[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72195-72198]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27288]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 21, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1063; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00826-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-09-09, which applies to certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes
and Model A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216,
-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2018-09-09 requires
modifying the holes of the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at
certain areas of the left-and right-hand wings. Since the FAA issued AD
2018-09-09, additional affected configurations were identified and, for
certain airplanes, it was determined that additional modification work
and revised compliance times are necessary. This proposed AD would
retain the requirements of AD 2018-09-09 and add airplanes, require
different compliance times for certain airplane configurations, and,
for certain airplanes, require additional modifications or reduce
compliance times, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 4,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For EASA material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in
this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1063.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1063; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-1063; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00826-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2018-09-09, Amendment 39-19266 (83 FR 19925, May
7, 2018; corrected May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22354)) (AD 2018-09-09), which
applies to certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and Model A319
series airplanes; all Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and
-233 airplanes; and all Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -
231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2018-09-09 requires modifying the holes of
the upper cleat to upper stringer attachments at certain areas of the
left- and right-hand wings. The FAA issued AD 2018-09-09 to prevent
fatigue cracking in the stringer attachment holes of the wings, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

Actions Since AD 2018-09-09 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2018-09-09, additional affected
configurations were identified to be subject to this widespread fatigue
damage and, for certain airplanes, it was determined that additional
modification work or revised compliance times are necessary.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0167, dated July 14, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0167) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes;
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes;
and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes. EASA AD 2021-0167 supersedes EASA AD 2017-0117, dated July
7, 2017 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-09-09). Model A320-215
airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the
U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include
those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that
additional affected configurations were identified to be subject to
widespread fatigue damage and, for certain airplanes, it was determined
that additional modification work (such as, for certain configurations,
oversizing certain additional holes, replacing a certain fastener with
a corrosion-resistant fastener, or cleat refit and sealant procedure)
or revised compliance times are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD
to prevent fatigue cracking in the stringer attachment holes of the
wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2018-09-09, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2018-09-09. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0167, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0167 describes procedures for modifying the stringer
attachments at rib 2 through rib 7 of the left- and right-hand wings.
The modification includes oversizing the holes, doing an eddy current
inspection of the affected holes for damage, and repairing damage. EASA
AD 2021-0167 also specifies additional work for airplanes on which the
modification actions were accomplished using certain service
information. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0167 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0167 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0167 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0167 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0167. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0167 for compliance
will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1063 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. The FAA will not grant any extensions of
the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin
related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and
clearly warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,446 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2018-09-   125 work-hours x $85          $26,260         $36,885  $41,901,360 (1,136
 09.                                 per hour = $10,625.                                    airplanes).
New proposed actions..............  125 work-hours x $85            1,520          12,145   17,561,670.
                                     per hour = $10,625.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions or the additional work for
certain previously modified airplanes, as specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-09-09, Amendment 39-19266
(83 FR 19925, May 7, 2018; corrected May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22354)); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-1063; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00826-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by February 4, 2022.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    This AD replaces AD 2018-09-09, Amendment 39-19266 (83 FR 19925,
May 7, 2018; corrected May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22354)).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-
0167, dated July 14, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0167).
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that additional affected
configurations were identified to be subject to widespread fatigue
damage at certain stringer attachments and, for certain airplanes,
it was determined that additional modification work is necessary.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the
stringer attachment holes of the wings, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0167.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0167

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0167 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0167 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2021-0167 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining

approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0167, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-1063.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    Issued on December 3, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27288 Filed 12-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/18/2007 04:04 PM

To

Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RIA Questions ---

Hi Margie,

Here are some questions that we have on the briefing material.

Not sure if you want to pass along to the relevant people to answer and follow up at next week’s briefing or if you want to send us something beforehand that addresses some of the easier questions? Let me know.  PS.  Can you send me Ron’s contact info?

Cheers,

Rob

Ozone RIA Questions --- Cost Briefing Package for May 16th

(1)     Costs, page 3:

a.       Under the RIA control scenario, what emission rates do you apply to sources covered under CAIR and how do those compare to rates projected under CAIR?

b.       Do you have a county NA map for .065?

c.       Do we understand correctly that only KS and AL will have a NA area added at 0.065?

(2)     Costs, page 6:

a.       Why aren’t parts of Alabama included in the 200 km area of Atlanta at 0.075?

b.       How many NA counties and contributing counties (using the 200km area) are there at 0.070 and at 0.065?  How many NA monitors?

(3)     Costs, page 6:

a.       We recommend that you compute impact ratios using Approach B for all monitors

(4)     Costs, page 7:

a.       Please identify where each of  the 127 NA counties fall on the impact ratio spectrum

b.       Similarly, please identify where the 280 (at 0.065) fall on this spectrum

c.       What happens when you Bin related counties instead of choosing 0.1 impact ratios for all?

d.       Please provide the complete list of areas where ozone transport is a major contributor to local ozone concentrations.  Please provide the complete list of areas where it’s not.  Please provide those lists.  Please also confirm that for each of the locations the RIA will present the residual needed to attain .084, the residual needed to attain, .070,  the area specific impact ratio,  as well as the emissions in that each area, by sector.  Having this information, including the more tailored impact ratio is important.

(5)     Costs, page 10:

a.       It is unclear if these three cost methods are only for NOX or are for VOCs as well.

b.       How do the estimates and costs per ton change between as you trade off among the precursors?

(6)     Costs, page 11:

a.       Provide function for cost curve as well as marginal cost curve.

(7)     Costs, page 12:

a.       How are existing control costs relevant when modeling showed that application of existing controls did not result in projected attainment.

(8)     Costs, page 13:

a.       Please depict total cost curves as well for three methods.

b.       Do you estimate the marginal cost curve with an intercept?

c.       Once again, how would these curves differ if VOCs reductions came before Nox reductions?

d.       Please provide function estimates and goodness of fit.

(9)     Costs, page 14:

a.       At 0.065 to extrapolate, you use the three methods right?

b.       Please explain why going down to 0.065 only brings in two additional 200 km areas.

c.       How is cost savings computed, and is it done for benefits? Is there over control for 0.070?

d.       If you were to calculate the costs for 0.079 could you use the same convention?

e.       Have you calculated the abatement cost function for all areas, even those in attainment?  If not, for areas that over control, which cost/ton estimates would you use?

f.        Is it correct to use a 0.10 impact ratio for the rest of the US?  I would think impact ratios would be some function of the starting point?

Ozone RIA Questions --- Benefits Briefing Package for May 16th

(10) Benefits, page 3 and page 4:

a.       If you are in attainment at 0.070, how do you calculate the benefits of 0.075?

b.       Can you walk us through the example on page 3 for a blue area –vs- a yellow area?

c.       If you are in non-attainment at 0.070, do you first force attainment through monitor roll-back and then go back up to 0.075, or do you start from the NA level using existing controls and then scale to 0.075? Under either method (in 10 c. above), how do you reconcile benefits calculations with the concept of “over-control” savings adjustments discussed in the cost side (from 9 c. above)? Similarly, if in the 0.070 scenario, the monitor is actually below 0.070, how are the benefits calculated for 0.075?

d.       Would you use the same convention for calculating the benefits of 0.079?

(11) Benefits, page 5:

a.       How many monitors NA at 0.065?

(12) Benefits, page 9:

a.       You implicitly assume that 0.075 ppm control strategy would incorporate regional controls and lead to an overestimate of benefits – would the same be true for costs?

(13) Benefits, CA glidepath:

a.       It looks like about 25% of benefits would not be expected to occur by 2020; i.e., the portion of CA above the glidepath.  Is that correct?

(14) Benefits, page 16.  Please explain slide 16.

a.       What are the implications for benefits uncertainty given the likelihood of CA attainment?

b.       How will you display the benefits and the costs of know controls and how will you display the benefits and costs of extrapolated controls?

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50436-50437]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4130-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4130-DR), dated July 18, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 18, 2013.

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 July 18, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Missouri resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds,
tornadoes, and flooding during the period of May 29 to June 10,
2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Missouri.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Barton, Callaway, Cape Girardeau, Chariton, Clark, Howard, Iron,
Knox, Lewis,

Lincoln, Maries, Marion, Miller, Montgomery, Osage, Perry, Pike,
Putnam, Ralls, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve,
Stoddard, Sullivan, Texas, and Webster Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Missouri are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-20082 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR TRAYS TO PRODUCE TOBACCO TRANSPLANTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY: DATE RECEIVED BY OZONE SECRETARIAT:

YEAR: CUN:

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Trays to Produce Tobacco Transplants NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS Contact Person: John E. Thompson, Ph. D. Title: International Affairs Officer Address: Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State 2201 C Street N. W. Room 4325 Washington, DC 20520 U. S. A. Telephone: ( 202) 647 9799 Fax: ( 202) 647 5947 E mail: ThompsonJE2@ state. gov Following the requirements of Decision IX/ 6 paragraph ( a)( 1), the United States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption.

X Yes

No CONTACT OR EXPERT( S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS Contact/ Expert Person: Tina E. Levine, Ph. D. Title: Division Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 7503C Washington, DC 20460 U. S. A. ii Telephone: ( 703) 308 3099 Fax: ( 703) 308 8090 E mail: levine. tina@ epa. gov LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE List all paper and electronic documents submitted by the Nominating Party to the Ozone Secretariat 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Paper Documents and Appendices Number of Pages Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat 2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of Electronic Files Size of File ( kb) Date Sent to Ozone Secretariat iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Nominating Party _________________________________________________________ 5 2. Descriptive Title of Nomination______________________________________________ 5 3. Crop and Summary of Crop System___________________________________________ 5 4. Methyl Bromide Nominated _________________________________________________ 5 5. Brief Summary of the Need for Methyl Bromide as a Critical Use ___________________ 5 6. Summarize Why Key Alternatives Are Not Feasible______________________________ 6 7. Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide ______________________________ 7 8. Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use ___________________________ 8 9. Summarize Assumptions Used to Calculate Methyl Bromide Quantity Nominated for Each Region____________________________________________________________________ 8 Tobacco Transplant Trays  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE ..................................... 9 Tobacco Transplant Trays  10. Key Diseases and Weeds for which Methyl Bromide Is Requested and Specific Reasons for this Request __________________________________ 9 Tobacco Transplant Trays  11. Characteristics of Cropping System and Climate ________ 10 Tobacco Transplant Trays  12. Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide, and/ or Mixtures Containing Methyl Bromide, for which an Exemption Is Requested___________________ 11 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION ....................................................................... 12 Tobacco Transplant Trays  13. Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ____________ 12 Tobacco Transplant Trays  14. List and Discuss Why Registered ( and Potential) Pesticides and Herbicides Are Considered Not Effective as Technical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: 13 Tobacco Transplant Trays  15. List Present ( and Possible Future) Registration Status of Any Current and Potential Alternatives _____________________________________________ 13 Tobacco Transplant Trays  16. State Relative Effectiveness of Relevant Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide for the Specific Key Target Pests and Weeds for which It Is Being Requested ___________________________________________________________ 14 Tobacco Transplant Trays  17. Are There Any Other Potential Alternatives Under Development which Are Being Considered to Replace Methyl Bromide? ______________ 14 Tobacco Transplant Trays  18. Are There Technologies Being Used to Produce the Crop which Avoid the Need for Methyl Bromide? _____________________________________ 15 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Summary of Technical Feasibility_______________________ 15 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL ................................................................................................................................ 16 19. Techniques That Have and Will Be Used to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions in the Particular Use ________________________________________________________ 16 20. If Methyl Bromide Emission Reduction Techniques Are Not Being Used, or Are Not Planned for the Circumstances of the Nomination, State Reasons_____________________ 16 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................................... 18 21. Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period____________ 18 22. Gross and Net Revenue___________________________________________________ 18 Measures of Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives _____________________ 19 Summary of Economic Feasibility _____________________________________________ 20 PART F. FUTURE PLANS ........................................................................................................................................ 21 iv 23. What Actions Will Be Taken to Rapidly Develop and Deploy Alternatives for This Crop? ________________________________________________________________________ 21 24. How Do You Plan to Minimize the Use of Methyl Bromide for the Critical Use in the Future? __________________________________________________________________ 21 25. Additional Comments on the Nomination ____________________________________ 21 26. Citations ______________________________________________________________ 22 Citations Reviewed but Not Applicable _________________________________________ 22 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS ___________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLES PART A: SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4.1: Methyl Bromide Nominated ....................................................................................... 5 Table A. 1: Executive Summary................................................................................................... 6 Table 7.1: Proportion of Crops Grown Using Methyl Bromide.................................................... 7 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table 8.1: Amount of Methyl Bromide Requested for Critical Use .. 8 Table A. 2: 2005 Sector Request .................................................................................................. 9 Table A. 3: 2006 Sector Nomination............................................................................................ 9 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE........... 9 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table 10.1: Key Diseases and Weeds and Reason for Methyl Bromide Request................................................................................................................. 9 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table 11.1: Characteristics of Cropping System ............................ 10 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table 11.2 Characteristics of Climate and Crop Schedule .............. 10 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table 12.1 Historic Pattern of Use of Methyl Bromide .................. 11 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION .................................................. 12 Tobacco Transplant Trays   Table 13.1: Reason for Alternatives Not Being Feasible ............... 12 Tobacco Transplant Trays   Table 14.1: Technically Infeasible Alternatives Discussion........... 13 Tobacco Transplant Trays   Table 15.1: Present Registration Status of Alternatives ................. 13 TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   KEY PEST 1........................................................................................................................................ 14 Tobacco Transplant Trays   Table C. 1: Alternatives Yield Loss Data Summary ....................... 14 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL....................................................................................................... 16 Table 19.1: Techniques to Minimize Methyl Bromide Use and Emissions ................................ 16 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................................. 18 Table 21.1: Costs of Alternatives Compared to Methyl Bromide Over 3 Year Period................ 18 Table 22.1: Year 1 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 18 Table 22.2: Year 2 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 18 Table 22.3: Year 3 Gross and Net Revenue ............................................................................... 18 Tobacco Transplant Trays  Table E. 1: Economic Impacts of Methyl Bromide Alternatives...... 19 PART F. FUTURE PLANS .............................................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). .................................. 24 Page 5 PART A: SUMMARY 1. NOMINATING PARTY The United States of America ( U. S.)

2. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Trays to Produce Tobacco Transplants 3. CROP AND SUMMARY OF CROP SYSTEM Over the past 15 years, most tobacco producers in the U. S. have transitioned from seedlings produced in methyl bromide fumigated soil beds to containerized seedling production in greenhouses and outdoor " float beds". This includes production in the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois and Kansas. The direct seeded float system, using polystyrene trays, provides plants with water and nutrients through a waterbed and is the most common method of tobacco transplant production. Direct seeded systems use a variety of commercially prepared and sanitized media. The most common media contains 50% peat and 50% vermiculite and are generally sterilized using steam treatments. Seedlings are germinated in the same polystyrene trays from which they will be transplanted, thereby eliminating the task of seedling transfer from a starter tray to the float tray. Direct seeding is also less labor intensive than transferring starter plugs into a tray. When plants reach transplant size, they are immediately transplanted to the field to avoid disease development. Soil contact is avoided between float bed and trays as many tobacco diseases are soil borne.

4. METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 4.1: METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED YEAR NOMINATION AMOUNT ( KG) NOMINATION VOLUME ( 1000 M 3) 2006 4,112 86 5. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE Over the past 15 years, tobacco producers have transitioned from seedlings produced in methyl bromide fumigated soil beds to containerized seedling production in greenhouses and outdoor " float beds." This has resulted in a massive reduction in methyl bromide use for tobacco production. However, while use of methyl bromide in polystyrene float tray tobacco seedling production is minimal, it is a critical use. As a result of high plant density and high moisture conditions in float tray systems, which favor the development and spread of seedling diseases, float bed trays can become highly contaminated with a wide range of fungal pathogens. Float trays must be disinfected of potentially crop threatening pathogens prior to reuse during a subsequent season. Methyl bromide fumigation of the trays is the most practical and effective means to control the target pathogens. Page 6 TABLE A. 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR TOBACCO TRAYS Region Tray Tobacco Amount of Nomination 2006 Kilograms 4,112 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 86 Amount of Applicants Request 2005 Kilograms 10,942 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 228 2006 Kilograms 10,942 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 228 Economics Marginal Strategy Steam Yield Loss (%) 0%*

Loss per hectare ( US$/ ha) $ 1,142 Loss per kg Methyl Bromide ( US$/ kg) $ 340 Loss as % of Gross Revenue (%) 11%

Loss as % of Net Revenue (%) 12% * Additional costs are due to price of conversion to steam.

6. SUMMARIZE WHY KEY ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT FEASIBLE:

Heat treatment, steaming, commonly deforms polystyrene trays used in float bed seedling production. Tobacco growers tend to avoid the high temperatures and/ or times needed for heat to be effective, therefore, efficacy against the target pathogens cannot be guaranteed. In addition, most tobacco farms are not setup to use heat sterilization to sanitize transplant trays and would incur significant costs to establish such a system. Bleach and disinfectants are much less effective than methyl bromide or heat treatment and can result in serious plant phytotoxicity issues, worker exposure concerns, and environmental concerns ( disposal of disinfectant solutions). Discarding and purchasing new trays each year presents serious environmental disposal problems and is a more costly alternative. Routine use of fungicides is not a sound practice because of resistance management issues as these same pathogens are also major field pathogens. Early use of available fungicides during seedling production could limit their effectiveness during field production of tobacco. In addition, transplant market is not sufficiently large to support the labeling of new products and the liability is high. Minor Crop Use funding is not allowed to pursue registration. Page 7 7. ( i) PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 7.1: PROPORTION OF CROPS GROWN USING METHYL BROMIDE REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED TOTAL CROP AREA ( 2001 AND 2002 AVERAGE ( HA)) PROPORTION OF TOTAL CROP AREA TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE (%)

Tobacco Transplant Trays Not applicable. Not available because of overlapping use of field and tray grown transplants.

NATIONAL TOTAL: Not available. Not available.

7. ( ii) IF ONLY PART OF THE CROP AREA IS TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE, INDICATE THE REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NOT USED IN THE OTHER AREA, AND IDENTIFY WHAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ARE USED TO CONTROL THE TARGET PATHOGENS AND WEEDS WITHOUT METHYL BROMIDE.

Not applicable as only the float trays are treated with methyl bromide.

7. ( iii) WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPAND THE USE OF THESE METHODS TO COVER AT LEAST PART OF THE CROP THAT HAS REQUESTED USE OF METHYL BROMIDE? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THIS?

No, methyl bromide is critical to ensure pathogen free transplants. Page 8 8. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE TRAY TOBACCO  TABLE 8.1: AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE REQUESTED FOR CRITICAL USE UNITED STATES YEAR OF EXEMPTION REQUEST 2005 2006 KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 10,942 10,942 USE: FLAT FUMIGATION OR STRIP/ BED TREATMENT TRANSPLANT TRAYS TRANSPLANT TRAYS FORMULATION ( ratio of methyl bromide/ chloropicrin mixture) TO BE USED FOR THE CUE 98/ 2 98/ 2 TOTAL AREA TO BE TREATED WITH THE METHYL BROMIDE OR METHYL BROMIDE/ CHLOROPICRIN FORMULATION ( 1000 m3) 228 228 APPLICATION RATE* ( g/ m3 ) FOR THE FORMULATION 49.04 49.04 DOSAGE RATE* ( g/ m3) OF FORMULATION USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 49.04 49.04 APPLICATION RATE ( g/ m3) FOR THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT 48.06 48.06 DOSAGE RATE* ( g/ m3) OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED TO CALCULATE REQUESTED KILOGRAMS OF METHYL BROMIDE 48.06 48.06 * For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be the same.

9. SUMMARIZE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE METHYL BROMIDE QUANTITY NOMINATED FOR EACH REGION:

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the U. S. was calculated as follows:

  Only the tobacco acreage using float tray seedling production is included in the nomination.   Growth or increasing production ( the amount requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated) was subtracted. The applicants that included growth in their request had the growth amount removed.   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. QPS amounts were removed from the request. Page 9 TABLE A. 2: 2006 SECTOR REQUEST   TOBACCO TRAYS*

2005 ( Sector) Request State/ Tobacco Transplant Trays Kilograms 10,942 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 Applicant Request for 2005 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 228 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated.

TABLE A. 3: 2006 SECTOR NOMINATION*

2006 ( Sector) Nomination State/ Tobacco Transplant Trays Kilograms 10,942 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 Applicant Request for 2006 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 228 Kilograms 4,112 Application Rate ( kg/ 1000 M 3) 48 CUE Nominated for 2006 Volume ( 1000 M 3) 86 Overall Reduction (%) 62% 2006 Sector Nomination Totals Total 2006 U. S. Sector Nominated Kilograms ( kg) 4,112 * See Appendix A for complete description of how the nominated amount was calculated.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  PART B: CROP CHARACTERISTICS AND METHYL BROMIDE USE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  10. KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS FOR WHICH METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUESTED AND SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  TABLE 10.1: KEY DISEASES AND WEEDS AND REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE REQUEST REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Page 10 Tobacco Transplant Trays Rhizoctonia spp. Pytheium and Phytopthora spp. Thielaviopsis basicola Soil fungi and bacteria No effective alternative controls available.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  11. ( i) CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM AND CLIMATE TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  TABLE 11.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPPING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS TOBACCO TRAYS CROP TYPE: ( e. g. transplants, bulbs, trees or cuttings) Transplant production ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL CROP: (# of years between replanting) Annual ( 1 year)

TYPICAL CROP ROTATION ( if any) AND USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR OTHER CROPS IN THE ROTATION: ( if any) Not applicable.

SOIL TYPES: ( Sand, loam, clay, etc.) Hydroponic ( 50% peat and 50% vermiculite)

FREQUENCY OF METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION: ( e. g. every two years) Yearly OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS: Item to be treated is polystyrene transplant trays.

TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  TABLE 11.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE AND CROP SCHEDULE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC CLIMATIC ZONE ( e. g. temperate, tropical) 6a and 6b plant hardiness zones.

RAINFALL* ( mm) 60.7 34.8 192.5 134.1 109.0 68.7 44.7 74.2 138.2 165.6 126.7 103.6 OUTSIDE TEMP. ( ° C)* 3.2 3.2 6.9 14.3 16.2 23.6 26.2 25.6 22.3 13.3 5.9 2.0 FUMIGATION SCHEDULE** X X X X PLANTING SCHEDULE Not relevant KEY MARKET WINDOW Not relevant * Kentucky data provided as representative of the growing region ** Not applicable to transplant tray seedling production. Fumigation may occur directly prior to tray use or at the end of the previous growing season.

TOBACCO TRAYS   11. ( ii) INDICATE IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS IN 11. ( i) PREVENT THE UPTAKE OF ANY RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES?

None were identified as being relevant factors. Page 11 TOBACCO TRAYS  12. HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE, AND/ OR MIXTURES CONTAINING METHYL BROMIDE, FOR WHICH AN EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED TOBACCO TRAYS  TABLE 12.1 HISTORIC PATTERN OF USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR AS MANY YEARS AS POSSIBLE AS SHOWN SPECIFY: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 VOLUME TREATED ( 1,000 cubic meters) 185 197 227 226 216 216 RATIO OF FLAT FUMIGATION METHYL BROMIDE USE TO STRIP/ BED USE IF STRIP TREATMENT IS USED Not relevant ( Trays are fumigated).

AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENT USED ( total kilograms) 9,399 10,084 11,592 11,484 11,001 10,974 FORMULATIONS OF METHYL BROMIDE ( methyl bromide / chloropicrin) 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 98: 2 METHOD BY WHICH METHYL BROMIDE APPLIED ( e. g. injected at 25cm depth, hot gas) Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas APPLICATION RATE OF FORMULATIONS IN g/ m3 * 48.3 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF FORMULATIONS IN g/ m3 * 48.3 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 APPLICATION RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN g/ m3 * 47.4 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 ACTUAL DOSAGE RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN g/ m3 * 47.4 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 * For Flat Fumigation treatment application rate and dosage rate may be the same. Page 12 Tobacco Trays  PART C: TECHNICAL VALIDATION TOBACCO TRAYS  13. REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE TOBACCO TRAYS   TABLE 13.1: REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES NOT BEING FEASIBLE NAME OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY* REASONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR AVAILABLE IS THE ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED COST EFFECTIVE?

CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Etridizole Etridizole has not been shown to be effective against Rhizoctonia spp. and does not provide adequate control of Phytophthora spp. ( major cause of damping off in tobacco transplants). No Sanitizers and disinfectants ( chlorine and quaternary ammonia) Not as effective as they do not penetrate the spaces with the polystyrene trays to kill fungal pathogens. Phytoxicity problems. Worker safety concerns. Environmental concerns. No NON CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Biofumigation Not applicable as still experimental. No Purchase new trays Cost prohibitive. Environmental problems associated with disposal of large quantities of polystyrene trays No Steam sterilization Fixed costs for the average grower make this prohibitive. Trays are easily damaged to the point of being unusable by this system. No Solarization Unacceptable tray damage and unacceptable disease control. No Irradiation No data has been found which indicates that irradiation is effective and does not damage the polystyrene trays. Economically infeasible due to high cost of irradiation plus transportation to the facility. No Resistant cultivars Already used but not sufficient disease control by themselves against any of these pathogen in a seed situation. In fact, using resistant varieties for this purpose could result in widespread field development of the disease by harboring the pathogens at low levels in a hidden state. It is more desirable for black shank to appear prior to transplanting so that infected plants will not be transferred into the production fields. No COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES No combinations identified.

* Regulatory reasons include local restrictions ( e. g. occupational health and safety, local environmental regulations) and lack of registration. Page 13 TOBACCO TRAYS  14. LIST AND DISCUSS WHY REGISTERED ( and Potential) PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE CONSIDERED NOT EFFECTIVE AS TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE:

TOBACCO TRAYS   TABLE 14.1: TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION NAME OF ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION None There are no available alternatives for the control of fungal pathogens.

TOBACCO TRAYS  15. LIST PRESENT ( and Possible Future) REGISTRATION STATUS OF ANY CURRENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES:

TOBACCO TRAYS   TABLE 15.1: PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES NAME OF ALTERNATIVE PRESENT REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION BEING CONSIDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES? ( Y/ N) DATE OF POSSIBLE FUTURE REGISTRATION:

Iodomethane Not registered Y Unknown Fosthiazate Not registered Y Unknown Furfural Not registered Y Unknown Sodium azide Not registered. No registration package has been received. N Unknown Propargyl bromide Not registered. No registration package has been received. N Unknown Diallyl sulfide Registered to control Sclerotinia fungus, but label does not include float bed systems. N Unknown Page 14 TOBACCO TRAYS  16. STATE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF RELEVANT ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC KEY TARGET PESTS AND WEEDS FOR WHICH IT IS BEING REQUESTED TOBACCO TRAYS   TABLE 16.1: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES   Rhizoctonia spp.

KEY PEST: KEY PEST 1 AVERAGE DISEASE % OR RATING AND YIELDS IN PAST 3~ 5 YEARS METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES # OF TRIALS DISEASE (% OR RATING) # OF TRIALS ACTUAL YIELDS ( T/ HA) CITATION Methyl bromide ( 5.07 g/ m3 , gas) 1 0% Gutierrez et al. New trays 1 0% Gutierrez et al. Heat ( steam) 1 0% Gutierrez et al. Heat ( dry) 1 56% Gutierrez et al. Disinfectants ( chlorine) 1 56% Gutierrez et al.

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 1997. Plant Disease 81: 604 606.

TOBACCO TRAYS   TABLE C. 1: ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS New trays pathogen 0% 0% Heat ( steam) pathogen 0% 0% Heat ( dry) pathogen 55  100% * 70% Disinfectants pathogen 55  100% * 70%

OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 70%* * Though Guitierrez et al show a 56% yield loss, losses can reach 100% as producers will not purchase seedlings from float bed production facilities that may be potentially infected.

TOBACCO TRAYS  17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO REPLACE METHYL BROMIDE?

No. Transplant market is not sufficiently large to support labeling products and liability is high. Minor Crop Use funding is not allowed for tobacco. Pesticide companies are not interested in labeling pesticides on tobacco for disease control due to economic and image issues. Page 15 TOBACCO TRAYS 18. ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES BEING USED TO PRODUCE THE CROP WHICH AVOID THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE?:

Tobacco farmers have reduced methyl bromide use by over 95% by moving from field transplant production to greenhouse float systems. The remaining methyl bromide use is to sterilize production trays to prevent pathogen contamination in subsequent years. While this method has reduced the use of methyl bromide, it has not eliminated the need for methyl bromide.

TOBACCO TRAYS SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY The biological analysis of alternatives to methyl bromide to control target pathogens in float tray tobacco seedling production indicates no acceptable alternatives that can provide the necessary efficacy at this time. It is essential in float tray tobacco seedling production to produce a totally pathogen free crop for transplantation into tobacco fields. Disinfectants, chlorine bleach, can be used but are less effective than methyl bromide and require extreme care and expertise to achieve acceptable control and avoid plant phytotoxicity. Most farmers do not have the expertise to ensure repeatable results using disinfectants. In addition, disinfectants also have issues pertaining to worker and environmental safety, which limit their adoption by tobacco producers. Heat sterilization using steam is as effective as methyl bromide. However, the polystyrene trays used in float bed tobacco seedling production are easily misshapen or deformed by heat and producers tend to avoid the high temperatures and exposure times required to ensure tray sterilization. In addition, very few farms have equipment available for steam sterilization and would incur significant costs to establish a steam sterilization program. Page 16 PART D: EMISSION CONTROL 19. TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE AND WILL BE USED TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS IN THE PARTICULAR USE TABLE 19.1: TECHNIQUES TO MINIMIZE METHYL BROMIDE USE AND EMISSIONS TECHNIQUE OR STEP TAKEN VIF OR HIGH BARRIER FILMS METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE REDUCTION INCREASED % CHLOROPICRIN IN METHYL BROMIDE FORMULATION LESS FREQUENT APPLICATION WHAT USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION METHODS ARE PRESENTLY ADOPTED? Currently some growers use HDPE tarps. No No No WHAT FURTHER USE/ EMISSION REDUCTION STEPS WILL BE TAKEN FOR THE METHYL BROMIDE USED FOR CRITICAL USES? The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try high barrier films. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try lower dosage rates. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to increase the percentage of chloropicrin. The U. S. anticipates that the decreasing supply of methyl bromide will motivate growers to try less frequent applications OTHER MEASURES ( please describe) Not available. Examination of promising but presently unregistered alternative fumigants, alone or in combination with nonchemical methods, is planned Not available. Not available.

20. IF METHYL BROMIDE EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ARE NOT BEING USED OR ARE NOT PLANNED FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE NOMINATION STATE REASONS:

In accordance with the criteria of the critical use exemption, each party is required to describe ways in which it strives to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide. The use of methyl bromide in the growing of tobacco seedlings in plant beds in the United States is minimized in several ways. First, because of its toxicity, methyl bromide has, for the last 40 years, been regulated as a restricted use pesticide in the United States. As a consequence, methyl bromide can only be used by certified applicators that are trained at handling these hazardous pesticides. In practice, this means that methyl bromide is applied by a limited number of very experienced applicators with the knowledge and expertise to minimize dosage to the lowest level possible to achieve the needed results. Page 17 As methyl bromide has become scarcer, users in the United States have, where possible, experimented with different mixes of methyl bromide and chloropicrin. Specifically, in the early 1990s, methyl bromide was typically sold and used in methyl bromide mixtures made up of 95% methyl bromide and 5% chloropicrin, with the chloropicrin being included solely to give the chemical a smell enabling those in the area to be alerted if there was a risk. However, with the outset of very significant controls on methyl bromide, users have been experimenting with significant increases in the level of chloropicrin and reductions in the level of methyl bromide. While these new mixtures have generally been effective at controlling target pests, at low to moderate levels of infestation, it must be stressed that the long term efficacy of these mixtures is unknown.

Tarpaulin ( high density polyethylene) is also used to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.

Reduced methyl bromide concentrations in mixtures, cultural practices, and the extensive use of tarpaulins to cover land treated with methyl bromide has resulted in reduced emissions and an application rate that we believe is among the lowest in the world for the uses described in this nomination. Page 18 PART E: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 21. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD:

TABLE 21.1: COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO METHYL BROMIDE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD ALTERNATIVE YIELD* COST IN YEAR 1 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 2 ( US$/ ha) COST IN YEAR 3 ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide 100 $ 612 $ 612 $ 612 Steam 100 $ 1752 $ 1752 $ 1752 10% Chlorine bleach 30 $ 340 $ 340 $ 340 * As percentage of typical or 3 year average yield, compared to methyl bromide 22. GROSS AND NET REVENUE:

TABLE 22.1: YEAR 1 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 1 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 10,210 $ 9,600 Steam $ 10,206 $ 8,458 10% Chlorine bleach $ 3,063 $ 2,725 TABLE 22.2: YEAR 2 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 2 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 10,210 $ 9,600 Steam $ 10,206 $ 8,458 10% Chlorine bleach $ 3,063 $ 2,725 TABLE 22.3: YEAR 3 GROSS AND NET REVENUE YEAR 3 ALTERNATIVES GROSS REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) NET REVENUE FOR LAST REPORTED YEAR ( US$/ ha) Methyl Bromide $ 10,210 $ 9,600 Steam $ 10,206 $ 8,458 10% Chlorine bleach $ 3,063 $ 2,725 Page 19 MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS  TABLE E. 1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES TOBACCO TRANSPLANT TRAYS METHYL BROMIDE STEAM BLEACH YIELD LOSS (%) 0 0 70%

YIELD PER HECTARE 2,379 2,379 695 * PRICE PER UNIT ( US$) 2 2 2 = GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 4,758 $ 4,758 $ 3,063  OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 612 $ 1,752 $ 339 = NET REVENUE PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 4,146 $ 3,006 $ 2,725 Loss Measures 1. LOSS PER HECTARE ( US$) $ 0 $ 1,142 6,875 2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE ( US$) $ 0 $ 340 2,045 3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 11% 67%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE (%) 0% 12% 72% Page 20 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The economic analysis compared the costs of two alternative control scenarios to the baseline costs for methyl bromide. The economic estimates were first calculated in pounds and acres and then converted to kilograms and hectares. The costs for the first alternative are based on using portable steam equipment to sterilize tobacco polystyrene trays while the costs for the second alternative are based on the cost for dipping polystyrene trays into a 10% chlorine solution. The chlorine costs were derived from CUE applicant data and the steam from U. S. EPA data. The baseline costs were based on the average number of applications to treat tobacco trays with methyl bromide per year, which was 1, with 3 pounds methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet. The loss per hectare measures the value of methyl bromide based on changes in operating costs and/ or changes in yield. The loss as a percentage of the gross revenue is based on the ratio of the loss to the gross revenue. Likewise for the loss as a percentage of net revenue. The profit margin percentage is the ratio of net revenue to gross revenue per hectare. The values to derive gross revenue and the operating costs for each alternative were averaged from the three tobacco polystyrene tray CUE's ( numbers, 03 25, 63 and 65). Tobacco beds will be discussed under a separate review. The differences in the cost of production were primarily from the cost of the capitol investments and/ materials costs. Labor was assumed to cost $ 6.50 per hour. The estimated cost of a portable steam generator was depreciated over 10 years. One gallon of chlorine was assumed to cost $ 1 per gallon. Yield loss estimates were based on data from the CUE, and U. S. EPA data as well as expert opinion. Yield losses for steam was estimated to be 0% and 70% for the 10% chlorine bleach solution.

Using steam ( Under Alternative 1), operating costs in U. S. dollars per hectare was $ 1,752. The estimated net revenue was $ 8,458 per hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be $ 1,142. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U. S. dollars is estimated to be $ 340 per kilogram.

Under alternative 2 ( bleach), the 10% chlorine bleach treatment was based on dipping trays into a solution of 1gallon of chlorine bleach and 9 gallons of water and allowing to air dry. EPA estimated that a 70% yield loss would result with the use of chlorine bleach. Operating costs in U. S. dollars per hectare was $ 340. The estimated net revenue was $ 2,725 per hectare. The loss per hectare is estimated to be $ 6,875. The loss per kilogram of methyl bromide in U. S. dollars is estimated to be $ 2,045 per kilogram.

It should be noted that the applicants do not consider any alternative to be feasible and that these estimates are a first draft attempt to measure potential impacts. The final numbers and economic feasibility conclusions will not be decided until the accuracy of the data used in the calculation of the economic measures are thoroughly examined. Page 21 PART F. FUTURE PLANS 23. WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO RAPIDLY DEVELOP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVES FOR THIS CROP?

Since 1997, the United States EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide a high registration priority. Because the U. S. EPA currently has more applications pending in its registration review queue than the resources to evaluate them, U. S. EPA prioritizes the applications. By virtue of being a top registration priority, methyl bromide alternatives enter the science review process as soon as U. S. EPA receives the application and supporting data rather than waiting in turn for the U. S. EPA to initiate its review.

As one incentive for the pesticide industry to develop alternatives to methyl bromide, the Agency has worked to reduce the burdens on data generation, to the extent feasible while still ensuring that the Agency's registration decisions meet the Federal statutory safety standards. Where appropriate from a scientific standpoint, the Agency has refined the data requirements for a given pesticide application, allowing a shortening of the research and development process for the methyl bromide alternative. Furthermore, Agency scientists routinely meet with prospective methyl bromide alternative applicants, counseling them through the preregistration process to increase the probability that the data is done right the first time and rework delays are minimized The U. S. EPA has also co chaired the USDA/ EPA Methyl Bromide Alternatives Work Group since 1993 to help coordinate research, development and the registration of viable alternatives. This coordination has resulted in key registration issues ( such as worker and bystander exposure through volatilization, township caps and drinking water concerns) being directly addressed through USDA's Agricultural Research Service's US$ 15 million per year research program conducted at more than 20 field evaluation facilities across the country. Also U. S. EPA's participation in the evaluation of research grant proposals each year for USDA's US$ 2.5 million per year methyl bromide alternatives research has further ensured close coordination between the U. S. government and the research community.

24. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

The U. S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the government and the user community over many years to reduce use rates and emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION? Page 22 26. CITATIONS Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 1997, Sources of Inoculum and Management for Rhizoctonia solani Damping off on Tobacco Transplants under Greenhouse Conditions. Pla. Science 81: 604 606.

Gutierrez, WA, HD Shew and TA Melton. 2001. Rhizoctonia Diseases in Tobacco Greenhouses. Plant Pathology Extension/ North Carolina State University. TB07 Tobacco Disease Note 7. http:// www. ces. ncsu. edu/ depts/ pp/ notes/ Tobacco/ tdin007/ tb07. html Clemson Extension. South Carolina Tobacco Growers Guide 2003. http:// www. clemson. edu/ peedeerec/ Tobacco/ 2003% 20tableof. htm CITATIONS REVIEWED BUT NOT APPLICABLE Hensley Sr., R and DJ Fowlkes. The Float System for Producing Tobacco Transplants.

Bateman K. 2002. Tobacco Greenhouse Float Tray Sanitation. NC State University Cooperative Extension Service. http:// www. utextension. utk. edu/ tobaccoinfo/ 2002TOC. htm Reed, TD. 1998. Float Greenhouse Tobacco: Transplant Production Guide. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication Number 436 051. http:// www. ext. vt. edu/ pubs/ tobacco/ 436 051/ 436 051. html Vani Muller, J J. 2000. Brazilian Tobacco Growers Choose Floating Seed Trays as Methyl Bromide Replacement. RUMBA April 2000. http:// www. uneptie. org/ ozonaction/ compliance/ rumba/ 00april. html Dimock, WJ, CS Johnson, TD Reed, PJ Semtner, RL Jones and MJ Weaver. 2001. Crop Profile for Tobacco in Virginia. USDA/ NASS. http:// cipm. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ vatobacco. html Mulrooney, B. 1998. Weekly Crop Update   Sanitation of Greenhouse Trays. University of Delaware Cooperative Extension. Volume 1, Issue 1 March 13, 1998. http:// www. rec. udel. edu/ Update98/ upd31398. html Hensley, DD. Disease Management in Transplant Production.

Nesmith, W. 1995. New Harvest  Disinfect Planter Flats and Materials for Growing Transplants. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. http:// www. ext. vt. edu/ news/ periodicals/ commhort/ 1995 07/ commhort 35. html Page 23 Salles, LA, DA Sosa and A Valeiro. 2001. Alternatives for the Replacement of Methyl Bromide in Argentina. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 166: 3 11. http:// fao. org/ DOCREP/ 004/ Y1809E/ y1809e02. htm Salles, LA. 2001. Effective Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Brazil. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 166: 13 24. http:// fao. org/ DOCREP/ 004/ Y1809E/ y1809e02. htm The mentioned articles were reviewed but not cited because either they contained material only outlining the production methodology or did not include relevant scientific methods and data in support of the conclusions. Page 24 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI).

Date: not available Sector: not available Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) Kilograms ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) 2001 Volume % of Volume 10,942 228 48 10,987 216 51 60% not available not available 10,942 228 48 10,987 216 51 60% not available not available 2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW Amount ( kgs) Volume ( 1000m 3) Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) % Reduction 10,942  634 28 6,168 4,112 4,112 4,112 86 48 62%

10,942 10,942 10,308 10,281 4,112 4,112 4,112 4,112 86 48 62%

0% 0% 6% 6% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%

2006 Low High Low High Low HIGH LOW 48 48 100 100 0 0 100% 100% 70%

Other Considerations Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Pest free Market Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MeBr Use / State Frequency of Treatment / Yr Loss per 1000 m 3 ( US$/ 1000m) Loss per Kg of MeBr ( US$/ kg) Loss as a % of Gross Revenue No ? Yes 0 No 1/ year Conversion Units: 1 Pound = 0.453592 Kilograms 1,000 cu ft = 0.028316847 1,000 cubic meters Loss as a % of Net Revenue Economic Analysis Steam Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)

Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs)

2006 Amount of Request MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE Marginal Strategy 2/ 26/ 2004 TOBACCO TRAYS Average Volume in the US:

(%) Combined Impacts Time, Quality,

or Product Loss Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

2001 & 2002 Average Use Quarantine and Pre Shipment (%) Adopt New Fumigants REGION TOBACCO TRAYS TOBACCO TRAYS REGION TOBACCO TRAYS TOTAL OR AVERAGE 2006 Nomination Options REGION TOBACCO TRAYS Regional Volume REGION % of Average Volume Requested:

Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues Nomination Amount % Reduction from Initial Request Adjustments to Requested Amounts Use Rate ( kg/ 1000m 3) (%) Key Pest Distribution Page 25 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then Page 26 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 27. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 30. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 31. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. Page 27 32. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 33. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 34. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 37. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 38. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 39. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 41. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 44. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 45. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 28 APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 29 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252


[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36937-36939]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57996; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend CBOE
Rule 8.7 Related to the Obligations of Market-Makers

June 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on June 11, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 substantially
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 Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.7 (Obligations of
Market-Makers). The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add an interpretation to CBOE Rule 8.7
(Obligations of Market-Makers) to clarify that the in-person
requirements set forth in CBOE 8.7.03B may be satisfied by market-
makers either individually or collectively with market-makers of the
same member organization. The Exchange recently amended CBOE Rule 8.1
(Market-Maker Defined) expanding the definition of market-maker to
include member organizations.\3\ In view of the recent amendment of
CBOE Rule 8.1, the Exchange believes that the in-person requirements
set forth in CBOE Rule 8.7.03B may be satisfied by market-makers either
individually or collectively with market-makers of the same member
organization. The Exchange notes that CBOE Rule 8.7.03B only applies to
Hybrid 3.0 option classes.\4\ Currently, there are three Hybrid 3.0
option classes: Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPX), Standard & Poor's
100 Index (OEX) and Morgan Stanley Retail Index (MVR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57615 (April 3,
2008), 73 FR 19537 (April 10, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-120).
    \4\ CBOE Rule 8.7.03B applies to both non-Hybrid and Hybrid 3.0
option classes. However, there currently are not any non-Hybrid
options classes. Telephone conference between Andrew Spiwak,
Assistant Corporate Secretary, CBOE and Ronesha A. Butler, Special
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission dated June 19,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate
transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will strengthen its ability to
carry out its oversight responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization and reinforce its surveillance and enforcement functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
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 CBOE consents, the Commission will:
    (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 rule-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-59 on the
subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-59. 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 at (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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-CBOE-2008-59 and
should be submitted on or before July 21, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-14762 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P