UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR, PESTICIDES & TOXICS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 61 Forsyth St., S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Fax Number: 404/ 562 9095 Electronic Transmission MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 1999 SUBJ: Initial EPA Comments on SCE& G's Hagood Station FROM: Scott Miller, Environmental Engineer Operating Source Section, ARTB TO: Mr. Matt Wike South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control cc: Mr. Robert Brown, Permit Manager South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Below are initial comments from EPA Region 4 on the above referenced source. Our comments are divided into two categories: 1) Significant Comments and 2) General Comments. Significant comments are defined as those comments that would trigger an objection under 40 CFR Part 70. Given that we have a significant comment on this permit, which was originally submitted as a draft/ proposed permit, EPA no longer considers the permit eligible for parallel review. Please contact me at your convenience in order that we may seek to resolve these issues prior to your submittal of a proposed permit for this source. You may reach me at ( 404) 562 9120. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Significant Comments Permit condition 6. B. 4 does not include the monitoring requirements necessary for the facility to show compliance with the 40 CFR 60, Subpart GG nitrogen and sulfur content of natural gas fired in Unit 01. 40 CFR 60, Subpart GG requires daily analysis to determine the nitrogen and sulfur content of natural gas being fired unless a custom fuel monitoring plan has been approved. An EPA policy guidance document entitled " Authority for Approval of Custom Fuel Monitoring Schedules Under NSPS Subpart GG" allows the facility to reduce the frequency and type of monitoring for showing compliance with the sulfur and nitrogen content if certain criteria are met. It is unclear if the criteria detailed in this document have been met so as to justify approval of a custom fuel monitoring plan for the natural gas combusted in the turbine. If such is the case, the Department should list the specific criteria that have been met and what the current monitoring is for showing compliance with these two 40 CFR 60, Subpart GG requirements. The Region has faxed a copy of this guidance document to the Department. Please update permit condition 6. B. 4 to reflect the specific monitoring requirements in effect for both nitrogen and sulfur content of the natural gas burned. In the event that the facility has not received approval of a customized fuel monitoring plan, daily monitoring for the sulfur and nitrogen content of natural gas is required to be included in permit condition 6. B. pursuant to 40 CFR 60.333 and 60.334.

General Comments Please note that the retired unit exemption prepared by EPA and included in the Acid Rain permit for the Hagood Station expires December 31, 1999. If the units under this exemption wish to continue to be exempt it will be necessary for SC DHEC to renew the retired unit exemption for these units. Please refer to the " Phase II Acid Rain Permit Writers Guide," Section 6, for recommended language to be included in such an exemption. In addition we recommend that language be added to condition 4, " Permit Application," that indicates that the Retired Unit Exemption forms that are attached to the permit are incorporated into the permit and constitute enforceable parts to the permit.


[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 32156-32158]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-34-53872; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Its
Board Review Authority

May 25, 2006.
    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 5, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to clarify the authority
of its Board of Directors (``Board'') with respect to actions or
inactions of committees of CBOE and CBOE staff. The text of the
proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules
* * * * *

Chapter II Organization and Administration (Rules 2.1-2.40)

Part A--Committees (Rule 2.1)
Rule 2.1. Committees of the Exchange
    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) General Duties and Powers of Committees. Each committee shall
administer the provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the
Exchange pertaining to matters within its jurisdiction. In addition to
any powers and duties specifically granted in the Constitution or
Rules, e[E]ach committee shall have only such other powers and duties
as may be delegated to it by the Board of Directors. Each committee is
subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors.
Part B--Board Review (Rule 2.2)
Rule 2.2. Power of the Board to Review Exchange Decisions
    In connection with any delegation to a committee or committees
pursuant to Article EIGHTH of the Certificate of Incorporation, the
Board retains the power and authority to review, affirm, modify,
suspend or overrule any and all actions or inactions of committees and
of all officers, representatives or designees of the Exchange;
provided, however, that such power and authority shall not apply to (a)
actions taken (or inactions) pursuant to Chapters XVII, XVIII and XIX
of the Rules, unless specifically provided for in those Rules, or (b)
actions taken by (or inactions of) the Nominating Committee or
Executive Committee pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution.
Part [B]C--Departments (Rule 2.15)
    No change.
Part [C]D--Dues, Fees and Other Charges (Rules 2.20-2.40)
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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.
CBOE 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
    CBOE's Certificate of Incorporation provides that the Board shall
manage the business and affairs of the Exchange except to the extent
that the authority, powers, and duties of such management shall be
delegated to a committee or committees of the Exchange that are
established pursuant to the Exchange's Constitution. The Certificate of
Incorporation and Constitution of CBOE also provide that the Board may
establish one or more committees, each of which shall have the
authority, power, and duties as may be prescribed in the Exchange's
Constitution or Rules, or by resolution of the Board.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Article EIGHTH of the CBOE Certificate of Incorporation
and Section 7.6 of the CBOE Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over time the Board has established various committees, several of
which have specific authorities described in the Exchange's
Constitution or Rules. Though CBOE Rule 2.1, Committees of the
Exchange, currently provides that each committee ``is subject to the
control and supervision of the Board,'' this supervisory power alone
does not make explicit the power of the Board to directly modify or
overrule the action (or inaction) of a committee when the
decisionmaking authority with respect to the action has been delegated
to the committee in the Exchange's Rules. The proposed rule change will
address this by explicitly reserving the Board's review authority over
all actions taken by (or inactions of) committees of CBOE, as well as
CBOE staff. Specifically, this proposed rule change seeks to adopt CBOE
Rule 2.2, Power of the Board to Review Exchange Decisions, which
clarifies that the Board retains the power and authority to review,
affirm, modify, suspend, or overrule any and all actions or inactions
of committees of CBOE and of CBOE officers, representatives, or
designees. Proposed CBOE Rule 2.2 would not apply to actions taken (or
inactions) pursuant to Chapters XVII (Discipline), XVIII (Arbitration),
and XIX (Hearings and Review) of the Exchange's Rules, unless
specifically provided for in those Rules, or to actions taken by (or
inactions of) the Nominating Committee or Executive Committee relating
to the nominating process pursuant to Article IV of the Exchange's
Constitution. The proposed rule change also seeks to amend CBOE Rule
2.1 to make clear that committees will only have such powers and duties
as are specifically granted in the Exchange's Constitution or Rules and
only such other powers and duties as may be delegated to them by the
Board.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that, because it clarifies the Board's
authority, the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of the Exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\5\
which requires that an exchange be so organized so as to have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply,
and (subject to any rule or order of the Commission pursuant to Section
17(d)\6\ or 19(g)(2)\7\ of the Act) to enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CBOE-2006-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-45. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Commissions Internet Web site (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 inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE.
All

comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-45 and should be
submitted on or before June 23, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E6-8552 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 32261]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10782]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34917; File No. 812-15401]

PGIM Investments LLC and PGIM Private Credit Fund

May 16, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and section 61(a) of the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
closed-end management investment companies that have elected to be
regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes
of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or
service fees.

Applicants: PGIM Investments LLC and PGIM Private Credit Fund.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on November 1, 2022, and
amended on May 5, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 12,
2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. The Applicants:
Claudia DiGiacomo, [email protected]; Debra Rubano,
[email protected]; Benjamin C. Wells, [email protected]; and
Ryan Brizek, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, or
Terri G. Jordan, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' amended and
restated application, dated May 5, 2023, which may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You
may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10782 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64984-64986]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65550; File No. SR-ISE-2011-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fees and Rebates for Certain Orders Executed on the
Exchange

October 13, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 30, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The 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

    The ISE is proposing to amend fees and rebates for certain complex
orders executed on the Exchange. The text of

the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 currently assesses per contract transaction charges
and credits to market participants that add or remove liquidity from
the Exchange (``maker/taker fees'') in a number of options classes (the
``Select Symbols'').\3\ The Exchange's maker/taker fees are applicable
to regular and complex orders executed in the Select Symbols.\4\
Recently, the Exchange extended the fees and rebates for complex orders
applicable to the Select Symbols to all symbols that are in the Penny
Pilot program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ The Exchange has also adopted fees and rebates for complex
orders in a select number of option classes (``Designated Symbols'')
that are distinct from the fees for complex orders in the Select
Symbols. These Designated Symbols are identified by their ticker
symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. See Exchange Act Release
Nos. 65084 (August 10, 2011), 76 FR 50805 (August 16, 2011) (SR-ISE-
2011-49).
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65021 (August 3, 2011), 76 FR
48933 (August 9, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For complex orders in the Select Symbols and in symbols that are in
the Penny Pilot program but excluding the Designated Symbols, the
Exchange currently charges a ``take'' fee of: (i) $0.30 per contract
for Market Maker,\6\ Market Maker Plus,\7\ Firm Proprietary and
Customer (Professional) \8\ orders; and (ii) $0.35 per contract for
Non-ISE Market Maker \9\ orders. Priority Customer \10\ orders,
regardless of size, are not charged a take fee for complex orders. For
these same symbols, the Exchange currently charges a ``make'' fee of:
(i) $0.10 per contract for Market Maker, Market Maker Plus, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders; and (ii) $0.20 per
contract for Non-ISE Market Maker orders. Priority Customer orders,
regardless of size, are not charged a make fee for complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Select Symbols
from the Complex Order Book by trading with orders preferenced to
them are charged $0.28 per contract.
    \7\ A Market Maker Plus is a market maker who is on the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer 80% of the time for series trading
between $0.03 and $5.00 (for options whose underlying stock's
previous trading day's last sale price was less than or equal to
$100) and between $0.10 and $5.00 (for options whose underlying
stock's previous trading day's last sale price was greater than
$100) in premium in each of the front two expiration months and 80%
of the time for series trading between $0.03 and $5.00 (for options
whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
less than or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $5.00 (for options
whose underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium across all expiration months in order
to receive the rebate. The Exchange determines whether a market
maker qualifies as a Market Maker Plus at the end of each month by
looking back at each market maker's quoting statistics during that
month. If at the end of the month, a market maker meets the
Exchange's stated criteria, the Exchange rebates $0.10 per contract
for transactions executed by that market maker during that month.
The Exchange provides market makers a report on a daily basis with
quoting statistics so that market makers can determine whether or
not they are meeting the Exchange's stated criteria.
    \8\ A Customer (Professional) is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \9\ A Non-ISE Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''),
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \10\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for Priority Customer complex orders in the Select Symbols
and in the symbols that are in the Penny Pilot program but excluding
the Designated Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of
$0.25 per contract when these orders trade with non-customer orders in
the Complex Order Book.
    Additionally, the Exchange currently provides certain rebates that
are applicable to executions in the Select Symbols. Specifically, to
incentivize members to trade in the Exchange's various auction
mechanisms, the Exchange currently provides a per contract rebate to
those contracts that do not trade with the contra order in the
Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism,\11\ Price Improvement Mechanism \12\
and Solicited Order Mechanism.\13\ For the Facilitation and Solicited
Order Mechanisms, the rebate is currently $0.15 per contract. For the
Price Improvement Mechanism, the rebate is currently $0.25 per
contract. The Exchange now proposes to extend these rebates to complex
special orders in the symbols that are in the Penny Pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR
19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
    \12\ See Exchange Act Release No. 62048 (May 6, 2010), 75 FR
26830 (May 12, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-43). The Exchange subsequently
increased this rebate to $0.25 per contract. See Exchange Act
Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75 FR 70059 (November 16,
2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
    \13\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63283 (November 9, 2010), 75
FR 70059 (November 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange currently has a ``take'' fee of $0.40 per
contract \14\ for Market Maker Plus, Market Maker, Non-ISE Market
Maker, Firm Proprietary, Customer (Professional) and Priority Customer
interest that responds to special orders.\15\ The Exchange now proposes
to extend this $0.40 per contract ``take'' fee to complex special
orders in the symbols that are in the Penny Pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ A special order is an order submitted for execution in the
Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block
Order Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism. A response to a
special order is any contra-side interest submitted after the
commencement of an auction in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism,
Solicited Order Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism and Price
Improvement Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
October 3, 2011.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the net fees paid by a
particular market participant will depend on a number of variables,
most important of which will be its propensity to interact with and
respond to certain types of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a rebate for complex contracts that do not trade with the
contra order in the Exchange's various auction mechanisms because
paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange and thereby create liquidity in

these additional symbols, i.e., the Penny Pilot symbols, that
ultimately will benefit all market participants who trade on the
Exchange. The Exchange already provides this rebate for executions in
the Select Symbols and is now proposing to extend the rebate to complex
orders transacted in the Exchange's various auction mechanisms in the
symbols that are in the Penny Pilot program.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed extension of the
special order response fee for complex orders in the symbols that are
in the Penny Pilot symbols will allow the Exchange to remain
competitive with fees charged by other exchanges and are therefore
reasonable and equitably allocated. The Exchange believes that the
proposed extension of the special order response fee to complex orders
in the symbols that are in the Penny Pilot symbols is reasonable and
equitably allocated because the fee is within the range of fees
assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Boston Options Exchange currently assesses a similar
fee. See Exchange Act Release No. 62632 (August 3, 2010), 75 FR
47869 (August 9, 2010) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston
Options Exchange Facility) (SR-BX-2010-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its fees and credits remain competitive
with fees charged by other exchanges and therefore are reasonable and
equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the
Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. The complex order pricing
employed by the Exchange has proven to be an effective pricing
mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants and their customers.
The Exchange believes extending certain aspects of its maker/taker
pricing structure will attract additional complex order business while
at the same time create standardization in complex order pricing across
symbols that make up the majority of daily volume in options trading.
The Exchange further believes that the amounts of the proposed fees are
reasonable because they are identical to fees assessed by the Exchange
for execution of complex orders in the Select Symbols.
    The Exchange further believes that the Exchange's maker/taker fees
are not unfairly discriminatory because the fee structure is consistent
with fee structures that exists today at other options exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are
consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other option
exchanges. Finally, the Exchange believes it remains an attractive
venue for market participants to trade complex orders despite its
proposed fee change as its fees remain competitive with those charged
by other exchanges for similar trading strategies. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem fee
levels at a particular exchange to be excessive.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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)(ii) of the Act.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-65 and should be
submitted on or before November 9, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26992 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35792-35793]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-81-000]

Hill Top Energy Center LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On June 29, 2021, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL21-81-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Hill Top Energy
Center LLC's proposed Rate Schedule \1\ is unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory, or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Hill Top Energy
Center LLC, 175 FERC ] 61,254 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hill Top Energy Center LLC, Reactive Power Tariff, Hill Top
Energy Center, Reactive Power Tariff, 0.0.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL21-81-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL21-81-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2020), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may

submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: June 29, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14370 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                  EPA Inquiry
                       Grape Turning/Girdling Practices
                                 June 1, 2020

Original Request from EPA

USDA was sent the following statement and questions from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs:
"Thank you for facilitating BEADs previous communication with Mr. Ross Jones of the California Table Grape Commission. This information was very useful; however, we need additional information to characterize current practices involved with girdling and turning of table grapes from multiple regions. Furthermore, a detailed description, pictures, videos, etc of current worker activities performed in the orchards would allow us to compared current practices with the descriptions of the activities performed in the 1988 exposure study on which the Agency's current transfer coefficients (TCs) are based. This information could assist in determining whether girdling and turning of table grapes occurs as well as determining whether the Agency's current surrogate exposure study is still an accurate representation of potential post-application exposure resulting current practices and activities. Additional information could also assist in the potential selection of different surrogate exposure studies with lower TCs which could better represent the dislodgeable foliar residues resulting from a specific table grape activity. Below is a list of questions the agency would like for you to distribute to grape growers and interest groups to assist us in refining a description of current practices involved in girdling and turning table grapes."
Questions from EPA to USDA:
 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.

Email Chain Participants
USDA directly sent EPA's list of questions to the following individuals:
 Akif Eskalen, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR)*
 Stephen Vasquez, Sun-Maid Growers of California
 Katie Gold, Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
 Michelle Moyer, Washington State University
 Caroline Stringer, California Fresh Fruit Association (forwarded responses from F. Gabler, M. Fidelibus, and M. Moyer)
 Anton Baudoin, Virginia Tech*
 Mizuho Nita, Virginia Tech*
 Gabriel Torres, UCANR (via Matt Baur, responded to PID questions)
 David Haughey, BASF
      * Did not respond
Several of the individuals that USDA contacted voluntarily the list of questions to other potential respondents in order to gather more information to answer EPA's questions. The following individuals subsequently provided information directly to USDA:
 Matthew Fidelibus, UCANR
 Franka Gabler, California Table Grape Commission
 Matt Baur, UCANR (forwarded response from G. Torres)
Unedited answers from the respondents bolded above are provided in the Appendix.
USDA Summary of Respondent Answers

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?

   The California Table Grape Commission (CTGC) reported that 99% of the U.S. commercial table grapes are produced in California (Gabler, 2020). An extension viticulturist from Washington State University reported that the state does not have an economically significant table grape industry (Moyer, 2020). An extension representative from Cornell University (Cornell) reported that table grape production in New York is very limited, and mostly small-scale production (e.g., `you-pick' and farm market) (Gold, 2020)

   Respondents reported that open gable trellis systems are widely used for table grapes in the United States, and that the transition from cross arm T trellis systems to open gable Y trellis systems has been taking place over the past couple decades (Fidelibus, 2020; Gabler, 2020; Haughey, 2020). One respondent characterized open gable trellis systems as "the most common trellis system" (Fidelibus, 2020), and another estimated that "approximately 85% of table grapes are grown on an open gable trellis system" (Vasquez, 2020). The registrant, BASF, noted that any single line trellis systems currently in use would be with small growers, and not commercial operations (Haughey, 2020).

   Sun-Maid Growers of California (Sun-Maid) noted that "the reason that table grape growers like the open gable trellis is that allows for a larger, natural canopy. However, with larger canopies, hand labor is needed to direct shoot growth to either side to allow light into the middle of the trellis. The hand labor that is needed is focused on leaf removal, shoot thinning [i.e. the removal of sterile or poorly positioned shoots, not `cane turning'] and cluster thinning and positioning (i.e. adjusting or untangling clusters so they are easy to harvest). The trellis type that is used other than an open gable is the T-trellis, which currently used in older vineyards or in new vineyards that are planted to low vigor, low yielding varieties" (Vasquez, 2020).

 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?

   Several respondents indicated that `turning' refers to a practice that is no longer common in table grapes, particularly with the adoption of open gable Y trellis systems. Previously, shoots or canes that were dangling at the top of the trellis would be turned (i.e., moved) by hand to open up airflow, expose clusters for applications, or shade clusters from sun on single line trellis systems (Haughey, 2020). An extension specialist in viticulture from the University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) indicated that turning may still be done on T trellises, but also noted that not many table grape growers currently use this type of trellis system (Fidelibus, 2020). Some respondents indicated they were unfamiliar with the term `turning,' and that the term does not appear in general viticulture reference books (Gold, 2020; Gabler, 2020; Vasquez, 2020).
   Sun-Maid reported that, "because `turning' canes was a costly [i.e., labor-intensive] practice, it's been replaced by a tractor outfitted with cane cutters on the front of the tractor. Growers use the mechanical cane cutters to remove canes near the top of the trellis system throughout the season, which allows for more light and air movement. The increased air flow improves the management of powdery mildew and bunch rots." Sun-Maid further suggested that the term "turning" should be omitted from future surveys, since the practice was been eliminated approximately 30 years ago (Vasquez, 2020).
   USDA Comment: Given the lack of clarity from extension experts and industry stakeholders, USDA is concerned about the potential for unintended confusion on pesticide labels. We fully recognize the need to assess all sorts of post-application exposures and to clearly provide label directions that protect workers. We are concerned that if `cane turning' is not a widely recognized practice even among experts, the potential restrictions or label verbiage could lead users to conflate turning with other similar activities as described earlier. In a number of pesticide cases, the `cane-turning' task is a primary driver of REI restrictions that are highly impactful to producers. We are happy to discuss this further and do additional outreach to help EPA and table grape stakeholders to reach some common understanding, if not full agreement on how best to resolve the problem.
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?

   Some respondents reported hand-labor activities for wine and raisin grapes, but did not associate these with `cane turning.' Cornell described the practice of `shoot positioning' or `vertical shoot positioning' for wine grapes, which involves manually "manipulating shoots by repositioning moveable `catch wires' to constrain the shoots" (Gold, 2020). UCANR described "shoot tucking" in overhead raisin vineyards as "taking pendant shoots hanging below the trellis wire and pushing them back into the canopy above the trellis wires" (Fidelibus, 2020). Sun-Maid noted that "some hanging shoots get hand tucked back into the canopy, but the majority that are near the top of the trellis get cut mechanically. Other workers that are shoot tucking will use a stick or hook to push the shoot into the canopy because the trellis wires are above their head" (Vasquez, 2020). BASF described certain activities, such as hand harvesting and training of canes for wine and raisin grapes (Haughey, 2020) (see additional details in Appendix).
   USDA Comment: The other types of hand-activities described here and in prior response summaries do not appear to be consistent with cane turning, as described in the 1988 study on which EPA's transfer coefficient is based. That study describes cane turning as "involving very close exposure to foliage," and "a dusty operation." While USDA does not believe these activities are related to cane turning, we are providing for EPA's reference a link to several videos on cultural practices in wine grapes, including videos related to the shoot positioning activities referenced by respondents. USDA further suggests that for practical risk assessment and management purposes, the aforementioned tasks related to shoot tucking and redirection seem far more similar to `hand tying' activities than what might have been assumed for `cane turning' under older production systems. We are happy to discuss this further with EPA as mentioned above.
 Videos from the Minnesota Grape Growers Association: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIwFK5jsk4eEYfI8DBPyYpw/videos
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?

   Most respondents were unable to provide a percentage of table grapes vines that are girdled, but indicated that it is still done with some varieties -- particularly older varieties like Thompson Seedless, which need to be girdled because of the small natural berry size (Fidelibus, 2020; Vasquez, 2020). BASF estimated that less than 50% of table grapes are girdled. BASF also noted that, with Y trellis systems, workers have little interaction with foliage when girdling canes (Haughey, 2020). Sun-Maid reported that there are 4-5 breeding programs, including USDA-ARS in Parlier, CA, that are working diligently to eliminate the need for girdling, and estimated that 35-40% of table grapes are girdled (Vasquez, 2020).
   Respondents also indicated that many newer varieties do not need to be girdled due to the large natural berry size (Gabler, 2020; Vasquez, 2020). CTGC noted that a key objective of table grape breeding programs is to develop varieties that require fewer inputs and cultural practices like girdling (Gabler, 2020). Sun-Maid reported that girdling is "a costly practice that can have varying results based on variety, location, season, etc. Growers would prefer not to girdle since it is costly and can be debilitating to the vine and on occasion, deadly, if not done correctly" (Vasquez, 2020).
   USDA Comment: We note that cane turning, as described in the 1988 study on which EPA bases its transfer coefficients, is the surrogate scenario for assessing post-application exposure from girdling. Below are links to two videos on girdling that we believe are representative of the practice, and which may be useful to EPA in refining the transfer coefficient for girdling and/or qualitatively characterizing exposure. In general, these indicate very limited contact with foliage (or dust), especially compared to the cane turning scenario. Based on the estimates we received, we would also suggest that about 35-50% of table grapes are girdled.
 Video on girdling from Columbine Vineyards, located in the San Joaquin Valley in California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzS5IfQDAo
 Video on girdling from Superior Equipment, a WA-based supplier of professional tools to the tree fruit industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFhLAn680Fs

 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?

   Sun-Maid reported that there are 4-5 breeding programs, including USDA-ARS in Parlier, CA, that are working diligently to eliminate the need for girdling, and estimated that 35-40% of table grapes are girdled. Because breeding programs have been successful at eliminating the need for girdling, finding a labor crew to girdle can be difficult (Vasquez, 2020).
   BASF indicated that varieties requiring girdling are still an important part of the industry, but are decreasing in acreage for various different reasons. They estimated that "less than 50% are varieties that require girdling and that value [is] continuing to decrease." BASF also indicated that "most table grape fields that have been recently removed have been those varieties that require girdling, with most new plantings representing the newer types that do not require these operations" (Haughey, 2020).
   Other respondents were unable to provide a percentage of acres for varieties of table grapes that do not require girdling/turning. As noted in the responses to Questions 1-3, turning has become much less common with the changes in trellis systems over the past several decades.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?

   Respondents were unable to provide a percentage of table grapes incorporating use of PGRs, but indicated that use of PGRs is still common, particularly for older varieties (Fidelibus, 2020; Haughey, 2020; Vasquez, 2020). As noted in the previous question, many newer varieties have reduced the need for cultural practices like girdling (Gabler, 2020). When PGRs alone are not sufficient to optimize berry size, some varieties may be treated with PGRs and girdled (Fidelibus, 2020).
   Sun-Maid noted that the use of PGRs is dependent on the grape variety, location, and market preferences. "The same variety could be grown/harvested at two different sizes and shipped to two different countries and be considered premium. Shipping a variety with a 20mm berry to a location that has a preference for that variety with a 25mm berry could `kill' the market for the variety (Vasquez, 2020)."
   BASF reported that "PGRs, especially gibberellic acid, are widely used in table grape production. The three potential uses are set, stretch and size. These are three distinct times in the production season that PGRs may be used, with some operations using all timings and others using just one or two. The use of PGRs does not take the place of girdling but may supplement it in some cases."  BASF did not have an estimate for the percentage of operations that use PGRs, but believed the use to be relatively high in the industry. They further noted that "some varieties and production systems may use PGRs annually at each of the timings, but others will make the decision on a case by case basis depending on how the season is going" (Haughey, 2020).
   USDA Comment: While available usage data should help EPA identify what PGRs are most commonly used for table grape size and firmness enhancement, some varieties still require girdling regardless of PGR usage. We suggest given the inconvenience and costs of girdling, very few growers would go to the effort and expense if there was a viable PGR option that delivered comparable results. We think there are few if any scenarios where PGRs could serve as an adequate replacement for girdling, that would not already be reflected in the estimate of 35-50% of table grape acreage that is still girdled.

 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.

   While most respondents were unable to provide daily estimates for the number of hours spent by workers on performing girdling or turning, several noted the high costs associated with these activities, as well as the seasonality of their relevance (Fidelibus, 2020; Haughey, 2020; Vasquez, 2020). UCANR provided a link to several table grape cost studies, which detail labor costs and associated hours for various activities: https://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/en/current/commodity/grapestable/ (Fidelibus, 2020). [From these studies, USDA gleaned that girdling is a seasonal activity, taking place primarily in the month of June. Depending on variety/conditions, labor costs per acre ranged from 10 hours/acre (e.g., early maturing flame seedless and Sheegene-21 (Ivory(TM)) varieties) to 12 hours/acre (e.g., late maturing Autumn King variety). No girdling costs were reported for mid-season maturing Scarlet Royal variety.]

   BASF reported that girdling is a specialized skill, usually carried out by a specialized team of workers, because if the girdle is too shallow, it minimizes the intended effect, but if it is too deep it can harm or even kill the vine. BASF further characterized girdling as "a relatively difficult task with lots of bending over and moving quickly through fields by a specialized team. It would be unrealistic to assume that a team works a full work day without breaks or travel between fields when assessing exposure. Girdling is also not an operation that occurs year round, so it may be busy for a few weeks but that specialized crew would be doing other operations for the majority of the season. It would be realistic to assume additional breaks and travel time as well as a limited amount of time per year when determining exposure during girdling operations" (Haughey, 2020).
   Sun-Maid indicated that girdling and `turning' cultural practices are costly. Although growers are inclined to select varieties that can be grown with minimal hand labor over those that require large crews of people to produce and harvest the product, market conditions still dictate what is grown (Vasquez, 2020).
   USDA Comment: Based on the preponderance of stakeholder feedback, it is USDA's view that girdling should be considered a somewhat specialized skilled labor task. Given the logistical and ergonomic considerations around the task, we suggest that assessing 8 hours of day for this task is probably an over-estimate and that the average worker would conduct this activity fewer than 30 days per year. More importantly, we suggest that despite the assumptions agreed upon by the prior Agricultural Reentry Task Force, this task entails very little direct foliar contact and certainly far less than hand-turning of vines. From a practical risk management standpoint, USDA believes the available information (including demonstrative videos) shows that the task is more comparable to tasks such as pruning, tying, or hand-harvesting at worst.
Additional Responses to Questions Posed in the Boscalid and Pyraclostrobin PIDs
Response from Gabriel Torres, Viticulture Farm Advisor, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Forwarded by Matthew Baur, Acting Director, Western Integrated Pest Management Center. Received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020.

 What techniques and equipment are used for girdling and turning? Are there new technologies or equipment that could reduce worker exposure during turning and girdling relative to older technologies and equipment?
   I am not aware of new technologies for girdling. I know about the interest of growers to develop a mechanical system for it, but I haven't seen it in the market.

 How prevalent is the adoption and use of Y-trellises or other aspect of table grape production that reduce dependence on girdling and turning?
   Gridling is cultivar dependent and grower dependent. Table grape scenario is changing fast and one of the decision of plant one cultivar or another is how much labor is involved. Y trellis system is prevalent on table grape production in the San Joaquin Valley."

 What is the relative acreage of table grape varieties that depend on turning and girdling and varieties that do not?
   [No response]

 When are workers performing girdling and turning relative to when fungicides (in this case, boscalid) are applied?
   What I have observed in my clientele is that they follow strictly the label, and don't perform any activity that requires contact with the canopy during the REI.

 What other important activities in vineyards would be impacted by a 22-day REI, or REIs of duration between five days and 22 days?
   Leafing, pest, and diseases scouting, research, harvest estimates, water potential analysis. Leaves sampling for nutrient analysis.

 Are there activities other than turning and girdling that have similar potential for worker contact with treated foliage?
   [No response]

 How much time is spent performing girdling and turning during the course of the year (i.e., days per year) and are these activities that a worker would be likely to engage in for a full work day?
   A fieldworker can do between .8 and 1 acre a day, table grape blocks normally are 40 acres.

 Multiple fungicides may be applied to grapes to treat various diseases during the course of the year. To forestall fungicide resistance, growers are encouraged to use different chemistries in rotation. Is there a way to sequence the applications of the different fungicides so that the fungicide applied directly before girdling and turning take place is one for which the calculated REI would generally be shorter?  For example, the fungicides X, Y, and Z are used in rotation. The REIs are 22 days, 10 days, and 5 days, respectively. Is it feasible that the application sequence can be adjusted so that fungicide Z is the last fungicide that is applied prior to the time when girdling and turning are needed?
   22 REI is going to put too much pressure on the growers. Table grape productions requires field workers in the field frequently. The use of boscalid is preferred because its double action against botrytis and powdery mildew. A big win from the fungicide rotation part is to have an extra tool for controlling PM resistance. However, from the botrytis side, resistance has been widely documented. Growers need to take this in account depending of which pathogen are they targeting. Put a 22 REI will force growers to put the product at the very back list of resources available. FRAC 7 fungicide are critical for powdery mildew management in grapes.

   USDA comment: Many fungicide products (e.g., boscalid) are co-formulated with other fungicide active ingredients (e.g., pyraclostrobin) with curative activity. Therefore, application sequencing in the manner proposed by EPA is not likely to be feasible. USDA therefore suggests that that removal of the availability/viability of one active ingredient via restrictive mitigation could amount to a de facto cancellation of other co-formulated active ingredients, compounding the potential impacts to growers.
References

Fidelibus, M., 2020. Specialist in Cooperative Extension in Viticulture, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Personal communication received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020.

Gabler, F., 2020. Viticulture Research Director, California Table Grape Commission. Personal communication, received via email to USDA on June 11, 2020.

Gold, K., 2020. Professor of Grape Disease Ecology and Epidemiology, Cornell AgriTech Extension. Personal communication received via email to USDA on June 9, 2020.

Haughey, D., 2020. Product Registration Manager, BASF. Personal communication received via email to USDA on July 2, 2020.

Moyer, M., 2020. Extension Viticulturist, Washington State University. Personal communication received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020.

Torres, G., 2020. Viticulture Farm Advisor, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Personal communication received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020, forwarded by M. Baur, Acting Director, Western Integrated Pest Management Center.

Vasquez, S., 2020. Technical Viticulturist and Grower Relations, Sun-Maid Growers of California. Personal communication received via email to USDA on July 6, 2020.

Appendix: Unedited Answers from Respondents

Response from Katie Gold, Professor of Grape Disease Ecology and Epidemiology, Cornell AgriTech Extension.

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
   0%.
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
   Table grape production in NY is very limited  -  small scale production, largely `you-pick' and farm market.  We are not sure what turning is. Do you mean shoot positioning?
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
   Some producers use vertical shoot positioning.  Which involves manipulating shoots by repositioning movable `catch wires' to constrain the shoots.  This is often a manual operation.
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
   0%.
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
   0%.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
   No.
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.
   Not sure.  Shoot positioning would be a couple of weeks in late June-early July.  Probably (guesswork) 4-6 h/day.

Response from Michelle Moyer, Extension Viticulturist, Washington State University. Received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020.

   Washington State does not have an economically significant table grape industry, and these products are not used on our juice grape vineyards.

Response from Matthew Fidelibus, Specialist in Cooperative Extension in Viticulture, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Received via email to USDA on June 10, 2020.

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
   The vast majority of table grapes in the United States are grown in California. Open gable trellis systems are currently the most common trellis system for table grapes in the US. I don't know of any statistics on what percentage of vineyards have an open gable versus some other trellis system.
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
   By "turning" I think you are referring to lifting the pendant shoots on the north side of a trellis and laying them across the top and south side of the trellis. If not, please define what you mean by "turning". If that is what you meant, it is something that may still be done on the old style T-trellises, but not many table grape growers are still using trellises like that. There may be some people who do something similar on open gable trellises, especially on young vines, but I don't think it is a widespread practice at this point.
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
   I am not aware of anyone doing this particular practice on raisin or wine grapes, though some growers with overhead raisin vineyards may do some shoot tucking, basically taking pendant shoots hanging below the trellis wire and pushing them back into the canopy above the trellis wires.
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
   I am not aware of any statistics on this practice. It is still done with some varieties, but I do not know what percentage.
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
   Same answer as above.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
   Yes, PGRs are widely used to increase berry size. In some cases PGRs may be sufficient to optimize berry size without the need to girdle, but some varieties are still sprayed with PGRs and girdled.
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.
   There is some information in the table grape cost studies: https://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/en/current/commodity/grapestable/

Response from Franka Gabler, Viticulture Research Director, California Table Grape Commission. Received via email to USDA on June 11, 2020.

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
   Approximately 99% of the U.S. commercial table grapes are produced in California. The table grape industry has transitioned from T/cross arm trellis systems to mostly open gable/Y trellis systems over the past couple decades.
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
   We are not sure about what "vine turning" means.
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
   Again, we are not sure about what "vine turning" means.
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
   A key objective of table grape breeding programs is to develop varieties that require fewer inputs/cultural practices such as girdling. Most of the new varieties have naturally large berry size eliminating the need to girdle for size.
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
   Most newer varieties do not require girdling.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
   Older varieties still require the use of PGRs; as noted above, a benefit of newer varieties is they typically require very little to no inputs/cultural practices (e.g., PGRs).
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.
   We don't have this information. Presumably, hours by worker varies by operation, variety, time of year, etc.

Response from David Haughey, Product Registration Manager, BASF. Received via email to USDA on July 2, 2020.

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
   Nearly all table grapes are on the Y shaped trellis systems commercially. If there are any single line trellis systems left they would be with small growers that probably sell to farmers markets, not commercial operations.
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
   The traditional definition of "turning" is no longer a practice in table grapes since the adoption of the Y shaped trellis systems. Canes would be turned to open up airflow, expose clusters for applications or shade clusters from sun on single line trellis systems. With the adoption of Y shaped trellis systems the traditional "turning" of canes is no longer a practice in table grapes.
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)?  If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
   Juice: Unknown as it is not a major product in CA.
   Wine:
 Bulk Wine: Some bulk wine operations have adopted the Y or T shaped trellis systems to allow exposure of clusters. Many newer operations have shifted towards trellis systems that allow for fully mechanical pruning along the row. There may be some worker operations in season but this is greatly limited. Various trellis systems, turning isn't an operation and limited use of workers.
 High Value Wine: This is going to depend on region, variety, value of grapes and how each operation chooses to operate. The general trend is to reduce use of workers if possible but if the grapes are worth enough growers will use them as appropriate. Trellis systems will vary by region but turning in the traditional sense isn't a normal operation.
   Raisin:
 Tray Dry: This is the traditional raisin production system where clusters are hand harvested and left to dry on paper on the ground. Early in the season there may be some level of worker interaction to train canes then at harvest clusters are hand harvested. Besides these operations there isn't commonly any workers present in the fields. Canes are left to grow down from the trellis system in most cases. Different trellis system, turning isn't an operations and limited use of workers.
 Dry on Vine: Early in the season there may be some training of canes to ensure they are on the overhead trellis system but worker interaction is relatively limited. Late in the season workers will go through the snip canes in the harvest rows to the allow clusters to dry while hanging prior to mechanical harvest operations. Different trellis system, turning isn't an operation and limited use of workers.

 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
   Best estimate is that less than 50% of table grapes are girdled. This is related to specific varieties that require girdling and some that use girdling to increase sugar accumulation in the grapes. With the Y shaped trellis systems workers have little interaction with foliage when girdling canes.
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
   Varieties that require girdling are still an important part of the industry but are falling out of favor for various different reasons. Less than 50% are varieties that require girdling and that value continuing to decrease. Turning operations are related to trellis type primarily and has essentially been eliminated. Most table grape fields that have been recently removed have been those varieties that require girdling, with most new plantings representing the newer types that do not require these operations.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
   PGRs, especially gibberellic acid, are widely used in table grape production. The three potential uses are set, stretch and size. These are three distinct times in the production season that PGRs may be used, with some operations using all timings and others using just one or two. The use of PGRs does not take the place of girdling but may supplement it in some cases. I am not confident in the percent of operations that use PGRs but it is relatively highly used in the industry. Some varieties and production systems may use PGRs annually at each of the timings but others will make the decision on a case by case basis depending on how the season is going.
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.
   Turning is essentially no longer done in table grapes. As for girdling it is usually a specialized team that will girdle canes because if the girdle is to shallow you don't get the intended effect but if it is too deep you can harm or even kill the vine. Girdling is a relatively difficult task with lots of bending over and moving quickly through fields by a specialized team. It would be unrealistic to assume that a team works a full work day without breaks or travel between fields when assessing exposure. Girdling is also not an operation that occurs year round, so it may be busy for a few weeks but that specialized crew would be doing other operations for the majority of the season. It would be realistic to assume additional breaks and travel time as well as a limited amount of time per year when determining exposure during girdling operations.

Response from Stephen Vasquez, Technical Viticulturist and Grower Relations, Sun-Maid Growers of California. Received via email to USDA on July 6, 2020.

 What percent of table grapes are grown using an open gable Y trellis system in California, Washington and New York?
   I would say approximately 85% of table grapes are grown on an open gable trellis system. The reason that table grape growers like the open gable trellis is that allows for a larger, natural canopy. However, with larger canopies, hand labor is needed to direct shoot growth to either side to allow light into the middle of the trellis. The hand labor that is needed is focused on leaf removal, shoot thinning (i.e. the removal of sterile or poorly positioned shoots) and cluster thinning and positioning (i.e. adjusting or untangling clusters so they are easy to harvest).  The trellis type that is used other than an open gable is the T-trellis, which currently used in older vineyards or in new vineyards that are planted to low vigor, low yielding varieties.
 What percent of table grape vines are turned? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how?
   "Turning" is an old term used for moving shoots or canes that are dangling to the top of the trellis. I saw the term referenced once but cannot not find that reference anywhere. I looked throughout A.J. Winkler's General Viticulture book but didn't find it there either. Because "turning" canes was a costly practice, it's been replaced by a tractor outfitted with cane cutters on the front of the tractor. Growers use the mechanical cane cutters to remove canes near the top of the trellis system throughout the season, which allows for more light and air movement. The increased air flow improves the management of powdery mildew and bunch rots. The term "turning" is an old term that should be omitted from future surveys, since the practice has been eliminated at least 30 years ago.
 Is cane turning used on other varieties of grapes (juice, wine, raisins)? If turning occurs has the practice/method changed since 1980 to present? If so how? Is the same Y-trellis system used?
   As Dr. Fidelibus mention, some hanging shoots get tucked back into the canopy, but the majority that are near the top of the trellis get cut mechanically. Often times workers that are shoot tucking will be use a stick or hook to push the shoot into the canopy because the trellis wires are above their head.
 What percent of table grape vines are girdled?
   Girdling is used to increase berry size or improve color depending on when it is done. Girdling is still used on some varieties, however, breeding programs have been developing new varieties that don't need to be girdled. An old variety like Thompson Seedless needed to be girdled because it has a small natural berry size (i.e. 10-12mm). Newer varieties do not need to be girdled because they have a large natural berry size (>14mm). Girdling is a costly practice that can have varying results based on variety, location, season, etc. Growers would prefer not to girdle since it is costly and can be debilitating to the vine and on occasion, deadly, if not done correctly.
 What percent of table grapes acres are of the new varieties that do not require or eliminate the need for girdling/turning?
   In California there are 4-5 breeding programs, including the USDA-ARS, Parlier CA, that are working diligently to eliminate the need for girdling. If I had to guess, I'd say 35-40% of table grapes are girdled. Because breeding programs have been successful at eliminating the need for girdling, finding a labor crew to girdle is difficult.
 Do growers use plant growth regulators (PGRs) for increasing berry size and sweetness in place of girdling? If so what percent of table grapes incorporate use of PGRs?
   The use of PGR's is dependent on the variety, location and market preference for a certain size berry. The same variety could be grown/harvested at two different sizes and shipped to two different countries and be considered premium. Shipping a variety with a 20mm berry to a location that has a preference for that variety with a 25mm berry could "kill" the market for the variety.
 If girdling and turning of table grape vines occurs, how many hours a day is typically spent by worker(s) to perform each of these activities in a typical orchard.
   Girdling or "turning" cultural practices are costly. A grower will select a variety that can be grown with minimal hand labor over one that will need a large crew of people to get the grape grown and harvested. However, the market will also dictate what gets grown.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64502]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4673-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Florida (FEMA-4673-DR), dated September 29, 2022, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 4, 2022, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne
Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the State of Florida
resulting from Hurricane Ian beginning on September 23, 2022, and
continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special
cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds
provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 29, 2022, to
authorize Federal funds for debris removal and emergency protective
measures, including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program at 100 percent of the total eligible costs for an
additional 30-day period.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant).

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-23151 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


19990 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices 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. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. 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. ation Applications II. Registration Applications EPA received applications as follows 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 these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.

Products Containing Active Ingredients not Included in any Previously Registered Products 1. File Symbol: 264   TIA. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, P. O. Box 12014 2TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product Name: HEC 480 SC Fungicide. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Fluoxastrobin at 40.3%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For use on peanuts, potato and tuber vegetables, leafy vegetables ( nonbrassica petioles subgroup), fruiting vegetables, seed treatment ( potato, peanut, and turf). 2. File Symbol: 264   TIT. Applicant: Bayer CropScience. Product Name: HEC 480 SC Fungicide. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Fluoxastrobin at 94.8%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For formulation purposes only. 3. File Symbol: 400   LRE. Applicant: Crompton Manufacturing Company, 74 Amity Road, Bethany, CT 06524   3402. Product Name: Ipconazole Technical. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Ipconazole at 97.4%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For formulation into end use seed treatment products. 4. File Symbol: 7501   ROL. Applicant: Gustafson, LLC., 1400 Preston Road, Suite 400, Plano, TX 75093. Product Name: Vortex Seed Treatment Fungicide. Fungicide. Active ingredient: Ipconazole at 40.7%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For use on root and tuber vegetables, leafy vegetables ( except brassica vegetables, brassica ( cole) leafy vegetables, cucurbits, cereal grains, grass forage, grass fodder, grass hay, non grass animal feeds, cotton, sunflower, mustard, rape, canola, ornamental flowers, and conifers. 5. File Symbol: 71049   R. Applicant: KIM C1, LLC., 6333 East Liberty Ave., Fresno, CA 93727. Product Name: KT 30 Plant Growth Regulator. Plant Growth Regulator. Active ingredient: CPPU( N( 2 chloro 4 pyridinyl) Nphenyl urea) at 98%. Proposed classification/ Use: None. For use on grapes and kiwi.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: April 9, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   9747 Filed 4   22   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0049; FRL   7302   5]

Rodenticides; Availability of Preliminary Comparative Ecological Assessment; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of January 29, 2003, concerning availability and public comment period on the Preliminary Comparative Ecological Assessment document for nine rodenticides, which included those addressed in the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) for the rodenticide cluster ( brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and zinc phosphide), as well as three other rodenticides, warfarin, difethialone, and cholecalciferol. This document is reopening the comment period for 60 days, from March 31, 2003, to May 30, 2003. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0049 must be received on or before May 30, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the January 29, 2003 Federal Register document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: 703   308   8195; e mail address: pates. john@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Agency included in the Federal Register notice of January 29, 2003 ( 68 FR 4468) ( FRL   7280   6), a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have 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   0049. 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/. In addition, copies of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for the nine rodenticides may also be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ rodenticidecluster. 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. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1 19991 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 78 / Wednesday, April 23, 2003 / Notices C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the Federal Register of the January 29, 2003 document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking? This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register of January 29, 2003. In that document, EPA announced the availability of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for nine rodenticides and invited comment on issues directly associated with the nine rodenticides that were included in the assessment. Due to the many requests received for additional time to comment, EPA is hereby reopening the comment period, which was set to end on March 31, 2003, to May 30, 2003.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 8, 2003. Lois A. Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   10070 Filed 4   22   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0129; FRL   7303   1]

Fluoxastrobin; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0129, must be received on or before May 23, 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: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   6742; e mail address: mcneilly. dennis@ 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 an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 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. 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   0129. 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. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23APN1. SGM 23APN1