plan for the reporting of these quotes and orders.
Furthermore, as a condition to this exemptive relief, Participants must
continue to require that firm verbal interest on an exchange floor be
expressed pursuant to exchange rules approved by the Commission and
Participants must require that any firm verbal interest expressed by a
floor broker must be related to a CAT-reportable systematized order,
and any resulting trade must be reported to CAT.
    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of
the Exchange Act,\39\ and Rule 608(e) of the Exchange Act \40\ that the
Participants are granted an exemption, until July 31, 2023, from the
requirement in Section 6.4(d) of the CAT NMS Plan that requires each
Participant, through its Compliance Rule, to require its Industry
Members to record and electronically report to the Central Repository:
(1) Floor broker verbal announcements of firm orders on an exchange
that are otherwise reported as systematized orders; (2) market maker
verbal announcements of firm quotes on an exchange trading floor; (3)
telephone discussions between an Industry Member and a client that may
involve firm bid and offer communications; (4) unstructured electronic
and verbal communications that are not currently captured by Industry
Member order management or execution systems (e.g., Bloomberg chats,
text messages), subject to the conditions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \40\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25393 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10210-10211]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-97]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0161; FRL-8117-7]

Pesticide Products; Registration Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application to register
pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in
any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0161, 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-
2007-0161. 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 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: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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. 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.

II. Registration Application

    EPA received the following application to register pesticide
products containing active ingredients not included in any previously
registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of
FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision
by the Agency on the application.

Bacillus firmus strain I-1582

    File Symbol: 82608-R. Applicant: AgroGreen, Biological Division,
Minrav Infrastructures (1993) Ltd., 3 Habossem Str, P.O. Box 153,
Ashdod 77101, Israel, submitted by RegWest Company, LLC, 30856 Rocky
Road, Greeley, CO 80631-9375. Product name: Chancellor. Nematode
suppressant and plant growth regulator. Active ingredient: Bacillus
firmus strain I-1582 at 0.66%. Proposal classification/Use: Microbial
pesticide/nematode suppressant and plant growth regulator. (S. Bacchus)

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-4088 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28036-28037]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form N-6, SEC File No. 270-446, OMB Control No. 3235-0503.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-6 (17 CFR
239.17c and 274.11d) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.) and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et
seq.) registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit
investment trusts that offer variable life insurance policies.'' Form
N-6 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized
as unit investment trusts that offer variable life insurance contracts
to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of
1940 and/or to register their securities under the Securities Act of
1933. The primary purpose of the registration process is to provide
disclosure of financial and other information to investors and
potential investors for the purpose of

evaluating an investment in a security. Form N-6 also requires separate
accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable life
insurance policies to provide investors with a prospectus and a
statement of additional information (``SAI'') covering essential
information about the separate account when it makes an initial or
additional offering of its securities.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 472 registration
statements (396 post-effective amendments plus 76 initial registration
statements) are filed on Form N-6 annually. The estimated hour burden
per portfolio for preparing and filing an initial registration
statement on Form N-6 is 770.25 hours. The estimated annual hour burden
for preparing and filing initial registration statements is 58,539
hours (76 initial registration statements annually times 770.25 hours
per registration statement). The Commission estimates that the hour
burden for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment on Form N-6
is 67.5 hours. The total annual hour burden for preparing and filing
post-effective amendments is 26,730 hours (396 post-effective
amendments annually times 67.5 hours per amendment). The frequency of
response is annual. The total annual hour burden for Form N-6,
therefore, is estimated to be 85,269 hours (58,539 hours for initial
registration statements plus 26,730 hours for post-effective
amendments).
    The Commission estimates that the cost burden for preparing an
initial Form N-6 filing is $24,169 per portfolio and the current cost
burden for preparing a post-effective amendment to a previously
effective registration statement is $8,788 per portfolio. The
Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, 76 portfolios will be
referenced in an initial Form N-6 and 396 portfolios will be referenced
in a post-effective amendment of Form N-6. Thus, the total cost burden
allocated to Form N-6 would be $5,316,892.
    The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-6 are
mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: May 11, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11729 Filed 5-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66572]
[DOCID:fr16de09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0694; Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-15]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Manokotak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Manokotak, AK, to
accommodate amended Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) at Manokotak Airport. The FAA is taking this action
to enhance safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at Manokotak Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, September 1, 2009, the FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to revise Class E airspace
at Manokotak, AK (74 FR 45142).
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Manokotak Airport, AK, to
accommodate amended RNAV SIAPs at Manokotak Airport. This Class E
airspace will provide adequate controlled airspace upward from 700 and
1,200 feet above the surface, for the safety and management of IFR
operations at Manokotak Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 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 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Manokotak Airport and
represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use
the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Manokotak, AK [Revised]

Manokotak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 58[deg]55'55'' N., long. 158[deg]54'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Manokotak Airport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
74-mile radius of the Manokotak Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 3, 2009.
Michael A. Tarr,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E9-29851 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 9, 2003

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-14489

________________________________________________________________________
______

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applications of  American Airlines, Inc. and United Parcel Service Co.
filed  2/20/03 for:

XX  U.S.-Tokyo Air Services – Slots at Narita Airport

Applicant Reps: Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER> (AA), David L. Vaughn
(202) 955-9864 (UPS)

DOT Analyst:    Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

On January 27, 2003, Federal Express Corporation notified the Department
by letter that, during this year’s summer schedule season (March 30
– October 25, 2003) it would not need two weekly slots it currently
holds for operations on Runway A at Tokyo’s Narita Airport.

By Notice dated February 10, 2003, the Department invited U.S. carriers
authorized to serve Tokyo and interested in the award of these slots for
the operation of scheduled services to file applications by

February 20.  American Airlines, Inc. and United Parcel Service Co. each
filed a request for both available slots.

UPS proposed to use the slots over an Anchorage-Tokyo-Taipei routing,
with no code-share traffic, using B-767 aircraft and soon thereafter
transitioning to MD-11 aircraft, and stated that it could commence
services immediately upon the availability of the slots.

American stated that it would use the slots to increase its Dallas/Ft.
Worth-Tokyo combination services to double daily, using B-777 aircraft,
also carrying JAL’s code on these flights.

Responsive pleadings were filed by American, UPS and the Dallas/Ft.
Worth International Airport.

On April 10, American filed a supplement stating that it was reducing
its service in the Dallas/Ft. Worth-Tokyo market from 11 to 7 effective
April 5 – June 14, 2003, and that due to the current economic
environment it is unlikely that it will operate more than 12 weekly
flights between Dallas/Ft. Worth and Tokyo until after the end of the
2003 summer season.  American stated that the Department should suspend
this proceeding and not make an award at this time unless UPS is
prepared to confirm that it will use the two slots during the 2003
summer season and the Department is convinced that all-cargo operations
on intra-Asia route segments represent the best long-term use of the
slots.

2

On April 17, UPS responded that it is prepared to begin using the slots
immediately upon notice of the award, with wide body B-767 freighter
equipment—ultimately upsizing to MD-11 equipment, and that the
Department should award the slots to the carrier that will use them.

Decision:  We have decided to award the two available slots to UPS.  We
believe that the slots will provide UPS with an opportunity to enhance
service and competition in the marketplace.  While we recognize
American’s interest in operating additional flights between Dallas/Ft.
Worth and Tokyo, the carrier has stated that it is not in a position to
use the slots at issue in this proceeding in the 2003 summer season.
When we issued our Notice citing the availability of the summer-season
slots and inviting applications for them, we expressly said that we were
doing so “to assure that these valuable opportunities do not go
unused.”  Notice of February 10, 2003, in this Docket.  We believe
that awarding the slots to UPS, the only applicant prepared to use them
during the 2003 summer season, best meets the objectives as set forth in
our Notice and best serves the public interest.

DISPOSITION

XX Granted to UPS (two slots)

The award granted was effective when taken:  May 9, 2003

Action taken by:  Read C. Van de Water

                               Assistant Secretary for Aviation

		        and International Affairs

We may amend, modify, or revoke the award granted in this Notice at any
time without hearing at our discretion.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Continental and Continental Micronesia filed a pleading stating that
neither carrier is in a position at this time to apply for the slots but
that both carriers will in the future require additional Narita slots to
compete effectively.

 The Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport supports the application of
American for additional Dallas/Ft. Worth-Tokyo nonstop flights.

 In the circumstances presented, we need not reach the issue raised by
American concerning long-term use of the slots.


24469 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 24, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100, New York, NY 10176, the registrant, and represents the view of Makhteshim Agan. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)

PP 1E6310 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( PP 1E6310) from the IR 4 Project, Center for Minor Crop Pest Management, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390, proposing pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR 180.191 by establishing a tolerance for residues of folpet N [( trichloromethyl) thio] phthalimide] in or on the raw agricultural commodity hops, dried cones at 120 parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue of folpet in plants is adequately understood based on acceptable avocado, grape and wheat metabolism studies. The metabolism of folpet in livestock is adequately understood. Based on the results observed in the metabolism studies along with supplementary toxicity data on the degradates, secondary residues such as phthalimide and phthalic acid are not expected to be of toxicological concern. The Agency has concluded that the residue of concern is folpet per se. 2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography/ electron capture detector ( GC/ ECD), is available for enforcing tolerances of folpet in or on plant commodities. The method of detection has a limit of detection ( LOD) of 0.01 milligram/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) and a limit of quantitation ( LOQ) of 0.02 mg/ kg in dried hops. 3. Magnitude of residues. A complete set of residue data have been submitted in support of the petitioned tolerances. The results included three field trials from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and a processing study that was conducted in Germany. After kiln drying the measured residues in hops, dried cones ranged from 2.4 to 91.8 ppm. Folpet was not detectable in any of the processed hop commodities ( LOD for spent hops = 0.01 ppm; beer = 0.003 ppm). The generated data support the requested tolerance.

B. Toxicological Profile In the Federal Register of January 9, 2003 ( 68 FR 1182), ( FRL   7287   7). EPA published the Notice of Filing proposing the establishment of a tolerance for residues of folpet on imported hops only, as no U. S. registrations for hops exist at this time. The publication summarizes in detail the current state of knowledge regarding the toxicological profile of folpet including aggregate exposure assessment and determination of safety. Interested readers are referred to that document for specific information as follows:   Toxicological profile ( Unit II. B.)   Aggregate exposure ( Unit II. C.)   Cumulative effects ( Unit II. D.)   Safety determination ( Unit II. E.)

C. International Germany has established an MRL ( maximum residue limit) of 120 ppm for residues of folpet in or on dried hops. No Codex MRL for hops exists. [ FR Doc. 03   11199 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0149; FRL   7305   8]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were granted during the period January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2003 to control unforseen pest outbreaks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption or denial for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24470 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal or state government agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs ( i. e., Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Federal or State Government Entity, ( NAICS 9241), i. e., Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc. 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. 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. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0149. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations ( commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types: 1. A `` specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions. 2. `` Quarantine'' and `` public health'' exemptions are a particular form of specific exemption issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested. 3. A `` crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency ( and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency. EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in `` a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children. If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time limited tolerance meeting the `` reasonable certainty of no harm standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA). In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres ( if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials A. U. S. States and Territories Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Arkansas State Plant Board Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; March 4, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation Specific: EPA authorized the use of maneb on walnuts to control bacterial blight; January 31, 2003 to June 15, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 24, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Colorado Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of difenoconazole on sweet corn seed to control various fungal pathogens; February 25, 2003 to February 25, 2004. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on potatoes to control ALS inhibitor and triazine resistant kochia; March 2, 2003 to June 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugarbeets to control various nightshade species, lambsquarter, redroot pigweed, barnyardgrass and the suppression of ALS resistant kochia; April 10, 2003 to July 10, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24471 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices EPA authorized the use of lambdacyhalothrin on barley to control the Russian wheat aphid and the cereal leaf beetle; April 15, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on sunflower to control rust; July 1, 2003 to August 25, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Delaware Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on grapefruit to control greasy spot; February 4, 2003 to October 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of pyriproxyfen on legumes to control whiteflies; February 7, 2003 to February 7, 2004. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) Georgia Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; January 14, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) Idaho Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; February 7, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of carfentrazone ethyl on hops to control hop suckers to indirectly control powdery mildew; March 20, 2003 to August 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control hairy nightshade, redroot pigweed, and yellow nutsedge; April 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Illinois Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Indiana Office of Indiana State Chemist Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 20, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Kansas Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of propicnazole on sorghum to control sorghum ergot; February 12, 2003 to February 12, 2004. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of fluroxypr on pastures and rangeland to control the noxious weed species sericea lespedeza ( Lespedeza cuneata); March 30, 2003 to July 30, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control kochia; April 15, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on sunflower to control rust; June 1, 2003 to September 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) Kentucky Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of 3 chloro ptouidine hydrochloride on rice to control various birds, including redwinged blackbirds; February 14, 2003 to April 15, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; April 15, 2003 to June 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) Maryland Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of smetolachlor on tomatoes to control eastern black nightshade and yellow nutsedge; April 10, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of propyzamide on cranberries to control dodder; March 30, 2003 to June 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Michigan Michigan Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on asparagus to control rust; March 31, 2003 to November 1, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Minnesota Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on horseradish to control broadleaf weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control kochia; April 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugarbeets to control waterhemp and Powell amaranth; May 1, 2003 to August 1, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of lambdacyhalothrin on wild rice to control rice worms; August 1, 2003 to September 10, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Missouri Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24472 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Montana Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on chick peas to control wild buckwheat; March 13, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on dry peas to control wild buckwheat; March 13, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control kochia; March 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 30, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control hairy nightshade and redroot pigweed; May 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Nebraska Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 17, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on chickpeas to control broadleaf weeds; March 27, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on potatoes to control ALS inhibitor and triazine resistant Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, and common waterhemp; April 10, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control ALS resistant broadleaf weeds; April 10, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 30, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on blueberries to control blueberry aphids; April 10, 2003 to August 10, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of propyzamide on cranberries to control dodder; April 30, 2003 to December 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on blueberries to control oriental beetles; May 15, 2003 to September 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) New Mexico Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) North Carolina Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; January 24, 2003 to August 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) North Dakota Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 17, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on flax to control kochia and ALSresistant kochia; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on chick peas to control wild buckwheat; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on field peas to control wild buckwheat; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control kochia; April 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugarbeets to control waterhemp and Powell amaranth; May 1, 2003 to August 1, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Ohio Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; April 15, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Oregon Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; February 7, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on filberts ( hazelnuts) to control Eastern filbert blight; February 15, 2003 to May 30, 2003. Contact: ( Dan Rosenblatt) EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; March 4, 2003 to May 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of carfentrazone ethyl on hops to control hop suckers to indirectly control powdery mildew; March 20, 2003 to August 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control hairy nightshade, redroot pigweed, and yellow nutsedge; April 1, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of fluroxypyr on sweet corn and field corn to control volunteer potatoes; April 15, 2003 to August 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 24, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Specific: EPA authorized the use of propyzamide on cranberries to control dodder; March 30, 2003 to June 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) South Carolina Clemson University Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; January 24, 2003 to August 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) South Dakota Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24473 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on chick peas to control kochia; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on dry peas to control kochia; April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Tennessee Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Texas Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 12, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; March 20, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Utah Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 4, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Vermont Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 30, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Specific: EPA authorized the use of smetolachlor on tomatoes to control eastern black nightshade and yellow nutsedge; February 12, 2003 to December 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of s metolachlor on tomatoes to control weeds; February 12, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 14, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Washington Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of pendimethalin on mint to control kochia and redroot pigweed; February 7, 2003 to December 31, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on blueberry to control mummy berry; March 5, 2003 to June 10, 2003. Contact: ( Andrea Conrath) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control broadleaf weeds; March 15, 2003 to February 28, 2004. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of carfentrazone ethyl on hops to control hop suckers to indirectly control powdery mildew; March 20, 2003 to August 15, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of fluroxypyr on sweet corn and field corn to control volunteer potatoes; April 15, 2003 to August 1, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) West Virginia Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 17, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection Specific: EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control stem and leaf blight; January 17, 2003 to October 15, 2003. Contact: ( Libby Pemberton) EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; February 2, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on dry bulb onions grown on muck soils to control yellow nutsedge and other broadleaf weeds; April 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on horseradish to control broadleaf weeds; April 15, 2003 to July 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control common groundsel; June 20, 2003 to December 15, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman) Wyoming Department of Agriculture Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles; March 13, 2003 to February 1, 2004. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of dimethenamid p on sugar beets to control ALS resistant broadleaf weeds; April 10, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Contact: ( Barbara Madden) EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on sunflowers to control broadleaf weeds; April 15, 2003 to June 30, 2003. Contact: ( Andrew Ertman)

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest. Dated: April 28, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   11196 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0150; FRL   7304   8]

Myclobutanil; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the California Environmental Protection Agency to use the pesticide myclobutanil ( CAS No. 88671   89   0) to treat up to 7,000 acres of artichokes to control powdery mildew ( Leveillula taurica). The applicant proposes a use which has been requested in 3 or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0150, must be received on or before May 22, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6463; fax number: ( 703) 308   5433; e mail address: madden. barbara@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Federal or State Government Agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1